The Political Memes Thread (memes too spicy for Channel Zero)

[Hua Guofang]

[Mercer]

Public protesting is the macro version of a teenager throwing a temper tantrum. It legitimizes the government action you're protesting against like "I admit you have the right, and responsibility to do _______ but please mom, I really want to do ______ please allow me..." The only acceptable answer to this type of subservient request must come from mommy, or rather the entity that took your very rights away in the first place. "See, I am a generous god, might dial back the tyranny here and there. This is guaranteed method of steady erosion of freedom, with minor concessions for crowd appeasement along that direct path towards chains.

[Mercer]

38 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

The weird thing is she's 100% right protesting the lockdown. Fact is if we've still got a constitution here, the right to assemble, and the right to work still exist.

 

"State of Emergency" is what we refer to in programming as a Non Sequitur, it's an error or invalid interjection of lesser code, that invalidates more important codes responsible for structuring the entire codebase.

 

It basically gives one entity the right to choose where, and when to suspend all other rights, while giving that same entity the right to choose which rights it's going to suspend said. It's like placing your hands into your enemies handcuffs, then telling them not OK to lock them, unless of course they find it necessary to do so.

 

After 911 they permanently legitimized:

1. Unwarranted surveillance of U.S. citizens
2. Torture of enemy combatants (war crimes)
3. Torture for US citizens accused of being enemy combatants
4. No right to a fair trial if they choose to charge you with specific crimes
5. The right to demand mass swaths of customer data (no warrant) from businesses and force said business to keep it secret

All clear errors or rather Non Sequiturs in the "legal" code.

 

This is why a hierarchical set of laws leading back to one rule that can't be broken is necessary, there are too many loopholes to exploit when you write, and pass laws that are allowed to  bypass one another, AKA cause errors in the code. Moving forward I'd assume an even greater set of individual rights, freedoms, and constitutional protections will dissolve. Our core legal document no longer means anything, we've been in a permanent state of emergency for almost two decades now.

 

 

[Hua Guofang]

43 minutes ago, Mercer said:

The weird thing is she's 100% right protesting the lockdown. Fact is if we've still got a constitution here, the right to assemble, and the right to work still exist.

 

"State of Emergency" is what we refer to in programming as a Non Sequitur, it's an error or invalid interjection of lesser code, that invalidates more important codes responsible for structuring the entire codebase.

 

It basically gives one entity the right to choose where, and when to suspend all other rights, while giving that same entity the right to choose which rights it's going to suspend said. It's like placing your hands into your enemies handcuffs, then telling them not OK to lock them, unless of course they find it necessary to do so.

 

After 911 they permanently legitimized:

1. Unwarranted surveillance of U.S. citizens
2. Torture of enemy combatants (war crimes)
3. Torture for US citizens accused of being enemy combatants
4. No right to a fair trial if they choose to charge you with specific crimes
5. The right to demand mass swaths of customer data (no warrant) from businesses and force said business to keep it secret

All clear errors or rather Non Sequiturs in the "legal" code.

 

This is why a hierarchical set of laws leading back to one rule that can't be broken is necessary, there are too many loopholes to exploit when you write, and pass laws that are allowed to  bypass one another, AKA cause errors in the code. Moving forward I'd assume an even greater set of individual rights, freedoms, and constitutional protections will dissolve. Our core legal document no longer means anything, we've been in a permanent state of emergency for almost two decades now.

 

 

Not disagreeing with what you're saying in terms of how law works, we have the same thing with our constitution here.

 

However, in the face of a pandemic (imagine if CV19 was this transmissible but with the mortality rate of 20%) and a swathe of idiots who were convinced that it's all a CHICOM psyop - a la Alex Jones - were whipping up doubt and hysteria similar to what we see today. How do you save a nation from it's weakest links?

 

Keep in mind that these idiots that are carrying the "My body my decision" signs are also the ones who will pass it on to others and will needlessly inundate and overwhelm the hospitals when they get infected, in this scenario. Their decisions have direct impacts on other people's lives, like they're indirectly taking other people's rights away from them by undertaking high risk activities like gathering en masse without proper protection, etc.

