Taboo Topics (Heavily moderated)

[Reyo]

I'm not saying what should or shouldn't happen as far as a revolution, or trusting the government. No, nobody should fully trust their government, but if you don't trust them at all, then why are they still your government? All I'm saying is that a revolution is not only possible, but it seems like a good chunk of the populous has already mentally, and ohysically prepared for it.

[Lambeth]

The left needs to make a resurgence in america if that's ever gonna happen. All you have now are republicans and crypto-fascists

[Reyo]

The funny thing is the ones who I said were mentally and hysically preparing themselves for revolution WERE the republicans.

Right around the time Obama took office...

[Galaxy Man]

The left needs to make a resurgence in america if that's ever gonna happen. All you have now are republicans and crypto-fascists

you don't actually know anything about america do you

because that's like the most uninformed idea of how america is since ever

how do you think a democratic president was elected if everyone is republican

[Lambeth]

I'm saying the democrats are right wing and the republicans are insane. And there is no left in america, at least not in a large, organized sense.

[Syobon]

[quote="Reyo"] All I'm saying is that a revolution is not only possible/quote]
It's possible now because the system wasn't in place or implemented to it's fullest yet. Again, why would you even ever want to make it harder for people to freely communicate? You're not going to stop terrorism doing that because the real extremists are far more willing to use all means necessary to organise.

[Reyo]

All I'm saying is that a revolution is not only possible

It's possible now because the system wasn't in place or implemented to it's fullest yet. Again, why would you even ever want to make it harder for people to freely communicate? You're not going to stop terrorism doing that because the real extremists are far more willing to use all means necessary to organise.

It'd be possible even with the implementation of the technology for the reasons I've given. And, again, everything is under the assumption that the government IS going to misuse it to start peeping on everyone in the shower to take note of their naughty bits. I know no one trusts the government, but honestly it's just silly to walk around playing these games. Nothing is ever going to get done if we're too afraid of the misuse of new technology to give it a chance to benefit our lives. You remember when the government was going to use our genome to engineer human killbots? Or when sustained spaceflight meant the Russians were going to nuke us from orbit? Nuclear energy is still a hot button topic (since, apparently, all a terrorist has to do is bomb a power plant (from orbit) to make it a nuclear bomb). We managed to get the genome, but we still can't go to the next step for the same reason. The only thing out of the three we do have for certain is sustained spaceflight, and that produced more knowledge and understanding of our universe than it did nukes from orbit. We're still easing into nuclear energy.

Besides, it's much too difficult for us to rally with it in place, yet terrorists are more than capable? Under what principle? They want it more? For one, I'm unsure of the comparison levels between rallies of people and their abilities to organise, and second, that just proves the earlier point I was making that motivation can do a shitton to circumvent all of these impossibilities. Yes, the technology would make it harder to organize were a revolution required to take place, but it would make it equally harder for domestic terrorism to take hold, and so far the only one of the two that's actually a tangible threat is the domestic terrorism.

[Syobon]

It'd be possible even with the implementation of the technology for the reasons I've given.

Yes but it'd be much harder and why would you ever want that? And yes this is under the assumption that they will misuse it because they will. Maybe not now, maybe not within ten years, but definitely within a 100. Because that's how these things always go if history is any lesson.

Besides, it's much too difficult for us to rally with it in place, yet terrorists are more than capable? Under what principle?

Because they're insane and not afraid to use violent or even self-sacrificial means?

[Brekkjern]

Terrorists just need to create a disturbance to succeed. A revolution has to succeed more than the time for a bomb to go off. It is a sustained endeavour that is most likely going to take more than just a few weeks. Probably several months before everything is completed.

And the reason we did spaceflight was because it was a good cover to test out ICBM nukes. Sputnik was launched with a rocket designed to carry nuclear warheads.

[Reyo]

It'd be possible even with the implementation of the technology for the reasons I've given.

Yes but it'd be much harder and why would you ever want that? And yes this is under the assumption that they will misuse it because they will. Maybe not now, maybe not within ten years, but definitely within a 100. Because that's how these things always go if history is any lesson.

