Reminds me of George Carlin's show about changing words to make them softer.[1]
An good example he used to show this is the condition the fighters get from shock in combat. In WW1, it was called Shell Shock, a terrifying name. The same condition in WW1 was called Battle Fatigue, a nicer name. In the Korean War, the name changed to Operational Exhaustion, removing any humanity from it. After the Vietnam War, the name because Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. When you compare the terms "Shell Shock" and "PTSD", it's obvious what the intent is.
As for the "Patriot Act", it's funny how ironic of a name it is.
And well authoritarians have no sense of irony - what they think is "ironic" is presenting their true self when it unacceptable and passing it off as a joke. Thus they destroy freedom to protect freedom the same as they destroy the village to save it.
(squints) I think you've actually uncovered a true case of irony here. How would you know that the dictator considers their propoganda ironic? The fact that people read it and still laugh it off is the true irony.
[1]https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/ptsd/relate...
As an analogy, I doubt anybody thinks the social stigma around trisomy-21 is solely attributable to previous politically incorrect terminology but continued use of those former terms doesn't help alleviate that stigma.
Not everyone who gets fucked up got fucked up due to being shocked with shells. Your mom didn't get shocked with shells; she got shocked with your dad's fists (maybe even after he got Shell Shock).
Bad things happen to people, and sometimes they cause lasting trauma. The direct cause might be different but the effect is similar enough that the words used to name it should change.
I don’t think Carlin’s point was so much to comment on the accuracy of the description, but rather to say that these descriptions have become longer and longer as time has advanced and thereby lessons the guttural impact they “used” to command.
Do you think that’s fair?
... even if we've since established that said consequences exist along the same cognitive spectrum? From the perspective of a clinician (whose use of the term PTSD is scientifically driven), does it matter whether the conditions that caused the disorder were military or civilian?
1. is the low grade TBI(traumatic brain injury) that is fairly called "Shell shock" 2. is the psychological weight of traumatic experiences
The evidence is pretty strong that part of why soldiers PTSD is so hard to treat(not that PTSD is easy to treat in general) is that their neurons have been damaged so it's literally more difficult for them to learn new stress responses and make use of CBT(Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) to manage their inappropriate, for civilian life, stress responses.
Like when "School of the Americas" got renamed to, "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" which are both names for sniping civilians and throwing people out of helicopters.
I could see _eating a copper banana_ as a euphemism for assassinating a south american labor leader.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
> Reminds me of George Carlin's show about changing words to make them softer.[1]
“Patriot” isn’t exactly a soft word, though? I never understood why this brand of nationalism is so completely embraced and unquestioned in every fraction of the American political spectrum. It’s not like nationalism is unproblematic.
If we actually want to convince people that this needs change, we need to hold both sides of the debate to the same standard. We searched for any concrete evidence of these measures adding safety, found none, and then concluded it didn't add safety. The next step is to look for concrete examples of how this erodes freedom for a normal American citizen. Otherwise you are arguing one theoretical with another and most people will tune out.
Otherwise I don't know what you want here, historically the masses mostly don't do anything until they start starving. Most large acts of rebellion were put together by a small band of agitators often high ranking members of the establishment who for whatever reason decide they've had enough then publicize and promote it and then often pay the common folk to fight. The US for instance was majority founded by a bunch of rich people who were tired of the type of taxes levied on them. The continental army for instance was paid to fight. My point being is any action is going to be taken by people who care about the abstract notions, the rank and file will be paid to care or provided some equal material value.
What does this mean in relation to the debate about NSA spying? How is the NSA antagonizing me? What is one example of a material impact on my life?
>Even if it doesn't effect you now all you need to do is look at historical examples from other nations going down the same path. There's a reason the poem "First they came ..." exists and it's a direct counter point to the argument you're making.
This is getting into slippery slopes and hypotheticals that don't seem to motivate anyone and they are the exact arguments that are used in defense of this spying. If we demand examples of the safety this spying supposedly provides, we need examples of the freedom this spying destroys.
>Otherwise I don't know what you want here, historically the masses mostly don't do anything until they start starving...
I am looking for anything that will motivate people to political action. It doesn't need to motivate people to overthrow the government. A simple here is why you real life is worse so vote for this candidate, volunteer with organization, donate to this cause, etc.
Edit: I'll also leave off with where if your beliefs don't include government spying being bad you and I likely are coming from very ideologically different starting points and I have no intention of trying to spend my time walking you from A to B I'll leave that for the evangelists I have other things to fill my time.
I believe we need to get better at explaining this issue. We need people who are "trying to spend [their] time walking you from A to B" because flatly saying "you should be against it simply because in principal it's a bad thing" is not going to motivate any political change.
That said I just disagree with you that the masses typically are motivated about anything not just government spying I think action and change will come from a small group of people with vested interest, at least initially.
Everyone has that personal issue but it turns out that everyone's "I want this to change" issue is typically pretty different from one another so finding that similar group and banding together there to fix the problem I expect to be better than finding some key to ignite the masses.
And FWIW if the argument from the government is "See these people don't care about it so it can't be bad" is in itself a super weak argument. People and the government haven't cared about plenty of things that, at least in my set of morals, turned out to be super bad even if only a small set of people initially protested so.
Not a very good conspiracy theorist!
Obviously 'person' recognition tools, facial recognition included, are good enough that models work without facial data, hindering America's enemies but giving America the upper hand. This uses the assumption that miltech is anywhere from 10-100 years ahead of bleeding edge/experimental public/research tech.
I don't buy this theory but it's fun to consider.
Contradicted by what we know about current facial recognition technology but in a "make sure that the bullets are sterile, we don't want any wounded prisoners to die of an infection before we get any intelligence" sort of way.
>How China built facial recognition for people wearing masks: Hanwang says its technology has reached 95% accuracy in identifying mask wearers.
> This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism.
That was the original claim. You're the only one who's talking about the current administration.
Oooohk...
[1] It’s Time to Put an End to the NSA’s Bulk Collection of Americans’ Metadata https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/its-time-put-end-nsas...
As usual, the truth is far less interesting. But, it has nothing to do with civilian unrest or authoritarianism at all. You are probably mistaking incompetence for malice.
Then again, most people still misunderstand what PRISM actually was.