 

So, whilst I fully agree, you can't (or shouldn't) undermine the most fundamental of laws whenever it suits, what do you do if the most fundamental of laws is an impediment to keeping people safe and the nation from imploding?

 

It's a hypothetical this time around but not at all implausible.

 

I don't have an answer because I can see value in both sides of the argument. Starting position for any responsible citizen is to never trust those with power, so don't give them much in the first place. But sometimes you've also gotta crash tackle the idiot who's about to light up a cigarette in a gas station for his own good and the good of everyone else in the area.

 

Wicked problems for wicked times.

.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Hua Guofang

[Hua Guofang]

And I think this is what a lot of the protestors don't grasp:

 

"Unless we get the virus under control, the real recovery economically is not going to happen," Dr. Anthony Fauci

 

You can open up and go to work but don't get sick, don't need surgery, don't have a car crash, don't have an industrial accident, don't get shot, don't have cancer, don't have a heart condition, don't hurt yourself playing sport, etc. etc. because the health system will already have more than it can deal with because of the virus and a heap of folk are going to die. And with that, the economy will likely tank anyway because people will freak at higher mortality rates for everything due to lack of available care and stay home, run to the hills or just fucking die.

[misteraven]

People have the right to be stupid. People have a right to risk their own life and limb. Likewise, they have the right to do the opposite of that.

 

Only reason this doesn’t make sense to many people is because they’re brainwashed into thinking that other people know best and other people have their best interests in mind, even while trampling on the interests of others in the execution of that “responsibility”. 

[misteraven]

3 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Yes it will matter. The Google/Apple app is to run in conjunction with a govt reporting app. If you don't have both it won't make any difference.

 

Sure, Google/Apple could use the bluetooth data for their own nefarious purposes, but that would be pretty redundant as they get much richer data out of GPS/cell tower data, which they already have.

Okay, if you believe it’ll be opt in...
 

Righhttttt... Cause government is swearing at creating new tools and then restraining themselves from using them. 

 

GPS / cell tower is different data. One doesn’t replace the other, they supplement each other to provide more clarity for those watching. 

[Hua Guofang]

Yes, but GPS/tower data gives more value than Bluetooth could. Makes the Bluetooth data basically redundant, why do it?

 

As to your point about opting in, well, they will have to force it into your phone as the apple/google tech is meaningless on its own. 
 

wont speak for other, more authoritarian govts but I’ll bet my magical third testicle that the Aust govt won’t force us to install their app. 

[misteraven]

53 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Yes, but GPS/tower data gives more value than Bluetooth could. Makes the Bluetooth data basically redundant, why do it?

 

As to your point about opting in, well, they will have to force it into your phone as the apple/google tech is meaningless on its own. 
 

wont speak for other, more authoritarian govts but I’ll bet my magical third testicle that the Aust govt won’t force us to install their app. 

Well, there's different accessibility to services for starters. Its not unusual to not have GPS or for a phone to ping a tower when underground or inside larger buildings. In NYC, there's huge swaths of no signal, made up of little pockets all over. Last I was there, they were only relaying signals to a handful of stations. Blue tooth would work anywhere as its both transmitted and received by the device. For all intents and purposes, what they're doing is simply forcing the activation of mesh networks via blue tooth and logging the interactions. Fairly simple since most of what's needed for that already exists.

 

And isn't there already a class action suit in Australia against Google for the misuse of location tracking on their Android OS? If you maintain faith in your government to not use tools that are literally built into the OS of a mobile device, than you have a lot of faith. Then again, I'm American and not Australian and don't particularly follow what they do in Australia all that close. In the USA, however, this is such low hanging fruit in comparison to regular transgressions that I doubt the majority here would care (unfortunately) and certainly not those in government. Its just another incremental step into the blanket mass surveillance that kicked off after 9/11 under the Bush administration and then greatly expanded under the Obama administration.

