8 ms·

People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied abo

People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government by those most poised to profit from that government. A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. The word "terrorist" is only the latest in a long string. tl;dr government != country.

weland 13y ago
> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them. Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want". This is the government of people who invented playdates for their children, political corectness and consumer-driven everything. It's in line with their wishes. Government officials don't just spring out from the ground. Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach -- a boycott so massive that the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question -- the elected government will really be one made in the image of its electors and, arguably, government != country will eval to false.
- kshatrea 13y ago
  I am an Indian so I wasn't referring to the US in particular although my bad that I didn't make it clear. Well, the voting system is not necessarily perfect, at least not here. In my country there are sects where people sell their votes for alcohol. I stand by my assertion that government != country on a philosophical level if not a practical one.
  - TDL 13y ago
    The principles are the same whether in India or the U.S. I'm in agreement with you, however, "government != country".
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  >the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question Like we had with the Bush v.s. Al Gore election?
  - deelowe 13y ago
    Like that has any relevance. This shit has been going on at least since Nixon and perhaps before. They are all 2 sides of the same coin.
- Shish2k 13y ago
  > represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want" I don't vote for who I want, I look at who has a chance of winning and vote for the lesser evil, because any other vote is practically meaningless. (Our voting system is stupid)
  - Amadou 13y ago
    No. 100x no. That is how to waste your vote. Voting for the "lesser evil" is only a good idea when the "greater evil" is so great that they will destroy the country. That has never been the case. Voting for the "lesser evil" is actually worse than not voting at all because it tells the parties that being evil still gets them votes. The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      I suspect that most people vote similarly. >The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around. A person gets a chance to vote in ~14-15 elections, realistically fewer than that. A person also has to coordinate their non-standard voting plan with others. I just don't think there are enough iterations for that to happen. Communication via the internet might change that, but I am skeptical.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        Coordination between voters is unnecessary. The job of the 3rd parties is to communicate their issues - that plus vote tallies is enough to make it pretty clear what issues the duopoly need to incorporate into their platforms.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  What is this post supposed to be? An junior high school Civics lesson? There was never any opportunity to "elect" anything to do with NSA. The NSA is a huge military-ish state security organization that was secretly and massively built up in the Cold War. It at least seems to outsiders that it served its purpose well[1]. But there is no more great enemy, and the whole lot are now struggling to remain relevant. People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. [1] I've been reading a lot about NSA lately and it seems they could've got us all killed with some very provocative missions pentesting Soviet air defenses. They did manage to get dozens of pilots and air-crew killed.
  - weland 13y ago
    The NSA did not spring out of the ground, either, and the Cold War has arguably been over since 1991 or so. Indirect democracy makes it very easy to eschew responsibility in terms of "I had a choice between candidate X and candidate Y; they both supported decision D. I didn't support it, but since I had to vote between either X and Y, I didn't have a choice, did I?". If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any. The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it. The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace. Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?" > People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries. If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring.
- asmithmd1 13y ago
  “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” H. L. Mencken
  - boi_v2 13y ago
    Democracy in Practice: People elect representatives that were supposed to represent them, these representatives are, in reality, puppets fabricated and promoted by the corporate and elite's money, and once elected, the power and influence obtained are not being used to defend the common but the interest of those already in power. So in practice Democracy has a backdoor that allows it to be hijacked and until it is fixed we will keep being represented by no one. Maybe democracy would be "more real" if we forbid the corporate money in political campaigns and also limit the amount of money each individual can donate, bringing everybody to the same level could result in no masters of puppets.