Because it would also be much harder for domestic terrorism to happen, and that's the primary concern with this technology, not "but what will our chances be if we need to revolt?" I understand the need for a right to protest, but if all you're doing is looking out for that right in everything that happens...well that's just not healthy. That's like basing every major decision you make with your significant other on how easy it'd be to break up with them and move on. You're not supposed to be actively thinking about that sort of thing.

And no, history isn't filled with technologies that then get used against the people 100% of the time. There are examples, but not with any frequency rate close to 100%. The only example I can think would be the taxes the british put on colonial americans, which weren't even a new idea, yet that revolution succeeded, and the only benefit taxes had was that the government would have more cheddar.

Besides, it's much too difficult for us to rally with it in place, yet terrorists are more than capable? Under what principle?

Because they're insane and not afraid to use violent or even self-sacrificial means?

You're going with the modern definition of a terrorist. And even then, the word "insane" is incredibly vague to describe a simply motivated mentality. Yes, suicidal goes against biological programming, but the Japanese had no issue with it in World War II. They weren't called terrorists. They were called kamikazes, but without the "war on kamikazes!" that would be the equivalent to today's "war on terror."

Besides, the saying "the victors write the istory books" comes into play here. Had the American Revolution failed, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, etc, would have all gone down in infamy for committing treason and espionage. Since it succeeded, they're our nation's "Founding Fathers". Had Japan/Germany somehow won World War II, those same Kamikaze pilots I'm comparing to terrorists willing to commit suicide to their cause would be written down as War Heros who were willing to give up their lives to win the war. I'm not saing those terrorists are right in what they're doing, I'm saying that our perspective is getting in the way of effectively assessing just who they are. They're not "crazy," they just have a more dangerous motivation behind their actions.

Plus, we do thwart countless attempts at terrorism every day overseas. The problem isn't that they're trying, and succeeding at getting past our defenses. The problem is that they keep trying time and time again, which would be the exact same problem the government would have to face if there was a revolution.

Terrorists just need to create a disturbance to succeed. A revolution has to succeed more than the time for a bomb to go off. It is a sustained endeavour that is most likely going to take more than just a few weeks. Probably several months before everything is completed.

And the reason we did spaceflight was because it was a good cover to test out ICBM nukes. Sputnik was launched with a rocket designed to carry nuclear warheads.

Terrorism has to do with political influence through violent means. bodaciously he only difference between that and what would happen in a revolution is that the violence would be geared at the government and not innocent civilians. What's happening overseas isn't just guys lowing shit up for shits and giggles, they're doing it because our presence is making it hard for them to gain control over the people. Besides, a lot of the shenanigans they do isn't just to try and kill us. A good chunk of it is to try and make us look bad to the civilians so they can then go to the townspeople and rally them against us. There is more method than madness in all of the chaos. The Red Dawn remake is surprisingly accurate in portraying what the insurgents are trying to do in the middle east (the main difference being that Thor + Josh and friends made an actual effort to just try and fuck with the North Korean invaders and limit the civilian casualties as much as physically possible.)

Also yes, I realize rockets were bodaciously sent in orbit, which would be an example of a technology that actually got the closest to actually being used for the evil the people feared, yet still none of it happened.

[Syobon]

Because it would also be much harder for domestic terrorism to happen, and that's the primary concern with this technology, not "but what will our chances be if we need to revolt?" I understand the need for a right to protest, but if all you're doing is looking out for that right in everything that happens...well that's just not healthy. That's like basing every major decision you make with your significant other on how easy it'd be to break up with them and move on. You're not supposed to be actively thinking about that sort of thing.

Your government isn't your lover, this isn't a two-way street. You elect your government to protect your interests. And as has been pointed out, this won't stop terrorism. Nothing ever will. Taking away your freedom in an attempt to fight terrorism is ironically counter-productive.

And no, history isn't filled with technologies that then get used against the people 100% of the time.

I wasn't talking about technology being misused by the government (any technology can get misused after all), I'm saying that every government eventually outsteps it bounds and needs to be reminded that it's there to serve the people not the other way around.

You're going with the modern definition of a terrorist

Yes, why would I use any other definition? Terrorist is of course a buzzword created to instil fear, so let me put it differently. You say this technology will be more effective to prevent violence than it would restrict free communication. I'm saying it won't because the people willing to use violent means are usually much more determined and desperate than the common people.

