P
Or maybe we keep calling them monsters, because that's what they are. We *couldn't* be them, we *wouldn't* try to have a pre-school child deported. We shouldn't tolerate their poison amongst us.
We just have to recalibrate our intuition about how many monsters there are, is all. Just because they do normal jobs and wear a normal face doesn't mean they are us.
@bjn @Remittancegirl @angusm @cstross
Yeah, but all the things they aren't saying out loud yet are more of the same turned up to 11.
They want to do a smash and grab to loot the country, and maybe aren't openly admitting the intent to grab, but all they're offering is the smash.
@Remittancegirl @angusm @cstross
They're trapped by a politics of negativity. They don't want to build, nourish, invest, research, create. It's all ban this, cancel that, withdraw from any kind of cooperation, stop the boats, cut taxes, cut regulations. They're full of ideas to stop doing things or go back to an imagined past, haven't got the most rudimentary idea of a positive thing to start doing or a way to move forwards.
Also they're super racist and creepy around women and children.
If they *were* just a death cult that would also be true.
Not saying it's that simple, but if someone said "Look out, that death cult is coming to get us" I don't think "But they only want to kill people like us, not themselves" would be responsive to the situation. Which is why I think *from outside the cult* there's no important terminological distinction.
If they could be reasoned with, you could apply reason to their goals as they perceive them, yes.
They're aligned with all the other anti-human movements on the right (anti immigration, forced birth, fuck everything to fulfil the prophesies in Revelations, cops do murders whenever they like, healthcare for profit, prisons for profit) so death cult is a convenient shorthand.
Whenever a new policy question comes up that hasn't been assigned to Woke or MAGA yet, MAGA will pick the option with more death a statistically significant amount of the time.
@HighlandLawyer @Fonant @david_chisnall @cstross
Exactly this.
A bad law isn't one that states its own intention to be abused, it's one that doesn't include specific concrete measures to prevent abuse, because the intent to abuse will surely come along soon enough, like it always has.
@socketwench
HTTP vs Predator is the field of Infosec.
@Seclusion5500 @jzb
You need a whole lot of text to tell some people the problem is capitalism, because if you just say that without context, they roll their eyes and never give it another thought. If you say how the problem functions and let them realise its name for themselves, it sticks.
@nicol @internetsdairy @TheBreadmonkey
The laws as they stand now are:
1. A robot must say it won't harm a human and must apologise sycophantically after it does.
2. A robot must approximately obey the orders of a human and apologise sycophantically after it doesn't.
3. A robot must preserve shareholder value, superseding laws 1 and 2.
@EndicottAuthor @anolandria
But another way of looking at it is, fascists don't care about protest that doesn't come with consequences for them. They don't care how many people say what they're doing is wrong if nobody is going to stop them doing it.
Nonviolent governments can be swayed by nonviolent protest - it's a negotiation of social norms in that case. But ultimately, protest is supposed to put government on notice that direct action to thwart them may be next.
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn — ‘And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went o...
(www.goodreads.com)