There's an upside to this. It can be used politically as an argument against backdoors for "lawful access"[1] to encrypted data.
replies(6):
https://apnews.com/article/congress-data-breach-hack-identit...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#%22Hig...
The way the system is supposed to work is that engaged citizenry actively overhaul unjust laws and apparatuses, and the police then enforce those new laws.
Unfortunately we have abysmally low civic engagement in most of the western world which leads to the mess we are currently in.
I like to make fun of the French as much as anyone else but I really respect and admire the French people's propensity for protest and to stand up for what they believe. That's advanced citizenship in action.
By the time millennials and gen z are running the place, we’ll have moved on to misunderstanding AI or something like that.
Source: observing last 25 years of US politics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence...
I'm pretty sure a lot of lawmakers still take this shit seriously.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/11/medical-data-h...
I'll agree that the citizens of France feel empowered while Americans feel disempowered. And empowerment is a natural consequence of identification with control of larger structures.
Most Americans don't feel like they have any control over larger structures in their countries.
It's also completely ineffective, because the government can just ignore them when they get bored, and they don't actually get voted out or anything.
This is called "working the refs" or "talking their book".
Americans' main interest in local government is blocking new housing project to pump their property values. So no matter what happens they just say there weren't enough meetings about it and the project needs to be cancelled because it didn't get community input.
You don't have to believe them on larger political topics for the same reason you don't have to believe them here.
We continue to elect charismatic fools (and sometimes charismatic criminals) because we're charmed, or scared, or bewildered, or just too damned tired to care.
Until that stops, there's really no justification for expecting anything rational to come from our leadership.
Ironic considering the gun narrativr
A half dozen people testifying that our last president was a serial rapist?
The head of the Supreme Court whining that when congress appoints a probable rapist to the court, the double standard is that the court should be above politics, and not comment on such things, but the press covers it anyway?
At least two of those things actually made the news yesterday.
I’m really not able to think of anything sufficiently salacious to get any more shit on the fan.
If you want a rep to know your opinion on something you can call them.
The point of a protest is for when they're not listening to you, which is why they feature more in not-officially-democratic politics like dictatorships. But for that to work, it has to be so large they can't ignore you. (Otherwise, if they're small and still work through being annoying it's minority rule, which isn't democratic. But like I said that doesn't happen because you can just ignore them.)
All politics depends on popular support because your subjects can either leave the country or have you killed if they really don't like you. Democratic politics means there's official channels for exercising this by voting instead of having to do this.
Also if you need another recent example you could reference Dianne Feinstein.
You'll be disappointed then. The French are protesting for benefits and not for social change. Aka, they are not better than the police they are engaging with.
Have we lived in the same past few years? At this point, if one of them turns out to be an actual baby-eating reptilian, he'll still get keep his fucking seat next election, as long as he has the right letter next to his name, while the party that professes to hate baby-eaters will keep voting for him.
If you have no shame, scandal slides off you like water off a duck's back.
And I don't recall anyone calling the Clinton emails a Russian anything, unless you think that the people building the case against her were compromised.
I do recall that someone ran on a campaign of prosecuting her for it, but somehow, that was forgotten right as soon as the words left his mouth...
As for facts even without the recent "alternate facts" the truth is you can easily come to radically different conclusions even based on the same facts.
Facts aren't facts basically :)
Especially the unethical and downright criminals, who put all their effort into putting on a fake legitimate facade.
> Just because people are "good and decent" doesn't mean that the outcomes they support are thus.
That's exactly what many on the right think of leftist policies. That the bulk of sustainable and healthy solutions should come from the grassroots, and that many government interventions are unsustainable and have profound unintended negative consequences that aren't fully appreciated by the calculus of the left.
I'm sure that's true, but those people aren't being voted for. Those people aren't in power and as long as people are voting for literal Nazis there is no discussion to be had. Can't have a rational discussion with people who don't believe you should even exist.
my tinfoil hatted guess? china this past week had talks with FR, RU, BR and others. they probably got 3+ favors in exchange of this leak.
Or, someone wanted to blacklist someone else's key without a public name and included it in this leak. i wouldn't doubt MSI, intel and safe-pc-for-criminals-r-us keys happen to be present there.
The most recent research suggests partisanship, esp negative partisanship, is rooted in identity. Which is to say facts, beliefs, positions are besides the point.
There have been many more recent follow ups, but the two books I read were Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels, and Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein.
As a recovering activist, this has been very hard for me to accept and adjust to. What hope is there if discourse and persuasion don't, can't work? I have no clue.
So I just focus on the work.
YMMV.
Actually, I think there is one - government media. CBC/BBC/etc should cover these instead of covering them up. If they represented the citizens voices honestly, they might not feel they have to blockade parliament to get their point across.
> Democratic politics means there's official channels for exercising this by voting instead of having to do this.
That breaks down a bit when your media only presents one side of certain issues.
There's no requirement for corporate media to be honest, but for state media paid for by the citizens that's basically its only purpose.
> If you want a rep to know your opinion on something you can call them.
You can contact them, but if you can't do it in public others won't know and they can basically kill issues by just ignoring them.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/old-school-pharmacy-hand...
[2] https://nypost.com/2017/10/11/pharmacist-hints-some-congress...
We need to steelman the views of our countrymen, not mock them.
Think of what they'd say about your side if the tables were turned.