Ibrahim wrote:
I used to work in law, perhaps that's why I'm unsentimental about it. I don't know about "successful" but in "original" versions of Western law you could own people and so forth, probably good we updated that.
slavery is an american thing, the rest of us never had it, so its an absurd statement plucked out of nowhere.
I didnt provide detail but I was thinking on simpler, innnocent until proven guilty levels, which was hardly perfect, but only got corrupted by police with prejudices against lower class and immigrants planting evidence.
now we have this huge class of middle class sheltered folks bringin in all sorts of paranoid laws against percieved risks in their life with guilty until proven innocent foundations., variations on stop and search all over the place.
all our communications and messages are recorded in case they want to use them against us later in life and now you want to strengthen the rules to take those sentances out of context and make them illegal.
sounds hideous to me.
Ibrahim wrote:
Weaponized prejudices sounds like a bad thing, like if for example I say "somebody needs to do something about the damn Swiss" until somebody is stupid/crazy enough to actually do something. That sounds like "weaponized" to me.
I do see your point, honestly. It just seems like, since people are already being killed, there isn't anywhere for the slippery slope argument to go. The nightmare scenario is that more people have their YouTube channels banned when we already have mass-murders taking place.
all over the west "people being killed" is at record low numbers on a graph thats heading downwards , yet the paranoid middle class wants more protections, spouting fears and prejudices as a reason to increase the powers of the police to punish the types of folks they dont like.. yet this multiculturism thing requires people not to be paranoid about "the other".
the australian graph is simmilar and seeing as it spiked in the 70's when economic downturns happened and hate mongers on youtube didnt even exist, maybe you might want to think about what your saying.
maybe economic downturns are the real source of anger and resentment, not minor idiots on the internet.
Ive been having an ongoing argument with some fine sensible folks in australia, they think that if a statistic is more likeley to happen then the it requires more government intervention.
the logic on this is a 1 in 10 million occurence doesnt need to be policed in a society of 2 million but in a society of 20 milion its a problem.
this level of maths retardation scares me in a globalised world, the lowest common denominator of saving one life across 10 billion is living like a zoo animal.