The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

His being jailed had nothing to do with the Queen, but had everything to do with the fact he caused criminal damage to the painting.

the felon :/ and of all words, "help"

(should he be hit with terrorist charges too?)

[SoulReaver]

but since the "crime" allegedly has nothing to do with the fact that the picture happened to have the queen on it, would it also be criminal if it depicted prince Harry? David Cameron? Mona Lisa? Paris Hilton?

[dipsofjazz]

Don't let reality get in the way of a good story...........

As DOJ noted, it is no longer the role of the Monarchy to determine social policy, and while I feel.. *deeply* for this man, this father denied the basic right to see his children, a situation that actually disgusts me on the most basic of levels (it's sexism), there must be better ways to do it, or a more appropriate painting to deface in protest. The English Monarchy is little more than a figurehead these days, and has been for a very long time now and can affect no political change. The best the Monarchy can do is apply social pressure, and defacing a painting is far from the best way to get her Maj's seal of approval.

That would be the British Monarchy, not English.

[dipsofjazz]

the felon :/ and of all words, "help"

(should he be hit with terrorist charges too?)

It doesn't matter what he wrote, it was still criminal damage to the painting.

[dipsofjazz]

but since the "crime" allegedly has nothing to do with the fact that the picture happened to have the queen on it, would it also be criminal if it depicted prince Harry? David Cameron? Mona Lisa? Paris Hilton?

Nobody would have cared if it had been a painting of Cameron.

He used this painting of the Queen because he knew it would bring attention to him and his cause. It still doesn't take away from the fact that no matter what painting he defaced, it would still be a criminal act.

[SoulReaver]

still doesn't take away from the fact that no matter what painting he defaced, it would still be a criminal act.

of course it's criminal in the sense that it's illegal, else he wouldn't be in the slammer
just like not applauding Kim Jon Il after he makes one of his speeches, is criminal in NK :|
(yes I was also gonna mention Hitler but then abstained)

point was, it shouldn't be criminal. such stupid laws should be repealed

[SoulReaver]

btw

"As Head of State The Queen has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters

then why is the monarch called "head of state" at all? they might as well be called "figurehead"

I mean the US president is head of state yet he's also involved in politics

[Womble]

People won't fret about their liberties till they're gone then its way too late

There's not a damn thing you can do to stop it, that's the thing.

You can fret about your liberties till the cows come home, but those liberties are no longer compatible with reality. Kiss them goodbye. And democracy in its 20th century understanding, too. There are two big reasons why

First off, we are currently living through a major crisis of the nation-state as a form of social organization. In the Western states, the nation-state is being whittled down by ever-more-inclusive ideologies on a foolish quest to eliminate exclusion-based identities and fuse all of humanity into a single body. That quest is generating increasingly absurd interpretations of laws and rights which are openly intended to transcend state borders and become "international law"- that is, law that disregards nation-state level identities. In the rest of the world, nation-states either disintegrate into ever-smaller tribal fiefdoms at perpetual war with each other, or suffer from internal strife that signifies the beginning of such disintegration. Every single major crisis in the world right now can be boiled down to one of these.

Your precious liberties were made possible by the emergence of the 20th century nation-state, and can only exist in the conditions of a 20th century nation-state. They are granted to you through citizenship - i.e. membership in an exclusion-based group identity. Outside of the nation-state, with its Constitutions and other local law books, your liberties have no basis in anything tangible. "International law" is not laid down by people who you have any say in electing, and there is nothing stopping it from trampling all over your liberties like a spooked rhino; whoever has the UN majority can lay down any resolutions and call them law. Tribal fiefdoms with their inherent brutality know only one kind of liberty- the one you gain once you've killed off all rivals.

The only way for the nation-states to survive is to enforce conformity with the national identity. And yes, that means empowering the enforcers. It means police state. It means increased amount of government interference and regulation. And spying, because information is power.

