I agree, I think it will be a revolution too. I'll see your "check to power" and raise you an "access to reality".
Think of all those things that people are afraid for others to know. Take Closeted gays, as just one example, running churches or for office, and railing against the evils of homosexuality. Their own lack of access to reality is what allows their hidden shame that kind of power... they were conditioned early, in a closed environment. But what happens when, for instance, with my wearable, 100% internet connected, broadcasting rig, I can know almost everything there is to know about you just by looking at you? Or, hearing about you? If I wanted to of course.
Beyond what it would do for research and such, I think the speed of social evolution will pick up dramatically. As, I believe, ignorance is the single biggest retarder of progress.
Hell, imagine a world where blackmail is IMPOSSIBLE because we all KNOW already.. or can, at any time!
Are there other writings about this? I've been fixated on the idea lately and, until now, not found anyone else seeing it this way.
But really.. we do not live in a world where your actions can in any possible way be seen as not affecting the rest of us. There are too many people, too close together.
Like it or not, we have to behave from a societal level of thinking. Scads of people running around doing whatever they think is right works alright when you have plenty of resources and space. You just can't do that in modern urban living though. Because, again like it or not, your actions do affect more than just you!
There are exceptions and caveats and we should always remain vigilant. But I would respectfully suggest that the libertarian leaning temper themselves with at least an acknowledgement that modern life has, by and large, gotten to the point where we do have to sometimes think about the group more than the individual. Agreed?
If they wouldn't die in their natural state, then what was the tree of everlasting life for? To keep them from dying ONLY IF they ate from the tree of knowledge?
Zip. Pee. Zip. it doesn't get any easier than that.
Why the heck would I want to undo my belt, button and zipper, pull down my pants, get into contact with a toilet that I don't have to get in contact with, stuff my penis down between my legs, and let backspray cover it in urinary mist from a close perspective, be totally unable to "shake" adequately (instead awkwardly bumping it from above with my fingertips), then get back up and redo the zipper/button belt?
I wipe things down if I miss. Frankly, I see spots on the rim I know damn well I didn't put there, and there are no other guys in the house (cue unfaithfulness jokes, har har).... I don't think girls are much better. The only thing is she won't ever accidentally pee on the floor, and if I do that because it's dark and I"m tired and not paying attention, you bet your ass that I'm the one who cleans it up.
Selfish? Maybe. But I pee four or five times a day at least.. I'm not doing all that if I don't have to. I'm more than happy to instead clean if I make a mess, which I don't usually, because aiming isn't all that hard. Once in awhile, it comes out cockeyed.. big deal. If you've ever had sex in your life or for that matter KISSED anyone with tongue, you've been exposed to a lot worse than a little urinary residue on a toilet rim. Get over yourself.
I agree to large part, but I think you're missing one point;
the "junk" foods such as soda and McDonalds, etc.. are addictive. Your body can adjust and can process it, great, but it can also CRAVE it to the exclusion of healthier options. The number of soda junkies I know... including myself at one time.. is pretty ridiculous. Yet even among the hardest core of vegans and vegetarians I know, very few "crave" carrot sticks. They enjoy them, but they are not addicted.
I firmly believe in eating a little of everything, including some junk, just to keep the body able to process a variety of things. But I have to note that as someone who gave up soda and sweets in general, I generally feel better now than I did when I was drinking soda to excess. Now, of course, the "excess" is the problem there.. but for me and I suspect for a lot of other people out there (perhaps those of us with addictive personalities) we have to pretty much abstain or we will crave the sugar rush and start eating the unhealthy foods to excess.
I do need to point out though that sugar is a drug of sorts, and getting "used" to it is another way of simply saying that you have built up a tolerance. I currently drink a pot of coffee a day.. if another person who didn't do that regularly tried, they'd get sick most likely (at least, if they were drinking my coffee they would..). Has my body "adapted" to it, or do I simply have a tolerance to a powerful stimulant?
