Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Texas Church Shooting: Forget Prayers, Send More Guns: Or else, Tryanny?

Texas Church Shooting: Forget Prayers, Send More Guns: Or else, Tryanny? (Page 5)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2017, 04:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Its pretty much impossible to address the tyranny theory scientifically in any useful way. Its really more a philosophical question.

The word tyranny is not clearly defined by any absolute measurable criteria, its subjective. One or more leaders or influencers could sway a population to move earlier or later. There isn't even a defined percentage of the population you need to armed/onboard with rebellion. Everything about it is vague. Opinion is almost all there is unless you want to run long winded, expensive simulations that people can easily find holes big enough to drive buses through.

The single most scientific criteria you can apply is the projected casualty rate of a rebellion/civil war which you then compare to the death toll due to having so many guns in circulation. Last I checked those two numbers were about either the same or the gun deaths were way higher. Two or three times. Even if you're only breaking even now, those lives are already wasted insurance payments. And any more to come are wasted overpayments. You could have bought a spare country in case you needed it.
I’m missing the jump from explicating the difficulties of performing the analysis to the proper response to the difficulties being to pretend the argument doesn’t exist.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 13, 2017 at 05:50 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2017, 05:19 PM
 
One could argue that given the cost is a considerable number of innocent lives plus injuries, the burden of proof should be on 2A to justify itself and therefore prove that it is an effective deterrent against tyranny. And no, a lack of tyranny since its inception does not constitute proof or even evidence.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2017, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
One could argue that given the cost is a considerable number of innocent lives plus injuries, the burden of proof should be on 2A to justify itself and therefore prove that it is an effective deterrent against tyranny. And no, a lack of tyranny since its inception does not constitute proof or even evidence.
Our starting point is that the 2A exists and we have that right. The burden of proof is on whoever is trying to take away that right. We don't need to rejustify each amendment year after year.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2017, 09:03 PM
 
Do any of the other amendments have a cost of lives in the thousands per year?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do any of the other amendments have a cost of lives in the thousands per year?
Probably the 4th.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 06:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Probably the 4th.
Can't help but think that toll would be in no small part due to the 2nd.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 10:28 AM
 
Meanwhile in Wisconsin they just passed a law allowing toddlers to hunt.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 05:52 PM
 
I would be curious to what extent people think that’s necessary for the security of a free state.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 06:00 PM
 
My guess it would be the same people that give blunts to toddlers.

http://www.newsweek.com/toddlers-hun...sconsin-700793
Even toddlers can hunt with guns in Wisconsin, under a bill the state Assembly passed that removes age restrictions on the sport.

The previous bill set the age at 12, while 10-year-olds could hunt with a “mentor,” usually a parent or a guardian. The new law removes that restriction, leaving the minimum age up to parents to decide. It also eliminates the limit on the number of guns young hunters can carry at one time.

“To allow ... a toddler, a 2-year-old [to carry a gun]—and I’m not being hyperbolic, because someone will allow it—is dangerous,” Katrina Shankland, a Democrat and state representative, told the Associated Press. “Other hunters in the woods are not going to choose to get hurt by a child with a rifle.”
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
One could argue that given the cost is a considerable number of innocent lives plus injuries, the burden of proof should be on 2A to justify itself and therefore prove that it is an effective deterrent against tyranny. And no, a lack of tyranny since its inception does not constitute proof or even evidence.
Is this not arguing if deaths are involved, the quality of reasoning is irrelevant until it reaches unimpeachable levels?

As an alternative, I propose the quality of reasoning should be relevant in all situations.


I know, that’s some craaaaazy shit right there.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I didn't mean this as a rhetorical question or pointless grandstanding. I would like to hear from those in favor of guns where you believe the line is? What would have to happen for 2A supporters to take up arms? An administration colluding with a foreign power to rig an election? Constant, uncontrollable mass surveillance?
Sorry this took so long.

Here’s my rough draft.

1) Taking away the guns.

2) The paranoid autocrat package... gulags, secret police, and a snitch culture.

