53 ms·

> Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments watching over their own citizens. What I don't understand, is why when John McClane

by mpyne 14y ago

> Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments watching over their own citizens. What I don't understand, is why when John McClane was shot at by an F-22 Raptor in Live Free or Die Hard, why there wasn't a big outcry at that time. There were no complaints, no HN threads that I remember, and certainly no filibusters in Congress. None of the reviews talked about some "dystopian future America", they said that shit blew up and it was otherwise an action movie. Why is it OK for the American military to use an F-22 Raptor on one of their own citizens but drones are no good? Mind, I understand completely why people are concerned about why the military could or could not be employed domestically; I just don't understand why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters, rocket launchers, bazookas, motorized anti-aircraft weaponry, bum-standard rifles and carbines, etc.

PhearTheCeal 14y ago
It's just another weapon that the government has now. When the government gets more powerful, the citizens get less powerful than their government. Most citizens fear being totally helpless against their government's power. So small incremental increases in government power, like drones, usually spell bad news for the citizens.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Do people fear increase in government power because it's actually bad for them, or because they've been told that government is bad in general? I've been beginning to think it's not only the TSA types who employ the "state of fear" philosophy to drum up support for their cause. In any case drones aren't even a tenth as destructive as helicopters. I don't even care what rule people pick at this point but it would really help my own blood pressure if we could at least just choose to be consistent for once.
  - TruthElixirX 14y ago
    Why don't you ask an adult black male about the ever increasing power of the government and whether or not he should be afraid: According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009.[43][not in citation given] According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population.[44][45][46] Or the fact that 1 in 10 people in the U.S. are currently incarcerated in the prison system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/...
    - mpyne 14y ago
      Can I ask that same adult black male whether they'd want to be alive in America in 1963, 1943, 1893, and 1863? It's true though, that stupid gub'mint is getting so intrusive. Why, I'll bet pretty soon they'll be putting up propaganda posters telling us to save animal fats from our dinner, or actually (gasp!) rationing food like we were a bunch of Commies!
      - natrius 14y ago
        "Can I ask that same adult black male whether they'd want to be alive in America in 1963, 1943, 1893, and 1863?" Do you honestly think this is valid reasoning? "You might be in prison for a victimless crime, but at least you're not a slave"?
        mpyne 14y ago
        The reasoning is based on your own description of the "increasing power of government" being the problem. I was pointing out that the opposite trend is in many ways what's actually going on. That's either because government is not the major factor in the oppression of black males, or because government isn't strong enough. That's no justification for government abuses where they occur, but I was never claiming that was OK.
    - Tangaroa 14y ago
      How about asking the adult black male whether it is legal for the army to fire on enemy soldiers during a war, the question which is the subject of this discussion. Let's stay on topic.
      - ameister14 14y ago
        Actually it's more like whether it is legal for the army to fire on enemy sympathizers.
    - Cthulhu_ 14y ago
      The incarceration rates (disregarding racial issues for now) aren't only to blame on the government, but iirc mainly on the privatization of the prison business; there was a huge spike in incarceration rates and length of prison terms when that came about in the 90's (I believe), good graph about that out there somewhere.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  The TSA announced earlier this week that they were going to allow people to take small folding knives and similar onto planes in carry-on baggage as of next April. Strangely, this has provoked almost zero response from people who like to complain about the TSA. I'm inclined to conclude that a lot of people like having something to complain about more than they like having their complaints acted upon.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo
AJ007 14y ago
You just compared the reaction of viewers of a theatrical event in a fictional action movie to reality.
- mpyne 14y ago
  We still have people who argue over whether Han shot first, whether Kirk or Picard would win in a fight, or whether they'd be on Team Edward or Team Jacob. In such a world, I'd like to think that something as absolutely chilling as the military using deadly force against an American citizen without trial, based just on some assholes's say-so, would at least have warranted a comment. But I'm willing to bet most hackers who saw the movie were much more annoyed by the inaccurate "hacking" scenes than they were by the F-22.
- csallen 14y ago
  Analogies generally compare specific similarities in two otherwise unlike things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Analogy
  - jfoutz 14y ago
    First, it was an F-35. Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot. Third, since we're going to admit fairy stories as evidence, Once upon a time csallen was wrong. the end. The second point really drives home the fallacy, but accepting tall tales as evidence is super dangerous. you should never do that. ever. Finally, argument from analogy is always a very weak. There is always a more direct argument to be made. If analogy is the best argument you can muster, you need to reevaluate your position.
    - csallen 14y ago
      I'm not arguing his argument was flawless. I'm pointing out that an analogy is not invalid simply because there are differences in the two situations. Thus, "First, it was an F-35." and "Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot." are irrelevant criticisms. Neither one answers the question that mpyne was asking via his analogy, and which he also explicitly stated at the bottom of his post: >> "...why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters[, etc?]"
guscost 14y ago
This is pedantic but an F-22 can't hover. That was an F-35B.
notdrunkatall 14y ago
That was a movie, and this is real life. Did this question really need to be asked?

