Was having good discussion on politics until someone had to post pizza

Was having good discussion on politics until someone had to post pizza.
Anyway if user wants to keep talking politics, here is the new thread.

This isn't gonna be an edgy dystopian thing is it?

I don't know. I would prefer to keep the edge to a minimum while still talking about how shit could go wrong.

Why don't we talk about SJW's and how they will use technology to end freedom?

...

No, keep that shit out of here. I don't want any party vans in my thread.

How about no. SJW is just another passing trend.
The only novelty here is that there's an e-trend carrying over into public discourse becaues the internet is blending it with shitposting.

Frankly you people need to cool your shit as it is and stop fanning this fire. Be a little more deliberate come decision time and stop pandering to attentionwhoring for non-issues.

I don't know if you knew, but there's a whole board for that.

>freedom
Nice buzzword. Freedom is the ultimate meme.

Passing trend in the same way communism was a passing trend in eastern europe.

Stuff is already in motion that will take a generation or more to correct. They run our schools, they shape our children.

If you really want to talk about where tech could go wrong, or very right depending on implementation, you should look into usage of assault drones against domestic crime.

In western societies this is a major taboo right now. Can't really blame them, but they're backlogging badly. The private sector has tons of autonomous weapons platforms on the market. I can buy a heat-tracking sentry furret from FN in Belgium for $12k right now.

Ethical barriers have prevented a precedent so far. Until the Dallas shooter. You might think blowing that shooter up with an EOD drone was clever, maybe in your gutfeeling it was righteous, but you created legal precedent to deploy armed drones against citizens.

Not that this is necessarily bad if it's properly measured. Intervention drones activated at hotspots when there's a terrorist attack, or using them against organized crime to overwhelm them with unmatched force, those are use cases where it can actually be useful. If you avoid collateral damage at least, which btw human fighters are much, MUCH more inclined to make. Objectively, if drone usage brings unintended casualties down, then using them is humanitarian progress.

Yes, it's really the SJW's in the FCC that want to get rid of net neutrality, but that nigger obama wont let them, good thing trump will put them in

Yeah, god forbid some teenage dweebs or derailed NEETs hold a protest. Rome is burning. And it's not like this has ever happened before..

You're acting emotional yourself. If this turns into a fringe hardline view I would say you're radicalizing - i.e. you're being fed a doctrine that disconnects you from social reality and recognizes outsiders as existential threats.

America's problem isn't one group acting out. It's two groups acting out and hopping each other up with absolute bullshit.

>Not that this is necessarily bad if it's properly measured.
Then I've talked to some people who have dealt with this more ad hoc, for US authorities specifically.. They don't put a lot of stock in measured force escalation on the US police' part. Which I gotta admit, they don't have the history for. The creation of a SWAT is a textbook example of a good idea that eventually became an abused tool.

My gut feeling is fear, not righteousness.

Anything used against the "bad guys" can be used against the rest of us.
The definition of why the "bad guys" are tend to be the thing that swings the fastest.

I'm not against keeping unintended casualties down but at a certain point there needs to be risk. Drones take too much risk out of things. If you can enforce any law without worrying about the pushback then things can go bad.

>pushback
You mean civilian casualties?

Back it up Che.

That's an interesting line of thought, but I think this is also a big case of "great power brings great responsibility", especially if it is used by the executive branch of a government.
While it can be extremely useful at stopping crimes and avoiding a lot of collateral, it also has the potential of being misused as a tool for surveillance and mass control, and I belive you can't be too careful when it comes to that.

Not to mention there is propably a way to hack them if you really wanted to, but I'm not well-ready enough in that area to give a good jugdement for that possibility

Well the executive branch -is- made up by the electorate. But the US electorate is so unstable right now, I'd be inclined to date it.
Until people cool their shit and under their democratic responsibility make decisions purely empirically and devoid of emotion, like an administrator should, it could spin out badly yes.

no I mean law enforcement casualties.

They can't ban guns in america because over half the police force would be killed trying to execute warrants to take the guns. But if you are flying drones out to pacify the people with the guns then there is no longer a logistical hurdle.

>"They" can't ban guns
>half the police force would be killed
>pacify the people with the guns

Why does it always have to be 5 minutes to midnight man?

It isn't, it's a half an hour to midnight but no one does anything to stop coming disasters until it is almost too late.

Where decades out from anything really terrible happening but if we can see it coming we need to do something.

...

You are really insistent that "they" are coming to get you.
Why would "they" be interested in you?

I'm the one that is supposed to post that.

No, I'm not insisting that 'they' are coming for "me", I'm not important and if they ever got far enough down the list to get to me, we would already be fucked.

I think the people in power always want more power. The people need to always be on the lookout for the power grabs especially when they come veiled as a helping hand.

A bill to stop cyber bullying by creating a registry of people online might actually be for that purpose. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used to do some bad shit the next time the wind changes direction in washington.

...

