dimreepr

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

But it does for a 'far-away' observer, as we would be, watching the stellar collapse in Andromeda.
Is that what you meant, Dim ?

I think so.

20 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, it does not.

OK,but please explain why I'm mistaken?

Probably a stupid question, but doesn't time effectively stop from the POV of the observer at the event horizon?

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

I regularly see "convicted pedophile Epstein" in the mass media, e.g.

https://www.google.com/search?q=convicted+pedophile+Epstein

But he was never convicted of pedophilia. He signed a settlement with the prosecutor's office, with a completely different accusation, i.e. "pleads guilty to state charges: one count of soliciting prostitution and one count of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18."

Every newspaper and television that calls him "a convicted pedophile" is simply lying. Because he wasn't convicted for it.

The media is reporting false information because pedophilia is more clickbait than being a pimp, and because he's dead, so he can't sue them for defamation. (I think that if he were alive, he wouldn't have dared to do it anyway, because then his ex-girlfriends would be called as witnesses and the circus would start all over again.)

If he's dead,, why are you wasting our time, trying to defend a man, whom you can't possibly know to be innocent?

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

As mentioned above, the authoritarianism in Western countries is mostly based on package voting, where each choice the voters have has both some good and bad decisions, and they can't separate them to vote for each point independently. For example, a frightening scenario of the near future is as follows: Trump dies or gets a dementia or becomes impeached by the US parliament, and the Americans choose a president of e.g. these two candidates - J. D. Vance vs Kamala Harris. A half of Americans will vote for Harris because they do not want the abortions to be prohibited, and another half will vote for Vance because they do not want transgenders in big sport. Possibly the choice will be even worse, because both candidates will not talk about cryptocurrencies (this will mean that they plan to forbid them), and they will promise to de-anonymise Meta and X (because people talk too much about politics in the social networks). Both choices will be terrible, and I am sure that the best vote in such situation will be NOTC, or, more exactly, spoiling the ballot.

The best thing Trump can do now, to prevent such a scenario, is the initiation of some all-US referendum with 4 proposals (each point will be voted separately):

1) Ending of "gender diversity";

2) Full legalization of abortions;

3) Legalization of cryptocurrencties;

4) Some declaration that the social network have all rights to make their users anonymous.

Your describing a functioning democracy, all be it a terrifyingly binary knife edge ATM, but what it's not, is a hidden authority; bc of those pesky journo's.

12 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

I realize my previous tone may have been sharp, and for that, I apologize. My perspective comes from 37 years of engineering, where mass balance and energy conservation are absolute. While I understand the mathematical models of spacetime, my focus is on the logical impossibility of 'double-counting' atoms in a closed system. I believe we are looking at the same reality from two different angles: one abstract-mathematical, one physical-energetic. Let's agree to disagree on the nature of the 'clock' versus the 'change'.

We can't, imagine a two dimensional character living in the clock, it can only say cuckoo when the big hand changes to being fully erect. 😉

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I’m not sure that knowing Epstein socially even indicates creepiness. Seems just about everybody knew Epstein: he was a vigorous, ubiquitous socialite, by the sound of it. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that most of these people were involved with Epstein’s prostitutes.

Indeed, but maintaining a positive association post conviction is very suspicious, if only for the fact that they feel entitled enough to not care if it's suspicious.or morally wrong.

On 2/8/2026 at 3:43 PM, MigL said:

I would make the argument that D Trump, and members of his administration, have no clue about foreign relations, and I think the American electorate, members of Congress and the Senate are beginning to realize that.

He's taking a very British approach to foreign policy, talk loudly and slowly and if they still refuse to understand, invade their country and shoot them for being stupid.

On 2/8/2026 at 8:34 PM, CharonY said:

It is also noteworthy that it would be a bit of a mistake to see cohesive strategies everywhere in the Trump administration. There are of course folks who do have a plan, such as Vought and Miller. But as Trump is too lazy (or dumb) to follow all that, his public remarks have been used repeatedly in court to undermine arguments of government lawyers in court. I think Trump is used to pick and choose whatever reality he fancies at any given point but at least so far that doesn't really work in court.

"The king is dead, long live the king"...

Who do you think the king maker has their eye on?

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

For those who just can't get enough of this thread, tune into BBC Brit - Channel 120 on African Dstv - and watch endless repeats of 'Pointless'

Nish Kumar, on BBC sounds, is far more entertaining...