3) Really aggressive conscription for non-defensive purposes.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry this took so long.

Here’s my rough draft.

1) Taking away the guns.

2) The paranoid autocrat package... gulags, secret police, and a snitch culture.

3) Really aggressive conscription for non-defensive purposes.
I just find it so hard to comprehend that anyone would find it more acceptable to live in a society without free speech and a free press than one without guns.

But to each his own I suppose.
( Last edited by Paco500; Nov 15, 2017 at 01:20 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 07:35 PM
 
Those weren’t in order of importance.

Also the idea is free speech will be negatively impacted by removal of the guns.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 07:51 PM
 
meanwhile, in california, another shooting spree stemming from domestic violence:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nati...m7M/story.html
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Those weren’t in order of importance.

Also the idea is free speech will be negatively impacted by removal of the guns.
There are many, many other developed nations most of whom care less about freedom of speech than Americans do who still have freedom of speech without guns.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry this took so long.

Here’s my rough draft.

1) Taking away the guns.

2) The paranoid autocrat package... gulags, secret police, and a snitch culture.

3) Really aggressive conscription for non-defensive purposes.
Very interesting points.

Regarding the second, what happens if only brown people go to the gulags? Considering the opinion most Republicans hold of BLM, I'm imagining a scenario where Conservative 2A supporters are at best ambivalent or at worst supportive of the idea. If the brown people try and exercise their 2A rights, they're spun as terrorists, met with the full force of the military, which Republicans are fully behind.

Regarding secret police, we already have plenty of unmarked police cars giving us tickets, undercover operations in criminal rings and also trying to entrap non-criminals.

I reckon we don't need a snitch culture anymore, the satellites, drones, and backdoors in our devices do that for us.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry this took so long.

Here’s my rough draft.

1) Taking away the guns.

2) The paranoid autocrat package... gulags, secret police, and a snitch culture.

3) Really aggressive conscription for non-defensive purposes.
Theres an argument that oppression doesn't look like this any more and that it doesn't require guns on either side. When you have enough people to elect a president voting against their own best interests, what need do you have for conscriptions and gulags?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
When you have enough people to elect a president voting against their own best interests...
Think of Trump as the most successful chav in the world.

If he became PM, that tide would raise all chavs, even if his policy isn’t explicitly chav welfare.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 03:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Very interesting points.

Regarding the second, what happens if only brown people go to the gulags? Considering the opinion most Republicans hold of BLM, I'm imagining a scenario where Conservative 2A supporters are at best ambivalent or at worst supportive of the idea. If the brown people try and exercise their 2A rights, they're spun as terrorists, met with the full force of the military, which Republicans are fully behind.

Regarding secret police, we already have plenty of unmarked police cars giving us tickets, undercover operations in criminal rings and also trying to entrap non-criminals.

I reckon we don't need a snitch culture anymore, the satellites, drones, and backdoors in our devices do that for us.
Thank you.

The tyrannical form of number two is using it as a means of suppressing non-violent dissent. The guy from the article wouldn’t need to be entrapped to be in the gulag. BLM wouldn’t have to shoot anyone to be in the gulag.

This is why snitches are still important. This environment forces dissent underground.

The reasoning behind a government suppressing non-violent dissent is straightforward. It’s rather directly using political power to maintain political power.

While I’m sure brown people would get it worse, it would be limited to them only if they were the sole threat to the government’s political power.

They wouldn’t be. I would go so far to say their big beef is how little of a threat they are to government power compared to white people.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 04:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry this took so long.

Here’s my rough draft.

1) Taking away the guns.

2) The paranoid autocrat package... gulags, secret police, and a snitch culture.

3) Really aggressive conscription for non-defensive purposes.
That's not how it works if you look at history. The transition from a democracy to an autocracy is not about a “tyrannical government taking stuff away from you”, but the government grooming an enemy by selecting a group that is different from “them”. Sometimes it was religion, other times race. During WW2, Japanese-Americans lost much more than their Second Amendment Rights. Governor Ronald Reagan signed a law prohibiting open carry in 1968 after … 30 armed Black Panthers marched into the state capitol. Even now there is a large disparity between how legally armed black Americans are treated and how legally armed white Americans are treated. Or look how mass shooters are treated depending on their skin color: if it is brown, the T word is used almost instantly, while for a white person it is generally avoided. (Feel free to add other examples.)

