>a much-needed highway sign in the LA area before it was caught over a year later
It's worth pointing out (because, for some reason, the coverage of this dude and his I-5 sign never emphasizes this) that when the sign was 'caught', Caltrans examined it, found it appropriate and to-spec, and left it up.
Er, the military in question for this hypothetical example speaks the same language as the civilians they would make war upon and knows the terrain and is from the same culture and therefore understands the civilian social dynamic. I mean, there's lots of obvious difference between an American soldier and Taliban fighter, but between a soldier and American civilian? "Training and a better gun".
I'm shocked that you could consider invoking historical references to equate the US military skirmishing with desert tribesmen from another culture with overweight American gun-nuts. If the brown people we currently fight don't really have answers to C-130s or mortars or MARPAT, then I'm not sure that hypothetical North American insurgents would, either.
I don't have time to put together every thought I hav eon the subject. Suffice it to say I believe an armed populace discourages tyrannical government more than an unarmed populace. The same way I don't want to register my IP address and cell phone to be able to post online, I don't want to hand over all forms of self-defense against mass civil unrest or war.
Finally: Whether you believe it or not, the purpose of the US 2nd amendment is self-defense, including from government. If you don't feel that is necessary, be inellectually honest and advocate for its repeal.
>Whether you believe it or not, the purpose of the US 2nd amendment is self-defense, including from government. If you don't feel that is necessary, be inellectually honest and advocate for its repeal
If you feel that I'm being "inellectually" dishonest, have the courage to stand up to me and tell me directly, instead of implying that I am (assuming, as you have, that my point is actually another point entirely, of course, which itself seems a bit intellectually dishonest).
>The same way I don't want to register my IP address and cell phone to be able to post online
I see what you're going for here, but to pretend that this isn't functionally what is required in order to "post online" is unrealistic. I assume that you're posting from behind seven proxies and a few Tor jumps? Otherwise, I don't really see how you haven't created a link between the things you post and the devices you post from, which the government can then exploit.
If you feel that commercially available guns would equip the US civillian populace to repel the US military, that's your opinion. But I strongly disagree that this presents any realistic impediment.
Commercially available guns are the same or better as the guns used by US soldiers for the most part.
If you are talking about the US military doing aerial bombardment etc, of course these guns will not be a defense.
But if troops are going street to street, commercially available guns would enable resistance.
And the point here is not that the population would be able to win an all out war against the fully equipped army. That is a nonsensical scenario. It is that an armed population would be able to resist the Army, making all out war the only option. US army won't launch an all out war against the population, so this level of resistance is sufficient.
>So your argument is based on the trope that gun owners in America are overweight?
Yeah, that must be what my argument is. Don't bother reading any of the rest of my comment; you might become exposed to nuance. As long as you're not exposed to nuance, you will be able to go toe-to-toe with the 101st Airborne. There won't be massive casualties. You are exceptional.
I don't see any nuance. I don't claim to be able to go toe to toe with the 101st airborne. And I certainly don't claim that overthrowing an oppressive government wouldn't involve massive casualties.
Are you saying anything that isn't straw men?
And considering your question of coming from the same culture - you are assuming that the US military would be willing to go to war against their own people - a very different proposition to the wars they have been fighting.
Even the war in Iraq is considered not to be what they signed up for by many service-people.
>And considering your question of coming from the same culture - you are assuming that the US military would be willing to go to war against their own people - a very different proposition to the wars they have been fighting
Hey man, I'm just replying to things! I am not assuming that the US military would be willing to go to war against their own people -- I'm just responding to that already established hypothetical. I infer that you want to yell at people who claim that, by your alleging that I called Yank citizenry fat. The clownfight you seek is upthread, where people established that we were talking about the US military going to war against their own people. I didn't establish anything.
So you claim, but anyone who opens up the "discussion" with "So, [misrepresentation of parent opinion], huh?"[0] is clearly not seeking a discussion and is instead seeking a clownfight. You had every opportunity to prove me wrong.
I didn't misrepresent you - the text I quoted was part of your argument. If you didn't mean it, why did you say it? If you did mean it, then why not simply stand behind it?
