Print

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

[Dsarker]

He's being a witness to the small amount of hope in the future, in change.

A martyr, yes.


I think I can understand how Tzeentch is the chaos god of Hope now.

[SalmonGod]

Because obviously a group that is discontent with it and still believes they can change it by voting/through the system would never exist.

and those who believe that it's up to them to stick up directly for themselves or be cast out by society like an obsolete iPod.

Give me a guess of which group you think you yourself belong to? I'd take a chance on the martyrs.

I don't know why activist automatically = martyr.  Not even that... more of an activist sympathizer.  I've repeated often that I'm not as involved as I'd like to be, due to risks being incompatible with responsibilities as a family man.

And discontent isn't really what I meant in describing that second group...  allow me to rephrase.

It seems to me like America is evenly divided between

1.  The people who know and don't give a shit.  Will just make fond jokes of, openly admire, and aspire to join the ranks of real corruption.  "You're just envious of those at the top."  At best, will point out that it could be worse, which therefore renders any negative observation as pathetic liberal heart-bleeding.

2.  The people who are too comfortable to care.  Generally hold compassionate values, but purposely ignore anything that offends those values instead of ever standing up for them.  "Yeah, the world has some problems, but it's not that bad.  You worry too much.  Those things don't really happen.  No, I don't want to see your evidence.  Just stop thinking about these things, it'll be ok.  These things are always blown out of proportion.  Stop making a ruckus.  Just vote for the good guy and move on with your life."

3.  People who don't automatically belittle any critique of authority, understand that things are screwed up, make any effort to be informed, and offer support to efforts to change things, even if it's just verbal support and taking a couple minutes to sign an online petition now and then.

[scriver]

He's being a witness to the small amount of hope in the future, in change.

A martyr, yes.

...That does not a martyr make. And, regardless, it was the (apparent, the way I read it) martyrism I'm getting at. The mindset.

I think I can understand how Tzeentch is the chaos god of Hope now.

He'll wrap you in his arms, tell you that you've been a good boy
He'll rekindle all the dreams it took you a lifetime to destroy
He'll reach deep into the hole, heal your shrinking soul
But there won't be a single thing that you can do.

They're whispering his name through this disappearing land
But hidden in his coat is a Red Right Hand

 
I think I quoted that song previously in this thread. It's actually rather fitting for the predicament we're in, 1% and all. You know, besides being one of my favourite songs of all time.

I don't know why activist automatically = martyr.

Never said it did. I misread what it said as "and be cast out of society like an obsolete iPod". Makes more sense now?

And discontent isn't really what I meant in describing that second group...  allow me to rephrase.

It seems to me like America is evenly divided between

1.  The people who know and don't give a shit.  Will just make fond jokes of, openly admire, and aspire to join the ranks of real corruption.  "You're just envious of those at the top."  At best, will point out that it could be worse, which therefore renders any negative observation as pathetic liberal heart-bleeding.

2.  The people who are too comfortable to care.  Generally hold compassionate values, but purposely ignore anything that offends those values instead of ever standing up for them.  "Yeah, the world has some problems, but it's not that bad.  You worry too much.  Those things don't really happen.  No, I don't want to see your evidence.  Just stop thinking about these things, it'll be ok.  These things are always blown out of proportion.  Stop making a ruckus.  Just vote for the good guy and move on with your life."

3.  People who don't automatically belittle any critique of authority, understand that things are screwed up, make any effort to be informed, and offer support to efforts to change things, even if it's just verbal support and taking a couple minutes to sign an online petition now and then.

Makes more sense, though I think you're painting the the people in group 2 as bad and ignorant to make yourself (because you obviously belong to group 3) feel better about your inactivism. The way I see it. there isn't much difference between those who feel that something is wrong but doesn't do anything about it and the people who talk big but don't do much. Most people in group 2 have pet causes that they either support directly or just give money to, which would put them in group 3 by these standards. Furthermore, you say yourself that you can't activate yourself because you have to think about your family and kids. Well, everybody has family. Most people have kids and respectives. You are the group 2. There is no arbitrary separation between them, only great overlap.

edit: Also, forgive me for jumping to conclusions about you. It's unkowledgeable armchair psychology, but it's just the feeling I get when I read your posts.

[Dsarker]

Martyr does mean witness.

[Leafsnail]

a new provision to the National Defense Authorization Act that would give the U.S. military legal ability to arrest anyone anywhere in the world, including on home soil, and hold them indefinitely without charge.

...What change to the law would this actually entail, considering this has already been known to have been happening for a good while now?  Would it like just be making previously illegal policy official?

[scriver]

Martyr does mean witness.

It's what the word means etymologically, not what the modern concept is - a martyr is someone who suffers (and preferably dies) for a cause. Martyrism as a mindset is portraying your own side as suffering, implying that the "Great Other Side" is oppressing them and generally putting a "Good Guy Rebel Underdogs" tag on your own while you're at it. Very common with extremists of all kind, though even more often found with violent movements. You know, put simple, the whole "oh the Man is is imprisoning me when I beat people up and destroy other people's property I'M SO OPPRESSED" kind of thing. Even though it might be justifiable at times, I my gut wrenches itself out of my stomach by reflex every time I see it.

[SalmonGod]

Makes more sense, though I think you're painting the the people in group 2 as bad and ignorant to make yourself (because you obviously belong to group 3) feel better about your inactivism. The way I see it. there isn't much difference between those who feel that something is wrong but doesn't do anything about it and the people who talk big but don't do much. Most people in group 2 have pet causes that they either support directly or just give money to, which would put them in group 3 by these standards. Furthermore, you say yourself that you can't activate yourself because you have to think about your family and kids. Well, everybody has family. Most people have kids and respectives. You are the group 2. There is no arbitrary separation between them, only great overlap.