History teaches us that in many cases tyranny is acceptable to the majority if they feel afraid of some minority and they, at least initially, do not feel the brunt of the repression. Nobody will forcefully take away guns from any American, even and especially wannabe tyrannical governments. They will make the majority of the population go along with their plans and make them complicit in their crimes — just like on 9 November 1938 in Germany. Society will be divided and conquered. They will use propaganda, erode political norms and sow distrust in the media — so that the “truth” just comes out of their mouths, even if it is self-contradictory. Guns serve no purpose to deter this, tyrannical governments might actually welcome their most fanatical supporters being well-armed. That keeps minorities and the police quiet.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 04:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I reckon we don't need a snitch culture anymore, the satellites, drones, and backdoors in our devices do that for us.
Snitch culture is outdated, have a look at how China does it — self-censorship. People don't dare say and write certain things because they are afraid they will end up on the state's radar. And the Chinese state's operation is extremely sophisticated in that they do not make clear what is and isn't on the black list, that they do make capricious changes to that list. The end result is that most people don't even want to go near the line. Given how much data the NSA has accumulated, the US could target some select group now with the same techniques.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 12:45 PM
 
The schools shooting in cali get missed?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
meanwhile, in california, another shooting spree stemming from domestic violence:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nati...m7M/story.html
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The schools shooting in cali get missed?
nope.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
nope.
Ah my mistake, only ignored
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Snitch culture is outdated, have a look at how China does it — self-censorship. People don't dare say and write certain things because they are afraid they will end up on the state's radar. And the Chinese state's operation is extremely sophisticated in that they do not make clear what is and isn't on the black list, that they do make capricious changes to that list. The end result is that most people don't even want to go near the line. Given how much data the NSA has accumulated, the US could target some select group now with the same techniques.
People will self-censor in private only if there’s a risk of getting on the state’s radar.

The way private conversations get on state radar is snitches.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 03:11 PM
 
Dudes wife got found under the floorboards. Not sure what triggers things to go from 'gotta kill my wife' to ' and a bunch of other people I don't know'

In for a penny in for a pound, I guess
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 03:34 PM
 
You can take boy out of the megathread, but you can’t take the megathread out of the boy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That's not how it works if you look at history. The transition from a democracy to an autocracy is not about a “tyrannical government taking stuff away from you”, but the government grooming an enemy by selecting a group that is different from “them”. Sometimes it was religion, other times race. During WW2, Japanese-Americans lost much more than their Second Amendment Rights. Governor Ronald Reagan signed a law prohibiting open carry in 1968 after … 30 armed Black Panthers marched into the state capitol. Even now there is a large disparity between how legally armed black Americans are treated and how legally armed white Americans are treated. Or look how mass shooters are treated depending on their skin color: if it is brown, the T word is used almost instantly, while for a white person it is generally avoided. (Feel free to add other examples.)

History teaches us that in many cases tyranny is acceptable to the majority if they feel afraid of some minority and they, at least initially, do not feel the brunt of the repression. Nobody will forcefully take away guns from any American, even and especially wannabe tyrannical governments. They will make the majority of the population go along with their plans and make them complicit in their crimes — just like on 9 November 1938 in Germany. Society will be divided and conquered. They will use propaganda, erode political norms and sow distrust in the media — so that the “truth” just comes out of their mouths, even if it is self-contradictory. Guns serve no purpose to deter this, tyrannical governments might actually welcome their most fanatical supporters being well-armed. That keeps minorities and the police quiet.
The question was “what would cross the line”. Taking away the guns would cross that line so it goes on the list.

There’s no question a tyranny would attempt the things described above, but what makes all the examples given suitable targets is their lack of political power.

