Thanks. But I think it's a little indicative of what happens with these types of story. They get passed around the alternative groups on FB, everyone comments "fucking pigs!", and eventually the reduced version of the story becomes the story, because that's what people expect from cops now. Because of the rhetoric.
I mean if you assume there's about to be violent takeover of the population, surely you are taking some precautions? Heading for the hills? Stocking up on guns? Moving to France?
I don't assume "violent takeover", that's just you playing a little game. What I do assume is criminal intent and criminal malfeasance on the part of the government. I make this assumption because it is prudent to do so. In this it is better to assume and be wrong than it is to naively trust and then find out the hard way what a fool you were.
I don't assume "violent takeover", that's just you playing a little game. What I do assume is criminal intent and criminal malfeasance on the part of the government. I make this assumption because it is prudent to do so. In this it is better to assume and be wrong than it is to naively trust and then find out the hard way what a fool you were.
That's like when cops kill someone and people ask why they didn't shoot him in the arm or shoot the gun out of his hand. Life is not a Clint Eastwood movie.
That's like when cops kill someone and people ask why they didn't shoot him in the arm or shoot the gun out of his hand. Life is not a Clint Eastwood movie.
People forget that police are trained to shoot at the center mass. That is the most efficient way to shoot someone, and it is the easiest target. Besides I'm sure if the police shot people in the legs or arms, you would see people getting angry at the police permanently crippling people.
Dr. Daniel Kennedy, an expert on police force, told Business Insider that if police had shot at Carey's tires they likely would have missed. In that case, Kennedy said, the bullet could have ricocheted on the ground or off the vehicle itself and possibly injured somebody else.
"Same reason they don't shoot a gun out of a bad guy's hand," Kennedy told BI in an email message. "Police only hit maybe 20% [of the time] where they try to in a fluid situation."
Indeed, other experts have cautioned police against shooting out tires, including criminologist Rick Parent. Here's what Parent had to say on the subject in an article posted by the Police Policy Studies Council:
One of the more frequent police injuries appears to be caused when officers attempt to 'shoot out the tires' of suspect vehicles. The automobile and the wheels that it rests upon are largely made of steel. The concrete or asphalt roadway that the vehicle rests upon serve to further compound the situation. When a high speed lead bullet is discharged in the general area of a vehicle, ricochets and metal fragments abound. Unlike the scenes depicted by 'Hollywood', the 'shooting out of a tire' can be a precarious and dangerous event.[ex/]
The world isn't a very reasonable place and most of the time the evidence isn't made available to the general public, so the only option you're really left with is trust. My approach is not at all paranoid, it is merely prudent given that misplaced trust could carry dreadful consequences.
All I want is to live in a nice peaceful secular social democracy with a strong rule of law and high degree of transparency. That's not so unreasonable.
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Pretty accurate. What I also see is endless spawning of generations of state+corporate apologists deeply in love with their servitude to the point biting the hand trying to free them from the leash around their neck.
Fascism does tend to creep, but if you're paying attention it's not too difficult to stay a step or two ahead of it. If it finally catches up with me then I guess I'll be under the boot and that will be that.
Pretty accurate. What I also see is endless spawning of generations of state+corporate apologists deeply in love with their servitude to the point biting the hand trying to free them from the leash around their neck.
You bring up a good point. What to do about it? This may be why so many folks turn a blind eye to it or dismiss it. Not because they don't care or can't see it, but because of a sense of helplessness and outrage fatigue. Even many of the rabid patriot types ready to fight fire with fire realize it's a losing battle ultimately.
Conversely fatigue could be why so many people dismiss the rabid patriot types. For the last hundred plus years changes as diverse as the development of labor unions and the availability of personal computers have been heralded as a sign that the government is on the verge of a fascist/communist/socialist takeover and all of our freedoms are about to disappear. The predictions have eventually come to naught only to be put forth in a new form by a new generation. While they may get your attention at first, eventually you start ignoring the guy with the sandwich board that say "The End Is Nigh".
Pretty accurate. What I also see is endless spawning of generations of state+corporate apologists deeply in love with their servitude to the point biting the hand trying to free them from the leash around their neck.
