The Criminalization of Everyday Life • Hacker News Board

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#311

Post by philwelch » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:41 PM UTC

eseehausen wrote: post #290

philwelch wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here's the operative difference: I can explain to a non-technical person what the Y-combinator gets you in terms of results. I could make a physicist or mathematician or mechanical engineer or even an analytic philosopher understand the significance, and then it's just a matter of notation. And I really wish postmodernists would stop hiding behind the banner of "the humanities". Analytic philosophy, history, class…

If you read the other comments on this thread, a number of people have clearly explained the significance of the theory. As for the humanities thing, yes, I agree. Just as physicists can make many clear statements that resonate with people who don't even know math, there are many aspects of the humanities that are accessible and clear to people who have never studied theory. Your disdain for higher level theory would…

I actually never had trouble with Aristotle or Kant.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#312

Post by CalRobert » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 5:49 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #294

CalRobert wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Hah, well I like to imagine that just after walking out the door my previous boss realized the error of his ways and instituted sweeping new reforms.

I don't know of anything that's not anecdotal. I also think that trying to fix things as an individual in a country of over 300 million, despite what people tell you, is generally a fool's errand for anyone who doesn't have enormous amounts of capital at their disposal. Best to find somewhere that suits you and enjoy life there.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#313

Post by applecore » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 6:09 PM UTC

The re-criminalization of everyday life—“privacy may be an anomaly”.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#314

Post by kunai » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 6:21 PM UTC

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #286

XorNot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd rather draw parallel to Ancient Rome and its citizens. As long as there were "Games" in town and bread for free nobody cared. Once the Rome was on fire they woke up. For some time. This is not why the Roman empire collapsed. In fact the term "collapse" itself implies some weird sudden event, rather then a gradual evolution over the course of hundreds of years into the various entities which became the forerunne…

I agree with you 100%. My post (I think) was more about decline than collapse. All the negative development we currently see in the US from militarization to weak economy are signs of decline and not collapse. Like UK -- it has declined from an Empire Status, but did not collapse. I agree - the same with Roman Empire.

You're incorrect here again. Byzantium retained its integrity, but Rome, the city, did collapse thanks to invasions by Germanic tribes and the Huns. So did most of Europe that was under Roman control, and some portions of North Africa as well. Constantinople stayed standing for quite a while. Control shifted around, falling into the hands of the Mamluks, Seljuks, and subsequently the Ottoman Turks, from where Turkey gets its name.

There are numerous other civilizations (for instance, dynastic China) that have suffered decline rather than outright collapse. Rome was not one of them though; the entire Western Empire broke apart. It's just not a good example.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#315

Post by logfromblammo » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 6:22 PM UTC

theorique wrote: post #163

jseliger wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quote more Foucault's Discipline & Punishment Foucault's style is (possibly deliberately) obtuse, and his knowledge of history dubious at best, per Keith Windschuttle's book The Killing of History : http://www.amazon.com/The-Killing-History-Theorists-Murderin... . It's the question of why we all let this happen without any resistance Because it's easy, because most of the time it doesn't affect us, and because it's h…

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.

If you changed the question to "How many people represent you in Washington, D.C.?" the answer becomes even simpler. Most people could then safely answer "zero," without a second thought.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#316

Post by kunai » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 6:25 PM UTC

richardjordan wrote: post #310

sanderjd wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To the contrary I am indeed afraid of the increase in Islamic fundamentalism across the world because of the destabilizing influence. Also because of the detrimental effects it has on global development, scientific progress and human rights (particularly women's rights). With the latter I fear that the more entrenched it becomes the harder it is to roll back. Sharia is a terrible thing for global progress and its imp…

You practically proved his point. It doesn't matter whether fundamentalism is risky, it's not a practical threat and therefore is not anything to be afraid. Destabilizing influence? Give me examples. Historians have no phobia of fundamentalism because it doesn't matter in today's society.

There is an incredibly fractional chance that Sharia will take hold. That's what the OP was saying.

It's not a real threat.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#317

Post by logfromblammo » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 6:28 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #217

chill1 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you vote for? I vote.. But it doesn't seem to do anything. We have an illusion of choice in this country when it comes to anything that matters. Political parties, banks, oil/gas companies, electricity/natural gas/telecom/internet providers; everything that is critical to living a modern life, we have a handful of choices - sometimes just one. Shampoos, tooth paste, tomato sauce, everything else that doesn't r…

I do not vote.

If you were offered even one choice that would be acceptable to you, would you vote then?

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#318

Post by ryanpardieck » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

When the state has access to nukes and the populace doesn't, how can this statement not technically be true? It seems like the ability literally wipe cities off the face of the earth means that you have the permanent upper hand, in terms of power.

Further, what you call "cooperation" I think would largely would be a lack of organization. The ability to organize can grant immense power, and when people talk about the power of large crowds like this I think there's usually an unstated assumption of "if they were to spontaneously act in great--or at least adequate--coordination." I don't think it's fair to assess power in terms of something like a body count, and to ignore the power granted by organization.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#319

Post by logfromblammo » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 6:36 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #132

crazygringo wrote: post #22

I can't say I'm exactly surprised. If you ran a police department, you're not about to turn down a free tank -- I mean, how cool is that, toys for the boys?!?! What's bothersome is that a police department is allowed to do this. That DoD rules don't prohibit selling/giving military equipment to police departments. That state legislatures don't prohibit it. A police department, like any organization, is always going t…

Whats wrong with a police department having a tank? I'd say it's a waste of money, but if it's completely free there's no downside.

Even if you were able to ignore the economic factors, the ability to use the show of force represented by the tank decreases the marginal utility of peaceful de-escalation, which most people would agree to be the superior tactic for community policing.

If you have a tank, you don't need to negotiate a peaceful surrender.

Think about how Icelandic cops are wringing their hands over killing their very first person ever, in their entire history. Now think about American cops driving tanks over someone's family dog on the way to punching a hole in a house and using flashbangs and tasers indiscriminately on the people inside.

It was a mistake to give Barney Fife even the one bullet.

Re: The Criminalization of Everyday Life

#320

Post by ryanpardieck » Wed, Dec 11, 2013, 6:37 PM UTC

eseehausen wrote: post #254

falcolas wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I find it extremely distasteful to describe backing down in the face of slaughter as "complicity." If that's the sort of thinking that follows naturally from the model of power dynamics being discussed here, then I think the model is likely intensely flawed.