Sharing the same language and social background would make military occupation more difficult, as it reduces the ability to other the occupied population. It also makes it easier for insurgent elements to infiltrate your own units. For an example of this, consider the infiltration of Iraqi units by insurgents and the ensuing problems they caused.
As for training and "better guns", the service weapon of the Army and Marines is the same weapon system family as is the most popular rifle in the United States: the AR15 (with military variants, the M16 and M4 carbine). Additionally, private owners are likely to have optics on par or better than are available to servicemen. And better-maintained weapons--you don't have to look far to get stories of infantry complaining about their gear. During the day, they'd be about equally matched individually. At night, NVGs and thermal sights would give the occupation forces an edge.
The infantry "better guns" that are out of reach of civilians in your scenario would be things like anti-material rocket launchers (AT4, SMAW) , grenades, and LMGs (M240s, M249s, etc.). With the exception of the rocket launchers, all of those are things that can be improvised or worked-around with the correct doctrine.
Rocket launchers, and more generally the air support and artillery that forms the true bulk of American land warfighting capability, are things that are vertboten when used against civilians. There's no credible armored targets requiring their use (except for perhaps captured law-enforcement surplus MRAPs) and so their deployment against a native insurgency would likely fall outside of the rules of engagement. Additionally, calling in airstrikes on insurgent positions in American cities has severely negative long-term implications for peacekeeping.
In short, fighting an urban or even exurban native insurgency the US military would possess only a slight material and technological advantage and even that would likely be severely undercut by having to follow very conservative ROE unless they wanted to rile up resistance further.
~
As for your remark on historical references, if you want something a little more contemporary and probably more reflective of what we'd expect to see in your hypothetical scenario, please consult the history of Ireland in the 20th century.
Your remark on "overweight American gun-nuts" is misinformed. I know that's a popular stereotype, but it is neither accurate nor even useful. Again, the sort of engagements we'd expect wouldn't be "Let's hump our gear ten miles to the AO", it's "So, after work tonight, let's do this mission on the local garrison". To be blunt, for that style of warfare, you can use women, children, fatties--anybody that can hold a gun.
Also, on your last point--they have developed countermeasures to things like mortars and counterbattery fire and whatnot.
~
Underscoring all of this thought experiment is something you're missing: in a supposed US insurgency, the huge non-combat advantage of the armed forces goes away. Our adventures abroad are backed by a logistics system and lift capability that boggles the mind, only made possible because we can keep all the ruckus of battle away from our airbases and factories and transportation hubs. In an insurgency, that massive advantage--one that's nearly taken for granted in the last two decades of warfare by our populous--disappears.
Hmm. Big guns "that can be worked around with the correct doctrine" and unnamed "developed countermeasures to things like mortars and counterbattery fire and whatnot" and the assumption that the military loses its entire support system all at once. I think you believe in an organizational capacity that doesn't actually exist in untrained civiliian populations (or are personally part of a militia whose training is sufficient to back up your words). Thanks for your thoughts!
So, at the risk of feeding the troll still further...
What I meant by "big guns" is that the equipment the theoretical occupying force would have access to that the insurgents wouldn't, like rocket launchers. The stuff like grenades and LMGs are things that can be substituted--to some degree or another--by things like Molotov cocktails or hi-capacity magazines.
"Countermeasures to things like mortars and counterbattery fire" is not some special doctrine utterly beyond the reach of American populace; instead, it's the observation that, if you shell an American position, you need to be somewhere else in a minute or two before your position gets blown up. This is something that is quite empirically learnable, and something that has been learned multiple times by untrained insurgents fighting US occupying forces.
> the assumption that the military loses its entire support system all at once.
Where are you getting that assumption from? I made no such claim.
> I think you believe in an organizational capacity that doesn't actually exist in untrained civiliian populations
I think you live in a fantasy world where civilian populations both have no trained members (false) and are unable to improvise and learn tactics of their own through trial and error (also false).
You keep coming back to the same circular "I define the civilian population as incompetent and worse than the military, therefore they are incompetent and worse than the military", despite a lot of evidence and arguments that your assumption is wrong and your conclusions incorrect.