Thanks. But I think it's a little indicative of what happens with these types of story. They get passed around the alternative groups on FB, everyone comments "fucking pigs!", and eventually the reduced version of the story becomes the story, because that's what people expect from cops now. Because of the rhetoric.
The rhetoric certainly is a driver of the narrative no doubt. But I'm not and have never been a "fucking pigs" kind of guy. I see them as victims of the same manipulation as the citizenry. That said, they are victims with a lot of power over those they too often victimize and that is the problem as I see it--the endless divide and conquer dynamic that allows the bastards up the food chain to go about their business while the culture wars churns the chum. It's a time honored tactic and works like a dream.
Conversely fatigue could be why so many people dismiss the rabid patriot types. For the last hundred plus years changes as diverse as the development of labor unions and the availability of personal computers have been heralded as a sign that the government is on the verge of a fascist/communist/socialist takeover and all of our freedoms are about to disappear. The predictions have eventually come to naught only to be put forth in a new form by a new generation. While they may get your attention at first, eventually you start ignoring the guy with the sandwich board that say "The End Is Nigh".
The doomsday next Tuesday rhetoric does cause fatigue and an inevitable tuning out, doesn't it? But it cuts both ways, as can be seen with global warming, er, excuse me, climate change. Still, amidst the hysteria wafting up from whatever direction, there has certainly been an increasing loss of liberty and a tightening of controls by the state.
The endless -ist lists do muddy the waters, don't they? Reduced to their core, it's the same individual vs. the collective dynamic under whatever name. Communitarian seems to be the going term these days. Regardless of how you label it, the push towards a two-tier system goes on unabated. It used to be called the death of the middle class, now folks term it the NWO, but it's the same OWO as far as I can see, doing its best to shake off the individual liberties aberration that gummed up the works for a while there.
One example is the media and the government (meant to protect us) protecting corporate and military power. Those who expose the truth painted as traitors and charged under Espionage Act.
One example is the media and the government (meant to protect us) protecting corporate and military power. Those who expose the truth painted as traitors and charged under Espionage Act.
Government has proven time and time again throughout history the world over to be untrustworthy, deceptive, corrupt, oppressive, and violent. Who in their right mind gives any government the benefit of the doubt?
There are many levels and branches of government involving millions of people. Whenever someone talks of "the government" I feel they're anthropomorphizing it as if government was a single consciousness that moves with purpose towards a single goal. Define what you mean by "the government".
For all the bad that comes from governments (of all types) do you not agree that there is also a fair bit of good? If, in fact, governments are capable of both good and evil, why assume either as a default position? That's why I say that I prefer to base my conclusions on evidence and leave assumptions out of it.
The whole line of reasoning in this thread about creeping fascism is also a little vague. I find it leaves a lot of wiggle room for hand waving and shifting goal posts. It reminds me of the "slow kill" depopulation arguments from the chemtrail crowd. They never quite explain the "slow kill", when it started, the rate of depopulation, or anything of substance but list examples of government misconduct.
Perhaps start a new thread with very clear claims of evidence.
An example of how the media is not there to expose the truth but rather to cover it up and protect the interests hurt by it. All the coverage centered on Edward Snowden being a traitor and a leaker, how he's a high school drop out and other non-stop ad hominem attacks rather than coverage of what was actually exposed with few exceptions (Glen Greenwald & Post).
Some of the media and some of the ill-deeds, at least. I think the charge that the msm has lost much of its traditional adversarial role is not without merit. They may play catch up or jump onboard as a situation develops, but it certainly doesn't seem like they are interested in leading the charge.
There also seems to be an inordinate amount of soft-peddling and deflection, as the coverage of Obamacare has illustated well. "Misspoke," NYT? Really?
An example of how the media is not there to expose the truth but rather to cover it up and protect the interests hurt by it. All the coverage centered on Edward Snowden being a traitor and a leaker, how he's a high school drop out and other non-stop ad hominem attacks rather than coverage of what was actually exposed with few exceptions (Glen Greenwald & Post).
That's nonsense, there has been MASSIVE coverage of the NSA allegations. I've hardly heard anything about Snowden's personal life since the initial story broke.
There are many levels and branches of government involving millions of people. Whenever someone talks of "the government" I feel they're anthropomorphizing it as if government was a single consciousness that moves with purpose towards a single goal.