I don't think it's that clear cut is all I'm trying to say, I suppose.
Can't we skip the middlemen, and let pilots and such pitch themselves directly to the audience?
If you're interested in a new season of firefly, well hey... pony up.
they wouldn't even necessarily need to finance the whole thing. Rather than the media moguls guessing at what is a "sure thing" and what isn't, they can see what kind of funding response potential shows get. Cross X threshold, and you're worth Y risk.
Just a thought.. but sooner or later, getting the audience directly involved has to be inevitable. The barrier to their participation at that stage is shrinking every day...
I'm not going to say this is the answer for a hydrogen economy.. I don't know much about it.
But, I do have to ask; why do you people act like the goal of a "hydrogen economy" is to be a net increaser of energy?
It takes energy to move gas and oil around too. Whether it takes more or less energy to move it around than you get from it though is irrelevant. The entire point of using it is that it is a concentrated, MOBILE form of energy storage.
That's what our society as it is currently structured needs.. mobile energy. Otherwise, we could all stay home and use that nice clean thorium fission energy and whatever else you like. But until we all decide to stay home, we need MOBILE energy, and batteries, in case you haven't noticed, suck.
Hydrogen is a possiblity to solve the mobility problem, not the net amount of available energy problem. No? Am I missing something?
That's entirely correct except for the "peacefully rounded up" part. with very little searching, you'll be able to find lots of footage of very peaceful, in fact stationary, sitting and chanting protestors being attacked with "truncheons, riot shields and mustard gas".
I'll tell you what. You tell me how much damage you would expect a 50,000 person RIOT to do in downtown seattle. Personally, I'm pretty sure if 50,000 people RIOTED, seattle would have been left a smoking ruin.
Then compare that to any accounts of real damage done. Pay attention to any pictures you find, make sure they aren't of the same few stores actually.
I think, if you aren't a fool, you'll realize that for a 50,000 protest, very, very little damage was done. The police freaked out, sure, but the protestors were very restrained. A handful of anarchists shouldn't discredit the entire protest, and wouldn't, if the media weren't strangely refusing to delve into the reasons for the protest in the first place and instead choosing to get all excited about a few starbucks windows.
That's definitely true. I personally have not grown up in a world where I am used to simply being able to easily search someone's history. But as time progresses, that will simply get easier and easier, inevitably, and the record will be more and more complete.
As that happens, I think exposue to truth will have some pretty strong effects on perceptions. Of course I am speculating. But I do think access to knowledge and truth can only cause good in the LONG run.
Yes, but what happens when the viewers too have already been through this data mining process, and have gotten to their positions in spite of it?
They will also know what it's like to have this record. They will understand a "statute of limitations". And you know what? Maybe, if you cheat on a game when you're 11 and someone else is exactly like you but they never ever consider cheating on games... just maybe they ARE a better candidate than you, even if you are competant and trustworthy. You learned not to get caught. They just hate breaking the rules. This position does not want people who want to break rules, even if they learned not to. You see?
I think there could be a transitional period where the decisionmakers have not had to be vetted via their own, open historical record, and the people vetted by it are.. but once we are through that period, and not even all the way through it... heck, we here on/. have mostly ten or 15 year internet records already, if we're old enough, regardless of our ages beyond that... then I think understanding as a whole will be increased and some of these fears will mean less.
But I do have to admit it's a bit scary here on the edge.
Yeah, but couldn't you make the arguement that sure, for this transitional generation things are a little weird.. we are USED to only having a small picture of the people around us, so most of the people we interact with are 10% substance and 90% assumptions we make about them.
But what happens, when you live in a world where the public face and history of everyone is available forever?
could it be, could it just be that it becomes clearer what REALLY IS ok and normal, and what effects those things REALLY HAVE on who people are... if any?