Also it's funny that you go off on this side-rant about the word terrorism when it's the fear for this terrorism that seems to lead you to defend these extreme measures.

bodaciously he only difference between that and what would happen in a revolution is that the violence would be geared at the government and not innocent civilians.

No. A revolution doesn't need to be violent.

[Reyo]

Because it would also be much harder for domestic terrorism to happen, and that's the primary concern with this technology, not "but what will our chances be if we need to revolt?" I understand the need for a right to protest, but if all you're doing is looking out for that right in everything that happens...well that's just not healthy. That's like basing every major decision you make with your significant other on how easy it'd be to break up with them and move on. You're not supposed to be actively thinking about that sort of thing.

Your government isn't your lover, this isn't a two-way street. You elect your government to protect your interests. And as has been pointed out, this won't stop terrorism. Nothing ever will. Taking away your freedom in an attempt to fight terrorism is ironically counter-productive.

Terrorism in general, no, but specific acs of terrorism, yes. And to me, one life saved in a thwarted domestic terrorist plot would be justification enough. Not justification for any negatives the government may decide to partake in later, but the normal side effect of the technology in question. And just the possibility that the government can misuse it shouldn't justify allowing just one life to be lost in a preventable attack. If the Boston Marathon bombing could have been prevented using the technology, then there would have been two less deaths, and one less attack to hear about, because at its core that is what the technology is supposed to be for. And I'd like to think the government was more worried about stopping potential terrorist attacks that peeping into peoples personal lives for profit.

And no, history isn't filled with technologies that then get used against the people 100% of the time.

I wasn't talking about technology being misused by the government (any technology can get misused after all), I'm saying that every government eventually outsteps it bounds and needs to be reminded that it's there to serve the people not the other way around.

That's what this technology is supposed to be for, though, to serve the people, just like every major technological advancement has been (even taxes, which are meant to go towards civil services). Again, we're just talking about the possibility. And this technology does look scary, but so did the erroneous taxes put on the colonies, but we managed to get around even those.

You're going with the modern definition of a terrorist

Yes, why would I use any other definition? Terrorist is of course a buzzword created to instil fear, so let me put it differently. You say this technology will be more effective to prevent violence than it would restrict free communication. I'm saying it won't because the people willing to use violent means are usually much more determined and desperate than the common people.

The thing is it wouldn't restrict free communication unles you were planning something terrible. The NSA isn't going to somehow keep you from posting on facebook what your projected plans are for the weekend. They're also not going to keep you from calling your parents in case of an emergency. What they're going to do is make sure you don't say things like "We're going to blow up the freeway this saturday" where if you did, they'd take action to make sure you didn't blow up a freeway on saturday. The only way it would limit our communication is if they then overstepped that boundary, and created a need for a revolution where we would then potentially use that tapped communications to organize, which we wouldn't because we'd know they're tapped. But that wouldn't stop us since it was more than possible to rally and organise without a shred of technology in the past.

Also it's funny that you go off on this side-rant about the word terrorism when it's the fear for this terrorism that seems to lead you to defend these extreme measures.

I've been instructed in how they think from both the military and a handful of psychology classes. As for the philisohical parts, that's just regular philisophical bullshit. And you can understand how a group of people think and feel, but still fear for any terrible actions they may want to take on you or your family/friends (example: the Nazis. The history channel has more than just dissected how they thought and felt during the 1940's. They weren't insane either, just terrible, terrible xenophobes.)

bodaciously he only difference between that and what would happen in a revolution is that the violence would be geared at the government and not innocent civilians.

No. A revolution doesn't need to be violent.

Aggression is in the intent, not the act. While violence may have been a less accurate word, the point I was going for was that the intent of the aggression would be towards the government, and not the people. In the middle east, the people are included in the target range since there's a religious element to it.

[Syobon]

Mate I have to say I have no idea what you're trying to say any more. Could you please try to stick to point instead of going off on irrelevant tangents.

[Reyo]

I'm going off on these tangenst because you don't seem to understand the full picture. It's not just anout the NSA taping our phones to butt in to our privacy. That is a part of it, but there is other stuff to consider.

[Madican]

Except your full picture is just vague nonsense. Stick to the topic so people actually understand what your point is. The saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit," doesn't work for debates.