Maybe it is my age, that makes me less worried. I was in my late teens, early twenties during the Viet Nam/Watergate era. I remember the 'government' doing some nasty things. And yet, they were revealed and the powerful fell.
In any group, there are those that will take advantage of the sitution for their benefit or to promote personal agendas. Those are the folks that tend to get the most attention, even though there are many more doing the right thing.
PETA makes all animal groups look like radical activists, however most of the REAL groups dislike PETA. Thousands of them are out there rescuing animals and getting little attention for it.
....but it's the same OWO as far as I can see, doing its best to shake off the individual liberties aberration that gummed up the works for a while there.
Is this just your take, or are there specific oppositions to individual liberties that you can show?
And what are these culture wars you keep mentioning?
The Patriot Act, gun control, stop and frisk, no-fly lists, warrantless wiretaps, NSA communications collection, Cosntitution-Free Zones, 1st amendment breaches, nanny state measures, things of that nature.
And what are these culture wars you keep mentioning?
In broad terms, the conservative/progressive values debate/food fight, identity politics, victim politics, pc coercion, things of that nature. The culture wars spur much of the rhetoric that drives the narrative that drives the events.
Er, sorry, but that's exactly what it is. If you want to make a point, then you'll need to be specific. Perhaps take some time to acquaint yourself with how this forum works - it's not the same as the youtube comments section.
The Patriot Act, gun control, stop and frisk, no-fly lists, warrantless wiretaps, NSA communications collection, Cosntitution-Free Zones, 1st amendment breaches, nanny state measures, things of that nature.
But that's not conclusive evidence that there is dismay at individual liberties threatening an old order, that's just your way of interpreting those things.
Can you give examples of actual opposition to social liberty - statements that it is a threat to themselves and their interests?
In broad terms, the conservative/progressive values debate/food fight, identity politics, victim politics, pc coercion, things of that nature. The culture wars spur much of the rhetoric that drives the narrative that drives the events.
I think 'culture war' is just a phrase used for anything where there are two sides to an issue - it was used in Australia to describe the teaching of the decimation of aboriginal culture versus the more white-washed' traditional' version.
It's used as a debate tactic that ignores the real issue and twists it into a supposed agenda to discredit it.
The Patriot Act, gun control, stop and frisk, no-fly lists, warrantless wiretaps, NSA communications collection, Cosntitution-Free Zones, 1st amendment breaches, nanny state measures, things of that nature.
In broad terms, the conservative/progressive values debate/food fight, identity politics, victim politics, pc coercion, things of that nature. The culture wars spur much of the rhetoric that drives the narrative that drives the events.
Gun control? Are you shitting me? You can buy assault weapons, fully auto-rifles, etc. in the US? Where's the control? Certainly not at gun fairs. And what, exactly, are 'nanny state measures'? And things of that nature. You've been on here long enough to know that you need more than vague terms to make a point. Also, what do you mean by pc coercion?
But that's not conclusive evidence that there is dismay at individual liberties threatening an old order, that's just your way of interpreting those things.
You asked for examples of specific oppositions to individual liberties. I gave you examples of areas where individual liberties are under attack. If you wanted conclusive evidence that there is dismay at individual liberties threatening an old order you should have asked for it as that's an entirely different matter.
Can you give examples of actual opposition to social liberty - statements that it is a threat to themselves and their interests?
Ok, so maybe you don't know what it means after all. It's not a tactic; it's a common descriptive term, just like scientism. It has nothing to do with ignoring the "real issue" or twisting or discrediting anything. It describes a body of ongoing issues in the cultural mileu. Where you or I stand on any of those issues or whatever anyone's agenda may be is irrelevant as to whether the issues being described exist. They do. If one wants to point to them, the term "culture wars" is useful way to do so.
[From wiki:] Nanny state is a term of British origin (and primary use) that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.
My terms weren't vague and I wasn't making a point beyond answering a request for examples of individual liberties being opposed and what the culture wars were.
Ok, we have a Gish Gallop of laws you do not like.
Why don't you pick one and let's discuss it.
I don't see the gun control you are talking about. I can open my Sunday newspaper and find colored sale ads for a multitude of guns, not just hunting guns either.
