Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
People will often think that pushing for more security is the answer to insecurity (more police, more surveillance, less access to social networks, more weapons, more prisons, more authority, more punitions etc..). This sadly ignores the fact that this desire for security is in itself part of the systems of insecurity in many ways.
After a while, people will start to realize that society has drifted toward autoritarianism under their nose within them noticing.. all while blaming people who once opposed to these policies.. thus reenforcing the desire to create even more securitaristic politics..
It's a vicious circle
After a while, people will start to realize that society has drifted toward autoritarianism under their nose within them noticing.. all while blaming people who once opposed to these policies.. thus reenforcing the desire to create even more securitaristic politics..
It's a vicious circle
There is a fine line between 'security' and 'surveillance'. The former keeps law and order, the latter is a weapon of the state to monitor, and inevitably, control the population. Surveillance needs not just be cameras, it can simply be listening ears - for example, in the Soviet Union people were wary of talking in their apartments because 'the walls had ears', as in, their neighbours would report them.
Last edited:
If we take into consideration the fact that "law and order" actually perpetuates the interests of the state (and power/dominant class), wouldn't you agree that if the state is a part of some oppressive systems, then "Law and order" will necessarily perpetuate the same forms of oppression as "surveillance" for these interests?
I'll bite. Law and order does benefit the interests of the state. Naturally, all governments would create systems beneficial to themselves. In recent history this has prevented right-wing groups from mobilising in my country. You may not believe this, but the government is interested in keeping things as they are. To you that is too far right, but to many, that is too far left. Yet there is value in law and order. Police are necessary to prevent criminals - but only when police are actually competent - which in my country, they aren't.
Oh look, another left wing dictator in Latin America.
https://www.npr.org/2026/07/21/nx-s1-5902228/nicaragua-ortega-no-elections
https://www.npr.org/2026/07/21/nx-s1-5902228/nicaragua-ortega-no-elections
The most extrem yes, perhaps. But have you noticed how the police repressed the Pro-Palestinian activists in the UK or the rest of the leftist lately?
If that was the case, why do all of our governements (all european ones) creating more and more repressive laws against the freedom of circulation and information of people in both virtual and real spaces?
I do not believe that. After all, most criminals are statistically never arrested (the epstein files are one of such example). And I don't believe it is a problem of country, but rather, systematic structure.
If I am right and western states are fundamentally part of capitalist and racist domination systems, then we will necessarily witness these domination within their institutions. The Police, for example, will inevitably reproduce the conditions in which dominations will be perpetuated.
And when we look at scientific analyzis, especially sociological ones, we can't ignore that in the numbers, the police is violent and constantly reproducing the violences of these systems (rapes, racism, violences on children etc.), there is not one day where I am not made aware of one or two forms of police violence in France for exemple.
In a materialistic framework, we consider that the police (which is the main defense of the state), will inevitably try to defend the capitalist interests of the bourgeoisie. In other words, they will structurally defend EVERY attacks on the private ownership of means of productions. This is why there is always the police against protesters in strikes, in an healthy society, there wouldn't be any need for an opposition, that opposition is a sign that interests needs to be protected, and by nature, we consider that these bourgeois interests are against the interests of the working class
This is also why I consider the police as a class ennemy. Not because there are necessarily bad people in it. But because, people in this institution will structurally and inevitably try to defend the interests of the bourgoisie through their actions within the institution.
If that was the case, why do all of our governements (all european ones) creating more and more repressive laws against the freedom of circulation and information of people in both virtual and real spaces?
I do not believe that. After all, most criminals are statistically never arrested (the epstein files are one of such example). And I don't believe it is a problem of country, but rather, systematic structure.
If I am right and western states are fundamentally part of capitalist and racist domination systems, then we will necessarily witness these domination within their institutions. The Police, for example, will inevitably reproduce the conditions in which dominations will be perpetuated.
And when we look at scientific analyzis, especially sociological ones, we can't ignore that in the numbers, the police is violent and constantly reproducing the violences of these systems (rapes, racism, violences on children etc.), there is not one day where I am not made aware of one or two forms of police violence in France for exemple.
In a materialistic framework, we consider that the police (which is the main defense of the state), will inevitably try to defend the capitalist interests of the bourgeoisie. In other words, they will structurally defend EVERY attacks on the private ownership of means of productions. This is why there is always the police against protesters in strikes, in an healthy society, there wouldn't be any need for an opposition, that opposition is a sign that interests needs to be protected, and by nature, we consider that these bourgeois interests are against the interests of the working class
This is also why I consider the police as a class ennemy. Not because there are necessarily bad people in it. But because, people in this institution will structurally and inevitably try to defend the interests of the bourgoisie through their actions within the institution.
I actually agree with you here. People forget America is HUGE. There are crimes happening all over Europe daily.
I know for a fact that the media made false allegations that there was a terror attack planned for a Muslim event. We know this because there were roughly 12 arrests. Then, after the message got out about 'far right extremists' they quietly posted information that all the people were released as there was no credible information on this.
This is actually suspiciously in line with releasing information on Ann Widdecombe's murderer. They smokescreened his information release (far-leftist activist) by putting the terror attack as the top news on roughly the same day and then revealed afterwards it did not happen, all the while left-wing politicians such as Shabana Mahmood clapped themselves on the back for preventing an attack that never actually happened.
The police are very left-wing biased in the UK, and work very closely with the media these situations.
The rise of the right in Europe among the populaces has created a reaction from the left-wing politicians who wish to censor information on these things to prevent a complete right-wing shift across Europe. Quite easy to extrapolate.
Giga True.
I know for a fact that the media made false allegations that there was a terror attack planned for a Muslim event. We know this because there were roughly 12 arrests. Then, after the message got out about 'far right extremists' they quietly posted information that all the people were released as there was no credible information on this.
This is actually suspiciously in line with releasing information on Ann Widdecombe's murderer. They smokescreened his information release (far-leftist activist) by putting the terror attack as the top news on roughly the same day and then revealed afterwards it did not happen, all the while left-wing politicians such as Shabana Mahmood clapped themselves on the back for preventing an attack that never actually happened.
The police are very left-wing biased in the UK, and work very closely with the media these situations.
The rise of the right in Europe among the populaces has created a reaction from the left-wing politicians who wish to censor information on these things to prevent a complete right-wing shift across Europe. Quite easy to extrapolate.
Giga True.
Then how do you explain the repression of pro-palestinian leftist protestors in the framework of terrorist complicity?
So you tell me if I'm wrong here:
You are implying that you believe that people putting laws to censor informations, prevent young people to get on social media, create identification to get on social media, create more security measures, reduce the right of circulation, raise the police forces, give more weapons to fight protestors, create anti trans and antipalestinian laws... are leftists ?
So you tell me if I'm wrong here:
You are implying that you believe that people putting laws to censor informations, prevent young people to get on social media, create identification to get on social media, create more security measures, reduce the right of circulation, raise the police forces, give more weapons to fight protestors, create anti trans and antipalestinian laws... are leftists ?
Source for your first point.
I met with a Labour MP recently that is trying to bring in anti-trans legislation, btw. Yes, because young people are primarily right wing at the moment, and they're becoming more right wing on social media. Preventing them from getting on there is a way to reduce that shift. The police are incredibly left-wing in the UK and often arrest right-wingers on dubious charges.
I met with a Labour MP recently that is trying to bring in anti-trans legislation, btw. Yes, because young people are primarily right wing at the moment, and they're becoming more right wing on social media. Preventing them from getting on there is a way to reduce that shift. The police are incredibly left-wing in the UK and often arrest right-wingers on dubious charges.