If you want to actually pull on your big kid pants and argue why each of my points in the preceding post were wrong, please do. If you just want to continue shitting out little paragraph-long "but but but civilians populations are always going to looose" zingers lacking any critical thought, we've all got better things to do.
Yet you keep replying! You're a solid troll, though -- I especially like the way you're willing to descend into insulting me far before I insulted you, but I'm glad the gloves are off. Could you be the other guy in a sockpuppet account? It's funny -- I'm the one claiming bullshit without evidence or argumentation, but your posts are really really light on what these "correct doctrines" actually are, why the civilian population would have access to any of them, how the resistance would communicate, insisting on the primacy of various rules of war that would have presumably been rescinded if the kind of tyranny that required standing up to was running the military... It's almost like you're just bloviating about American exceptionalism, handwaving about "doctrines" that all good minutemen surely already know. Sorry, but you guys have the biggest, best-equipped military in the world. No matter how Rambo the local shooting club might consider itself, it doesn't seem up to the task. But what do I know?!
>If you want to actually pull on your big kid pants and argue why each of my points in the preceding post were wrong, please do
Oh, don't worry. I can't do that! You won't accept it. That'd require not having an untenable position you're honour-bound to defend! I think you've already decided that your exceptionalism will protect you. I'm just having a bit of fun!
>"Countermeasures to things like mortars and counterbattery fire" is not some special doctrine utterly beyond the reach of American populace; instead, it's the observation that, if you shell an American position, you need to be somewhere else in a minute or two before your position gets blown up. This is something that is quite empirically learnable, and something that has been learned multiple times by untrained insurgents fighting US occupying forces
Uh. So you're arguing against the general use of mortars? "Get out of the way" only works if the mortars didn't kill you already. This isn't a doctrine, it's common sense. Yet, something tells me mortar operators still successfully kill people. Presumably it's not so easy to just... dodge. You're the obvious military expert, though -- maybe people do dodge mortars and they're basically useless once the Correct Dodge Doctrine permeates the opfor!
>> the assumption that the military loses its entire support system all at once.
>Where are you getting that assumption from? I made no such claim
Yeah you did. Where? Right here, from this linked post [0]:
>>>Underscoring all of this thought experiment is something you're missing: in a supposed US insurgency, the huge non-combat advantage of the armed forces _goes away_. Our adventures abroad are backed by a logistics system and lift capability that boggles the mind, only made possible because we can keep all the ruckus of battle away from our airbases and factories and transportation hubs. _In an insurgency, that massive advantage--one that's nearly taken for granted in the last two decades of warfare by our populous--disappears_
Emphasis mine. Man! Wow! I thought for a brief moment that you were a genuine person and not a troll. This cinches it. Thanks for the game, gg no re
You're really concerned about my opinions, aren't you? Hey man, if you don't think the quoted bits of my comment weren't just evidence-free appeals to the poster's claimed superior knowledge of the military capabilities of untrained civilians, you're welcome to elaborate on all those unexplained countermeasures and doctrines. Why I have to offer a 'counterpoint' to unsubstantiated claims is beyond me -- something tells me it's because you disagree with me, and that you wouldn't hold yourself to the same standard were our positions reversed. Why do I say this? Your previous interactions with me, which were disingenuous as hell.
Nope - nothing disingenuous. Other posters may not have offered evidence, but they have offered arguments and explanations that can be evaluated and rejected on their merits.
The only person in this thread who has claimed superior knowledge is you, because that is the the only basis for being dismissive rather than offering alternatives.
I do disagree with you. What does it even mean for our positions to be 'reversed'? We are simply people who disagree with each other. What is there to 'reverse' about our positions?
As for my previous disingenuous interactions, if you are referring to me quoting you about overweight gun owners, I stand by that. You were simply being dismissive and I was pointing that out. Nothing disingenuous about that. If you didn't mean it as part of your position, you wouldn't have said it.
>What does it even mean for our positions to be 'reversed'? We are simply people who disagree with each other. What is there to 'reverse' about our positions?
This is a pretty common English turn of phrase ("what does it even mean to 'turn a phrase'?"). This is what revealed your hand. Good try!
