- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The people who present this false partisan dichotomy to you in the first place own the airwaves
Going to have to agree to disagree. Twenty years ago, when established news was still profitable, you'd have had a good point. Today, everyone has a camera and an internet connection in their pocket. Anyone in the right time and place is a reporter, and established media outlets are left scrambling to keep your attention. Only way they can keep the lights on is to rush to their consumer base. If Fox news started saying Trump is a dickhead tomorrow, or CNN praised him for pretty much any reason, they'd be out of business in a month. They can't afford to chase of the few consistent viewers they have left, so they tell the viewers what they want to hear: that they're the hero of their story and the political opponents are the enemy.
Ten years ago you'd be right, but power controls the internet nowadays just like it controls everything else.
Still can't shut down child porn and Silk Road and illicit movie downloads. Just sayin'.
Buddy, there are real life, modern examples of the outcome of this already. I gave you one a couple of posts ago: 9/11.
Look, I'm not going to deny that Cheney is an evil fuck, but pardon me if I remain unconvinced that 9/11 was an inside job. Yes, there are certain lies surrounding that event, and some are even told for good reason. But a conspiracy on that scale would just require too many hands to keep it this quiet for this long. It's like the moon landing. If we faked it, we wouldn't have been able to keep that secret from Russia, and Russia would have fucking loved telling the whole world that the whole thing was bullshit. Pardon me, but I remain unconvinced that absolutely nobody would have talked, especially considering my own experiences with the incompetence of the average government worker.
Also, I'd just like to point out that we've now had several thousand words of productive conversation. When was the last time that shit happened?
Think about who controls the airwaves.
Mainly partisan hacks who know they're losing the trust, and market share, of the average American.
If it comes to it and insurgents are gaining support through the media then the government will just shut those outlets down and cite national security.
That's going to be a long, hard game of whack-a-mole in this internet age. While the government does have a significant degree of influence over propaganda, it would take something drastic for them to be able to shut down freedom of the press. Even Edward Snowden is able to sell his book here in the US, and the government can't legally stop him (although they have attempted to sue for any profit he might have made off of it, and I haven't followed through to find out whether Uncle Sam was successful). The question then becomes, even if the government can shut down all or part of the dissent, is it too little, too late in the court of public opinion? Let's not forget, even though the government would like you to think that it's an all-powerful faceless entity, it's just a group of people and most of them are idiots.
Listen brother, if you need guns to make changes then it can only be because the promises of democracy and justice which your culture is built upon are false.
I wouldn't say it's a matter of flawed values. I'd say it's a flaw of the human condition, hell, even universal laws of entropy. There is no organization that does not have a finite lifespan, and if it survives long enough, it will lose sight of its founding principles. Whether it's a government, or a business, or a religious establishment, whatever, it will eventually be chock full of useless idiots looking for an easy paycheck peppered with clinical psychopaths who are attracted to positions of authority. We built a country that for nearly 250 years was a beacon of personal liberty with an uninterrupted streak of peaceful or at least orderly transitions of power. We've got a fuckload of problems but that might very well be unprecedented in human history, and humanity as a whole is going to take lessons from that, both in what we did right and where we went wrong. Personally, I hope we're able to preserve individual freedoms, division of power and meritocracy, and I don't think that people will be so quick to give that up now that we've had a society which upheld those things, for the most part, for a good long while. And while we've never lived up to the Constitution I still consider it to be worth continually striving toward. If that means fighting a government which no longer represents the people, hey, that worst case scenario is literally why the second amendment was written.
What has happened traditionally is that the dominant culture has subordinated the others.
You're right, of course. The question then becomes, what is left to become the dominant culture? I don't think that any one individual has an answer to that question that isn't subjective. I think that most people fall into a trap of believing their position to be that of a "silent majority" or "common sense" just to reinforce the bullshit between their ears. And in this age where Google will feed you personalized information on what it thinks you want to read rather than what you should be reading, even for the few who actually want to challenge their perspective, it's difficult to find an honest and intelligent perspective from "the other side". Makes it hard to see the world as anything but a bunch of people who agree with you salted with a few who don't, and are batshit crazy and immediately dehumanized by default.
