Re: Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
People also always leave out a key detail: protecting individual liberty from government tyranny is not just the purpose of the second amendment, it's the purpose of the entire bill of rights. And even if it were possible to resist a modern, developed government by force (which I agree is an unrealistic proposition, whether or not people want to admit it) there's a much, much more powerful tool to use long before things get to that point - speech and assembly, as guaranteed by the first amendment.
Even if things truly reached stormtroopers-kicking-down-the-doors levels of widespread government tyranny, I'd rather have a smartphone than a gun. And indeed the government would have a much, much tougher time truly strangling all communication and internet access in the country than they would putting down any armed civilian resistance.
Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
One criminal kills another criminal over territory. Say two gangs are fighting for control. For this kind of killing, I really don't care.
Well, personally, I still care. No, perhaps not in exactly the same way as I care about kids being gunned down in their schools - though if one or both of the criminals in question are, say, poor teenagers trapped in horrible neighbourhoods and indoctrinated into gang life as children, then it's not that far off. And even if they aren't, and I have no real personal empathy for the individuals involved, I still file it under "things that can, should and will become rare if we commit ourselves to building a better world."
Folks who already tried to listen all the way through may have noticed the ending of the podcast was cut off! Our apologies - we've fixed that now. You only missed a few minutes, but you can re-download it if you want to hear the rest.
There is a fundamental issue with the core of everything you say here:
You think it is a simple "fact" whether something is a democracy.
Sorry, democracy is a subjective term, and there's plenty of debate over what it actually means. And honestly, I don't even give much of a shit about that debate. You're the only one who does. You want to talk about the many many problems with the US government? You want to talk about the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, the prison industrial complex, the war on drugs, government surveillance? Great! I think all of those are extremely serious issues too. (Not so sure about listing "having a Constitution" alongside those things, but hey, to each his own I guess. You must *really* hate America, which is fine - I'm not even American, and not a fan of mindless patriotism.)
But, you don't want to talk about those issues, do you? You wan't to berate people for even using the word "democracy" when talking about a government that, whether you like it or not, does indeed have many democratic components and has certain key principles of democracy ensconced in its supreme laws (i.e. that Constitution thing that you hate).
So make your little snide remarks about my intellectual capacity all you want. I know you think you're making brilliant, intelligent observations about the US, but I don't think very many people see it that way.
Yes, when I've decided I have nothing but contempt for someone's intellectual dishonesty or closed-mindedness, I make my mockery explicit and obvious. I guess other people prefer to say things like "I am just trying to help people to be less ignorant"
Settle down man. We get it, you're a brilliant revolutionary, tearing down our illusions and blah blah blah.
Guess what: nobody here is oblivious to the huge problems that exist in America's systems of government, or to the fact that democratic principles are frequently compromised by those problems.
They just aren't interested in your little narcissistic crusade about whether to use the word democracy or not. But sure dude, if it makes you happy: you sound *super* cool and smart and insightful and edgy everything, great job.
Um no, it's an extremely basic political science 101 argument. I'm starting to get an idea of what your knowledge level is on these topics, that's for sure...
You're not "trying to stop ignorance", you're obsessing over a symbolic issue.
There is no disagreement here about the components of the US government or how they function. There isn't any debate either. Everyone is on the same page, with the same knowledge. You are just engaging in a gigantic argument over whether it's appropriate to apply one specific term to that government in any context - a term, I might add, that has no single monolithic consensus definition (hint: literally nobody who is seriously studying any field other than lexicography gets so obsessed with what the dictionary says about their specialty terms).
See, if the courts couldn't overturn the decisions of the elected representatives, then that would mean that elected representatives are above the law - and that would disqualify a government from being called a democracy.
Almost every single political scientist in the world agrees that the rule of law, and a court system for administering it, is in fact **a critical part** of a democracy. In fact it's one of the few widespread items of consensus on what the definition of democracy even is.
lol dammit... I was so proud of myself for remembering it had to be 2013 not 2012 anymore, I didn't pay attention to what I actually *typed* apparently. Fixed, thanks!