>It still reported like 1/100000 of what Win10 does daily
Oh, absolutely, but if we're going to advise would-be Linux converts who are concerned with data leakage, may as well advertise actually-telemetry-free distros.
>Afaik Ubuntu removed that module like 2-3 years ago
For those out there that haven't bothered to do a quick search, one notable story about the issue can be found here [1]. Note that the date on that article is from 2014, and only refers to the Unity service for searching from Amazon. A later article [2] shows that Ubuntu has changed directions, but it certainly hasn't been 2-3 years. Needless to say, while it took Canonical some time, at least they dialed back what they were doing with online searches and made them opt-in. I've yet to see Microsoft, Google, or Apple dial back their telemetry services regardless of what criticism they may have faced (fair credit here, at least Apple is opt-in for the most part, though not entirely).
I don't understand this. AFAICT, parent is implying it's meaningful to compare Middle Easterners sharing information about protests and violence, and Westerners sharing unverifiably truthy HuffPo/Breitbart/whatever articles.
It's true that both of those examples boil down to 'humans digitally sharing information', but the circumstances surrounding both the humans and the information are so different as to make this kind of reductive comparison useless.
Article is about modern human psychological well-being; comments are about how materially satisfied modern (Western) humanity is, so what's the fucking problem, gosh!? The best part is the latter doesn't actually discount the former, it just trivializes its importance.
While my wiki link is barely two clicks away from yours, it's still important to highlight what's going on in re "public diplomacy information" now being deployable domestically; the language on the Smith-Mundt Act wiki page makes it sound like it's merely now being archived or something:
>The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (section 1078 (a)) amended the US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be released within U.S. borders for the Archivist of the United States.[1][2]
Another fun fact: this particular year's National Defence Authorization Act also contained the "Feinstein-Lee Amendment", which is the one that lets them detain US citizens indefinitely without charge for suspicion of ties to terrorism.
I hope everyone here who is complaining about this isn't going to just turn right around and enthusiastically vote to re-elect the party which did it. But I'm pretty sure that's what is going to happen.
Say, which party hasn't done something despicable in the last, say, 100 years?
Remember that the Greens arguably gave us Baby Bush and the Libertarians have run unapologetic racists relatively recently.
I'm thinking the Progressive Dane Party may be your guiltless party. Or perhaps the New Black Riders Party. (At least until they get power, at which point they'll actually do something, at which point they'll get the opportunity to do something awful, which they almost certainly will, because that's what happens.)
I'm not saying there's any specific party you have to vote for. But if you don't vote against, they won't learn. "I hate that thing you did, but I'm voting for you anyway" translates to a politician as "You don't need to do anything to earn my vote and can betray me as often as you want."
If the government can strip your citizenship away because of their suspicions of your ties to terrorism (ie, extrajudicially (ie, arbitrarily)) , then do whatever they want with you because you're no longer under the aegis of the law, enshrining the right of citizens to not be detained indefinitely seems kinda toothless (hey, wasn't that the status quo before the War on Terror?). If they want to do this to a citizen, they can dispel the protection by making the target not a citizen anymore.
All this is especially troubling because, as noted below, the Constitution, and other human rights legislation, typically extends protection to "persons".
But what's pointed out is that it only protects citizens. It clarifies, as there was a deadlock in the Senate over the issue before it, that non-citizens (other persons) or those no longer recognized as citizens (i.e. lost due to joining a foreign army or suspected of national security violations such as terrorism) do not have these protections.
The Constitution of course evaluates people as having these rights. It's a bit of a silly game to try to pretend that The Constitution is relevant today as it was written hundreds of years ago - but these differences are crucial. The placement of the boundary of habeus corpus - for all of the recent experimentation the United States has been doing with it - has been clarified by Lee-Feinstein as short of a protection for people and only a protection that extends to certain people under certain circumstances.
So, a person who is a citizen, could have their citizenship revoked for being a terrorist (by some definition) and then be detained indefinitely? Am I reading your, and the parent, comment correctly?
The amendment clarifies the boundaries of habeas corpus.
These boundaries apply only to particular people - namely those people with recognized US citizenship.
