Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think I'll start exclusively referring to him as a "thug" from now on. Two can play the perception manipulation game.

[penguinofhonor]

Please don't quote Truean.

[Blaze]

Not sure if it's "progressive" or not, but apparently the senators tacked CISA onto the Omnibus bill (Which I hear is the government budget bill which is 100% guaranteed to pass no matter what), and was just signed by Obama into law.

How did I hear about this? Reddit is starting to explode over it; even spilling into the game-specific subreddits.

[redwallzyl]

seriously why does this tack things people wont pass onto laws thing exist? its like the opposite of a democratic process.

[Rolan7]

Well, to be fair it's negotiation.  "We feel this bill is a bad one, but we'll let you pass it in exchange for doing this unrelated stuff we thing is good."

Or "This bill doesn't benefit us enough, give us unrelated concessions" to be cynical.  It isn't (completely) about profit, it's mostly about getting re-elected.  Profit helps with that.

[Truean]

Please don't quote Truean.

Thank you.

But no Bohandas that's not the heart of the problem. The real issue is he got extra special soft treatment expressly because he's super rich and couldn't even manage to come through on that (just stay in your nice house and don't screw up). There are truly insane people out there who don't get NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity) and they really truly deserve that defense, because they're trying to eat soup with an envelope and need real help. This affluenza guy didn't deserve an insanity plea, especially solely and entirely on the grounds he is super rich. If you or I or nearly anybody else did what this brat did we'd totally be in for an extended jail stay.

And the worst part is the big picture. This is yet another thing people will remember when they say "the insanity plea is bullshit." No, it really isn't, just because this case didn't deserve the benefit of one. For every one standout case like this, there are at least 20 legit ones being screwed out of the benefit of a real mental health defense and actually needed treatment (lots of homeless people have untreated mental health issues). Either way, this rich kid is going to come out of this better than anyone else (openly because he's rich) and those poor actually crazy people will get screwed, again.

[Amperzand]

Well this looks like a thing I want to be involved in.

[Frumple]

... well, if you're intent on going through that much effort, what are your complaints about it?

[Antsan]

I don't know what CISA is and thus it is awful. Boooo!

(Can anybody please explain what CISA is?)

[redwallzyl]

I don't know what CISA is and thus it is awful. Boooo!

(Can anybody please explain what CISA is?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Information_Sharing_Act

[Truean]

In graphical form:

[Helgoland]

Well no. That comparison betrays a horrible ignorance of Orwell's writings.

As a meme it may be correct however - I don't know enough about CISA to comment on that.

[Truean]

Dude, 1984. Against social injustice, totalitarianism.... Thought crime, omnipresent government surveillance and Big Brother. I love Orwell. Animal Farm, et al.

[Rolan7]

Technically it's only a bill enabling increased government surveillance.  But social injustice, totalitarianism, and the (increased) persecution of thought crime might inevitably increase under such surveillance.

Though it can be argued that a measure of surveillance is necessary for a safe society.  The government certainly has a lot of data it *could* pursue as "thought crime", but does not.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

We should keep this in mind, but also not misremember it.  People often quote it without the "essential" and "little temporary" qualifiers.  It's obvious to all but the most anarchic that *some* surveillance and restriction is required for a safe and just society.

That's all theoretical though, I haven't looked into the bill much.  I honestly believe it probably goes way too far, as these bills tend to do.  We should just keep in mind that it's a question of degree, not absolutes.

[Frumple]

Government also has a fair amount of data it could pursue as thought crime, and does, though, as we've seen from persistent accounts of harassment and infiltration and whatnot of various activist (and in more recent years, religious as well) groups. It's fair to be leery about giving them more official powers to, well, do just that.