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

291–300 of 347 posts

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#291

Post by TullamoreDude »

marincounty wrote: post #144

I have felt we have too many laws and over zealous cops for some time now. I guess I'm old--I was born in 1972, but I can assure you; things were not like it has been in the last twenty years. I started noticing a change in the late 80's and it's(a over regulated society, cops who abuse the system) just gotten worse. If Jesus Christ reappeared he would most likely be arrested for indecency. Ticketed for fishing witho…

If Jesus lived today? A religous extremist from the Middle East who talks alot about socialsm? America would send all the drones the got.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#292

Post by eseehausen »

philwelch wrote: post #275
thenmar wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should apologize for making this post. There are a lot of important things that aren't mathematically rigorous but are nevertheless worth understanding.

If you're making grand opaque abstractions without applying some form of logical rigor, how can you be sure you're saying anything that's true and meaningful? I agree that there are lots of things that are worth understanding but can't be expressed in rigorously logical terms. Things like the subjective experience of falling in love or laughing at a joke or the value of behaving toward others with compassion. Wovon m…

And yet, Wittgenstein goes on to write texts that are central pillars of contemporary theory. He also saw that laying out everything you can say in purely logical terms leaves a lot off the table.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#293

Post by andy_ppp »

We are living in an extreme, high tech, highly theatrical version of The Wire; one in which you can't trust your government, the law, the police and you can guarantee they are watching you.

Turns out that any laws that have loop holes will be abused and everyone is guilty. This is the definition of tyranny.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#294

Post by PavlovsCat »

CalRobert wrote: post #282
PavlovsCat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you leave (and give up citizenship) you loose a lot of options to influence it. And you leave behind those who are either too naive, too poor, too sick, or otherwise unable to follow; together with the elements who made you leave, and who now have free access to a completely empty stage..

Exit is what gives power to voice. If you're at a stagnant company where nothing changes even though it's clear that change is necessary, even the suits will sometimes notice when half their staff quit.

Do you know any examples where that made a dent?

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#295

Post by PavlovsCat »

joe_the_user wrote: post #200
rolux wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That critique of Foucault is much too cheap. To any halfway competent theory hacker, it will sound like "But Python uses significant whitespace, and Guido van Rossum's knowledge of language design is dubious at best." It's hard to base a serious discussion on that type of argument. To me, one of the major takeaways from Foucault is his renouncement of the "repression hypothesis". In a nutshell, he proposes to underst…

To me, one of the major takeaways from Foucault is his renouncement of the "repression hypothesis". In a nutshell, he proposes to understand power not as a binary relation between oppressors and the oppressed, but as a much more molecular system that spans all sectors of society, and whose modus operandi is not primarily repression, but rather motivation (making someone speak, articulate desires, etc). I know that's…

Personally, I am looking more and more towards sadism and masochism as explanations for such things, and am wondering if sadism isn't the primary drive to attain power in the first place.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#296

Post by aestra »

textminer wrote: post #279
beachstartup wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not a trick question at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Senator did we all forget that every state has a Senate as well?

Not Nebraska.

Right, you can't say every State has a Senate. Every State has a legislative branch of government whose setup varies by State Constitution. For example, Nebraska has a unicameral legislature while New York and California have a Senate and Assembly while Texas has a Senate and House of Representatives.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#298

Post by shpxnvz »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #227
joe_the_user wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, one of the major takeaways from Foucault is his renouncement of the "repression hypothesis". In a nutshell, he proposes to understand power not as a binary relation between oppressors and the oppressed, but as a much more molecular system that spans all sectors of society, and whose modus operandi is not primarily repression, but rather motivation (making someone speak, articulate desires, etc). I know that's…

"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…

> Is your assumption true?

No, it's not true. The state has vastly inferior power compared to the populace at large, at least in the U.S. However, the state is able to, in most cases, choose when and how it engages it's enemies so that it faces an inferior force on it's own terms.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#299

Post by aestra »

Houshalter wrote: post #173
toomuchtodo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? Do you not understand the implications of arming a local police force as if they were the military? That's terrifying.

Yes, I'm serious. Swat teams have been around forever, this isn't anything new. An armored vehicle of all things isn't particularly harmful. I would react differently if they gave them, say, a minigun or a guided missile or whatever. It's just a bullet proof truck.

Define "forever."

The first SWAT team was established in 1964. They have grown considerably in the past few years and with their growth they are being used more and more for very simple reasons, to execute simple warrants for example.

Example: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m...

This man had a SWAT team raid his house for gambling $2000 on a college football game, and he ended up dead. Was a friggin SWAT team needed for a gambling arrest!???

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#300

Post by Tossrock »

jotm wrote: post #234
diydsp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the patient post. People will probably despise me for this, but why don't we have compulsory military duty in the U.S. like other countries? It would give people some discipline. It would discourage us from acting arrogant, "lol! we should bomb them!" It would give people some skills. If it was equally applied, no one would have any disadvantage. It would make people feel much more secure, without deleg…

Jesus, no it would not! It would lead to the US military becoming way too large, and given the prowess in media propaganda, you'll get tens of millions of people with a highly militaristic mindset with nothing to do - think current soldier worshipping x10.

I disagree. The current volunteer-only military service means that only people with that mindset join in the first place. If there were compulsory military service, that would mean everyone else, regular people with no desire for glory/etc would be in there too. Look at what happened during Vietnam. There was such drastic anti-war sentiment specifically because anyone could be drafted.
Post reply on HN