Print

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

[SalmonGod]

I agree that state secrets can be necessary, but a lot of what is kept secret turns out to be protecting individuals who are incompetant or corrupt.

A very popular sentiment, which is odd considering that most people haven't had exposure to classified material and are thus not in a position to determine what consitutes "a lot".

The issue is trust, which has been repeatedly broken.  How can we know what we should or shouldn't know, when we have no faith in those who hold the information?

[Alexhans]

Browsing the internet long and wide I keep seeing the same arguments that mass media desperately tries to install.

They might not be as brilliant as Goebbels but they sure do their job.

All people need is 1 % knowledge and 99 % fed bullshit to repeat and that's that.  Instead of arguing about the underlying issues of free speech, internet censorship, attacks against democracy (when a government lies to it's voters and does the opposite of what they promised) people pick sides like Celebrity yay or nay, Team black or white...

We need knowledge.  It's fine and dandy to say Counter Strike sucks and Team Fortress is awesome when you haven't played one of them... Who cares... not that important...

But this... This might affect your life a bit more...

Before coming to conclusions in 40 seconds... Why don't we take a step back to analyze what do we know, where do we know it from, what other sources are out there, what can we get first hand, what are everyone's interests in these matters, what's our own interest, even.

Sometimes it's better to think things through.

Spoiler: "Little cry out I'm unable to hold" (click to show/hide)

STOP F%&·$% summarizing (dismissing, really) a big amount of topics as 5 issues because that's all you've heard about...  It's really annoying.

[SalmonGod]

Before coming to conclusions in 40 seconds... Why don't we take a step back to analyze what do we know, where do we know it from, what other sources are out there, what can we get first hand, what are everyone's interests in these matters, what's our own interest, even.

Sometimes it's better to think things through.

Spoiler: "Little cry out I'm unable to hold" (click to show/hide)

STOP F%&·$% summarizing (dismissing, really) a big amount of topics as 5 issues because that's all you've heard about...  It's really annoying.

Get us rolling.  Show us what questions we're not asking, or what lack of knowledge we're not taking into account.  I'm not calling you out.  I'm interested.

[SalmonGod]

A new strategy from Anonymous.  Operation Leakspin.

http://operationleakspin.org/

[Earthquake Damage]

Leakspin

If they want to be taken seriously, maybe they should dispense with the meme references/puns.

[Aklyon]

Leakspin

If they want to be taken seriously, maybe they should dispense with the meme references/puns.

Hey, at least its not Leekspin.
the name as it is now is actually pretty descriptive of it, from what I've looked at.

[SalmonGod]

Leakspin

If they want to be taken seriously, maybe they should dispense with the meme references/puns.

Telling them yourself would be easy enough to do.  They seem to be taking the issue seriously, more so than anything they have before, so maybe they would listen.

[Earthquake Damage]

the name as it is now is actually pretty descriptive of it, from what I've looked at.

Leakspin actually works, but they should avoid lulzy names in general (e.g. Chanology's "Battletoad Earth").  Appearance matters and all that.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Sir Pseudo, a few issues with what you've said...

If you don't play by those rules, you lose to those who do. Principles and honor have no place when lives are at stake, beyond keeping the appearance of such to pacify those who are less pragmatic.

"you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall"
Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's BS.  Principles and honour most definitely have a place - of course they need to be tempered by pragmatism. But if your guys have no principles and no honour, YOU can't trust them. And then how do you know if they're doing things to save lives, or doing things to help themselves. Principles and honour are strategic rather than pragmatic methodologies - they are long term, rather than short term, and you damn well bet they have an important place where lives are at stake. How else do you explain the Marines and their "no man gets left behind" policy? Sometimes the obvious results (squads getting killed trying to rescue a single man who is wounded) are not the most important ones (a huge boost in morale, trust, and unit efficiency).

Reputation is important. It needs to be cultivated, especially in the modern age. If you've got to take a shit, cleaning it up is a lot easier if you don't roll around in it all day long.

You have an overly narrow definition of pragmatic. When your ability to function depends on keeping up the appearance of honor, then it is pragmatic to do so. If keeping up the appearance of honor requires dishonorable methods, then it is best to use them. The reality of what they have to do isn't nearly the whitewashed bullshit they report to the public, though that's closer than it used to be, simply because the truth is unacceptable to too many people who don't understand what filthy fucking business it all is, and has to be.

[Virex]

It's not that people need to be pragmatic, it's that everyone that works for the government is a mindless asshole that doesn't seem to be able to even put on their own socks. If you've got competent people running the government you don't constantly have to cover up the fact that a diplomat insulted something or a soldier killed civilians because that would not happen. What needs to be done is that the government calls together the populace, fires EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE, down to the last man, and then the people start forming a government out of people who don't trip over the edge of a corner with a pile of sensitive documents and then forget to pick them up again. 

[smjjames]

What needs to be done is that the government calls together the populace, fires EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE, down to the last man, and then the people start forming a government out of people who don't trip over the edge of a corner with a pile of sensitive documents and then forget to pick them up again.

That makes absolutely no sense Virex, you know that?

[Virex]

I for one would be one of the persons they should NEVER higher for a government function, if that is answering your question?
Anyway, I don't really see another way to start with a clean slate and get the people in the positions they should be in. The current hiring procedure seems to be based more upon nepotism and answering the question if you know what end of a keyboard to type on instead of a thorough scan of one's abilities.

[smjjames]

Are you talking about the US goverment system or the Netherlands government system? Considering your profile says you are from the Netherlands.

Yes the US congress is being stupid, but firing every single person all the way down to the fast food burger flippers is an even stupider idea and won't fix anything.

[Virex]

Most governments. From what I've gathered, there are pretty much no governments with the right people in the right places.


The point is not to strip down the government completely, but to break the entire government structure down to the core and then to completely rebuild it. The current structure is overly complex and filled with anachronisms and it seems like they're just hiring random people to do random work instead of trying to get the best person for every job. If the government feels the need to for example shuffle the ministries every 4 years and "revolutionize" the school system every 6 years then that's a clear indication that the government itself doesn't work and nobody has a clue on how to fix it. Ergo, burn it to the ground and replace it with something that does make sense.

[Graebeard]

Interesting tidbit from China.  They're all pissy about the whol Liu Xiaobo/Nobel peace price thing, of course, but they asked a good question: why not give Assange the prize?