Except I'm not making a distinction based on ability or willingness to get directly involved at personal risk in activist lifestyle.  I'm talking about people who actively avoid being confronted with any evidence that anything's really wrong enough to deserve their attention.  Group 2 is not people who don't make the effort to do something about, for example, something like extraordinary rendition.  They're people who will deny its existence or insist that it really isn't a big deal, and leave agitated without bothering to look when you produce multiple court documents as proof relating to cia kidnapping and torturing of innocent people.  Maybe you haven't encountered such a person.  I've encountered many.  I don't expect everyone to be out on the streets protesting.  I just want people to be intellectually honest and aware.  If nothing else, just giver proper consideration to the evidence that rights are being drastically eroded in ways that may one day concern them.  The many, many people who can't be bothered are Group 2 to me, and they are a problem because while they dislike Group 1, they oppose Group 3 just as much.  I've had some really sour debates with friends and family putting down the Occupy movement, not because they disagree with their values or even their methods, but because they just refuse to believe that things are that bad.

[scriver]

Allright, then I understand what you're saying.

[palsch]

I'd note that that bill is intended to force the military to hold Al-Qaeda members in military detention. It seems to be a move to block civilian trials or detention. It does, however, contain an exemption for US citizens and lawful resident aliens. I believe this is a relatively recent change (last fortnight or so).

The full text has been copied here and the committee report that lead to it is here. From that report;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Armed Forces of the United States to detain unprivileged enemy belligerents captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).

The committee recognizes that the Armed Forces of the United States do not need specific statutory authorization to detain enemy belligerents under the law of war when they are captured in the course of any lawful armed conflict. Because the long-term nature of the current conflict has led to the detention of a number of individuals for a period that is not likely to end soon, the committee concludes that such statutory authorization is appropriate in this case.

Required military custody for members of al-Qaeda and affiliated entities (sec. 1032)

The committee recommends a provision that would require military custody for certain unprivileged enemy belligerents detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), subject to a national security waiver. The requirement to detain individuals under this provision would apply only to unprivileged enemy belligerents who are determined to be members of al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity and participants in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Under section 1031, the Armed Forces of the United States would have the authority to detain, but would not be required to detain, unprivileged enemy belligerents who do not fall into this category.

They then go on to discuss Guantanamo Bay, stating that the DoD can't fund any transfers to other US facilities without explicit congressional approval.

It seems to me this is an attempt to support military detention and Guantanamo while making it harder to close the prison.

Overall I don't like the bill, but for two main reasons;

1) Mandating military detention for terrorism suspects.
2) Making transfers out of military detention hard.

However, I don't think that having formal legislation about detention is a bad thing. Right now the US is broadly working from legal opinion that came out of the Bush administration, largely unconstrained by congress and all too often deferred to by the courts. Even formalising the current regime (which this bill sort of does) would drag the debate out of the murk and into the legislative sphere. If we can do it without the restrictions on transfers that would be nice. So basically this.

And as an extension of that link, the proposed amendment is a good idea. Not for the reasons all too often given for it, which are at least partially bullshit, but for the reasons given there.

[Tellemurius]

Damn, my senator is doing his job, this is like unreal, i only seen that guy upclose two times in my life.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Okay, all those categorizing people into these neat little groups...
What would YOU like the USA to be?
Armed Revolution? Thousands on the Streets?

You know, I am in a 1% Category. Less than 1% of the Country holds the same religious views as I do.
I'm in a few other groups where less than 1% of the population fits. This is the danger of the Occupy movement, the fact that Arbitrary lines are drawn against a minority. That bothers the heck out of me, because supporting the majority against a Minority easily goes to supporting it against another Minority. A lot of Americans can see this at one glance. We haven't forgotten Hitler's Germany.

Very few revolutions make things BETTER at first. It just changes power. Even the USA had to change it's government after the initial rebellion, and had a secondary Rebellion after that.

So... What do you expect to see when you say that Americans aren't doing it right? Protests? Protests don't work, we've had that ingrained into us.
Armed Rebellion? What do we replace the US government on, Communism? We need something better on paper that hasn't failed yet before we trash the system we know to take the risk of getting a worse one.
Outrage against what's going on? Such action works exactly as well as protests.

What do we do? Simple. The most annoyed of us go stand on street corners. The rest of us sit around and wait for it to get bad enough that we'd rather sit on street corners too.

[Nadaka]

It isn't an arbitrary line.

[Phmcw]

What do you have against protest?
The first thing we should do now is to reaffirm our dominance against our respective government.
The second one is to kick the corporations out of the legislative process.

Actually it's rather simple : kick corporation and private funding out of politic and education. That's the first and most important step.

[DJ]

Aaah, good old reductio ad Hitlerum.

If you bothered to actually read up on the protest you'd realize that it's main goal is putting an end to corruption. Sure, you could argue that this is prejudice against the corrupt, but screw them, they deserve it all.

[Sheb]

Kogan, they don't want to discriminate against that minority, they just want it to stop holding power. As for better stuff on paper, a lot of democracies do that. Sweden for instance. Stronger law against lobbying and campaign expense, the end of corporate personhood, cuts in the DoD, a raise in the top marginal rate, the end of tax loophole that makes it possible for corp like GE electrics to pay no taxes aren't communism. It's not even radically different. But it'd sure as hell would make the US a better place.