>Not to mention there is propably a way to hack them if you really wanted to, but I'm not well-ready enough in that area to give a good jugdement for that possibility
There was a notable instance of predator drones having their visual feed "hacked" in Iraq.

This wasn't really hacking so much as paying attention. Their video feed was being broadcast unencrypted, anyone with a wireless receiver could watch.

There are ways to make them fullproof. Most debugging comes in the form of making sure they're properly delimited, and don't jump the gun.

Like keeping them inside a designated AO so you don't have a deathmachine roaming around targeting people at will. Another really big sticking point is the insistence by gov't to keep their own finger of the trigger instead of letting drones acquire/attack their own targets. I can't blame them, they really can't tell the difference between a man with a rifle and a kid with a toy. Plus god forbid allies aren't properly tagged and enter their range. Technically they could insta-kill anything that enters line of sight if you gave them free reign.

>A bill to stop cyber bullying by creating a registry of people online might actually be for that purpose. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used to do some bad shit the next time the wind changes direction in washington.
Oh sure, I agree on that. They're not proposing such a bill are they? Did I miss something?

If it's in reference to the chick who hung herself, they already have enough to find and prosecute the responsible parties for. Notably her stepdad. It's pretty open and shut and there are preexisting charges to use here.

This is why we don't wanna give an inch on gun control. Registries are just a means for confiscation down the road. We give you that inch and a few years later you're knocking at my door and I end up shooting your face off

There are still plenty of civilians that get wasted by those predator drones.

Thank god they don't go hand free on them but they are still much less hesitant to use a drone strike than they would any other tool of violent intervention.

Coming from a place where gun purchases are registered, I fully support them. It's a huge boon in forensics and in tracking contraband.
Then again stockpiling arms for a private army is called "setting up a legal militia" in the US. Elsewhere they'd want to know if you have family in Yemen.

>make decisions purely empirically and devoid of emotion
Although that's a nice thought in theory, i'm not convinced this will ever be the case.
In the end even the voted and sworn in officials have their own interests and financial supporters to pay attention to, which will always taint their decisions with some amount of subjectivity

Yeah, and that's a pretty scary thought, especially when you go from using drones in warzones, where killing is at least somewhat more unseen by the public eye, to urbanized zones at home and using them as part of law enforcement, in theory to help against mass shootings and the like, which I see as an actual possibility within the next couple of years

No the bills they tried to put forward were firearm registries and those are even closer to the point.

Or if you want a bill that passed and was later used to do lots of terrible shit, just look at the patriot act.

You do understand you have no recourse if things go sideways in your government, right?

Russians hack in and set up a puppet government, well you're fucked. Neo nazi far right set up a 4th reich, you're fucked. The regressive left decide that free speech hurts people's feelings and should be banned, well you're fucked then too.

Maybe nothing like that will happen in your lifetime but it has happened in just about every nation's history and it would be foolish to think it will never happen again.

>actual possibility within the next couple of years
I dunno. The pro-con balance isn't very favorable, and a couple years is a short amount of time. There's a lot of litigation to go through to even make this possible in warzones.
That ethical dilemma with needing human operators, it's reflected in your laws. It isn't just the DoD being nice, there's a real issue in finding out who in the whole process to point the finger to for the liability of the kill - it could be a clean kill which isn't culpable, but still someone is going to be liable.

So is it the drone operator? Is it the firm employing him? Is it the manufacturer? Is it the officer? The defense liaison? The spotter? Their general? Is whichever choice you land on situational? Etc.

They've spent the last decade making lawyers scrum about this with no real progress.

I think I would be fucked either way. And registered or not they'd be seeing those guns real soon.
In the meantime we need be able to track radicals and also recover stolen weapons.

Registering the gun isn't a biggie for me. I'm a euro and it still cost me nothing but 2 days processing time for the forms to get a gun license. When the 7.62 and RPG7's became a factor it merited an explanation, but since they're for business use they didn't ask a lot of questions. As far as questions go they mainly want to know if you can make it through a conversation without preaching jabhat al nusra or ranting about needing to make a "preemptive strike at the zionists" or something.

That other guy wasn't me. In America they've tried tracking everything from serials to bullet and casing "fingerprints" to registries and everything in between. You know what they found out? That none of that shit does anything to prevent or solve the vast majority of crimes. You know why? Because legally acquired firearms make up less than 1% of gun crime. I.e. People that follow the law aren't murdering people. Our guns aren't killing anyone. And the ones that are are likely coming from illegal traffic. It's been proven to be useless here. And the law abiding citizens are just about fed up with being bent over because the ones that don't follow the law aren't following your arbitrary laws.

>track radicals
I mean, take the current situation in the US. You got cartels arming up in the US because it's easier than in fucking Mexico.

If I'm shipping industrial quantities of grenades through, I'd be very disappointed if this wasn't questioned. But since they'll see it's legitimate it doesn't go past an inquiry.

Sure things won't go great but a prolonged civil war is still better than a brutal unresisted occupation.

What kind of job lets you buy rpgs? PMC?