Comcast could make the claim, based on economically sound principles, that prices had to be raised to make up for the loss of revenue due to "cord cutting" customers.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
Even if things truly reached stormtroopers-kicking-down-the-doors levels of widespread government tyranny, I'd rather have a smartphone than a gun. And indeed the government would have a much, much tougher time truly strangling all communication and internet access in the country than they would putting down any armed civilian resistance.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Swap out the encryption for gun control .
One criminal kills another criminal over territory. Say two gangs are fighting for control. For this kind of killing, I really don't care.
Well, personally, I still care. No, perhaps not in exactly the same way as I care about kids being gunned down in their schools - though if one or both of the criminals in question are, say, poor teenagers trapped in horrible neighbourhoods and indoctrinated into gang life as children, then it's not that far off. And even if they aren't, and I have no real personal empathy for the individuals involved, I still file it under "things that can, should and will become rare if we commit ourselves to building a better world."
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 156: Disrupting Google
Clipped Ending
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: February 4th - 10th
Re: Fifteen years ago.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: the word "Freedom" != the word "Democracy"
10:31am - "You can be free in a despotism if the despot says you are free!"
12:23pm - "Don't mix up Freedom with Government Granted Rights."
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You think it is a simple "fact" whether something is a democracy.
Sorry, democracy is a subjective term, and there's plenty of debate over what it actually means. And honestly, I don't even give much of a shit about that debate. You're the only one who does. You want to talk about the many many problems with the US government? You want to talk about the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, the prison industrial complex, the war on drugs, government surveillance? Great! I think all of those are extremely serious issues too. (Not so sure about listing "having a Constitution" alongside those things, but hey, to each his own I guess. You must *really* hate America, which is fine - I'm not even American, and not a fan of mindless patriotism.)
But, you don't want to talk about those issues, do you? You wan't to berate people for even using the word "democracy" when talking about a government that, whether you like it or not, does indeed have many democratic components and has certain key principles of democracy ensconced in its supreme laws (i.e. that Constitution thing that you hate).
So make your little snide remarks about my intellectual capacity all you want. I know you think you're making brilliant, intelligent observations about the US, but I don't think very many people see it that way.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guess what: nobody here is oblivious to the huge problems that exist in America's systems of government, or to the fact that democratic principles are frequently compromised by those problems.
They just aren't interested in your little narcissistic crusade about whether to use the word democracy or not. But sure dude, if it makes you happy: you sound *super* cool and smart and insightful and edgy everything, great job.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it is the fact that it has VETO POWER over law itself through the power to declare it unconstitutional
Get ready, I'm about to blow your mind:
The constitution is a legal document - a part of "the law". The "supreme law" in fact.
And who has the power to change the constitution?
Oh right: elected representatives
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no disagreement here about the components of the US government or how they function. There isn't any debate either. Everyone is on the same page, with the same knowledge. You are just engaging in a gigantic argument over whether it's appropriate to apply one specific term to that government in any context - a term, I might add, that has no single monolithic consensus definition (hint: literally nobody who is seriously studying any field other than lexicography gets so obsessed with what the dictionary says about their specialty terms).
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, if the courts couldn't overturn the decisions of the elected representatives, then that would mean that elected representatives are above the law - and that would disqualify a government from being called a democracy.
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't read much, do you?
On the post: Publisher Not At All Impressed By Trump's Defamation Threat Letter; Promises To Defend The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you're so obsessed with the dictionary, it's weird you never looked up the dictionary definition of "democracy":
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 31st - January 6th
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 31st - January 6th
Re:
On the post: Comcast & The Cable Industry Greets The New Year With A Flurry Of Price Increases
Re: flip side
Comcast could make the claim, based on economically sound principles, that prices had to be raised to make up for the loss of revenue due to "cord cutting" customers.
The words "downward spiral" come to mind...
Next >>