←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
torginus ◴[] No.45011561[source]
I genuinely do not understand where how the idea of building a total surveillance police state, where all speech is monitored, can even as much as seriously be considered by an allegedly pro-democracy, pro-human rights government, much less make it into law.

Also:

Step 1: Build mass surveillance to prevent the 'bad guys' from coming into political power (its ok, we're the good guys).

Step 2: Your political opponents capitalize on your genuinely horrific overreach, and legitimize themselves in the eyes of the public as fighting against tyranny (unfortunately for you they do have a point). They promise to dismantle the system if coming to power.

Step 3: They get elected.

Step 4: They don't dismantle the system, now the people you planned to use the system against are using it against you.

Sounds brilliant, lets do this.

replies(17): >>45011763 #>>45011799 #>>45011932 #>>45012205 #>>45012358 #>>45012512 #>>45012976 #>>45013249 #>>45013303 #>>45013857 #>>45014035 #>>45014477 #>>45014527 #>>45014559 #>>45016358 #>>45020627 #>>45021408 #
luke727 ◴[] No.45011932[source]
The thing you have to understand is that the average Brit wants and possibly needs the government to tell them how to live their lives. It's a completely foreign paradigm to the average American, though alarming "progress" has been made on the American front as of late.
replies(8): >>45011972 #>>45012013 #>>45012249 #>>45012258 #>>45012369 #>>45012965 #>>45013164 #>>45014618 #
_nada[dead post] ◴[] No.45012249[source]
[flagged]
luke727 ◴[] No.45012353[source]
My comment provoked you enough to create an account just to make a throwaway insult reply to it. I think perhaps it hit closer to home than you would care to acknolwedge.
replies(2): >>45012415 #>>45012622 #
1. _nada ◴[] No.45012622[source]
As with your initial comment, none of these assertions are correct.

This is not a throwaway account or comment - it is my first and only HN account.

The comment I made was not an insult, but was made to flag the ignorance and stupidity of yours - maybe take a look at the subreddit and see if you can see some parallels. If you have taken it as an insult then that's fine.

replies(1): >>45012813 #
2. luke727 ◴[] No.45012813[source]
Well, I offered my observations and a few people agreed with me to varying degrees. You asserted I'm wrong, ignorant, and stupid. Perhaps that is true; it is not, however, an argument.
replies(1): >>45013084 #
3. _nada ◴[] No.45013084[source]
Again, none of these statement are true. When you wrote "The thing you have to understand", this is not an observation - it is a statement of objective fact. I never asserted you were ignorant and stupid - I initially implied your comment was, which it objectively is.
replies(1): >>45048789 #
4. luke727 ◴[] No.45048789{3}[source]
I don't think pathologizing an entire nation is a statement of objective fact. Regardless, upon reflection I feel my initial comment was unduly harsh. I think it would be more accurate to say that British society as a whole is very much in favor of the nanny state.