“but it is unrealistic for a male and a female to just be friends! for if they spent time together alone, surely the female would simply consume the male to gain strength to protect her young, and- what, why do your eyebrows ascend”
NEVER DATE ALIENS
That’s basically just secret police
of a totally ordinary sort
that then indulge in kickbacks and protection rackets
Yeah, I realized I forgot to tag that #half shtpost, as I wasn’t being entirely serious. It’s a bit of wishful thinking.
The thing is, I don’t think we adequately police the police. We need cop cops. Metacops, if you will.
The disutility of a crime can be modeled as the risk of getting caught times the penalty for getting caught. Thus, a crime with a 5% chance of getting caught, times a 20 year sentence as penalty, is then modeled with an effective disutility of a one year sentence.
However, people tend to time discount and so on, so you might not get much more out of a 40 sentence than you would out of a 20 year sentence. They’re both “a long time.” This means that you can get more oomph out of increasing the capture & conviction rate.
Regular people, despite not being police, commit crimes for some reason. Cops, who we send to increase the chances of catching them, also commit crimes. However, since they’re the ones that we typically send to stop crimes, it’s harder to deal with this, especially when prosecutors have to work with the same police to prosecute normal cases, and thus can’t afford to anger the larger police force.
So we should have a dedicated force to investigate, police, and prosecute police misconduct. “Sting operations all the way down,” so to speak. Of course, we’ll need to have someone keep an eye on them, too.
…but won’t that result in endless layers of bureaucracy?
Not necessarily.
Just as we only need some limited factor number of police for a given population size, we only need some limited number of metan-cops to police the cops.
We can model the required number of layers of metan-cops as logcop_ratio(num_cops). With a cop_ratio of 2, for instance, our total number of all metan-cops is roughly the same as our total number of non-meta cops. A more reasonable cop_ratio of 10-20 gets us a more affordable ~5-11% for a city with 10,000 cops.
The purpose of each layer is to increase the uncertainty of successfully getting away with a crime at the layer below through arrest and conviction through multiple means, including informants, patrols, sting operations, reports of suspicious activity, investigations, etc.
This would be in addition to other means, such as introducing randomness to make various forms of corruption more difficult, moving people around to prevent building up loyalty between layers, etc. We want any corrupt personnel to always have to act very carefully and in the face of a great deal of uncertainty, as anyone they are interacting with could be one of our meta-cops.
We’d have to trim some of the other laws before we enact this, though, or else be careful just what policies we’re enforcing. Some laws currently not being enforced should just not exist, and we don’t actually want them enforced.
mafia protection rackets are so infuriating, probably because all the incentives are to just pay up, which is how they work.
it’s so tempting to try and imagine impractical ways of breaking the system.
It always impresses me how these gangs can be “more powerful than the police” and operate with relative impunity even in first-world countries.
I mean, you’d think the way to beat them would be to tell the cops. And yet, the government, for all its power, is often not the biggest force, and not just in an “I can shoot you and they can get me afterwards but not stop me” sense.
And of course, the “people fled the country rather than testify” thing seems… Like something you have to have an answer to.
infuriating! I think it’s easier to stop drug smuggling than protection rackets, as that involves a physical object that has to be shipped around distributed and can be intercepted at various points in the process.
but protection rackets are just this diffuse cloud of seemingly unrelated activities; people talking to each other over here, money changing hands over there, the occasional shop burning down or dude getting whacked somewhere else.
since police can’t offer 24 hour protection for every single person in town, there is always going to be someone vulnerable to extortion, and the incentive is always going to be to pay a small fee rather than risk defying them.
maddening!
Secret police, but instead of enforcing ideological conformity to the Party, they attempt to catch politicians with kickbacks, investigate labor and environmental regulation violations, and crash protection rackets.
2061: after president zuckerberg hands over the location and biometric info of faithbook users suspected of having illegal opinions, the union of european (purely geographical term) council republics dispatches the third tank division “jean claude-juncker” and the open society commissariate to prevent countless islamophobic incidents. bereaved family members weigh the loss of their radicalized right-wing high school children against the fact they don’t have to exchange currencies at the breadlines in neighboring EU republics and come to some closure.
Here’s a video just for you guys of me trying out my new bebionic hand! What do you think?!?
connard-cynique asked:
libfas answered:
Exterminating millions of people might spike the crime rate a little. You know, murder being kind of a crime and all …
Look, Connard, honey, darling, pal,
There are things between “arrest man and send him to prison for putting bacon on a mosque door, where he dies, while ignoring child-grooming gangs” and “exterminate everyone that isn’t white.”
Things like “make a sex-trafficking RICO act” or even “actually enforce the law against sex offenders and don’t overlook their actions and give them only short sentences because of their ethnicity.”
I think, perhaps, this says a bit more about the failure of your imagination - including your imagination of libfas’s motivations - than libfas.
“make a sex-trafficking RICO act”
Is it not already? Holy fuck this is such a common-sense bipartisan idea that I am not at all surprised this is not a thing already. After all, how can you score victories in the political theater if your opponents will completely agree that this is an obviously good idea?
One of the more interesting things that @Slartibartfastibast had been beating down is exactly this.
Rotherham is a small industrial city of about a quarter million people, of whom ~7,000 are Pakistani. The last count I had heard was 2,000 child sex slaves from this one small city, which, loosely eyeballing a UK population pyramid, gives me 1 in ~10-12 girls who were sex-trafficked. Throw on modifiers like “working-class” and it’s probably somewhat higher. (Albeit, you know, I’d love better numbers on this).