I mean, heck in ten years we're going to know about the old drinking and drugging habits of the people applying for higher paid and more powerful positions. More to the point.. we're going to know about ALL OF THE CANDIDATES' habits.. in comparison, we may just have to realize that people are human and maybe we'll have to start having realistic, human expectations of them, instead of faulting everyone for every "sin" they may have ever committed, should we find out about it.
They created nothing. They can strike down laws as unconstitutional which may have the side effect of legalizing something that was previously held to be illegal, but they cannot create law, that is the job of congress. The executive branch signs the law, and the supreme court can overturn the law... that's it.
What you mean is, no one should have to take responsibility for starting an unnecessary and failed war?
"Ooops, sorry! didn't mean to mess it up!"
It's a fucking WAR, jackass. If you're going to start one... when you're already in one, especially... you better be damn sure, not selectively filtering your CIA reports and LYING.
You know, colin powell? The UN? Yeah, the administration had been told all that was wrong already. He said it anyway. That's LYING. Very simple.
If a criminal abridges your rights.. you can go to the police. They may or may not be effective, but it's better than having no recourse. Of course, the criminal can kill you, but unless you're suggesting we jail anyone who might ever kill someone, well, we just have to live with that risk, right?
If the judicial system itself is knocking on your door... exactly where do you turn then? There may be other places to turn.. as long as you are not being held without charge, without bail, without a lawyer... but, when it's your word vs a law enforcement officer... who do you think gets benefit of the doubt?
And when the criminals are the law enforcement officers, who know exactly what is going on in law enforcement offices and circles, are they not in a position to be much more effective criminals than any "outsider" criminal could ever be?
You're right that we agree freedom and liberty are of paramount importance. But I am far less afraid of random acts of criminality than I am of institutionalized abuses of power. The level of power may be same against me on a personal level, but as a society, law enforcement going bad can have much larger effects than criminals can. Think sabotauge of the civil rights movements, Hoover's black lists, the current warrantless wiretapping... no thug in an alleyway can have that kind of effect on society as a whole, even if he can kill little old me just as well as a trigger happy beat cop.
to relate it to this story... could any criminal have ever besmirched the name of thousands of individuals, caused them personal harassment, even cost them jobs or driven them to suicide like this? Sure, some of them were probably guilty. But lots were not. What were the costs of this "bungle"?
and to be absolutely clear, I hold the vast majority of law enforcement officials in the highest regard. But they are not all clean, and the ones that are not can do a whole lot of damage. If you are entrusted with greater authority than most, then you must also be held to a much higher standard of personal behaviour and accountability than most. That seems pretty clear to me; do you agree?
Maybe that's because police "bungling it big time" is an inevitability, and the fallout to innocent people is so potentially great that it needs to be treated as seriously as possible?
The police like to complain about having their hands tied, and other complain about our military having their hands tied... and when we don't, we get this and Abu Ghraib.
This illustrates exactly why it is dangerous to assume that people with the power of sanctioned violence over regular people will handle that power responsibly. It is imperative that we always remember that they WILL NOT handle that power responsibly all the time, and when they don't, innocent people suffer, sometimes greatly, sometimes as far as having their lives ruined utterly.
Grave restrictions and oversight are requirements for police power in a free country. And exactly why the arguement "If you aren't doing anything wrong, X shouldn't bother you" does NOT hold up to scrutiney is illustrated... yet one more time... in this case.
Please remember this the next time someone wants power over your life with no accountability or oversight. Remember this specific example, and remember there are many, many others.
Games like Pac man and Tetris don't evolve as you play deeper, they just get harder. YOu have the same tools and abilitys on stage one that you have on stage 101. And in fact, not much changes other than the difficulty
Not so for most games. Most of the time, you are improving equipment, or gaining abilities or what have you, so the "avatar" you are controlling is significantly different by the end of the game.
This changes the game from "how can you interact" to "how can you get all the goodies". Once you get all the goodies, you play with them for awhile and move on. Mission accomplished.