11 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, I have more arguments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Switzerland

What makes you think that this is an argument?

55 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It also looks as if the role of ICE is gradually being expanded beyond its original remit of rounding up illegal immigrants. I note in particular the alarming presence of ICE to provide protection to Vance during his attendance at the Winter Olympics, in Italy. WTF? They seem to be morphing into a new arm of state security, outside the systems, controls - and training - of the normal security services and answerable to no one. They have already established a reputation for killing citizens with impunity. So the fear factor is being ramped up. What next? Brown shirts and diagonal leather straps across the chests?

It also has the benefit of creating the conditions, in which he can excuse the use of actual troop's and, perhaps, martial law; I think his only chance of his third term.

@KJW he still has to dance for the people, politically, and the US is still a democracy, however tenuous it's grip; I still have faith in the US massive... 🤙

Just now, Genady said:

Details matter here. It depends. Which humans? How were they trained? What parameters were given for the analysis?

Indeed, it depends, what algorithm and how does it relate to human thinking?

On 2/5/2026 at 10:17 AM, KJW said:

How useful a printout of a digital ID depends on whether it is accepted as a proof of identity. One may need to get the printout authenticated by some official. But even if one does have a printout of a digital ID that is accepted as a proof of identity, it is still a physical ID.

If memory serves, a North Korean dollar bill was a perfect copy, and like money it's dependant on trust.

On 2/5/2026 at 10:17 AM, KJW said:

These are essentially saying the same thing. And they are both based on the fascist belief that some people are better and more entitled than other people. So the argument is actually begging the question. The fundamental problem with this fascist belief is that it is ultimately incompatible with peace as the "inferior" people decide to assert that the "superior" people are maybe not so superior after all.

  On 1/31/2026 at 2:57 PM, dimreepr said:

The hidden authoritarianism in all societies is self, and it's never evil.

I'm not a subscriber to the view that evil is only subjective. One can axiomatically assert the "golden rule" and derive the notions of good and evil from that.

It depends on how deep you want to dig, it reminds me a of a Richard Feynman lecture, in which he tries to explain magnetism as a force.

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - someone famous...

On 2/5/2026 at 10:17 AM, KJW said:

About 30 years ago, I would've agreed with you. The appeal of computers was their ability to operate fairly, without benefitting one group of people at the expense of another group of people. However, I suspect you interpret "negotiate" to mean influential people using their influence to bend the system to their will. But I could've easily said that one can't reason with a computer. The example I gave (my inability to prove that I was not a robot) was of a computer being unreasonable.

ATM the future of AI is scarey enough to prompt societal push back, as in Australia banning children from social media.

The political pundulum will always swing towards the extreme; philosophically, a benign dictator is way to go, realistically a computer is our best chance of achieving that goal.

34 minutes ago, Genady said:

I disagree. You know exactly what I call "Earth" in my statement above. But you've changed the meaning of the word. It is a coincidence in English that the patches of the earth and the planet Earth are referred to by the same word. To avoid the language misunderstanding, I can clarify, "Earth, the celestial body, is not flat." It is a hard and fast truth.

It might be a hologram, depending on one's perspective... 😉

On 1/31/2026 at 12:14 AM, KJW said:

I was a believer of the idea that a fair society should be run by computers. But since then, having experienced glimpses of what such a society would be like, I no longer believe in a society run by computers.

When the inputs that benefits certain people, as in the current problem's with social media, is a glimpse that can be frightening; but the evolution of an AI, with a reasonable facsimile of the 3/4 law's of robotics, is potentially the closest approach to the sunlight uplands.

"The fundamental problem with dealing with computers is that one can't negotiate with them."

I see that as the fundamental reason a computer is beneficial to society; the judiciary shouldn't be negotiable...

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I wonder how Sweden made the list. I have always been under the impression that all of the Scandinavian countries were more egalitarian than most of the rest of the world

That may be true, but they still decide who gets to vote...

10 minutes ago, ahmet said:

all i can see, there is acceptance of community. I mean that this was too much effective which is also the wrong thing to me.

what I want to underline is that since there are "truths" and even though we scientists are successfull to find / find out those "truths" , they will exist and be effective.The difference will just be that we will not be able to use those truths. I mean that even though we get agreements on something the truths exist in every process regerdless our convention.

