Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

I would love to talk about school violence and solutions as well. This is the police state thread though, so I asked about that.

gregrampage wrote:

I would love to talk about school violence and solutions as well. This is the police state thread though, so I asked about that.

I understand that. I was pointing out that this had nothing to do with a so-called police state, and that the current fascination with this topic has made rational discussion of real issues near impossible.

Basically what Greg said. That and the increasing comfort with policing every aspect of our lives. They're literally criminalizing (or in some times psychoanalyzing and prescribing pills for) childhood behavior.

EDIT: Also I think the more interesting story here is about how parents have become so lazy that they would allow this to happen. My mom is a teacher. She tells me kids are terribly behaved and that parents are pretty lazy, in general, about raising their kids with manners, etc. But handing the problem off to police?

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Basically what Greg said. That and the increasing comfort with policing every aspect of our lives. They're literally criminalizing (or in some times psychoanalyzing and prescribing pills for) childhood behavior.

Who is "they"?

They is parents, the educational system, the medical establishment. This is definitely another thread in some ways. I think the comfort Americans have with being policed is scary. The amount to which they're willing to submit to authority. But it's another issue to see how much they're willing to hand off the duty of raising their kids to pills and police officers.

Jayhawker wrote:

But I don't see where this furthers the supposed cause of squelching dissent.

This is pretty much exactly why this police state malarkey is so pathetic.

That's because the cause of a police state is not to squelch dissent, but rather to achieve obedience. Any police state would be perfectly happy for citizens to dissent, as long as they do what they are told. It's when the citizens stop doing what they are told that the batons, pepper spray, and eventually bullets come out. Police in schools, random stops, TSA checkpoints - it's all about getting people accustomed to the constant presence of police, and getting people accustomed following police orders.

Aetius wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But I don't see where this furthers the supposed cause of squelching dissent.

This is pretty much exactly why this police state malarkey is so pathetic.

That's because the cause of a police state is not to squelch dissent, but rather to achieve obedience. Any police state would be perfectly happy for citizens to dissent, as long as they do what they are told. It's when the citizens stop doing what they are told that the batons, pepper spray, and eventually bullets come out. Police in schools, random stops, TSA checkpoints - it's all about getting people accustomed to the constant presence of police, and getting people accustomed following police orders.

Orwell from 1984 wrote:

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

I think the problem people like Jayhawker and I have--and why this thread has become an echo chamber and not a discussion--is that 'police state' is now being defined simply as comfort with being policed and obedience. And 'the police state' now includes any authority from the educational system to the medical establishment.

There's a certain irony in a thread about "police states" descending to that level of Newspeak.

DSGamer wrote:
Aetius wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But I don't see where this furthers the supposed cause of squelching dissent.

This is pretty much exactly why this police state malarkey is so pathetic.

That's because the cause of a police state is not to squelch dissent, but rather to achieve obedience. Any police state would be perfectly happy for citizens to dissent, as long as they do what they are told. It's when the citizens stop doing what they are told that the batons, pepper spray, and eventually bullets come out. Police in schools, random stops, TSA checkpoints - it's all about getting people accustomed to the constant presence of police, and getting people accustomed following police orders.

Orwell from 1984 wrote:

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think the problem people like Jayhawker and I have--and why this thread has become an echo chamber and not a discussion--is that 'police state' is now being defined simply as comfort with being policed and obedience. And 'the police state' now includes any authority from the educational system to the medical establishment.

There's a certain irony in a thread about "police states" descending to that level of Newspeak.

I threw in the medical establishment and educational system as examples of parents being lazy. Like I said, that's a different thread. Parents being lazy about their kids AND being cowed by authority makes that article unsurprising to me.

Also, if it's an echo chamber, feel free to create a new thread debating whether the US is a police state. Remember, the original point of this thread was to talk about what to do if you lived in one. By definition it was created as an echo chamber.

Aetius wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But I don't see where this furthers the supposed cause of squelching dissent.

This is pretty much exactly why this police state malarkey is so pathetic.

That's because the cause of a police state is not to squelch dissent, but rather to achieve obedience. Any police state would be perfectly happy for citizens to dissent, as long as they do what they are told. It's when the citizens stop doing what they are told that the batons, pepper spray, and eventually bullets come out. Police in schools, random stops, TSA checkpoints - it's all about getting people accustomed to the constant presence of police, and getting people accustomed following police orders.

Yeah. It should be noted that literally the main offense the OWS protesters are being arrested for is not heeding police authority. The irony in that is thick.

DSGamer wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think the problem people like Jayhawker and I have--and why this thread has become an echo chamber and not a discussion--is that 'police state' is now being defined simply as comfort with being policed and obedience. And 'the police state' now includes any authority from the educational system to the medical establishment.

