41–50 of 150 posts
Maybe stop spending so much money on war toys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's exactly the same mistake as the supposed "starve the beast" policy. If someone really doesn't trust the government to spend money on the right programs, then they shouldn't expect that reducing tax revenue will make the government prioritize the same things they would. Besides, governments can produce very bad outcomes with almost no budget at all, since some of the worst things in life are free. If cops lik…
This speaks to my ongoing crusade to try inject pragmatism into the political conversation. There are far too many unintended consequences to this sloganeering that is used to stir up the populace. We need to get away from focusing on intent of a change and look at the practical effects of the change.
>Why bother with warrants when cops can buy location data for under $10k? : https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/01/eff_fog_data_broker/
HN discussion thread of the article - 12 hours ago | 51 comments : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32685046
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t followed them enough but is it possible to support them without supporting other charitable causes of a political persuasion I don’t support? I fully support everything directly related to their cause but it gets me very upset when charities are supporting other various agendas around gender/immigration for example that are unrelated to their main goal.
>that are unrelated to their main goal given that we're commenting on a thread about invasive police surveillance it's pretty funny to think there's no very obvious correlation to immigration. Which groups do you think are among the most targeted by law enforcement surveillance tech? People who get hung up on this, what's the underlying mindset? "I love privacy for white dudes, but god forbid they accidentally help a…
An outgroup that is bound by the law but not protected by it.
So maximum liberty for me and law and order for thee.
Another example: Best defense against a "bad guy with a gun" (outgroup) is a "good guy with a gun" (ingroup).
See also Rhodesia, Jim Crow South, apartheid South Africa, and Western Expansion under the Homesteading acts.
This is how some people can claim they want both maximum freedom but also, maximum autocracy and arbitrary authority entrusted in deputies.
It's how the same people can have cruel hot takes when there's a minority killed by police but pull their hair out if one of their religious or political leaders is taken to court.
It's not inconsistent. There's different systems applied to groups that get different labels. Could be based on the geographic coordinates of where they were born, perceived skin color, what religion they may vaguely be associated with, ethnic identity, personal wealth, the gender they sleep with or identify as, political identity, citizenship status, whatever. One group doesn't have the right to have rights. That's the crucial part. How to get there is somewhat arbitrary.
It's best if it's just a tiny bit porous so there's a token instance where the classification is broken so it can be pointed to in order to deny the system exists. See antisemitic organizations with an ethnic Jewish person involved, white supremacist organizations run by a non-white person, anti-feminist organizations run by a woman, etc. They play an important role in perpetuating such systems
Something I don't really understand. In my country, it is not even legal to sell/provide a piece of equipement/a service which enable people to communicate ... which cannot be spied on. As far as I know, it is the law.
And what you don't understand is how it got so bad in your country? Pervasive, always-on, and presumed surveillance that cannot be opted out of is not a healthy environment for anyone.
The root of this investigation was the EFF. If you make tech money, you can toss $50 their way without any hesitation. https://supporters.eff.org/donate You'll get some cool swag and, more importantly, ensure that they continue their excellent work.
I haven’t followed them enough but is it possible to support them without supporting other charitable causes of a political persuasion I don’t support? I fully support everything directly related to their cause but it gets me very upset when charities are supporting other various agendas around gender/immigration for example that are unrelated to their main goal.
I find it less concerning that the police have this info, than the fact that it's just a random company providing it and presumably anybody with the cash to buy access could buy the same or equivalent system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t followed them enough but is it possible to support them without supporting other charitable causes of a political persuasion I don’t support? I fully support everything directly related to their cause but it gets me very upset when charities are supporting other various agendas around gender/immigration for example that are unrelated to their main goal.
This assumes "charitable causes" can be apolitical. I guess the ACLU might be closer to what you want then? They have a recent history of criticism for defending the far-right in the name of free speech while generally being thought of as "liberal". The problem you're facing is that "fighting against power structures" is a political gradient starting short of authoritarianism and ending at anarchism (unless you're St…
https://reason.com/2022/08/31/the-student-loan-debate-shows-...
I would support a truly civil-liberties-only ACLU, but not what they currently are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This speaks to my ongoing crusade to try inject pragmatism into the political conversation. There are far too many unintended consequences to this sloganeering that is used to stir up the populace. We need to get away from focusing on intent of a change and look at the practical effects of the change.
Perhaps you are familiar with (or would support) the idea behind futarchy, which is sometimes expressed as "Vote on Values, Bet on Beliefs": http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html
For me, with our current political system in the US, every candidate disqualifies themselves be simply having the level of narcissism needed to believe that they belong in office because they are the most qualified person for that office. Especially at the level of POTUS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes "charitable causes" can be apolitical. I guess the ACLU might be closer to what you want then? They have a recent history of criticism for defending the far-right in the name of free speech while generally being thought of as "liberal". The problem you're facing is that "fighting against power structures" is a political gradient starting short of authoritarianism and ending at anarchism (unless you're St…
The ACLU has increasingly become exactly what he seeks to avoid. https://reason.com/2022/08/31/the-student-loan-debate-shows-... I would support a truly civil-liberties-only ACLU, but not what they currently are.