The other challenge is the technological progress. The more sophisticated technology becomes, the more destructive power it puts into the hands of individuals, the greater the need to control the behavior of individuals. It's a straightforward cause-and-effect chain. If one man with a bomb can kill 300 people flying through the sky in a jet-propelled aluminium sausage with wings, it inevitably follows that anyone boarding those sausage will have their underpants X-rayed. If it shows the size of what's in your pants, that is unfortunate but oh well. NSA spying on your phone is the price of having a fancy smartphone (through which your ever-so-useful free apps are spying on you already to sell analytics data to advertisers). It'll get way worse once the Internet of Things hits mass production and your fridge and microwave can report back to their NSA handlers.

[Coco Pops]

There's not a damn thing you can do to stop it, that's the thing.

You can fret about your liberties till the cows come home, but those liberties are no longer compatible with reality. Kiss them goodbye. And democracy in its 20th century understanding, too. There are two big reasons why

First off, we are currently living through a major crisis of the nation-state as a form of social organization. In the Western states, the nation-state is being whittled down by ever-more-inclusive ideologies on a foolish quest to eliminate exclusion-based identities and fuse all of humanity into a single body. That quest is generating increasingly absurd interpretations of laws and rights which are openly intended to transcend state borders and become "international law"- that is, law that disregards nation-state level identities. In the rest of the world, nation-states either disintegrate into ever-smaller tribal fiefdoms at perpetual war with each other, or suffer from internal strife that signifies the beginning of such disintegration. Every single major crisis in the world right now can be boiled down to one of these.

Your precious liberties were made possible by the emergence of the 20th century nation-state, and can only exist in the conditions of a 20th century nation-state. They are granted to you through citizenship - i.e. membership in an exclusion-based group identity. Outside of the nation-state, with its Constitutions and other local law books, your liberties have no basis in anything tangible. "International law" is not laid down by people who you have any say in electing, and there is nothing stopping it from trampling all over your liberties like a spooked rhino; whoever has the UN majority can lay down any resolutions and call them law. Tribal fiefdoms with their inherent brutality know only one kind of liberty- the one you gain once you've killed off all rivals.

The only way for the nation-states to survive is to enforce conformity with the national identity. And yes, that means empowering the enforcers. It means police state. It means increased amount of government interference and regulation. And spying, because information is power.

The other challenge is the technological progress. The more sophisticated technology becomes, the more destructive power it puts into the hands of individuals, the greater the need to control the behavior of individuals. It's a straightforward cause-and-effect chain. If one man with a bomb can kill 300 people flying through the sky in a jet-propelled aluminium sausage with wings, it inevitably follows that anyone boarding those sausage will have their underpants X-rayed. If it shows the size of what's in your pants, that is unfortunate but oh well. NSA spying on your phone is the price of having a fancy smartphone (through which your ever-so-useful free apps are spying on you already to sell analytics data to advertisers). It'll get way worse once the Internet of Things hits mass production and your fridge and microwave can report back to their NSA handlers.

That was very interesting

[Girlbot]

That was very interesting

Agreed.

[Coco Pops]

Nice to see you posting Girlbot.........


Now people what about this noise in Arizona, it's even made the news here across the pond in Australia. What dumbass enacts a law then thinks "gee that was a bad idea" and then the governor of the state puts a veto on this law anyway.......

What a waste of time and money?

[jelgate]

People who want to generate a controversy. As the saying goes their is no such thing as bad publicity. I agree it was a stupid law. On the off chance it had got passed I can see the federal government overturning it.

[Coco Pops]

People who want to generate a controversy. As the saying goes their is no such thing as bad publicity. I agree it was a stupid law. On the off chance it had got passed I can see the federal government overturning it.

But is controversy the only reason that they thought they had a chance of pulling this off?

It was a bizzare law to begin with.

[jelgate]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the reason.

[The Flyattractor]

Really? I thought it was because of MONEY!?