https://www.wyden.senate.gov/issues/secret-law
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-colle...
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-intro...
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/priorities/gps-act
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-relea...
It's sad we don't hear more about people like this in positions of power.
That said, I also think things happen way before the first term. It requires consent of the Party to get on the ballot and hundreds of millions of dollars, increasingly trending towards billions, to run a campaign with a chance of winning, because in a democracy it's quite self evident that the person who spends the most money, must be the better person. Results don't lie!
And on top of all of this, if you aren't shaping up to be who the Party wants, then the completely independent, free, and honest media will demonize you. And even if this doesn't destroy you in the eyes of your own supporters, it'll rile up your opponent's base enough as they race to vote (for somebody they also don't even particularly care for) because if they don't, then you might win! That cannot be allowed to happen as it would obviously be the literal end of the world.
This is why it's ever more important for social media to be controlled, lest somebody angle-shoot around the traditional path to success - the media. If somebody's gaining traction on social media, then he's saying things that disagree with the powers that be. Since he's disagreeing with the powers that be, he is spreading misinformation by definition, so he must be censored. For our safety.
I would like to ask you a serious question: do you not think it is extremely weird that so many people will at least sometimes[1] agree that "democracy" is essentially fake, but then at other times take quite literally the opposite stance...praising it, defending it, singing its virtues, etc? Granted, it is theoretically possible that each individual is 100% consistent at all times, and I am simply observing people who are on different sides of the argument, but now and then I'll check into someone's post history and find evidence that pretty soundly rules that out (subjectivity noted).
A standard response to this is something along the lines of "Oh, that's people just being X (dumb, etc)", but I do not believe that is an even remotely accurate description of what is really going on. But for even more irony: on one hand, most people tend to think democracy, governance, and all the things downstream of it (ie: their literal experience here on Earth) is a very big deal (the passionate debate over what exactly the events of January 6 "were" is a prime example), yet it is almost impossible to get anyone to engage in a highly serious conversation about just what the fuck is going on here on Planet Earth, 2023. It is as if there is some sort of a yet to be discovered phenomenon in play.
Do you think I might be crazy? I very often genuinely feel like I am living in The Truman Show.
[1] I feel like this is a crucially important detail that is rarely investigated or even contemplated.
But I think one major issue is that we're living through an obvious inflection point in history. When the US was competing against the USSR, we achieved numerous objectively incredible things. For but one example, we went from having never put a single man in orbit in 1962, to putting a man on the Moon, in 7 years! In modern times, with modern tech and knowledge, we struggle to replicate what was done 60 years ago.
And so I am exceptionally critical of our systems in modern times, but also look at them with glowing fondness at what they have achieved in the past. But socially we rarely distinguish between the two - Democracy is Democracy. And so this can appear to be cognitive dissonance when one loathes 'current democracy' yet holds dear 'classical democracy.' And I think many people also feel similarly, even if they may not actually even realize it.
But back to the inflection point, for the past ~80 years, and especially the past 30, the US has reigned relatively supreme owing to a large technological edge driving a large economic edge. But now China is equalizing technologically which is also driving their economy upward. It's already the largest in the world PPP adjusted, and will soon enough also be the largest in nominal terms as well. A country of 340 million simply will never be able to compete against a country of 1.4 billion. So they are set to become the world hegemon.
What will that mean? Well historically they've always been relatively insular, even when going through periods of great power, and I don't really expect that to change. In the early 15th century they were, by far, the greatest maritime power yet one does not find Chinese colonies in the Americas, India, Africa, or pretty much anywhere. But on the other hand, I think this change does scare many people, because what if China becomes the new US and just starts trying to put its tendrils into everything and turn everywhere into little clones of the Chinese political system?
And fear is a such a strong driver of irrationality, the same reason people continually vote for people they don't like. I think this fear tends to cause a sort of rally around the flag effect, where people can see that this flag is one they scarcely recognize, let alone truly love, yet it looks far less scary than the one they don't know at all. Drive that fear of the unknown into people, which our political types thrive at, and the people will come racing back, not entirely dissimilar to a woman in an abusive relationship.
I still feel this is not even scratching the surface, but it's at least a first effort! It's such an interesting question that one could easily write several books on the topic. And in the future, people looking back, probably will do exactly that!
I believe it is very fair to say that it is not a question of whether it is fake(!) at all (as a binary), but a question of how fake is it, and in what specific ways?
And yes, I can certainly appreciate why people would have an aversion to this, and the various other "just so" memes that are trotted out when the topic comes up, but the question remains: why is NO ONE capable of taking this topic very seriously?
Can you address that?
And while all these topics (and many more) can be encompassed by 'fake', they all are quite radically different.
Let's say an election actually was rigged - do you think that is more important than whether our "democracy" is legitimate, always?
Do you think 10% of the HN user base has the ability to discuss this question, at all, and without losing control?
I think an important point in general is that democracy is what people think it is. If people think elections are fair or a viable means to change their political fate, then they're going to act accordingly, and vice versa if they don't. So personally I think having as absurdly transparent and open a system is critical. Irregularities and oddities should be publicly emphasized across the aisle so (1) everybody can discuss things and be on the same page, and (2) they can be remedied and not repeated.
