4 ms·
What a coincidence that Utah is following the same pattern as Australia, the European Union, Norway and the UK, while pretending they came up with it independen
by nephihaha 6mo ago
What a coincidence that Utah is following the same pattern as Australia, the European Union, Norway and the UK, while pretending they came up with it independently.
- bryan_w 6mo agoI wonder who's in common there?
- nephihaha 6mo agoThey obviously get the ideas from the same sources. Somewhere they don't invite ordinary people to like Davos or other conferences.
- wat10000 6mo agoCould just be monkey see monkey do.
- nephihaha 6mo agoThen it is monkey see, monkey do the same/similar policies on smoking control, LEZ, digital ID, children's education, red meat and fish consumption, alcohol consumption, women's rights and a whole host of other things. Some of these are good causes, some not so much. Some of them rely on an excluded middle.
- wat10000 6mo agoAre you suggesting there's some shadowy cabal responsible for getting women the right to vote?
- nephihaha 6mo agoErm, no I'm not. I'm pointing out the homogenisation of policies across multiple countries. You should be well aware by this point in life that plenty of good causes are used to justify not so good things. Or to put it another way, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". On the most basic level, I could give the example of various children's charities being used to line the pockets of someone rather than doing what they are supposed to. That has happened a number of times. In much the same way, we can see child safety and bullying (both of which are real issues) being used to excuse clamping down on freedom of expression online. A generation ago, the excuse of terrorism was used to remove civil liberties as well. With women's rights, we see a genuine issue being abused. We see women from upper class or aristocratic backgrounds like Ursula von der Leyen getting jobs, while the bulk of women continue to work in grinding poverty, and can barely support themselves let alone a family. That is just the same old oligarchy and nepotism with a female face.
- wat10000 6mo agoSorry, I'm afraid I don't have a clue what point you're making, then, beyond "some things are bad."
- nephihaha 6mo agoI'm making the point that many legislatures are no longer displaying initiative or autonomy as they should, but doing the same as each other. It is obvious that in many cases they derive their policies from the same handful of thinktanks and conferences etc. As a result we get homogeneity across multiple legislatures as opposed to testing out more varied solutions.
- croes 6mo agoYou don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge.
- nephihaha 6mo agoAt the same time? I don't think so. Almost everyone talks to each other and takes notes. We know they do. The World Economic Forum is real and has a website you can access. They talk about policies like this under their "Fourth Industrial Revolution" section and don't even hide it. The same policies are repeated across much of the world on everything from smoking to driving to digital ID, regardless of who gets voted in.
- croes 6mo agoIt’s the political equivalent of a TikTok trend. You see others doing it and think it’s a good idea, so you do it too.
- gib444 6mo agoUtah is actually trailblazing ahead of the UK here. It was only ministers possibly suggesting VPNs would be next in the firing line and AFAIK nothing has progressed beyond that yet Yet articles about UK age verification stuff got HUGE amount of attention and backlash here...
- nephihaha 6mo agoThere is a clear parallel to the Criminal Justice Bills brought in by Tony Blair supposedly to stop "terrorism" (even though terrorism had been a serious issue in the UK from the late 1960s to the late 1990s, especially in Northern Ireland.) Now we have Keir Starmer promoting internet ID to stop minors accessing porn on the internet side, and supposedly against illegal migration on the non-internet side.
- gib444 6mo agoBills become Acts btw. Not entirely sure which ones you're referring to I'm no Blair fan but criticising someone for doing something to stop decades of 'serious terrorism' isn't the criticism you think it is. I'm not familiar with all Parliament's acts from that period so maybe you can help us with what those parallels are?