This is of limited use when it comes to dealing with actual threats to power, which aren’t disenfranchised minorities, it’s the general population.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
People will self-censor in private only if there’s a risk of getting on the state’s radar.

The way private conversations get on state radar is snitches.
..and internet-connected phones, TVs, and computers listening to everything you say. Five or ten years ago this would be complete and total tin foil hat material, but today we know it's a real thing.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
..and internet-connected phones, TVs, and computers listening to everything you say. Five or ten years ago this would be complete and total tin foil hat material, but today we know it's a real thing.
I was an early foil hat adopter in this regard. Called it in the 90s.

In terms of what makes it tyrannical, whether they’re using snitches or our phones to get the information to the secret police isn’t really relevant. It’s that the information is being used to suppress non-violent dissent.

That said, the way that goes now is we use other sources to tell us where to dig in the giant pile. We’re not at the point where we have the iron to pull much useful information out of that crush of data, and even if we did, it’s the XKCD comic. It’s still easier to hit in the guy in the head with a pipe wrench.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 08:20 PM
 
I accidentally found this article about the dudes that took over a federal building in Oregon, probably the closest we've come to having citizens actually take up arms.

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/16/...-bundy-family/

An interesting read, for sure, I think I missed how that whole thing ended.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
In terms of what makes it tyrannical, whether they’re using snitches or our phones to get the information to the secret police isn’t really relevant. It’s that the information is being used to suppress non-violent dissent.
No need to suppress non-violent dissent when you can [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#United_Statesturn non-violent protests violent.[/url]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...#photo-6723892
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
While I’m sure brown people would get it worse, it would be limited to them only if they were the sole threat to the government’s political power.

They wouldn’t be. I would go so far to say their big beef is how little of a threat they are to government power compared to white people.
1. A tyrannical government could take actions for purposes other than solidifying its power. We're talking about tyrants.
2. What if mistreatment of brown people makes the threatening white people happier with the tyrannical government?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
People will self-censor in private only if there’s a risk of getting on the state’s radar.

The way private conversations get on state radar is snitches.
We live in the 21st century, we communicate not just tête–à-tête, we use FaceTime, various messaging apps, phone calls, emails, your location data (combined with that of the people whom you meet) and so forth. It's pre-internet thinking that you need snitches for that when you have a digital panopticon monitoring your every step.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There’s no question a tyranny would attempt the things described above, but what makes all the examples given suitable targets is their lack of political power.
… and it shows the power of the people who divert attention to them.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is of limited use when it comes to dealing with actual threats to power, which aren’t disenfranchised minorities, it’s the general population.
No, that's not how it works: you make the masses pliable by presenting an imagined enemy, not by going directly and immediately against the grain. Just look at how easily manipulatable people are now with fake news (in the “Hillary Clinton runs a child sex ring out of a DC pizza shop” sense). The types of people who are inclined to believe Roy Moore is the poor victim of a Democratic smear campaign with the help of Bezos's Washington Post (rather than see him for the pedophile he is). The type of people who bought into the garbage that “Obama was gonna get their guns!” who then ran out and bought tons of them as a result. The type of people who love “Trump Care” but hate Obama Care. This is how tyranny is born, it'll be tyranny of a sizable majority with the tacit help of another significant share of the population, which, taken together make up a sizable majority.

That you see “actual threats of power” as going against the majority head-on is actually dangerous in my opinion, as it plays exactly into this power dynamic that I described above. This is the danger that you look out for rather than the more subtle signs, where the focus is diverted away from actual problems to minorities.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
We live in the 21st century, we communicate not just tête–à-tête, we use FaceTime...
Bullshit. No one uses FaceTime.


More seriously, I addressed this point.

1) The means by which the secret police acquire targets is irrelevant. What’s relevant is they acquire them.

2) If dissent by electronic means becomes dangerous, people will dissent in safer ways, like with a tête-à-tête.