Well, the presence of exactly that arrogance is something I won't argue with in the least. The risk of established systems of government and economy collapsing in part or in whole is something that we may as well take as an inevitability. The remaining question then becomes, do we preserve our founding values? I'd like to think so.
Americans can certainly fight dirty, but they aren't capable of guerrilla warfare because it isn't that kind of culture. The American culture is spoiled and you guys are used to having all the advantages, the biggest guns and the best technology. Guerrilla warfare usually comes from the precise opposite of that.
Maybe. But history, and war especially, tells a long story of people learning to adapt and even thrive in short order under conditions we'd both consider horrific. In fact, I'd say that there are two more factors that are more important: the first is public support. No insurgency can survive long if the public is going to call Big Brother the moment they emerge from the woods. The second factor is... Are you surprised?... The lethality of an individual at range. Or in shorthand: guns. And we don't need castoffs from the former Soviet Union like those that are scattered all over the middle east, no sir. We've got enough to handle the situation a few times over.
At least, that's what I think. May we never find out who's right.
Americans are too selfish and too pampered to fight that kind of war.
You might be right. But you Brits thought the same thing of us just before we entered the first world war. Don't write us off just yet, we've surprised you before many times when it comes down to fighting and fighting dirty.
I argue no. Mainly, out of a difference in the definition of happiness. Goofing around and never getting shit done is not a recipe for happiness. Working out, having a career you're passionate for, having a good family and social structure, these things are all condusive to happiness. Going into a crappy job every day because you never put the effort toward a better career, all so you can live for the weekend, is a miserable proposition. I'd say that the strong are still best suited to survive. And besides, it doesn't take much for society as we know it to tip, and old social structures of dominance to take back over.
Yes, you yanks are experts in the art of retreat. Almost as good as the French.
Worked against you in the 1700s, even though you were the supposed greatest army in the world, and all we had were a few nonstandardized muzzleloaders in the hands of a bunch of illiterate hillbillies.
But hey! The idea of you specifically rolling up to my house with a tank is a much more fun thought experiment. I like to think that I'll have amassed the 1500 pounds of brass necessary to build a 12-pounder 1857 Napoleon cannon, one of my long term projects, long before you ever find yourself behind the wheel of a tank. When that happens- and it will happen, I have the blueprints sitting on the shelf next to me- I'll have to experiment with sabot tungsten armor piercing ammunition. Other than that... Let's see, a collapsible tunnel is an attractive idea. See, I've played with the thought for years of burying a shipping container to use as a private shooting range, but placed strategically, a tank rolling over it would fall through and be trapped much like Heemeyer's killdozer... An IED under the treads might knock them loose and leave you parked... And, well, not that I'm given to relying on help or telling you exactly where I am, but let's just say that this isn't the best block to start a scuffle with a tank. Why? Because you won't be the only one with a tank. I love this neighborhood.
Of course, if I'm allowed in this thought experiment to steal ordnance for this battle- as you'd presumably have to steal the tank- hoo boy, do I know where to go. I know exactly where to find a local pair of Solothurn S18-1000 rifles, and goddamn, would I love to blow a hole in a tank with one of those beauties.
Are you asking what will I do if I have to fight the government? Simple.
One, let's consider that the threat is not the tank, it is the person operating it. A person who may very well refuse to fire on American citizens and, depending on the nature of the order, may be more inclined to turn their tank around on a government which is not nearly as popular among the troops as the country's founding principles.
Two, we do not have a good track record against small cell insurgent tactics. Vietnam, Afghanistan, need I go on?
Three, one of the basic principles of insurgent tactics is to resupply from the enemy when you raid them. I don't have a LAW rocket now, but if I take out a convoy with an IED? Who knows what goodies they're carrying.
And finally: don't engage the tank. Retreat. Simple. "But Devil," you may be asking youself, "how can you expect to win a war by running away from a fight?" Great question. By picking your battles carefully. I can't fight a tank and win, but if I take out a fuel supply truck with an IED, or a tank driver with a sniper, or an ammunition depot and a maintenance garage with arson, I don't need to fight the tank. 'Cause if you interrupt the chain of components needed to make that tank roll in the first place- and it's a long fuckin' chain- then that bitch is parked.