Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Criminalization of Everyday Life

tomdispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 347 posts

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#251

Post by handojin »

mindslight wrote: post #92
dmix wrote: post #61

I wish people would move beyond 1984 and quote more Foucault's Discipline & Punishment [1]. There is a much deeper-rooted problem in society than mass surveillance or militarization of police. It's the question of why we all let this happen without any resistance. We accept and welcome our controllers. Foucault wrote about the effects of prisoner mindset in society in the 1960-70s. Our subjugation and tolerance to au…

FWIW, you linked to a book format which has embedded technological controls that contribute to being at the mercy of authoritarianism.

For a second I misread you as saying Discipline and Punish 'has embedded technological controls...'

Which, depressingly, might be true. :P

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#252

Post by eseehausen »

philwelch wrote: post #207
eseehausen wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort cherry-picking of "obtuse" quotes to attack high-level theory is pretty absurd. It's equivalent to somebody from the humanities putting down this formula: Y = λf.(λx.f (x x)) (λx.f (x x)) and saying "I have difficulty understanding this, ergo computer science is absurd nonsense."

And if "theory" or whatever the fuck you English majors call it were mathematically rigorous you'd have a point.

There are many things in this world/levels of perspective that benefit from a non-mathematically rigorous analysis- up to and including the question "what is the benefit of rigorous mathematical analysis". That doesn't mean they don't have their own kind of rigor or that you should be able to understand them right away without any background knowledge. The attitude you have is shared by folks in the humanities who think that because they're experts in their field, they should be experts in everything, but luckily, human knowledge is broad and diverse, and there's no single master key.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#253

Post by nitrogen »

maxerickson wrote: post #229
nitrogen wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that hypothetical scenario, the police would be responding to an attack (staged or otherwise). Later, the immediate security measures put in place in response to the attack simply wouldn't be wound down over time, maybe because of additional attacks against notable weak points of the existing security measures. Also, cell phone and Internet service would be shut down (ostensibly to prevent attackers from triggerin…

Yes, I get the gist of it. I am not convinced it is plausible.

I agree, but not for the reason you gave in your comment. The police wouldn't know they're going along with a despot. They would don riot gear, block streets, and set up checkpoints in the name of safety from terrorists and looters.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#254

Post by eseehausen »

falcolas wrote: post #243
scarecrowbob wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But it seems like not the useful insight given a state the clearly has asymetrically greater power than the populace?" Is your assumption true? That is, leaving aside the fact that the police are ostensibly part of the populace, how would some police and a single APC pacify even a couple of blocks of citizens without the cooperation of those citizens? Personally, and I realize that this is opinion, I do not believe…

> how would some police and a single APC pacify even a couple of blocks of citizens without the cooperation of those citizens? Assuming that the police have no restriction in the use of force, it would be very simple for them to pacify a rather large area with an APC and Police. All they have to do is kill a few people who are out of line, and the rest will cower. No single or small group of citizens in the US really…

>"the rest will cower"

This is one aspect of sort of complicity with power that's being discussed. Sometimes, people decide en masse that a certain way of life is worth dying for, so we know there are other responses to armed pacification.

Not that this is always a bad thing. It's pretty great that most of us obey the state's injunction to not wantonly kill each other.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#255

Post by aidenn0 »

larrys wrote: post #51
MrZongle2 wrote: post #5

When I read something like this, I always think back to when I would see some tinfoil-hat type ranting on Usenet 20 years ago about the growing surveillance/police state in America. It was generally eye-rolling or unintentionally hilarious stuff. What's depressing is that it's starting to look like they were right.

"I would see some tinfoil-hat type ranting on Usenet 20 years ago" Ok then so how many "tinfoil-hat type rantings" have not come true? It's easy to say "I had a feeling I should have bought that stock" without acknowledging all the stocks that you didn't buy that didn't go up in price. Or the ones you did that didn't go up in price.

That's not the point. If something that would be dismissed as the mutterings of a lunatic 20 years ago is now taken as true, perhaps we live in a world of lunacy (even if other things that were also dismissed as the mutterings of a lunatic aren't true).

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#256

Post by mathgladiator »

jotm wrote: post #232
spiritplumber wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." (From Atlas Shrugged -- Damn, it's bad when I of all people am quoting Ayn Rand).

What's wrong with Ayn Rand?

Generally, people don't like her for lacking 'heart'. However, most people don't actually understand her message, nor do they appreciate her definition of selfishness.

It's very unfortunate because her writings were on the spot on about human behavior.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#257

Post by theorique »

steveklabnik wrote: post #166
theorique wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people (and voters) don't even know how many Senators their state has Trick question. Every state has the same number of Senators - 2.

That doesn't preclude someone from not knowing that there are two.

I guess I should have specified that I was drilling down on the question of "their state" - it doesn't matter whether it's their state or any other, it's always the same.

(In contrast to congressmen, where the number changes with population.)

(And yes, I can believe, unfortunately, that not every citizen knows this.)

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#258

Post by aidenn0 »

alan_cx wrote: post #156
JonnieCache wrote: post #48

The fact that this is being instigated by the federal government makes me suspect that this is deliberate planning for the long-term consequences of american societal breakdown, for when the war on drugs isn't enough to control the ever-growing underclass anymore. Does this kind of thinking still place me firmly with the tinfoil contingent?

Having a so called police force like this is societal breakdown. To me, current US policing looks much like how the Brits patrolled Northern Ireland back in the day, with the army. Only thing the US is missing is check points and road blocks. Don't kid yourselves, the US does not have a police force, it has a domestic army. Only hope Americans have is in the individuals who wear the uniform. Would American uniformed…

We already have checkpoints and road-blocks. I got stopped in one on my way home from work last year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Sobriety_chec...

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#260

Post by sanderjd »

richardjordan wrote: post #162
thisiswrong wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the question of why we all let this happen without any resistance. Why, and how did we let this happen? Look no further : http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Holl... 'War-nography', islamophobia, narco-phobia... and the script goes on. When the masses believe that they are in danger, they will stand behind those in power for protection. There's surprisingly little difference between Joseph…

As someone broadly in political agreement with much on the left I never understand the obsession with rolling in Islamophobia with these things. At the end of the day religious movements are broadly intolerant, aboslutist and objectionable in nature. It's not a bad thing to fear the increase in power of religious totalitarians. They have a lot in common with many of the others you want to attack. Even the most mainst…

Because pilloried and decried is different than feared (-phobia). The paranoia some Americans have about Sharia law is a good example of the difference - I'm strongly against that happening, but I'm not afraid of that happening, because it isn't a real threat. Being against something and being afraid of something are very different, and it's the fear that can be useful to those in power.
Post reply on HN