I think there is something to both, but wouldn't it be interesting to, say, play a Tony Hawk type game where the focus wasn't improving your skater, you just had one big level, and you had, say, less time to get certain scores to go to the next level, or the scores needed increased, or the cops chasing you got faster;)
part of my response is I thought you were the original poster, given the way you replied to my comments to the OP. I apologize for my part of the confusion.
It's like this: if someone is saying "hey, what you're doing is oppressing me", it is almost irrelevant what your initial feeling on the matter is. It's not completely irrelevant, you're right, but still. You may not feel you are oppressing anyone. But you are not the one feeling oppressed.
While I believe you are correct regarding the responsibility of both side to develope perspective, I think the thing that is missing is that most of us do lack the detachment you're talking about on both sides of any issue, yes? The problem then is, who gets us to that point of perspective? Especially if there is a power differential, which I think is at the root of the issue, is it even possible to truly elevate the discussion without the consent of the more powerful? Perhaps.. but it's much harder and generally involves groups of people burning things.
To achieve this acceptable perspective, the "voiceless".. the less powerful.. need to be included. They do not conciously choose to be excluded. They are kept out by the powerful.. intentionally or not. Those of us with the advantages can MORE easily (if we are aware) choose not to beat everyone else over the head with our strengths, and instead step back and listen, then those without advantage can choose to force their way into our circles. We must choose to do this, because we are not qualified to understand this "acceptable perspective" until we have done so... we have never stepped outside of our own perspective. And even when we DO try to do this.. it's not easy. By definition it's outside of our current perspective... how do you escape that? You can, but it takes a lot of work to expand perspective. But until they are both explored and held up side by side, how can you compare, judge, assimilate, and generate this more universal stance?
Is then not clear why you are not qualified to judge intuitively the merit of another person's experience?
It sounds as if on some level we really agree... I hope I manage to put my finger on a misunderstanding or clarify something here, but I guess I can't say I know I have...
If you can recognize how you expect everyone to act like you, then you can take steps to instead let them be who they are, and still value their input as necessary.
I'm not here to nitpick about details. The entire point is that your post IS PROOF of discrimination... if someone does not act like you, you devalue their opinion. That is discrimination. How much more clearly can I put it?
I never said everyone was equal, especially not in all things. I never claimed that even remotely. What I am claiming is just this: simply because people do not act like you, and do not have the SAME advantages you have, does not mean that their input, or their point of view, is any less valid than yours. Their input or viewpoint MAY be less valid for OTHER reasons in specific circumstances.. and a hard core introvert may not be a good choice to do sales work.. but that doesn't make them less than you as a person in all circumstances, and it doesn't make it ok for you to automatically dismiss them because you don't understand their point of view, as you are doing right now.
Then, tell me how it's "crippling" you to ask if maybe it would be ok for you to listen rather than talk all the time? Is it "crippling" a big, strong man to tell him he can't hit people, even though he's perfectly capable of excercising that advantge over physically weaker people? So why should it be ANY DIFFERENT in a social or societal context? Why is it ok for you to "hit people" with your bias and then just shrug it off as if it were their fault instead of yours that you, and people like you, get to make all the decisions? As someone with the upper hand, should it not be you who takes the lead? Could they not have input that would be valuable, if it weren't squashed by a logistical advantage you have in communication, or status, or priviledge?
You can drop butterflies and bunny bullshit, by the way. I simply disagree with shrugging and saying we are who we are and fuck everyone else who can't do what we do. We can do better than that. And in doing so, you typically learn some things about yourself that are pretty valuable to know as well. So consider it enlightened self interest. Ayn Rand would be proud.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, I think it will be a revolution too. I'll see your "check to power" and raise you an "access to reality".
Think of all those things that people are afraid for others to know. Take Closeted gays, as just one example, running churches or for office, and railing against the evils of homosexuality. Their own lack of access to reality is what allows their hidden shame that kind of power... they were conditioned early, in a closed environment. But what happens when, for instance, with my wearable, 100% internet connected, broadcasting rig, I can know almost everything there is to know about you just by looking at you? Or, hearing about you? If I wanted to of course.