There's a certain irony in a thread about "police states" descending to that level of Newspeak.

I threw in the medical establishment and educational system as examples of parents being lazy. Like I said, that's a different thread. Parents being lazy about their kids AND being cowed by authority makes that article unsurprising to me.

Also, if it's an echo chamber, feel free to create a new thread debating whether the US is a police state. Remember, the original point of this thread was to talk about what to do if you lived in one. By definition it was created as an echo chamber.

It was?

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Malor and DSGamer especially have banged this drum in the forums recently. I wanted to take their viewpoint as the basis for a hypothetical:

Your nation is [becoming|not quite yet|a new kind of] a police state. What do you do?

...and I ain't seen too much discussion of what to do if you live in one. It's a lot like the atheist thread--it starts out with this reasonable idea of keeping the discussion limited to people who agree on something to have a focused discussion on a narrow topic, and it devolves into just a general chat where people feel free to say anything they want about the general issue, knowing if someone disagrees with them they can invoke some 'original thread intent' that they've seen fit to ignore themselves.

We've already had this discussion. Some people wanted to challenge the very premise. The thread changed. We've done this before.

IMAGE(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KcaDsjgBL._SX500_.jpg)

And I only responded to a question put out to those who refuse to believe we live in police state. I thought I qualified to answer that question.

It's sad when someone feels the need to repeatedly create new threads where discussion can be had without dissension.

Jayhawker wrote:

And I only responded to a question put out to those who refuse to believe we live in police state. I thought I qualified to answer that question.

It's sad when someone feels the need to repeatedly create new threads where discussion can be had without dissension.

I'm not sure what to say. There can be plenty of dissension within a thread about how to function if you think you live in a police state. Certainly I disagree with some of what others have said and believe doing things like hoarding guns is non-productive. But if the very premise of the thread is challenged constantly, then the thread, by definition, has gone way off topic. There's nothing wrong with creating a thread that stays on topic if people such as yourself and Cheez doggedly refuse to allow the very premise of the thread.

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

And I only responded to a question put out to those who refuse to believe we live in police state. I thought I qualified to answer that question.

It's sad when someone feels the need to repeatedly create new threads where discussion can be had without dissension.

I'm not sure what to say. There can be plenty of dissension within a thread about how to function if you think you live in a police state. Certainly I disagree with some of what others have said and believe doing things like hoarding guns is non-productive. But if the very premise of the thread is challenged constantly, then the thread, by definition, has gone way off topic. There's nothing wrong with creating a thread that stays on topic if people such as yourself and Cheez doggedly refuse to allow the very premise of the thread.

I read the thread and respond to questions. It's actually guys like you and gregrampage that constantly use this thread as a way to prove we live in a police state instead of how do we survive. You have both called out non-believers in this thread. Then, when someone does not blindly nod their head and grimly agree with your dour outlook on life in the US, you decide you need a more pure place to hold your debate.

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

And I only responded to a question put out to those who refuse to believe we live in police state. I thought I qualified to answer that question.

It's sad when someone feels the need to repeatedly create new threads where discussion can be had without dissension.

I'm not sure what to say. There can be plenty of dissension within a thread about how to function if you think you live in a police state. Certainly I disagree with some of what others have said and believe doing things like hoarding guns is non-productive. But if the very premise of the thread is challenged constantly, then the thread, by definition, has gone way off topic. There's nothing wrong with creating a thread that stays on topic if people such as yourself and Cheez doggedly refuse to allow the very premise of the thread.

I read the thread and respond to questions. It's actually guys like you and gregrampage that constantly use this thread as a way to prove we live in a police state instead of how do we survive. You have both called out non-believers in this thread. Then, when someone does not blindly nod their head and grimly agree with your dour outlook on life in the US, you decide you need a more pure place to hold your debate.

To be fair, I'm not trying to prove my point, I'm legitimately curious of your thoughts each time I ask. I also appreciate your responses and really don't take issue with your posts in this thread at all. But I guess that means I'm adding to the derailment.

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

And I only responded to a question put out to those who refuse to believe we live in police state. I thought I qualified to answer that question.

It's sad when someone feels the need to repeatedly create new threads where discussion can be had without dissension.

I'm not sure what to say. There can be plenty of dissension within a thread about how to function if you think you live in a police state. Certainly I disagree with some of what others have said and believe doing things like hoarding guns is non-productive. But if the very premise of the thread is challenged constantly, then the thread, by definition, has gone way off topic. There's nothing wrong with creating a thread that stays on topic if people such as yourself and Cheez doggedly refuse to allow the very premise of the thread.