by mpyne 14y ago

PhearTheCeal 14y ago

It's just another weapon that the government has now. When the government gets more powerful, the citizens get less powerful than their government. Most citizens fear being totally helpless against their government's power. So small incremental increases in government power, like drones, usually spell bad news for the citizens.

mpyne 14y ago
Do people fear increase in government power because it's actually bad for them, or because they've been told that government is bad in general? I've been beginning to think it's not only the TSA types who employ the "state of fear" philosophy to drum up support for their cause. In any case drones aren't even a tenth as destructive as helicopters. I don't even care what rule people pick at this point but it would really help my own blood pressure if we could at least just choose to be consistent for once.
- TruthElixirX 14y ago
  Why don't you ask an adult black male about the ever increasing power of the government and whether or not he should be afraid: According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009.[43][not in citation given] According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population.[44][45][46] Or the fact that 1 in 10 people in the U.S. are currently incarcerated in the prison system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/...
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Can I ask that same adult black male whether they'd want to be alive in America in 1963, 1943, 1893, and 1863? It's true though, that stupid gub'mint is getting so intrusive. Why, I'll bet pretty soon they'll be putting up propaganda posters telling us to save animal fats from our dinner, or actually (gasp!) rationing food like we were a bunch of Commies!
    - natrius 14y ago
      "Can I ask that same adult black male whether they'd want to be alive in America in 1963, 1943, 1893, and 1863?" Do you honestly think this is valid reasoning? "You might be in prison for a victimless crime, but at least you're not a slave"?
      - mpyne 14y ago
        The reasoning is based on your own description of the "increasing power of government" being the problem. I was pointing out that the opposite trend is in many ways what's actually going on. That's either because government is not the major factor in the oppression of black males, or because government isn't strong enough. That's no justification for government abuses where they occur, but I was never claiming that was OK.
  - Tangaroa 14y ago
    How about asking the adult black male whether it is legal for the army to fire on enemy soldiers during a war, the question which is the subject of this discussion. Let's stay on topic.
    - ameister14 14y ago
      Actually it's more like whether it is legal for the army to fire on enemy sympathizers.
  - Cthulhu_ 14y ago
    The incarceration rates (disregarding racial issues for now) aren't only to blame on the government, but iirc mainly on the privatization of the prison business; there was a huge spike in incarceration rates and length of prison terms when that came about in the 90's (I believe), good graph about that out there somewhere.
anigbrowl 14y ago
The TSA announced earlier this week that they were going to allow people to take small folding knives and similar onto planes in carry-on baggage as of next April. Strangely, this has provoked almost zero response from people who like to complain about the TSA. I'm inclined to conclude that a lot of people like having something to complain about more than they like having their complaints acted upon.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo

AJ007 14y ago

You just compared the reaction of viewers of a theatrical event in a fictional action movie to reality.

mpyne 14y ago
We still have people who argue over whether Han shot first, whether Kirk or Picard would win in a fight, or whether they'd be on Team Edward or Team Jacob. In such a world, I'd like to think that something as absolutely chilling as the military using deadly force against an American citizen without trial, based just on some assholes's say-so, would at least have warranted a comment. But I'm willing to bet most hackers who saw the movie were much more annoyed by the inaccurate "hacking" scenes than they were by the F-22.
csallen 14y ago
Analogies generally compare specific similarities in two otherwise unlike things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Analogy
- jfoutz 14y ago
  First, it was an F-35. Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot. Third, since we're going to admit fairy stories as evidence, Once upon a time csallen was wrong. the end. The second point really drives home the fallacy, but accepting tall tales as evidence is super dangerous. you should never do that. ever. Finally, argument from analogy is always a very weak. There is always a more direct argument to be made. If analogy is the best argument you can muster, you need to reevaluate your position.
  - csallen 14y ago
    I'm not arguing his argument was flawless. I'm pointing out that an analogy is not invalid simply because there are differences in the two situations. Thus, "First, it was an F-35." and "Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot." are irrelevant criticisms. Neither one answers the question that mpyne was asking via his analogy, and which he also explicitly stated at the bottom of his post: >> "...why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters[, etc?]"

guscost 14y ago

This is pedantic but an F-22 can't hover. That was an F-35B.

notdrunkatall 14y ago

That was a movie, and this is real life. Did this question really need to be asked?