Beyond what it would do for research and such, I think the speed of social evolution will pick up dramatically. As, I believe, ignorance is the single biggest retarder of progress.
Hell, imagine a world where blackmail is IMPOSSIBLE because we all KNOW already.. or can, at any time!
Are there other writings about this? I've been fixated on the idea lately and, until now, not found anyone else seeing it this way.
I am an ex-libertarian myself, and I empathize.
But really.. we do not live in a world where your actions can in any possible way be seen as not affecting the rest of us. There are too many people, too close together.
Like it or not, we have to behave from a societal level of thinking. Scads of people running around doing whatever they think is right works alright when you have plenty of resources and space. You just can't do that in modern urban living though. Because, again like it or not, your actions do affect more than just you!
There are exceptions and caveats and we should always remain vigilant. But I would respectfully suggest that the libertarian leaning temper themselves with at least an acknowledgement that modern life has, by and large, gotten to the point where we do have to sometimes think about the group more than the individual. Agreed?
If they wouldn't die in their natural state, then what was the tree of everlasting life for? To keep them from dying ONLY IF they ate from the tree of knowledge?
A glorified blog is?
Are you serious?
Zip. Pee. Zip. it doesn't get any easier than that.
Why the heck would I want to undo my belt, button and zipper, pull down my pants, get into contact with a toilet that I don't have to get in contact with, stuff my penis down between my legs, and let backspray cover it in urinary mist from a close perspective, be totally unable to "shake" adequately (instead awkwardly bumping it from above with my fingertips), then get back up and redo the zipper/button belt?
I wipe things down if I miss. Frankly, I see spots on the rim I know damn well I didn't put there, and there are no other guys in the house (cue unfaithfulness jokes, har har).... I don't think girls are much better. The only thing is she won't ever accidentally pee on the floor, and if I do that because it's dark and I"m tired and not paying attention, you bet your ass that I'm the one who cleans it up.
Selfish? Maybe. But I pee four or five times a day at least.. I'm not doing all that if I don't have to. I'm more than happy to instead clean if I make a mess, which I don't usually, because aiming isn't all that hard. Once in awhile, it comes out cockeyed.. big deal. If you've ever had sex in your life or for that matter KISSED anyone with tongue, you've been exposed to a lot worse than a little urinary residue on a toilet rim. Get over yourself.
I agree to large part, but I think you're missing one point;
the "junk" foods such as soda and McDonalds, etc.. are addictive. Your body can adjust and can process it, great, but it can also CRAVE it to the exclusion of healthier options. The number of soda junkies I know... including myself at one time.. is pretty ridiculous. Yet even among the hardest core of vegans and vegetarians I know, very few "crave" carrot sticks. They enjoy them, but they are not addicted.
I firmly believe in eating a little of everything, including some junk, just to keep the body able to process a variety of things. But I have to note that as someone who gave up soda and sweets in general, I generally feel better now than I did when I was drinking soda to excess. Now, of course, the "excess" is the problem there.. but for me and I suspect for a lot of other people out there (perhaps those of us with addictive personalities) we have to pretty much abstain or we will crave the sugar rush and start eating the unhealthy foods to excess.
I do need to point out though that sugar is a drug of sorts, and getting "used" to it is another way of simply saying that you have built up a tolerance. I currently drink a pot of coffee a day.. if another person who didn't do that regularly tried, they'd get sick most likely (at least, if they were drinking my coffee they would..). Has my body "adapted" to it, or do I simply have a tolerance to a powerful stimulant?
I don't think it's that clear cut is all I'm trying to say, I suppose.
we're in a wired world now.
Can't we skip the middlemen, and let pilots and such pitch themselves directly to the audience?
