Scotland could never leave. Britain doesn’t want to loose Scotland and Europe doesn’t want to split up all the British kingdoms and have them join one by one.
Northern Ireland has a chance to leave the shithole that is brexit by joining Ireland, but does Ireland want that? You’re gonna spark a fire if you do that. The politics and rebellions of the 80’s are only dormant, the sentiment is far from gone.
let’s just ignore how the pretext for this line was Data observing how, sometimes, terrorism is an effective vehicle for social and/or political change.
edit: just to be clear, this isn’t a criticism, just an observation about the glibness of the meme as compared to the seriousness context.
that was Data’s whole point. Then, just as Picard was about to dish out a bunch of huffy, self-righteous moral indignation, their conversation got cut off by an incoming message or some other rather convenient interruption. Trek was often bold in how it approached controversial sociopolitical subjects. And, sometimes, it scampered off without honestly addressing them.
this occasion was one of the latter.
edit: although, one could argue that, due to the fact that Data got his comment in before Picard was able to give a self-righteous counter-argument, the writers, in fact, were quite brave. The comment was so controversial, in fact, the episode was banned in several markets which refused to air this episode, and it still remains banned in some places to this day.
Due to political sensitivity, as Ireland was still in the midst of the Troubles when “The High Ground” aired in 1990, the reference to Irish unification and terrorism in the episode resulted in its removal from first-run in the United Kingdom. To date, some syndicating networks will not air the episode, and it was only in 2007 (fifteen years after its first run, nine years after the conflict ended in a peaceful manner) that it was broadcast on the BBC.
In fairness, it’s less controversial and more that the line is outright offensive. At the time, people were being murdered by acts of terrorismin in the troubles, so to wontonly say that those attacks are effective and will get results was extremely insensitive. It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
That being said, it’s still an interesting point that Data raises in the episode.
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true. if someone, very boldly, were, today, try to make the argument that “the Troubles were worth it,” I dare say that they’d have a good case for that argument, despite the heavy controversy which would come with it. The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours.
And I certainly don’t support it.
edit: it’s a matter of factual and evidentiary support. come back with evidence to support your claims.
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive? As to the first, you’re free to read up on the history of the troubles yourself if you like. As to the second, it’s a matter of opinion, not fact, but considering that history, one that I feel is fair enough. As far as I’m concerned, comparing a single terrorist attack to a series of terrorist attacks is more than reasonable.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove. A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s to illustrate how two things are similar. I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them. If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove.
I made myself very clear:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true…The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours….come back with evidence to support your claims.
A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s to illustrate how two things are similar.
which you failed to do spectacularly by comparing two things which bear no resemblance in the way you suggest:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
because it wasn’t, for it achieved none of its intended goals. if it is your assertion that it did, it’s your job to prove that, which you have not.
I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them
no you then used this straw man instead:
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive?
then you used a series of unrelated equivocations rather than addressing the flaw in your logic: the lack of efficacy of the 9/11 attacks as a tool for social or political change (the entire premise from the start).
If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
you’re not a victim because you made a terrible argument and got called out for it.
There’s no reason to be rude. I strongly suggest you reread what I said and consider the context of the thread. I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism, I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks. You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about. When further questioned, you became genuinely insulting for absolutely no reason. I won’t be responding again, but please take some time to consider how you approach discussions in the future.
I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism
I have quoted you several times saying exactly that.
I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks.
you may have intended to argue that, but you clearly argued:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
and now you keep insisting that:
You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about.
when you very clearly said this:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
and now are acting indignant that I have to keep reminding you of that and how you’re somehow unclear of why after I’ve explained it several times.
I’’m very sorry you can’t wrap your head around this. and, yes, it’s best you don’t respond again, as I’d just keep repeating myself.
except for the first time you said it in your last comment, show me where you said “9/11 was a terrorist attack" before. because what you were arguing before was:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
ok, so, you do have amnesia and have forgotten our entire conversation. well, then I suggest you go back to the beginning because I’m not walking you through this again.
In fairness, it’s less controversial and more that the line is outright offensive. At the time, people were being murdered by acts of terrorismin in the troubles, so to wontonly say that those attacks are effective and will get results was extremely insensitive. It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
I mean I get that it is a pretty touchy subject, but honestly at the end of the day the 9/11 attacks were stunningly effective at doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do, get involved in a long drawn out war that undermined the stability of the US and accelerated its collapse.