 

Here's a blurb specific to Australia in regards to PRSM, in which someone senior in government is actually saying you guys shouldn't be concerned and that Snowden's revelations in blanket mass survilance is 'treachery". Doesn't instill a lot of faith in their respect to your privacy in my opinion.

 

Quote

 

Australia

The Australian government has said it will investigate the impact of the PRISM program and the use of the Pine Gap surveillance facility on the privacy of Australian citizens.[86] Australia's former foreign minister Bob Carr said that Australians shouldn't be concerned about PRISM but that cybersecurity is high on the government's list of concerns.[87] The Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop stated that the acts of Edward Snowden were treachery and offered a staunch defence of her nation's intelligence co-operation with the United States.[88]

 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

 

Only way to opt out is to not update your phone. Eventually that wont even work as carriers will eventually phase out older devices as they've already done. At least here in the states, the major carriers wont activate the first 2 iPhone models. I discovered recently that Verizon retired all their non-smart phones that don't utilize a sim card. I'm no telecom expert, but my guess is there was no technical reason to do this.

[Kults]

if trump does this there’s gonna be a meltdown 

 

 

[misteraven]

8 minutes ago, Kults said:

if trump does this there’s gonna be a meltdown 

 

 

But, but, but... bErNiE sAnDeRs was supposed to make everything fREE!

 

 

 

[Kults]

[Kults]

[Mercer]

9 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

Not disagreeing with what you're saying in terms of how law works, we have the same thing with our constitution here.

 

However, in the face of a pandemic (imagine if CV19 was this transmissible but with the mortality rate of 20%) and a swathe of idiots who were convinced that it's all a CHICOM psyop - a la Alex Jones - were whipping up doubt and hysteria similar to what we see today. How do you save a nation from it's weakest links?

 

Keep in mind that these idiots that are carrying the "My body my decision" signs are also the ones who will pass it on to others and will needlessly inundate and overwhelm the hospitals when they get infected, in this scenario. Their decisions have direct impacts on other people's lives, like they're indirectly taking other people's rights away from them by undertaking high risk activities like gathering en masse without proper protection, etc.

 

So, whilst I fully agree, you can't (or shouldn't) undermine the most fundamental of laws whenever it suits, what do you do if the most fundamental of laws is an impediment to keeping people safe and the nation from imploding?

 

It's a hypothetical this time around but not at all implausible.

 

I don't have an answer because I can see value in both sides of the argument. Starting position for any responsible citizen is to never trust those with power, so don't give them much in the first place. But sometimes you've also gotta crash tackle the idiot who's about to light up a cigarette in a gas station for his own good and the good of everyone else in the area.

 

Wicked problems for wicked times.

.

I get it, having absolute control over everyone through threat of force can have it's upsides, and this case might be one of them.

 

For the sake of argument though, let's examine this pandemic from a perspective of war, us against the virus.

 

Let's say COVID-19 is an invading army, en route to sack our small city state of 30,000 people. If we throw everything we have at the invader, we will lose and estimated 3000 soldiers fighting the virus, but we will save the city from being sacked, and the other 90% of the population will survive. Definitely worth throwing all your troops at it if the invading army is Mongol, and would kill everyone if sacked. What if, instead of a Mongol horde, the invading army was a reasonably civil society, and would no doubt preserve the city, and 99% of the inhabitants would go unharmed if the army met no resistance. Then what? Would it be worth it to lose 3000 troops to save 300 people? Forget that scenario for a minute because that comparison isn't very accurate..

 

Let's skip to our reality for a moment and forget about the invader. Forcing people out of work, providing unemployment, and printing up enough cash to keep liquidity in the economy means absolutely nothing,  if the economy isn't producing enough hard goods, and services to trade that printed from thin air money for. Scarcity is just that, and if the inevitable hard good/service shortage, or hyperinflation interrupts the food supply, even a little... Let's just say I'd hate to live in a country that is constantly outbid on the open market for food imports. Stopping the vast majority of goods and services from being rendered all at once can be economically devastating, with untold consequences.  Not just on the personal level for individuals and how it effects their employment, but on the macro scale as well. We were just living in the greatest economy the world has ever seen, and are transitioning into the greatest economic shock the global economy has seen. I really hope the food, and other essentials supply chain isn't disturbed too much.