If you're interested in a new season of firefly, well hey... pony up.
they wouldn't even necessarily need to finance the whole thing. Rather than the media moguls guessing at what is a "sure thing" and what isn't, they can see what kind of funding response potential shows get. Cross X threshold, and you're worth Y risk.
Just a thought.. but sooner or later, getting the audience directly involved has to be inevitable. The barrier to their participation at that stage is shrinking every day...
apparently I wasn't paying enough attention. apologies.
I'm not going to say this is the answer for a hydrogen economy.. I don't know much about it.
But, I do have to ask; why do you people act like the goal of a "hydrogen economy" is to be a net increaser of energy?
It takes energy to move gas and oil around too. Whether it takes more or less energy to move it around than you get from it though is irrelevant. The entire point of using it is that it is a concentrated, MOBILE form of energy storage.
That's what our society as it is currently structured needs.. mobile energy. Otherwise, we could all stay home and use that nice clean thorium fission energy and whatever else you like. But until we all decide to stay home, we need MOBILE energy, and batteries, in case you haven't noticed, suck.
Hydrogen is a possiblity to solve the mobility problem, not the net amount of available energy problem. No? Am I missing something?
that's funny, I would have said "peacefully" does not mean what you apparently think it does.
That's entirely correct except for the "peacefully rounded up" part. with very little searching, you'll be able to find lots of footage of very peaceful, in fact stationary, sitting and chanting protestors being attacked with "truncheons, riot shields and mustard gas".
But of course, you haven't bothered. Here you go.
Yeah, the WTO was a huge riot.
I'll tell you what. You tell me how much damage you would expect a 50,000 person RIOT to do in downtown seattle. Personally, I'm pretty sure if 50,000 people RIOTED, seattle would have been left a smoking ruin.
Then compare that to any accounts of real damage done. Pay attention to any pictures you find, make sure they aren't of the same few stores actually.
I think, if you aren't a fool, you'll realize that for a 50,000 protest, very, very little damage was done. The police freaked out, sure, but the protestors were very restrained. A handful of anarchists shouldn't discredit the entire protest, and wouldn't, if the media weren't strangely refusing to delve into the reasons for the protest in the first place and instead choosing to get all excited about a few starbucks windows.
Fair enough, I wasn't thinking literally there. I'm a metaphorical fool I guess ;)
That's definitely true. I personally have not grown up in a world where I am used to simply being able to easily search someone's history. But as time progresses, that will simply get easier and easier, inevitably, and the record will be more and more complete.
As that happens, I think exposue to truth will have some pretty strong effects on perceptions. Of course I am speculating. But I do think access to knowledge and truth can only cause good in the LONG run.
Yes, but what happens when the viewers too have already been through this data mining process, and have gotten to their positions in spite of it?
/. have mostly ten or 15 year internet records already, if we're old enough, regardless of our ages beyond that... then I think understanding as a whole will be increased and some of these fears will mean less.
They will also know what it's like to have this record. They will understand a "statute of limitations". And you know what? Maybe, if you cheat on a game when you're 11 and someone else is exactly like you but they never ever consider cheating on games... just maybe they ARE a better candidate than you, even if you are competant and trustworthy. You learned not to get caught. They just hate breaking the rules. This position does not want people who want to break rules, even if they learned not to. You see?
I think there could be a transitional period where the decisionmakers have not had to be vetted via their own, open historical record, and the people vetted by it are.. but once we are through that period, and not even all the way through it... heck, we here on
But I do have to admit it's a bit scary here on the edge.
Yeah, but couldn't you make the arguement that sure, for this transitional generation things are a little weird.. we are USED to only having a small picture of the people around us, so most of the people we interact with are 10% substance and 90% assumptions we make about them.
But what happens, when you live in a world where the public face and history of everyone is available forever?
could it be, could it just be that it becomes clearer what REALLY IS ok and normal, and what effects those things REALLY HAVE on who people are... if any?