3) Even if they don’t, that’s conservatively a half-million terabytes of new data to sift though every day. It’s far more efficient to pay a snitch a $100 to point them to the needle in the haystack rather than build a supercomputer to process each straw.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 04:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) The means by which the secret police acquire targets is irrelevant. What’s relevant is they acquire them.
It is relevant to the discussion, because the means by which people are manipulated are different in an information society than in a society where there are much fewer channels of communication.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
2) If dissent by electronic means becomes dangerous, people will dissent in safer ways, like with a tête-à-tête.
Again, that's not how the real world works. Security-conscious people (e. g. investigative journalists) use Signal instead of Messages or use Tails instead of Windows or mac OS.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
3) Even if they don’t, that’s conservatively a half-million terabytes of new data to sift though every day. It’s far more efficient to pay a snitch a $100 to point them to the needle in the haystack rather than build a supercomputer to process each straw.
Tell that to the NSA or Facebook

A snitch can't give you what mass data analysis can, namely build a social graph that spans the whole globe, which contains tons of information (including political affiliation, sexual orientation and so forth). Facebook knows that there are (at most) three degrees of separation between me and Barack Obama — and I assume that then the NSA knows, too.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 05:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is how tyranny is born, it'll be tyranny of a sizable majority with the tacit help of another significant share of the population, which, taken together make up a sizable majority.
May I ask for a hypothetical example of the kinds of tyranny this sizable majority would go along with?

Aren’t they somewhat limited to those aimed at defeating the enemy?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 05:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
2. What if mistreatment of brown people makes the threatening white people happier with the tyrannical government?
If this breaks down, then does the tyranny fall apart?

I would argue tyranny which exists when the people support it and goes away when it doesn’t is in a different class.

But, yes. Guns won’t stop that. It’s up to free speech.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
May I ask for a hypothetical example of the kinds of tyranny this sizable majority would go along with?
Why don't you ask for real examples rather than hypothetical ones? From the top of my head:

- Pre-2001 Sunni regime Iraq (32~37 % Sunni, 60-70 % Shia, Kurds)
- Nazi Germany (all parties with the exception of the Social Democrats collaborated with the NSDAP when they were elected in 1932 with 37 % of the popular vote)*
- Nazi-friendly regimes in many countries during the occupation.
- The Russian revolution (where it was for a long time quite evenly matched between the White and the Red Guard).
- Erdogan's Turkey: Erdogan's party, the AKP, replaced the CHP after being in power for way too long. Initial reforms seemed promising (such as peace efforts with Kurds), but now Turkey has become the AKP's state.

If you'd like, I can expand the list to include more historical and current examples, but the pattern itself is quite old. Especially in the Middle East this is anything but coincidental. When the borders were drawn after WW1 in the Picot-Sykes Agreement, Britain used its experience with colonies to fracture ethnic groups. Ever wonder why the Kurds are split into several different countries rather than one of their own? Power was given to a “significant minority” (let's say ~30 % of the total population) whose claim to power hinges on the “help” of the colonial power. Democratization here means loss of power for these groups.

* Of course, you can say that at least eventually a majority supported Hitler, and I agree with that. However, that is part and parcel of my argument: once the former WW1 foes, Jews, homosexuals, Social Democrats, Communists, Sinti and Roma had been trotted out as scapegoats for Germany's economic and political woes, the discussion had pivoted and the population supported the Nazi regime to various degrees. Perhaps some cheered louder than others. But there was not a widespread rebellion. You know something else: Nazis took over the media and used a new mass medium to their advantage: radio. The “Volksempfänger” was a cheap radio with a single channel. From news to school to many private organizations, dissent was suppressed and kids were raised with racist bile for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Aren’t they somewhat limited to those aimed at defeating the enemy?
No, because most people stick to “the enemy of my enemy”-type of thinking. Most conservatives in Germany foolishly thought they could control Hitler, but that Hitler was preferable to Social Democrats or Communists.** You see this with Roy Moore in Alabama where the question has literally become “Would you rather vote for a pedophile or a Democrat?” Sad to say, but I expect Roy Moore to win. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this, you don't need any details to make that decision (e. g. who did the victims vote for in the 2016 elections?). You also saw this with Trump, despite everything he said and did, every taboo he broke (including, of course, fellow Republicans; famously accusing Ted Cruz's father of being involved in the JFK assassination, and calling McCain a loser for letting himself get caught by the enemy), his base was not 20 % of the population but rather 40+ %. Same phenomenon.