So, I wonder (and also should express my surprise that ) the reason why when some effective/known people says something, others follow without questioning.

There are thing's that are true in science, the axioms; everything else is a temporary truth, or target for every scientist to shoot at.

14 hours ago, KJW said:

The printing press? Why are you bringing up this straw man from the 15th century? I never suggested that all technology encroaches on freedom and control. I pointed to particular technology, indicating how they are making us vulnerable to authoritarianism. One technology I didn't mention because, although it poses a substantial risk to our freedom and privacy, it also exposes the evil actions of overlords, is the proliferation of cameras.

The printing press is the start of information technology and was a liberation of information, a classic double edged sword.

The evil side of democracy is, even the fool's get a vote.

The good side of dictatorships are, the idiots can be ignored.

Camera's are capable of exposing everything, let them who are without sin cast the first stone.

The hidden authoritarianism in all societies is self, and it's never evil.

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think the optimal backup would be a paper copy that is printed in some special way (like those special vertical security threads that react to UV light, in US bills of larger denomination) by a government office and is impossible to counterfeit. If there were a glitch or hack of the digital ID, this would be insurance. You wouldn't normally carry it around, but keep it on a secure location for such an emergency. It wouid be better insurance than something printed at home.

That's a lot of tech... I'll bet there's a computer involved...

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

That is my broader point though, hidden authoritarianism can be exemplified by arbitrary application of rules to certain people. That is what we are seeing in the US, where ICE and border control seemingly arbitrarily accept or reject various levels of proof of citizenship. In a broader sense, this arbitrariness has always existed at borders as the agents there can legally deny you entry except when you are a citizen, I believe.

I.e. you do not need a full-on gestapo moment, but there built-in vulnerabilities, even in not fully autocratic systems. The main difference in my mind is how these vulnerabilities are being exploited. After all, in the US in theory you always had to prove your legal status if you are not a citizen. But generally you wouldn't be stopped on a random basis. But it was always fully in their power to do so in public places.

Edit: with regard to OP and this point here specifically, the broader issue is that authoritarianism is not binary. Even in an otherwise liberal (as in free) system, there are necessary restrictions as well as vulnerabilities. How free a given society is depends not only on whether the whole structure is authoritarian or not, but rather on how the many individual components, ranging from the bureaucracy, law enforcement, judiciary, but also voter decisions decide to run things and what restrictions and safeguards we put into place and how we decided to enforce those.

The slide in authoritarianism in Weimar, but also many other countries in recent times was often not after a coup and a massive restructuring of the system. Instead, they are characterized by continuous undermining of safeguards on all levels. In the given example, offline paperwork would only provide benefits, if they are robust safeguards forcing for example law enforcement to accept them. Yet much of it still lies in the discretion of the officer. And again, in the US we can see how fast the discretion can change.

Indeed +1

But when a "law enforcement officer", on a whim, can decide to be a judge and executioner; the event horizon, has already been crossed...

5 hours ago, KJW said:

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism.

Bear in mind that humanity is just as scared of the shadow's, as is 'Ozymandias' the greatest of Kings. 😉

It's like Batman v Superman, a hidden joke by Spiderwoman...

3 hours ago, KJW said:

I should point out that I'm not living under a Nazi regime where one has to carry "papers" with them just in case one is stopped in the street by the Gestapo. When I mentioned showing ID, it was for things like opening a bank account rather than proving my entitlement to exist. Having a physical ID is a rigorous proof of identity from my perspective, whereas a digital ID may become unavailable due to some form of technological glitch that I have no control over.

In the scenario you mentioned, if the Gestapo consider your physical ID to be fake in the absence of any evidence, then they were always going to take you into custody, and the ID becomes irrelevant.

The point of what I said in my original post is that the holder of a physical ID has control over the ID, whereas the holder of a digital ID no longer has control over the ID, that control having been transferred to the administrating body of the digital IDs. While there are scenarios in which a physical ID might not be sufficient, there are more scenarios in which a digital ID might not be sufficient, including every scenario in which a physical ID has been revoked.

Bear in mind that this thread is about hidden authoritarianism. The scenario you mentioned seems to me to be about a full-blown dictatorship. But whereas the opening poster seems to be discussing the intrinsic limitations of a democratic system, I am focusing on the way technology is gradually encroaching on freedom and privacy.