 

Looping back to my point, I don't know if our political leader's efforts will be worth it when the dust settles, roughly the same number of people will die anyway once this virus makes it's rounds over the next 2 years. Going back to the example of the invading army, we're sacking our own city right now, destroying our stores of grain that get's us through the winter, all in an effort to slow down the invading army that will undoubtedly have it's way eventually. It's foolish to sack our own city, and deplete our own treasury, and grains for the sake of prolonging the lives of less than 1% of the population a few months longer. IDK, maybe we'll be OK when the dust settles, I'm thinking most of that commerce isn't coming back when we flick the switch back on, and conflicts will arise.

[Hua Guofang]

10 hours ago, misteraven said:

People have the right to be stupid. People have a right to risk their own life and limb. Likewise, they have the right to do the opposite of that.

 

Only reason this doesn’t make sense to many people is because they’re brainwashed into thinking that other people know best and other people have their best interests in mind, even while trampling on the interests of others in the execution of that “responsibility”. 

And what about the bit regards clogging up the hospital system and increasing the mortality rate for everyone because they chose to take known and huge risks?

 

If people choose to be stupid can we then choose to tell them that they are at the bottom of the list for emergency services, a hospital bed and access to respirators, etc. etc? What about when they start infecting others, such as essential workers through their high-risk and stupid activities?

 

What you say is fine if their actions only impact them personally. But this is a highly infectious disease, their actions impact others. Do people have a right to risk the lives of others?

[Hua Guofang]

 

 

Not sure if this vid will work....

[Mercer]

24 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Do people have a right to risk the lives of others?

If you mean other people that are risking their own lives, yes, if you mean pulling a strangers mask down and wet farting into their mouth, also yes.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Mercer

[Hua Guofang]

Will never forget the first time I saw cake farts, here on 12.

 

Still one of those little life moments for me.

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

If people choose to be stupid can we then choose to tell them that they are at the bottom of the list for emergency services, a hospital bed and access to respirators, etc. etc? What about when they start infecting others, such as essential workers through their high-risk and stupid activities?

Hospital workers voluntarily chose occupations that have that associated risk, so yeah. No different than a patient walking in with AIDS. They take reasonable precautions and mitigate most risk. Or they can quit and chase a different method to earn money. 
 

Keep in mind, so far we’re still looking at what appear to be single digit numbers. In fact, comparing it to some projections of the *actual* infection rate, it drops to a fraction of a percent. 
 

Honestly, this is all speculation and opinion... In this case, solely my own. Admittedly, I’ve gone back and forth on this a few times since it seems to be quite the challenge to separate, fact from fiction and opinion from both. That said, what we’ve seen so far appears to be a completely unqualified response to the threat when judged against the a reasons potential represented. World will suffer far more for the financial consequences of this virus far beyond its capability for medical consequence. 
 

Fact that medical workers at a great many hospitals in the USA are being furloughed is evidence of that. Curve went beyond flat into negative territory. 

[Hua Guofang]

@misteraven-  it's not just hospital workers, its garbage collectors, the checkout operators at the chemist and super markets. It's the school teachers and sanitation workers, bus drivers and Fedex delivery drivers that are put at higher risk because people choose to be stupid. That doesn't seem at all fair.

 

Either way, we're all doing a lot of opining and guess work, including the professionals as this is a novel virus, it's impossible to talk facts when nobody has them all. And that's one of the reasons why a risk averse approach is important because the consequences of fucking it up are catastrophic.

 

It's better to be wrong on the side of caution because under-reacting is going to have a faaaar worse effect on the economy than over-reacting. People just don't seem to get that having piles of bodies in the streets and losing 10% of your population is going to fuck the economy far worse than this shut down.