I mean, heck in ten years we're going to know about the old drinking and drugging habits of the people applying for higher paid and more powerful positions. More to the point.. we're going to know about ALL OF THE CANDIDATES' habits.. in comparison, we may just have to realize that people are human and maybe we'll have to start having realistic, human expectations of them, instead of faulting everyone for every "sin" they may have ever committed, should we find out about it.
They created nothing. They can strike down laws as unconstitutional which may have the side effect of legalizing something that was previously held to be illegal, but they cannot create law, that is the job of congress. The executive branch signs the law, and the supreme court can overturn the law... that's it.
What you mean is, no one should have to take responsibility for starting an unnecessary and failed war?
"Ooops, sorry! didn't mean to mess it up!"
It's a fucking WAR, jackass. If you're going to start one... when you're already in one, especially... you better be damn sure, not selectively filtering your CIA reports and LYING.
You know, colin powell? The UN? Yeah, the administration had been told all that was wrong already. He said it anyway. That's LYING. Very simple.
and you don't care to address any of the examples of why I hold the fears I have in that particular order?
Exactly how is it that you expect basic criminal behaviour to ever rival the potential damage of a systemic abuse of power?
Recourse.
If a criminal abridges your rights.. you can go to the police. They may or may not be effective, but it's better than having no recourse. Of course, the criminal can kill you, but unless you're suggesting we jail anyone who might ever kill someone, well, we just have to live with that risk, right?
If the judicial system itself is knocking on your door... exactly where do you turn then? There may be other places to turn.. as long as you are not being held without charge, without bail, without a lawyer... but, when it's your word vs a law enforcement officer... who do you think gets benefit of the doubt?
And when the criminals are the law enforcement officers, who know exactly what is going on in law enforcement offices and circles, are they not in a position to be much more effective criminals than any "outsider" criminal could ever be?
You're right that we agree freedom and liberty are of paramount importance. But I am far less afraid of random acts of criminality than I am of institutionalized abuses of power. The level of power may be same against me on a personal level, but as a society, law enforcement going bad can have much larger effects than criminals can. Think sabotauge of the civil rights movements, Hoover's black lists, the current warrantless wiretapping... no thug in an alleyway can have that kind of effect on society as a whole, even if he can kill little old me just as well as a trigger happy beat cop.
to relate it to this story... could any criminal have ever besmirched the name of thousands of individuals, caused them personal harassment, even cost them jobs or driven them to suicide like this? Sure, some of them were probably guilty. But lots were not. What were the costs of this "bungle"?
and to be absolutely clear, I hold the vast majority of law enforcement officials in the highest regard. But they are not all clean, and the ones that are not can do a whole lot of damage. If you are entrusted with greater authority than most, then you must also be held to a much higher standard of personal behaviour and accountability than most. That seems pretty clear to me; do you agree?
Maybe that's because police "bungling it big time" is an inevitability, and the fallout to innocent people is so potentially great that it needs to be treated as seriously as possible?
The police like to complain about having their hands tied, and other complain about our military having their hands tied... and when we don't, we get this and Abu Ghraib.
This illustrates exactly why it is dangerous to assume that people with the power of sanctioned violence over regular people will handle that power responsibly. It is imperative that we always remember that they WILL NOT handle that power responsibly all the time, and when they don't, innocent people suffer, sometimes greatly, sometimes as far as having their lives ruined utterly.
Grave restrictions and oversight are requirements for police power in a free country. And exactly why the arguement "If you aren't doing anything wrong, X shouldn't bother you" does NOT hold up to scrutiney is illustrated... yet one more time... in this case.
Please remember this the next time someone wants power over your life with no accountability or oversight. Remember this specific example, and remember there are many, many others.
Games like Pac man and Tetris don't evolve as you play deeper, they just get harder. YOu have the same tools and abilitys on stage one that you have on stage 101. And in fact, not much changes other than the difficulty
;)
Not so for most games. Most of the time, you are improving equipment, or gaining abilities or what have you, so the "avatar" you are controlling is significantly different by the end of the game.