I think you hit the nail on the head here - and, it doesn't apply only to democracy, it applies to everything. It's funny, because lots of people also know this, yet do nothing about it.
> If people think elections are fair or a viable means to change their political fate, then they're going to act accordingly, and vice versa if they don't.
Where "acting accordingly" is usually ~behaving on social media in the corresponding manner.
Gosh, I wonder why it seems like humanity has little control over its fate.
It’s easy to game the system when there are only two sides to pay…
2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
The votes: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s168
But this is a MUCH older issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
And if you don't know about Quest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
The entire time period of the Bush admin is a microcosm for unresolved issues of today: Voting machines, government over reach and spying, security, encryption, copyright, bad behavior by corporate entities (M$ has a cohort).
That's certainly a step above many of the grifters we have in government, but it's also not necessarily a good thing. People can truly believe in stuff that's harmful or flat out wrong.
Oregon is an extremely based state. Y'all crap on PDX but the reality is that we have more freedom and less tyranny here than in any other state in the nation, and possibly in the world. PDX is "bad" because it's one of the only places in the world that hated the cops enough to actually muzzle them - and not living in fear of the boot is worth needing to deal with homeless people.
Want to smoke weed? Check (lowest prices in the world). Want to do psychedelics? (functionally legalized) Check. Want to shoot guns? (relatively lax gun laws for a blue state) Check. Want to not be spied on? As check as Ron Wyden can make it!
The tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny. I'd personally like to move to a state where all smoking, but at least weed smoking, is illegal. I really don't like second hand smoke, especially when it smells and hangs as much as weed smoke does.
In all seriousness, Utah sounds like your ideal so long as you stay outside of Salt Lake City. I'm glad to no longer be a resident
Not enough trees. Nor enough employment in my non-remoteable field.
Public smoking is a concern, but the smoke will leak even if smoked inside of a home. With edibles and inhalers I don't understand why people thought it was a good idea to legalize marijuana smoking.
> Nor do I see how having bodily autonomy is necessarily a tyranny of the masses.
Generalizing the principle of the swinging your fists near someone else's nose saying.
You do know that, right? I'm not detecting any humour markers...
You do understand that many tort suits, and outright laws, are over subjective harms, right? (trash in neighbors yards, loud sounds late at night, smells from chemical industries, etcetera) That laws such as disability protection laws exist?
Lots of people love the smell of cannabis. No one loves "trash in neighbors yards, loud sounds late at night, smells from chemical industries".
Arguing in bad faith is lame dude.
There are entire messy neighborhoods.
> loud sounds late at night
People sleep at different times of the day.
> smells from chemical industries
People who lack a sense of smell don't care.
Special pleading for marijuana smoking is also lame.
Second hand weed is harmful. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/secondhand-marijuana-smoke-w...
OP is complaining that he might get a whiff coming from his neighbors house.
> In a few states, however, public consumption is completely tolerated or allowed in licensed lounges and designated areas.
And the laws as is make it easy for people to lie to the police about exactly where they were when they were smoking the weed.
If you take one of the world's most popular pastimes that personally, and want it legislated against on that basis, I have no time for your arguments.
Like - Manhattan. Yeah, you're gonna smell cannabis in Manhattan. It doesn't matter the tiniest bit what the laws are; you're gonna smell it. It's not something to take as a personal insult, and it's wild you insist that it is.
Anyway, weren't we talking about a serious issue? Like, is this why Americans are ok with all the domestic spying - they're too worried about sniffing a reefer on the wind? Ugh.
Many popular activities are expected to be done where they do not impact others. In my local park, a man was arrested for masturbating in public, certainly a popular activity.
> It doesn't matter the tiniest bit what the laws are; you're gonna smell it.
Over the course of the last few decades, I smell it more in Manhattan and in many other places where it has been legalized. Apparently laws do matter. Not that I want any laws against it. I would just prefer that people not be assholes about it.
I did not interpret such sociopathic behavior as a "personal insult".
As for the more serious issue, I did not take the thread here. I replied to your comment, "OP is complaining that he might get a whiff coming from his neighbors house." I pointed out that one does not need to enter someone's house in order to be forced to inhale their smoke.
Wish it stopped at just the smell.
Second hand weed is harmful.
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/secondhand-marijuana-smoke-w...
https://www.lung.org/policy-advocacy/tobacco/smokefree-envir...
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-can-i-do-abo...
https://no-smoke.org/secondhand-marijuana-smoke-fact-sheet/
Second hand
Cool do you have better studies? If so, please share!
I await with bated breath (due to the nasty smoke both physically and here on HN).
Whatever happened to "Trust the Science^TM" with marijuana?
When it intrudes upon the bodily autonomy of others (e.g. second hand smoke, which I am constantly facing and suffering from in the Bay Area).
You want to live in a state where all smoking is illegal?
Because you don’t like the smell of weed smoke?
How interesting.
No, not because I "don't like" it, but because the smell of weed smoke causes quality of life and health issues.
One of the biggest reasons I'm happy I moved away from my home in Oregon. The second-hand weed smoke is gross.
Your DA is determined to destroy this right by spending tax dollars appealing 114 until they find a judge who agrees with them.