- rst 13y ago
  I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama. By 2012, it was clear he wasn't following through, but the other candidate on offer would almost certainly have been, on balance, a whole lot worse --- and a bad choice is still a choice. When, in office, has Obama been representing what I want, in this regard, and when do you think I had an opportunity to change that through the ballot box?
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Who did you vote for in the 2008 and 2012 primaries? Your complaint here is a false dichotomy. We have many more choices than vote for candidate R or vote for candidate D, especially when you consider that each party had at least one fairly close primary in the last eight years.
  - TDL 13y ago
    "but the other candidate on offer..." There were multiple other candidates on offer. Furthermore, you can write in a candidate or even choose to not vote.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama" Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was saying at the time? "the other candidate" Which other candidate? Here are some of the people who were running in the 2008 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_... You had a lot of choices then. You also had a lot of choices in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_...
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was saying at the time? You mean, like, his voting record in Congress?
- mindcrime 13y ago
  This whole idea is largely broken, depending on your perspective. IF we had proportional representation in the US, I might agree that at least a handful of elected federal level reps can legitimately claim to "represent" me, but as of today, I will claim that not a single member of the federal government represents me... certainly there isn't a single member serving in congress or any other federal office, that I voted for, or would claim as my representative.
- 59nadir 13y ago
  > Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach A mass boycott would do nothing in terms of change. It is the political equivalent of letting a child eat as much ice cream it wants because you think it'll somehow think "too much" for you is "too much" to them.
igravious 13y ago
Completely off-topic but I've this a few times now in different places. I'll come to the end of what I'm reading and there'll be a tl;dr at the frickin' _end_ of it! Isn't it supposed to be right up front so that if I am incredibly lazy and trusting I can just slurp the tl;dr and move on? When placed at the end is its meaning changed to something like "to summarize" or "in summation" ???
- mischanix 13y ago
  This construction {{point}}; {{elaboration}} tl;dr: {{point}} is about as redundant as it gets. For what it's worth, I take that form of "tl;dr" as emphasis, not as a literal tl;dr.
  - kshatrea 13y ago
    > For what it's worth, I take that form of "tl;dr" as emphasis, not as a literal tl;dr. This. I've been inured to using it in that way as well. I see the criticism above as a valid one though.
    - erre 13y ago
      I've always found that construct weird. I tend to use "tl;wr" (the "w" standing for "won't", instead of "didn't"), at the top.
      - babebridou 13y ago
        Also known as "executive summary"...
  - wiredfool 13y ago
    Cngratulations, you've unlocked the Jr High essay achievement. * tell me what you're going to say * say it * tell them what you said
- losvedir 13y ago
  "tl;dr" goes at the end; that's just the way it is. The "d" is for "didn't", not, for example, "won't". I first noticed it on reddit years ago, appended to a lengthy comment. However, it seems that it may have originated in Wikipedia article discussions (according to Wikipedia...) as a shorthand _response_ to a lengthy comment. Perhaps, there was a transition period where someone wrote a lot of text, realized that the response would be a "tl;dr", and then just added it themselves instead.
digitalengineer 13y ago
Weird thing is: "Terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
- cinquemb 13y ago
  I still consider that to be the case...
- X4 13y ago
  wow, that's irony at it's best form! beware of: the reality distortion fields..
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH edit: I guess everyone here has already read 1984, Or at least is tired of Doublespeak.
onebaddude 13y ago
>A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course). Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me.
- devb 13y ago
  > Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me. That's really sunshiny happy and everything, but corporations and I have entirely different motives and values. I could just as easily point out that murderers, pedophiles, and (yes) Nazis are people like you and me.
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    >That's really sunshiny happy and everything It's reality. We own the shares, we work for them, we manage them, and we support them by buying their products. If we cease doing any of that, they no longer exist. This idea that "corporations" are one thing and people are another is preposterous.
    - scarecrowbob 13y ago
      I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly.
      - onebaddude 13y ago
        >I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly. I'll go out on a limb and say that every single person that participates in this forum falls under at least one of those "we".
- 13y ago