This changes the game from "how can you interact" to "how can you get all the goodies". Once you get all the goodies, you play with them for awhile and move on. Mission accomplished.
I think there is something to both, but wouldn't it be interesting to, say, play a Tony Hawk type game where the focus wasn't improving your skater, you just had one big level, and you had, say, less time to get certain scores to go to the next level, or the scores needed increased, or the cops chasing you got faster
rural maine, late 80's early 90's.
part of my response is I thought you were the original poster, given the way you replied to my comments to the OP. I apologize for my part of the confusion.
It's like this: if someone is saying "hey, what you're doing is oppressing me", it is almost irrelevant what your initial feeling on the matter is. It's not completely irrelevant, you're right, but still. You may not feel you are oppressing anyone. But you are not the one feeling oppressed.
While I believe you are correct regarding the responsibility of both side to develope perspective, I think the thing that is missing is that most of us do lack the detachment you're talking about on both sides of any issue, yes? The problem then is, who gets us to that point of perspective? Especially if there is a power differential, which I think is at the root of the issue, is it even possible to truly elevate the discussion without the consent of the more powerful? Perhaps.. but it's much harder and generally involves groups of people burning things.
To achieve this acceptable perspective, the "voiceless".. the less powerful.. need to be included. They do not conciously choose to be excluded. They are kept out by the powerful.. intentionally or not. Those of us with the advantages can MORE easily (if we are aware) choose not to beat everyone else over the head with our strengths, and instead step back and listen, then those without advantage can choose to force their way into our circles. We must choose to do this, because we are not qualified to understand this "acceptable perspective" until we have done so... we have never stepped outside of our own perspective. And even when we DO try to do this.. it's not easy. By definition it's outside of our current perspective... how do you escape that? You can, but it takes a lot of work to expand perspective. But until they are both explored and held up side by side, how can you compare, judge, assimilate, and generate this more universal stance?
Is then not clear why you are not qualified to judge intuitively the merit of another person's experience?
It sounds as if on some level we really agree... I hope I manage to put my finger on a misunderstanding or clarify something here, but I guess I can't say I know I have...
If you can recognize how you expect everyone to act like you, then you can take steps to instead let them be who they are, and still value their input as necessary.
I'm not here to nitpick about details. The entire point is that your post IS PROOF of discrimination... if someone does not act like you, you devalue their opinion. That is discrimination. How much more clearly can I put it?
I never said everyone was equal, especially not in all things. I never claimed that even remotely. What I am claiming is just this: simply because people do not act like you, and do not have the SAME advantages you have, does not mean that their input, or their point of view, is any less valid than yours. Their input or viewpoint MAY be less valid for OTHER reasons in specific circumstances.. and a hard core introvert may not be a good choice to do sales work.. but that doesn't make them less than you as a person in all circumstances, and it doesn't make it ok for you to automatically dismiss them because you don't understand their point of view, as you are doing right now.
Then, tell me how it's "crippling" you to ask if maybe it would be ok for you to listen rather than talk all the time? Is it "crippling" a big, strong man to tell him he can't hit people, even though he's perfectly capable of excercising that advantge over physically weaker people? So why should it be ANY DIFFERENT in a social or societal context? Why is it ok for you to "hit people" with your bias and then just shrug it off as if it were their fault instead of yours that you, and people like you, get to make all the decisions? As someone with the upper hand, should it not be you who takes the lead? Could they not have input that would be valuable, if it weren't squashed by a logistical advantage you have in communication, or status, or priviledge?
You can drop butterflies and bunny bullshit, by the way. I simply disagree with shrugging and saying we are who we are and fuck everyone else who can't do what we do. We can do better than that. And in doing so, you typically learn some things about yourself that are pretty valuable to know as well. So consider it enlightened self interest. Ayn Rand would be proud.