The printing press is part of the technology, you're suggesting is encroaching on your freedom and control.

The digital audit trail, I would argue, is harder to fake, or destroy, than a printed document; I acknowledge that no system is perfect or free of fakery.

Any dictatorship worth it's salt, will be the sole arbiter of reality.

Technology is never the problem, it's the insidious nature of an ageing demography and the rose tinted nature of their vision.

On 1/27/2026 at 1:56 AM, KJW said:

When it comes to the "mechanism of hidden authoritarianism in Western countries", there seems to me to be a pushing of society towards a dependence on technology, and away from traditional things such as cash. It bothers me immensely that I am often being forced to have a smartphone and use it online to verify my identity instead of using a password (that should be my choice, not the online platform's imposition which is non-negotiable). It also bothers me that it is society itself that is complicit in the push towards dependence on technology, especially the push towards a cashless society.

I recently read an article about the push towards digital licenses and digital IDs in general, with the scary possibility that these can be revoked remotely, thus putting a person at risk of becoming an "unperson".

This is the brave new world mr Huxley foretold (if we replace genetics with technology), I find it a strange dystopia in which everyone's happy, though...

On 1/27/2026 at 9:34 AM, Linkey said:

So you believe that the Americans had good choices - previously Biden, then Harris - and they showed themselves stupid since they voted not for Harris but for Trump?

Do you believe that you're stupid?

What if you are?

Would that mean you make stupid decisions?

A hotbed of human confirmation bias; I guess it's you and here's why you've confirmed that???

I would love to see a series, in which no one is a traitor and all the murders are done randomly...

How many season's would it take?

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

Again: a common situation is when candidate A promises something ugly regarding question 1, but something good regarding question 2. Candidate B promises something good regarding question 1, but something ugly regarding question 2. So the voters do not have choice.

For example, some candidates promise to supress gays, while others promise to supress homophobes; and when these candidates change each other, nothing changes, because both parties are rather spoilers serving the financial elite. This is clealy seen in case of USA and Poland.

You're missing a whole section of government in western societies that seek to reduce the potential of a king to own everything; that being the separation of powers between different levels of homophobia.

Mechanism of hidden authoritarianism, tends to eliminate the option to vote, rather than present a cognitively disonent argument, as a potential choice.

You're falling into the trap, that dictators tend to place before the 'Dunning and Krueger' devotee's... 😉

On 1/20/2026 at 3:06 PM, Phi for All said:

I don't see how this works, and you don't help by interjecting "fate" as a mechanism for removing subjectivity. Also, uneducated and illiterate are NOT synonymous. Also, I don't see an equation that agency can be removed from. If you're just using buzzwords to explain this, it's not working.

On 1/20/2026 at 3:06 PM, Phi for All said:

I think it's a horrible point. Removing the process for reasoning doesn't help anybody remove their own biases. The process is what helps recognize an objective statement from a subjective one. Your "point" can't explain the difference between "apples are fruits" and "apples are delicious".

I was trying to simplify the human equation, into those that can understand the lesson and those that can't, fate is just another word to fill the gap between...

When one understands a thing, it can be difficult to understand why other's can't; for instance, some apples aren't delicious.

Most of the above, in reference to agency, depends on the teachers we most trust, in a much more complicated spectrum of humanity.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

And there isn’t a different answer that depends on the discipline of science. It’s not like conservation of energy is something physics requires but chemistry rejects. Unlike e.g. eating pork or drinking alcohol in religion.

That's the problem with a text out of time/context, it's always going to be open to the bias of our culture; which circles back to my point, even science isn't immune to the potential dislocation of text and meaning, dependant on which time/culture we choose to use as a cypher.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

The fact that there is more than one indicates subjectivity rather than objectivity

What they remove/reduce is the reasoning process.

That's kinda my point.

Removing subjectivity, scientifically, is hard work, not everyone can or even understands why it's necessary.

Not everyone is capable in the 'reasoning process', I refer to my spectrum, in an ideal world science and religion work hand in hand, much like a court of law and the application of justice; scientists understand the world for the rest of us and we're content with the answer's.

It's like 'the matrix' and the hypothesis that the humans rejected the "happy world" bc of their natural rejection of a peaceful contented scenario; to which I call bullshit.