191–200 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typo there with _rose_ quality of life in Venezuela? Pretty sure we've watched that 'democratic' experiment fail spectacularly, at least what news I know of the economy and living conditions in general seem very poor at best. Failed state comes to mind.
What is the link between Chavez's policies and Venezuela's current economic condition?
This is why the US should not worry about China as a long-term economic threat - authoritarianism has never worked. The Soviet Union, 1930s Germany and Italy, all collapsed. I think the Chinese realize this and are pessemistic about their own future. The Constitution was designed to make the US Government as weak as possible, because a strong government ultimately turns on its people.
> The Constitution was designed to make the US Government as weak as possible, because a strong government ultimately turns on its people. This is false, though it's a popular modern myth; the whole reason for the Constitutional Convention was to strengthen the government under the Articles of Confederation to address problems caused by it's weakness, and the framers decided they needed to go a lot further than minor…
I could go downtown tonight, stand on the street corner, and shout "F--- the president!" at the top of my lungs. What would happen? I might get dirty looks. I might get some people shaking my hand. And I might - might - get an angry tweet from the president. I probably would not get either arrested or beaten up. (And this isn't a political statement. I could have done the same under the previous president, with the s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hitler came to power on top of a democratic system, too (IIRC, by leveraging political alliances and grassroots violence in the pre-1933 parliamentary system). He surely improved the quality of life for the Nazi base in the mid-30s after he took power. Didn't stop him from dismantling democratic institutions, eliminating all political rivals, invading his neighbors, and murdering millions of people.
Chavez did none of these things. Is your knowledge of history so shallow that you must bring up Hitler appro to nothing every chance that you get?
Specifically, vote count manipulation, the Supreme Court refusing to allow opposition legislatures to be seated, the constitutional committee stripping the legislature of its power... that's dismantling democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior. A listening device in private homes is a genie that won't go back in its bottle. Are you willing to stand up and say, I trust every official, elected or otherwise, for the rest of my life, and the lives of any descendants I might have? Because you have just written a blank cheque that says exactly that.
Bad governments will do bad things. I'm talking about how surveillance could be a useful tool in designing society as a counter to anonymous speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the perspective of a non-American it seems this is becoming less true over time; I see things like "Free Speech zones", and violence from Antifa and the alt-right. Not State actors in some cases, but proxies for them.
Why hire state actors, when you've got more than enough true believers to go around?
Civil disagreement on matters of politics and philosophy seems to be waning in the West.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior. Someone hasn't learned from history. The impulse you're feeling is tempting, but it never ends will.
Surveillance isn't a good or evil unto itself. That's all I'm saying. It's a tool. I think it could be used to nudge behavior toward better global outcomes. I'm not wedded to the idea that everyone nearly everywhere should feel free saying anything free from consequences. Making speech accountable and attributable could be good.
Also, I think "anonymity paired with speech" is older than you think, and probably arose soon after the invention of the printing press. One notable instance of centuries-old anonymous speech are the Federalist Papers from 1787-88 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers#Authorsh...). Anonymous speech is also important for attacking oppressive regimes, even if it's more often used for far less lofty purposes.
Even good, trustworthy regimes go bad, and any surveillance system designed to be powerful enough to expose assholes can be perverted to serve oppressive ends. I'd rather those regimes have to build their surveillance from scratch rather than finding them ready-made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just China. Being able to publicly yell "Fuck the $RULER" is an anomaly in human history, not the norm. In the US, the current party in power is always on the verge of instituting totalitarianism. My plan is to start worrying about it when people face systematic government consequences for actually mouthing off about the ruling party. Right now, to a first approximation, nobody has in a long time. Any exampl…
I suspect you're getting downvoted for this line: > In the US, the current party in power is always on the verge of instituting totalitarianism. And I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it like people are taking it. Let's start with, I don't know, FDR. He was on the verge of implementing totalitarianism. Really! Just ask the Republicans of 1933! Clinton was. So was Bush. So was Obama. So is Trump. Or so some vocal mi…
> And I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it like people are taking it.
That blanket absolutist statement is at best false, and is easily disproven with the current situation. Then the whole argument is undermined by the last paragraph about angering the social media mob.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of companies use publicly posted stuff + friends on facebook to create a credit score though so it does happen in the west. Just not quite in the same way as in China.
Is this true of the US? I see articles from 2015/2016 about credit rating agencies (FICO in particular) looking into "alternate data" to inform scores, including social media stuff, but it looks like FB was fighting that to some extent (more regulatory burden) and the tone is "this is coming" not "this is here".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He might have raised the quality of life temporarily (I'm not sure even about that), but what is happening now in Venezuela was practically inevitable. You might be warmer for a little while as you take apart your house and burn it piece by piece, but in the end you will more assuredly freeze. In my opinion, it was a great tragedy that Chavez is not still alive today. Now people can say ridiculous things like this. I…
Yes. Perhaps it was inevitable. For what reasons though?
Eli5 Their economy was mostly oil, they seized assets of oil companies extracting it. People left then oil crashed and they had too many promises to pay for