• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle






  • Im no vegan, and was originally convinced that giving cats vegan food was animal abuse, and am still sure its best for cats to eat meat But really, seeing so much people just saying ‘vegans are hysteric/lunatic/cultist’ without any more reflection gave me a weird vibe, like it’s the exact same rethoric used against any progressist idea It got me thinking, like I think I disagree with vegans on the vegan cat food thing but people are being so mean to vegans and tolerant to power abuse, i’d rather be on the vegan side


  • I didn’t watch tat much movies, but maybe you’re right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I’m also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).

    I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it’s more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I’m wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.

    I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by “capturing hearts and minds” if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.

    So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.

    Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.


  • Yeah, I can understand the initial trust in law, and maybe debatting it later. This is not my way of thinking but i admit it’s really reasonable.

    For the terror, my reflexion is the following : army/cops try to maintain a specific system in place and have 2 ways to do so. For people who (more or less) actively defy their authority, they take violent actions (kidnapping, pressure, wounding, killing, etc). For people who are not (yet) actively defying their authority, they hope that their violent actions will make people afraid of them, so they do not act against authority. I refer to thz first part as killing (though it’s not only killing but more generally violent actions against people), and the second part as terror.

    So, imho, though war crimes may spray more terror in a single act than usual army stuff, both spray terror in their own way.


  • Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

    The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

    (If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)




  • Okay you now have stated a correct reason. I would add two things that can help you refine your way of seeing things :

    • It’s probably best to say ‘kill Russian invaders’ or even ‘kill invaders’, since the problem is invaders and not Russian (I mean, killing random civilians in Moscow wont help Ukraine, but it’s still what you said is good)
    • Insisting on killing is still weird. Killing soldiers is not the goal of fighting an invasion back, it is one way to achieve the real goal : all Russians soldiers out of Ukraine. If that’s what you’re talking about, i advise you to say ‘fighting’ instead of ‘killing’, so it’s not mistaken for a random bloodlust against a country.

    Now I got to apologize if we agree on all those points, I mistook your shortened thinking for blatant stupidity, which would be my bad







  • I get that there is lot more nuances than russo-ukrainian, but imo there is a lot more similarities than you seem to imply : both Russia and Israel claimed that the land belonged to them before, that they should get it back, and use violence to kill local people who tried to resist or move them. The only difference is that Israel did it with the help of western countries and partially according to their laws, so they get like an aura of legitimity, but the acts remains quite close.

    I do not like when people basically do not accept violent behavior but accepts them when they are allowed by some law or authority.

    (Also yes Hamas is doing bad things and should be held accountable in some way, just like Ukraine to my eyes. But still, for me it remains obvious who kills more, who steals more, who oppresses more)


  • Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

    • Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
    • Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge’s approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
    • More ID checking to “protect minor”

    And if you want details :

    The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

    • preventing children to access porn
    • punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
    • punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
    • preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
    • regulating the market of cloud storage providers
    • regulating gambling and real-money video games
    • preventing phishing

    They have different actions at their disposal :

    • Fines for website admins who do not comply
    • Forcing websites to check people’s identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
    • Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
    • Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
    • Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
    • Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
    • Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
    • It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like “Pirating contents harms artistic creation” (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
    • It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
    • Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

    Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.