.

[Mercer]

They've found a way to save the economy and oil prices.

 

[Mercer]

4 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

@misteravenIt's better to be wrong on the side of caution

Yes, but to force others into doing so, totally different story.

[Hua Guofang]

7 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Yes, but to force others into doing so, totally different story.

But is it not wrong for their high-risk behaviors to then place others that don't have a choice at high-risk too?

 

Why are one group of people's rights to do what they want more important than another group of people's rights not to be needlessly placed at risk?

[Mercer]

Just now, Hua Guofang said:

But is it not wrong for their high-risk behaviors to then place others that don't have a choice at high-risk too?

Are you arguing there should be no limits on what the state can enforce to make you feel safe? If not, where would be a good place to draw the line? Should there even be a line, or do we allow ourself to make panicked, emotionally based decisions in the moment, void of logical or legal consistency?

 

Just now, Hua Guofang said:

Why are one group of people's rights to do what they want more important than another group of people's rights not to be needlessly placed at risk?

This is a lazy, circular argument that shows a lack of understanding on how freedom/rights actually works. People often misuse the word "right" for everything they "want" these days almost making that word meaningless, and leading to dead end debates like this one. You don't have a right to "feel safe" if it involves taking away the rights of others. You don't have a right to dictate what other people wear, speak, look at, etc. again that is not how rights work and it's not debatable.

 

[Hua Guofang]

21 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Are you arguing there should be no limits on what the state can enforce to make you feel safe? If not, where would be a good place to draw the line? Should there even be a line, or do we allow ourself to make panicked, emotionally based decisions in the moment, void of logical or legal consistency?

 

This is a lazy, circular argument that shows a lack of understanding on how freedom/rights actually works. People often misuse the word "right" for everything they "want" these days almost making that word meaningless, and leading to dead end debates like this one. You don't have a right to "feel safe" if it involves taking away the rights of others. You don't have a right to dictate what other people wear, speak, look at, etc. again that is not how rights work and it's not debatable.

 

Regards the first paragraph, I really don't know what to argue for, as I said earlier, it's a wicked argument - one answer just raises a new problem for me. However, you have framed it in an illegitimate way. It's got nothing to do about feeling safe, or emotionally based argument. There is undeniable science behind virology and there is zero doubt that this is a highly contagious virus and that keeping people away from each other reduces the rate and risk of infection. That is not panic and that is not emotionally based.

 

Regards your second paragraph, I feel you are being a little condescending here, it's not a lazy argument at all. You seem to think that taking actions to reduce risk of infection is about making people feel safe rather than actually reducing their risk of infection. I can't understand why you are framing it that way and since you believe that this is a dead end debate I think I will leave it there.

.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Hua Guofang

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, Hua Guofang said:

people's rights not to be needlessly placed at risk?

This is where the problem is, that isn't a right. 

 

Is there a legal term for this right, is it in a constitution or something? Maybe Australias laws are different but here we have the right to bear arms etc. No laws about the right to see everyone in a mask. Maybe you guys do have something different on the books regarding wearing masks, what profession you're allowed to take, etc.  

 

My point is that you don't have a right to dictate what other people wear, what they choose as an occupation etc. Everything someone does has the potential to put others at risk whether it's starting your car, operating heavy machinery, jumping out of a plane, skateboarding down a sidewalk. All these things "needlessly place other's at risk". The logical consistency of your can not be defined because it's non existent. Where is the difference between those activities and not wearing a mask, can it be defined?

 

Is protecting yourself a smart move? Yes. Are no masker's and deniers retarded? Fuuuuck yes (unless they can't afford/access a mask). 

 

But at the same time does it set a bad precedent to roll over, and allow the state to force the general public into mandatory PPE, or edicts mandating someone else's livelihood non-essential?  In my opinion this is also a problem.

[Hua Guofang]

 

[KILZ FILLZ]

Not a meme, but LOL

 

 

[Kults]

[Mercer]