weland 13y ago

> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them. Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want". This is the government of people who invented playdates for their children, political corectness and consumer-driven everything. It's in line with their wishes. Government officials don't just spring out from the ground. Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach -- a boycott so massive that the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question -- the elected government will really be one made in the image of its electors and, arguably, government != country will eval to false.

kshatrea 13y ago
I am an Indian so I wasn't referring to the US in particular although my bad that I didn't make it clear. Well, the voting system is not necessarily perfect, at least not here. In my country there are sects where people sell their votes for alcohol. I stand by my assertion that government != country on a philosophical level if not a practical one.
- TDL 13y ago
  The principles are the same whether in India or the U.S. I'm in agreement with you, however, "government != country".
digitalengineer 13y ago
>the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question Like we had with the Bush v.s. Al Gore election?
- deelowe 13y ago
  Like that has any relevance. This shit has been going on at least since Nixon and perhaps before. They are all 2 sides of the same coin.
Shish2k 13y ago
> represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want" I don't vote for who I want, I look at who has a chance of winning and vote for the lesser evil, because any other vote is practically meaningless. (Our voting system is stupid)
- Amadou 13y ago
  No. 100x no. That is how to waste your vote. Voting for the "lesser evil" is only a good idea when the "greater evil" is so great that they will destroy the country. That has never been the case. Voting for the "lesser evil" is actually worse than not voting at all because it tells the parties that being evil still gets them votes. The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    I suspect that most people vote similarly. >The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around. A person gets a chance to vote in ~14-15 elections, realistically fewer than that. A person also has to coordinate their non-standard voting plan with others. I just don't think there are enough iterations for that to happen. Communication via the internet might change that, but I am skeptical.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      Coordination between voters is unnecessary. The job of the 3rd parties is to communicate their issues - that plus vote tallies is enough to make it pretty clear what issues the duopoly need to incorporate into their platforms.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
What is this post supposed to be? An junior high school Civics lesson? There was never any opportunity to "elect" anything to do with NSA. The NSA is a huge military-ish state security organization that was secretly and massively built up in the Cold War. It at least seems to outsiders that it served its purpose well[1]. But there is no more great enemy, and the whole lot are now struggling to remain relevant. People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. [1] I've been reading a lot about NSA lately and it seems they could've got us all killed with some very provocative missions pentesting Soviet air defenses. They did manage to get dozens of pilots and air-crew killed.
- weland 13y ago
  The NSA did not spring out of the ground, either, and the Cold War has arguably been over since 1991 or so. Indirect democracy makes it very easy to eschew responsibility in terms of "I had a choice between candidate X and candidate Y; they both supported decision D. I didn't support it, but since I had to vote between either X and Y, I didn't have a choice, did I?". If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any. The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it. The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace. Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?" > People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries. If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring.
asmithmd1 13y ago
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” H. L. Mencken
- boi_v2 13y ago
  Democracy in Practice: People elect representatives that were supposed to represent them, these representatives are, in reality, puppets fabricated and promoted by the corporate and elite's money, and once elected, the power and influence obtained are not being used to defend the common but the interest of those already in power. So in practice Democracy has a backdoor that allows it to be hijacked and until it is fixed we will keep being represented by no one. Maybe democracy would be "more real" if we forbid the corporate money in political campaigns and also limit the amount of money each individual can donate, bringing everybody to the same level could result in no masters of puppets.
rst 13y ago
I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama. By 2012, it was clear he wasn't following through, but the other candidate on offer would almost certainly have been, on balance, a whole lot worse --- and a bad choice is still a choice. When, in office, has Obama been representing what I want, in this regard, and when do you think I had an opportunity to change that through the ballot box?
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Who did you vote for in the 2008 and 2012 primaries? Your complaint here is a false dichotomy. We have many more choices than vote for candidate R or vote for candidate D, especially when you consider that each party had at least one fairly close primary in the last eight years.
- TDL 13y ago
  "but the other candidate on offer..." There were multiple other candidates on offer. Furthermore, you can write in a candidate or even choose to not vote.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama" Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was saying at the time? "the other candidate" Which other candidate? Here are some of the people who were running in the 2008 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_... You had a lot of choices then. You also had a lot of choices in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_...
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was saying at the time? You mean, like, his voting record in Congress?
mindcrime 13y ago
This whole idea is largely broken, depending on your perspective. IF we had proportional representation in the US, I might agree that at least a handful of elected federal level reps can legitimately claim to "represent" me, but as of today, I will claim that not a single member of the federal government represents me... certainly there isn't a single member serving in congress or any other federal office, that I voted for, or would claim as my representative.
59nadir 13y ago
> Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach A mass boycott would do nothing in terms of change. It is the political equivalent of letting a child eat as much ice cream it wants because you think it'll somehow think "too much" for you is "too much" to them.

igravious 13y ago

Completely off-topic but I've this a few times now in different places. I'll come to the end of what I'm reading and there'll be a tl;dr at the frickin' _end_ of it! Isn't it supposed to be right up front so that if I am incredibly lazy and trusting I can just slurp the tl;dr and move on? When placed at the end is its meaning changed to something like "to summarize" or "in summation" ???

mischanix 13y ago
This construction {{point}}; {{elaboration}} tl;dr: {{point}} is about as redundant as it gets. For what it's worth, I take that form of "tl;dr" as emphasis, not as a literal tl;dr.
- kshatrea 13y ago
  > For what it's worth, I take that form of "tl;dr" as emphasis, not as a literal tl;dr. This. I've been inured to using it in that way as well. I see the criticism above as a valid one though.
  - erre 13y ago
    I've always found that construct weird. I tend to use "tl;wr" (the "w" standing for "won't", instead of "didn't"), at the top.
    - babebridou 13y ago
      Also known as "executive summary"...
- wiredfool 13y ago
  Cngratulations, you've unlocked the Jr High essay achievement. * tell me what you're going to say * say it * tell them what you said
losvedir 13y ago
"tl;dr" goes at the end; that's just the way it is. The "d" is for "didn't", not, for example, "won't". I first noticed it on reddit years ago, appended to a lengthy comment. However, it seems that it may have originated in Wikipedia article discussions (according to Wikipedia...) as a shorthand _response_ to a lengthy comment. Perhaps, there was a transition period where someone wrote a lot of text, realized that the response would be a "tl;dr", and then just added it themselves instead.

digitalengineer 13y ago

Weird thing is: "Terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

cinquemb 13y ago
I still consider that to be the case...
X4 13y ago
wow, that's irony at it's best form! beware of: the reality distortion fields..
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH edit: I guess everyone here has already read 1984, Or at least is tired of Doublespeak.

onebaddude 13y ago

>A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course). Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me.

devb 13y ago
> Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me. That's really sunshiny happy and everything, but corporations and I have entirely different motives and values. I could just as easily point out that murderers, pedophiles, and (yes) Nazis are people like you and me.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >That's really sunshiny happy and everything It's reality. We own the shares, we work for them, we manage them, and we support them by buying their products. If we cease doing any of that, they no longer exist. This idea that "corporations" are one thing and people are another is preposterous.
  - scarecrowbob 13y ago
    I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly.
    - onebaddude 13y ago
      >I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly. I'll go out on a limb and say that every single person that participates in this forum falls under at least one of those "we".
13y ago