I read the thread and respond to questions. It's actually guys like you and gregrampage that constantly use this thread as a way to prove we live in a police state instead of how do we survive. You have both called out non-believers in this thread. Then, when someone does not blindly nod their head and grimly agree with your dour outlook on life in the US, you decide you need a more pure place to hold your debate.

We've already had this discussion. The thread changed. People like yourself and Cheez challenged the very premise of the thread and so it turned into those of us who believe the US is a police state or is becoming one defending our perspective. We've been on the defensive ever since. The thread fundamentally changed, so of course we stayed and debated the NEW thread. But since this is becoming a circular argument where your whole point is to jab people you don't like I'll bow out of this thread. You "win".

gregrampage wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I read the thread and respond to questions. It's actually guys like you and gregrampage that constantly use this thread as a way to prove we live in a police state instead of how do we survive. You have both called out non-believers in this thread. Then, when someone does not blindly nod their head and grimly agree with your dour outlook on life in the US, you decide you need a more pure place to hold your debate.

To be fair, I'm not trying to prove my point, I'm legitimately curious of your thoughts each time I ask. I also appreciate your responses and really don't take issue with your posts in this thread at all. But I guess that means I'm adding to the derailment.

I appreciate your response. I think the thread can handle multiple tangents, and you have been honest and forthright in your questions. I am guilty of answering them more defensively than is necessary. I apologize if my answer implied you were dodging the discussion, since that would not be true at all.

On second thought, this is better handled in PM.

CheezePavilion wrote:

On second thought, this is better handled in PM.

I said I wouldn't re-enter the thread, but I feel it's important to clarify if I'm really wrong about something or someone.

So for what it's worth Cheeze reminded me of something I had said earlier in the thread. Namely that Cheeze has worked to rerail the thread and get it back on topic. I did say this. I meant it and frankly I forgot I said it. It's easy to forget in the heat of a debate that while forum participation is very low on your priority list, what you say matters. I'm sorry. Cheeze has debated fairly and I shouldn't have called him out by name.

Exiting the thread again.

Also I think the more interesting story here is about how parents have become so lazy that they would allow this to happen. My mom is a teacher. She tells me kids are terribly behaved and that parents are pretty lazy, in general, about raising their kids with manners, etc.

My Mom was also a teacher and she said the *exact same thing* about her students. In the 1960's and 1970's...

Glad that could get cleared up. Of course, this much love all of a sudden in a police state thread makes me think of only one thing:

Just finished watching little Brother by Cory Doctorow and while he does string out the story a bit on credulity it does bring up a good many things about the technology coming into use more and more in our daily lives.

As far as what to do if you find yourself in a police state?

Fight.
Run.
Join them.
Live within it.

Many variations upon these themes but I think that is about as far as I can boil the choices down.

Edit: heh, window's autochanging background brought this up as I typed this post.

IMAGE(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p192/plavonica/1270351219747.jpg)

Little Brother is a great book. BTW, Mencken was something of an anarchist, so the quote is not surprising. Anarchism was a viable political stance before the mid-20's or so.

Robear wrote:

Little Brother is a great book. BTW, Mencken was something of an anarchist, so the quote is not surprising. Anarchism was a viable political stance before the mid-20's or so.

It is today as well. We just call it Libertarianism.

Paleocon wrote:
Robear wrote:

Little Brother is a great book. BTW, Mencken was something of an anarchist, so the quote is not surprising. Anarchism was a viable political stance before the mid-20's or so.

It is today as well. We just call it Libertarianism.

Anarchy is not Libertarianism.

Yeah, they are very different things. And we've explained this to Paleo on numerous occasions, and he continues to make cracks like that, so either he's deliberately misunderstanding, or pretending to misunderstand because he doesn't like the ethos.

I'm missing the historical context here but I just thought it was a funny joke.

93_confirmed wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Robear wrote:

Little Brother is a great book. BTW, Mencken was something of an anarchist, so the quote is not surprising. Anarchism was a viable political stance before the mid-20's or so.

It is today as well. We just call it Libertarianism.

Anarchy is not Libertarianism.


Murray Rothbard
begs to differ.

Here's a nice non-police state story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...

When he left his home in Ohio to visit his brother in Fort Myers, Fla. in March 2009, Nick Christie was already breaking down, physically and mentally. His wife Joyce was concerned about his well-being. Rightly so. By the end of the month, the grandfather of two, whose only prior run-in with the law was a DUI in the 1980s, would be strapped to a restraining chair in the Lee County, Fla. jail, coated with a thick layer of pepper spray, smothered in a "spit hood," then finally taken to a Florida hospital where, two days later, he would die.