In any case, the mechanism (not necessarily the degree) here is exactly the same, and if you slowly increase the stakes and focus dissent on “the other”, most people will tag along. Sow distrust in your fellow citizens, civic institutions and the press. Create your own pathways into the ears of your supporters so that news don't get “filtered”, tempered and interpreted.


** There were very few exceptions, but they did exist. The father of my father's best friend was in the resistance. He was an arch Catholic conservative, and opposed Nazis for that reason. During the last days of WW2, he took up guns and fought alongside Communists to make sure the city he lived in would surrender.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why don't you ask for real examples rather than hypothetical ones?
Because I understand how this model works in societies without free speech.

How does this happen here, and sustain itself, without repressing free speech?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If this breaks down, then does the tyranny fall apart?

I would argue tyranny which exists when the people support it and goes away when it doesn’t is in a different class.

But, yes. Guns won’t stop that. It’s up to free speech.
This deal keeps getting worse.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 06:39 PM
 
Easy - shut down peaceful protests or turn them violent to justify shutting them down. Discredit opposing media institutions, or at least instill enough doubt in common people that they feel they can't trust any media. Officially or unofficially feed stories to your chosen media institution. You don't have to shut down free speech when nobody believes what's being freely said.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You don't have to shut down free speech when nobody believes what's being freely said.
I've been thinking this in regards to the Roy Moore revelations. It's much easier to shake off a legitimate scandal when nobody believes those reporting the truth.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Because I understand how this model works in societies without free speech.

How does this happen here, and sustain itself, without repressing free speech?
In many of my examples, you started out with a state that had free speech such as the Weimar Republic and pre-Erdogan Turkey. You also see this in modern-day Japan where the press is comparatively uncritical and under attack from new laws.

And of course, with time, free speech gets railroaded one way or another. It can be deemed unpatriotic or dangerous, for example. There were phases in the US, too, where free speech was suppressed strongly, e. g. when the anarchist movement gained steam in the early 20th century, during the Red Scare or when the Civil Rights Movement gained mindshare.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Easy - shut down peaceful protests or turn them violent to justify shutting them down. Discredit opposing media institutions, or at least instill enough doubt in common people that they feel they can't trust any media. Officially or unofficially feed stories to your chosen media institution. You don't have to shut down free speech when nobody believes what's being freely said.
Yup. Freedom of speech is one thing, but we also have to use it responsibly if we want society to prosper. That includes responsible consumption, where we keep our animal brains in check.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Easy - shut down peaceful protests or turn them violent to justify shutting them down. Discredit opposing media institutions, or at least instill enough doubt in common people that they feel they can't trust any media. Officially or unofficially feed stories to your chosen media institution. You don't have to shut down free speech when nobody believes what's being freely said.
All it takes to beat freedom of speech and freedom of the press is a few pages from a Psyops 101 textbook?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 02:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I've been thinking this in regards to the Roy Moore revelations. It's much easier to shake off a legitimate scandal when nobody believes those reporting the truth.
I think a more accurate assessment is the pepole in question just don’t care enough about it to sack their own agenda.

The same way they feel about a shitty president we’re all familiar with.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 17, 2017 at 03:49 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 02:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
In many of my examples, you started out with a state that had free speech such as the Weimar Republic and pre-Erdogan Turkey.
I’m not sure we’re using the same definition of free speech.

Wasn’t Hitler banned from public speaking? Erdoğan ended up in prison for reading a poem.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 02:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This deal keeps getting worse.
I claimed this was in the deal?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 03:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
All it takes to beat freedom of speech and freedom of the press is a few pages from a Psyops 101 textbook?
I mean, so far so good.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 03:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I mean, so far so good.
Yeah... at this rate, some day Trump will crack that 50% approval nut with it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,