Yep, it's not actually that hard to make guns from scratch. Not as much money in it as the drug trade but it is still possible to get clean fresh guns into the US.

Kind of. It's better to say we're on the hiring side of PMC's, though we payroll (so "contractor" doesn't make a lot of sense)
This had us set up supply lines to support our own people while they were embedded. Started selling to local partners as well since the middle east is profoundly short on ammo (can't be too surprising)

Since I could legitimately say it was going towards counter-terrorism efforts our authorities had no problem rubberstamping it.

One state, I think it was Maryland, dumped millions into a shell casing database and required all gun mfrs to provide a fired casing with each gun if they wanted it to be sold there. This went on for a couple years. Guess how many crimes were solved because of this. I'll give you a hint. Zero.

As far as crime goes I'm less interested in finding out legal guns used in crime, as I am in being able to identify stolen ones so we can cross them off the list.

Though, you're talking about America. It's already buried under a pile of guns and there's a shitload of land to cover. Apples and oranges with Europe honestly.

Whats there to talk about. Kill it with fire to live in peace

So with your connections and armaments you don't think you could resist your government if you had to?

Truthfully any real resistance to a government going bad would be mostly military. Red necks with AR's wouldn't be the front lines they would just be auxiliaries.

...

True. That's why the only registry that should exist of a private citizens legally owned guns is the one he himself maintains for when they are stolen or destroyed(fire insurance). Then he should be more than happy to provide a serial to the police so that when and if that gun is used in a crime it can be identified.

I think anyone could. It's not hard to shoot someone.

When you see a military coup, there's usually no more than 2 platoons at the helm or something. If you're dealing with a dictator, all you need is a pistol and one bullet (provided you don't miss)

For everything heavier, MAD applies. They could outnumber us by orders of magnitude. We could blow up parliament. Neither of us has any intention of doing so and there's a general consensus to obey the law and accept the democratic mandate, or get out if you don't like it.

Frankly, if you're talking about a Reich scenario, the enemy isn't government but a subverted population. There's not really anyone to depose, you're dealing with a horde you'll never be able to tackle. So the "get out" applies.

Sidenote: this is what made me doubt Turkey's coup btw. Not the attempted coup itself, but Erdogan walking out into a crowd at the main airport of the capital, mid-coup. If it were me, I wouldn't have been on that bridge with a tank. I would've been in the crowd with a pistol. Would've ended his reign right there. This was a slapdash coup.

Rednecks with ars would be the beginning and their slaughter would be the incentive that brings in the real military and police. Thus toppling the US govt. the only force in America that swears loyalty to the federal govt is federal agencies. The police and military all swear oaths to the constitution and to defend it from all threats foreign and domestic. This includes the federal govt.

Btw getting real damn tired of watching this dude fuck this mystery fruit.

The Turkey coup was probably a false flag so Erdogan could clean house and suppress any opposition.
This brings up a point, what would you do in that scenario? You are unsure whether your name is on a list of possible undesirables, do you flee, do you fight back?

MAD only applies if your side can touch the other side. That is why I support the second amendment in the US, it assures us of a MAD scenario if shit hit the fan. Anyone wants to take over they first have to show their hand by trying to disarm the populace.

As for subverted population, you can fight back if you can identify the group doing the subverting.

Yeah that is probably how it would turn out. The military is a bit more insulated from the SJW bullshit and I don't many of them would support a full attack on the american people.

But it wouldn't just be bloodless after they got involved. Most of the top brass in the military are more political than soldier. It would be interesting to see how many colonels would follow and pass down order to pacify american civilians. I don't expect many would, but some might.

>As for subverted population, you can fight back if you can identify the group doing the subverting.
At a certain point you're just massacring the civilian population. Even if you stood a chance.

Historically, back in WWII my family were resistance. I'd like to think I would act similarly, I don't want to get ahead of myself but I'd feel dishonored if I fell short.

>This brings up a point, what would you do in that scenario? You are unsure whether your name is on a list of possible undesirables, do you flee, do you fight back?
Stay off the grid, which if necessary involves staying outside of Turkey.
Then set up a hit on Erdogan.
No planes, no tanks, no troops. Just one hit crew to take him out and then get lost.

Erdogan is a charismatic, quasi-religious authoritarian. His organisational structure features an organizational structure formed in a well defined pyramid, contrary to the tangled mesh of thousands of powerbrokers you find in western societies. Movements like his are exceptionally vulnerable to decapitation (killing leadership). Kill the guru, and his followers scatter, pursue their own little sects or lose their fire.

So what to do about Erdogan? Kill him. It can still be done in fact. Then stand back and wait while the Turkish public institutions unravel.

>organisational structure features an organizational structure
Whoop, well you get the point.

This btw, is why we've been so hard up to find Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Hes shown his face twice and we heard late on both counts, hasn't shown up in years. He's a prize target, cause when you kill him ISIS fragments into a bunch of sub-ISIS'es fighting each other while the brunt of their troops look for another employer.

Current estimations are that 75ish% would retaliate against the tyrannical govt.