First, most of the human rights abused by the United States governments are non-Americans to begin with (let's put aside the penal system and some very sordid history with suppression of domestic civil rights groups for a second).
The amendment clarifies that foreign targets have no right to habeas corpus, a trial, to know even what they are being held for, etc. A very large contingency of innocent people suffer through this, but this isn't the comment to expound on it.
Second, the US can revoke citizenship of those it deems dangerous to national security (people like Snowden among them).
The criticism of the amendment is that the boundaries drawn do not respect the rights of "people" - only the rights of those for which it is convenient to respect (less than 4% of the people on Earth, and no serious dissidents, whistleblowers, etc).
> And other legislation that castrated domestic propaganda protections including NSPD-1 and NSPD-16
NSPD-1 and NSPD-16 are presidential directives, not legislation, and have no legal force to the extent that they conflict with actual legislation, including the statutory ban on domestically-directed propaganda.
Agreed, but as you likely know they are directives to the entire executive apparatus that cause it to discover, and then pass, the legislation it needs (therefore it's inclusion next to NDAA).
They are similar in kind to the Executive Orders, for example the now infamous EO12333 that carved the legal space and interpretation within the US government to justify many information activities, including propaganda and it being the authority the NSA points to for many of its activities - including domestic and global surveillance.
Note the content of the aforementioned presidential directives declare authority to use Civil Affairs Information Support (military capabilities joined on civilian infrastructure) during moments of national emergancy - such as Hurricane Katrina but also used for civil unrest like Occupy Wall and Ferguson.
Usually, a new tab opens whose address is "view-source:$URL_OF_PREV_PAGE". Obviously, it's not terribly hard to replicate by hand, but that's weird. As has been said since the days of old, "it worked on my machine".
Moreover, I bet the author is ESL. I see there's some dropping of the definite article (ie, "the"), and the use of the word "intelligentzia" in quotes. I think the author isn't aware of the English word intelligentsia and is dropping in another language's spelling. Also, note the plurality-agreement stuff in "attended more than one TEDx talks in person"; everybody knows "talk" is singular and "talks" is plural, and "more than one" is greater than "one", but only native speakers always remember the exception.
I don't see it as an exception, but rather as a matter of priorities.
It means "(more) than (one TEDx talk)" and not "(more than one) (TEDx talk)s".
And it works the same way in one of the author's native languages. It is even more obvious and you cannot get it wrong in that language.
Also, the definite article is used in this language much more regularly than in English. The problem with English is that, on the contrary, it does not use it everywhere. So you have to drop it sometimes, but not always, and the "rules" can be a mystery for a foreigner.
Right, but consider the reason that an empty Android project is 38mb large with 1000+ files. How much does it have to do with the fact that Android uses the Linux kernel? I was under the impression that the (hand-wavy, two-second) explanation for that was "Java nonsense", not "Linux nonsense".
And if that proposition rankles, we all pay Googlers' wages via "voluntarily"[0] using Google services and all that entails (ads, behaviour profiles, etc).
[0] I say voluntarily here, because of course it is voluntary; put down the phone or whatever. Yet, it's difficult to imagine the average HN user successfully opting-out of making Google money by using the internet (if only because the average HN user wouldn't actually care about most vectors for it). It's basically impossible for the average user to do this.
The reason it's so hard to avoid making Google money while you use the Internet isn't because of nefarious schemes, it's because Google kicks ass at what it does -- providing free services that are so good that most people use them, and matching eyeballs to ads using harvested info of said "most people". Regardless, when you're this big, you start to accrue responsibility (to, say, not be evil). Not that the capstone to this ranty footnote is "Google should be as transparent as government salaries", merely that that idea isn't actually too crazy when you consider the power Google wields over society via the Internet. Of course, the inconvenient reality of Google's position as a publicly traded company casts a huge shadow over any highfalutin prospect of serious responsibility to society, but a man can dream of a more reasonable system.
It's worth pointing out (because, for some reason, the coverage of this dude and his I-5 sign never emphasizes this) that when the sign was 'caught', Caltrans examined it, found it appropriate and to-spec, and left it up.