| ▲ | thaumaturgy 9 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There's a glaring lie of omission when Singapore is cited as a "safe society" in a surveillance context without also mentioning that those same surveillance systems are used to aggressively suppress political dissent (https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/sou...). Super safe society, unless you happen to express disagreement with any part of it. Then, not so safe for you. So I guess the question is, once America attains a sufficiently pervasive level of surveillance over its citizens, which people are you hoping will be in power forever? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | janalsncm 9 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are two separate types of events with associated probabilities: 1) the probability of being harmed by criminals, and 2) the probability of being harmed by the government. For most people in most places, police are ineffective and therefore the first is orders of magnitude more of a problem. For example in the Bay Area, car break-ins are incredibly common and police are incapable of solving it. This would be unthinkable in Singapore. > unless you happen to express disagreement with any part of it On the other hand, the government in Singapore is genuinely popular. A majority eligible of voters chose to re-elect the incumbent. For reference, only 32% of eligible American voters chose the current US president. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||