Oh, and the last time I had looked this up, the wiki page for Rotherham had lost the “See Also“ section because it was getting too embarrassing thanks to all the OTHER nationwide child sex trafficking scandals.
So they finally charged one of the gangs and sent them to prison. And it only took a year and half a million pounds to do so.
And so Slart’s interesting point here was that
To expand or elaborate, it’s important to understand that hard right ethnonationalist movements do not arise spontaneously. The conditions for them to do so must first exist in order to expand beyond the fringe levels of background racism radiation.
One key way to avoid giving them the opportunity to expand is to be actually virtuous. Not “progressive virtue,” the counter-part of right-wing Christianity’s failures, but,
Rotherham graduated from just being “Neo-Nazi propaganda” to something a lot more. This could have been prevented, by preventing, or prosecuting for, a bunch of sex crimes.
Ostensibly, we don’t like sex crimes and want them prohibited no matter which ethnicity engages in them.
So by doing what should normally have been done, a right-wing talking point and recruiting tool could have been denied.
Yes, the hard fringe would have remained, but marginal recruitment would be down.
connard-cynique asked:
Alright, again setting aside that this is trolly bullshit,
All states use the implicit threat of violence.
All states. Also all Anarchists, so as to prevent the formation of new states.
That includes liberal states! It includes Democracies!
Anyhow.
If you decide to actually massacre millions in the name of “white protection,” the Liberals get to kill you.
What you’ve just said implies a great confusion about the availability and power of political will.
Extermination takes more political power than separatism. If you have enough power to attempt extermination, then you have enough power to do separatism without it getting watered down. If you have half the power required to enact extermination, you have enough power to do separatism without it getting watered down.
And if the idea that some people might change their minds and later invite others back in applies to separatism, then it also applies to extermination, assuming you don’t literally control all habitable areas of the world in order to attempt extermination completely.
It’s also about political power required per unit area, per political operative, number of political operatives, et cetera.
Making a white city-state requires the coordinated action of the population of a city-state. So let’s call it somewhere between 1-7 million. They all have to move into, and control, only a city-state’s worth of geographic area. Most of them don’t have to be Party Militia members, so your real hardcore force would only need 50,000-500,000. to attempt this.
The entire process can be legitimized through the use of democratic means and ideology of national self-determination. The desired area can attempt to secede through a vote, severely undermining the ability of democratic nations to respond.
On the other hand, a plot for extermination requires seizing control of the whole country, and maintaining that control. For a country like Britain, with a population of 65 million, it’s going to need support from at least, let’s say, 25% of the population. So around 15 million. And that probably isn’t anywhere near enough unless you also have near-total control of the army.
One of these might actually be possible in the 21st century without the context of an invasion by a foreign power, the global collapse of oil reserves, the government of the United States of America declaring bankruptcy, and so on. I’ll give you a hint - it’s not the one involving the mass murder of people who have, individually, not committed any crimes worse than a parking infraction.
And that’s disregarding the effect that CRISPR and similar technologies are going to have on race.
But of course, this assumes White Nationalists who are not too delusional and who are capable of pulling off something reasonably well-organized with a realistic and achievable goal. The kind of people that could somehow make White Singapore.
Which don’t really exist in numbers right now.
I’m hoping that Leftists will be restrained enough to prevent them from coming into existence.
Besides, you’re forgetting a key part of why the Left has been able to advance, socially. A price paid in blood is a price paid in your nation’s will to survive.
connard-cynique asked:
So again, taking this as serious for a moment…
Ethnic separatism isn’t a gentle “no thanks,” it’s the formation of a new, sovereign nation-state based on principles of ethnonationalism and ethnic exclusion.
Exclusion backed by the iron hand of a state, and its implicit threat of violence.
But this isn’t extermination, and it doesn’t require the will for extermination - which isn’t going to exist at the national level barring some pretty shocking unforeseen circumstances.
So assuming you actually believed this, it would be foolish to pick extermination over separatism.
connard-cynique asked:
I understand this ask is satirical, with the goal of mimicking hard-right ideology. Quite frankly, I’m not sure what the point even is, since for Libfas, it was probably an attempt to bait him into saying something that would “reveal” his “inner Nazi” or something along those lines.
But not everyone with concerns about immigration truly has a secret inner Nazi with an opinion like your satirical one. Leftists are just not that great at understanding right-wing motivations, statistically, from what I’ve read.
But let’s assume we take it seriously for one moment. Just, you know, hypothetically.
Is there any way in which extermination is preferable to separatism?
Because not only does extermination require political will, it requires somewhere between one to three orders of magnitude more political will than separatism, control over the state apparatus, and conditions that, in the West, would only exist in a time of lawless violence and disorder on levels of Weimar Germany (which we aren’t at - note the insufficient challenge to the state’s military power).
And then, once extermination is attempted, because for such a nation to exist (at our technology level) for whites, it must exist in areas that are currently majority white, the full force of the political will of the liberal countries will crash against it, likely resulting in a much larger and better-armed invasion.
Separatism, however, won’t necessarily generate an invasion, and may have trouble rousing even a sufficiently crushing response in economic sanctions.
It would muster almost no response in sanctions if your ethnic separatist population was any color other than white. However, supposing you really did believe this, that becomes a method to corrode your opposition’s political will - just repeatedly pointing out their hypocrisy on this matter.
So even if one were an extremely racist hardcore reactionary, it just doesn’t make much sense to choose extermination instead.
That doesn’t exclude people from holding such ideas, or even acting on them - after all, destroying the Twin Towers was never going to make America quit meddling in the Middle East.
Anonymous asked:
Sssh, I’m trying to get through to a lolpunchanazi, on something more important, and that means setting some things aside for later. One thing at a time.