The asshole literally wrote this all out in a letter and I am glad it made the rounds recently because we took the bait hook line and sinker. If as a society stories had trained us to think of terrorism not as some existential evil that comes from satan but rather a brutal political/military strategy enacted to accomplish certain logical political aims we might have been more equipped to deal with a 9/11 response more rationally. Specifically maybe we wouldn’t have just signed off on US warhawks throwing Iraq into the mix for absolutely no good reason than imperialism (Bin Laden must have been whooping and hollering happy when he heard the US decided to get itself stuck in TWO endless wars because of his actions).
Network cable also doesn’t do male to male lol what? You do mean patch cables yes, like cat#? Rj45 ends definitely require a female end, and you surely aren’t splicing the wires together with dolphins i hope.
A male to male electrical cable with wall socket plugs is a fire hazard. There are some made to be used to connect a generator to a house but it's a really bad idea.
Don’t know where that comes from, but I think it has to do with the institutionalized authoritative power that comes with the job. Both are positions that can be abused, and can negatively impact people’s lives.
On the other hand, my past landlords were nowhere near as helpful about noise complaints, as the police. So there’s that.
To elaborate on what @ShimmeringKoi said, as a landlord they must collect rent. That is inherently an extractive and exploitative relationship and they can only extract rent with the implicit threat of violent removal from your home if you do not pay it. And the arm of the state with the monopoly on said violence is the police, ergo landlords are cops.
Sorry I still don’t get it. Cops embody the violent coercion that is needed to enforce contracts and laws. Laws determine how contracts are made and what penalties for breaking them. Contracts are a legal confabulation that serve several functions, probably most relevant is they are the mechanisms that makes property ownership possible, such as land. Landlords have the personal property “rights” as outlined in property law and defined by the contract. Cops enforce the laws and contracts with violence.
Cops can only be landlords if they own property and collect rents. Landlords don’t have the ability to use violence to enforce their property rights, they have to call the cops. They both occupy this weird class middle zone that is neither bourgeoisie nor worker: collecting rents doesn’t necessarily make one a capitalist, land isn’t really strictly capital; cops aren’t proletarian workers though at one time they may have been working class with nothing to sell but their labor. Both are crucial to underwriting liberal private property relations which is the basis for capitalist exploitation and the class rule that emanates from it. But landlords have a completely different relation to production than cops, so they don’t occupy the same class position.
I’m not debating and I’ll read or watch anything recommended to me. I’m also mostly interested in specific and correct formulations of class, I study a lot and have high standards. If this is one of those things that is more agitational than strictly correct, I can live with that but if there is a critical formulation that I’m missing, or if this is a paradigm that other leftists are using to help formulate their views then I would very much like to understand
Are cops just the ones on the beat, in uniform, harassing the unhoused, killing protestors or just innocent people caught in the gears of capital? I think most of us would say no, obviously not. There are also detectives and all manner of plain clothes officers, but there are also all the prosecutors, the judges, the DAs etc.
These are all surely also cops, right? After all, we call her Kopmala for a reason. So what about landlords then? Do they not slot neatly into this power structure? Are they not just a half step removed from that legitimized arm of violence that is the state enforcing property rights?
Can your landlord inspect your home? Can they decide on a whim to utilize that violent arm of the state to kick you out on the street if they feel that you are not adequately maintaining - or even better, improving - the value of their property?
In all of these ways the landlord is more of a cop than the DA or the judge.
I guess I don’t totally agree with calling everyone that exists within that weird administrative class “cops,” but it isn’t a critical disagreement. I get what you mean though, thanks for the explainer
This is the internet. Everything we dislike is the same. Landlords are cops, Nazis, Russians, Israelis, authoritarians, libertarians, racists, homophobes, and transphobes; all at the same time.
I don’t dislike Russians. I am also curious of your definition of “authoritarian.” I am pro-liberation and pro-revolution, both things which would require a change in authority, either the colonized or the otherwise oppressed exerting their “authority” over their oppressors. Revolutions are by nature authoritarian. Also most of those things should be reviled and are not contradictory.
hexbear.net
Hot