It’s the general modus of today, exposing corruption is illegal and extremism, fixing intentional sabotage is illegal and against IP law, catching pedophiles is illegal and a stalking attack on respected people like Sourgay Brin and Mark Suckerberg. Bypassing censorship is illegal and making tools for criminals. Bypassing propaganda is illegal and inciting to violence. Laughing at unsubstantiated demands is illegal and a challenge to elected or other authority.
It’s slowly drifting to the point where “illegal” is trying to make sense in what’s allowed and what’s not, and “legal” is having approval from power.
“Rich people” should be replaced with “authority”, which is more general. Otherwise yes.
I also think that if George Lucas violates some law during operation of his museum, he will get all the problems intended by the law. He’s not involved in building a digital concentration camp, he’s also not an Epstein island visitor, and he’s actually a rare example of a famous person who honestly should be richer than they are. At the same time there are different dimensions of “rich”. The fact that his museum actually happens makes me feel <erased, too personal>.
OK, I can’t be impartial about Lucas, of the people big in various parts of humanity he’s among the few who haven’t betrayed their picture in my childhood one bit. Star Wars is the most anti-fascist, anti-evil, anti-mediocrity, anti-surrender, living thing that I know (other than the living things like earth, wind, water, plants, animals and humans, but you get the idea).
Keep in mind that legal/illegal can (and often is) be different from ethical/unethical. In a perfect world, laws protect everyone equally from unethical behavior. But nowadays, law is more and more misused to protect the upper class and oppress the lower class. Not saying it wasn’t so before already, but it’s leaning that way a lot stronger in recent times again.
It’s obvious that they are different. In the old understanding of things, you sometimes have to do illegal stuff when it’s moral. Enemies have to be fought, laws have to be broken before changed. At the same time laws were perceived as something specific and precise.
Now there’s some weird perception that all laws have an inertia of moral virtue because of being descended from popular will or something like that. At the same time it’s a fuzzy, almost mystical, entity and asking “why the hell should I do that” from authority is like attacking that entity. In the old understanding of things it wasn’t. So laws have become fuzzy, and it has become a small sacrilege to question them.
Which is what always happens, a thing perceived strictly and literally will always run into contradictions resolved outside it, and such a resolution is a normal process. Like with segregation.
And if you make an outside resolution absolutely impossible, the thing will become fuzzy.
It’s the general modus of today, exposing corruption is illegal and extremism, fixing intentional sabotage is illegal and against IP law, catching pedophiles is illegal and a stalking attack on respected people like Sourgay Brin and Mark Suckerberg. Bypassing censorship is illegal and making tools for criminals. Bypassing propaganda is illegal and inciting to violence. Laughing at unsubstantiated demands is illegal and a challenge to elected or other authority.
It’s slowly drifting to the point where “illegal” is trying to make sense in what’s allowed and what’s not, and “legal” is having approval from power.
A mafia world.
Don’t forget that saying rich people should obey the law is also illegal.
“Rich people” should be replaced with “authority”, which is more general. Otherwise yes.
I also think that if George Lucas violates some law during operation of his museum, he will get all the problems intended by the law. He’s not involved in building a digital concentration camp, he’s also not an Epstein island visitor, and he’s actually a rare example of a famous person who honestly should be richer than they are. At the same time there are different dimensions of “rich”. The fact that his museum actually happens makes me feel <erased, too personal>.
OK, I can’t be impartial about Lucas, of the people big in various parts of humanity he’s among the few who haven’t betrayed their picture in my childhood one bit. Star Wars is the most anti-fascist, anti-evil, anti-mediocrity, anti-surrender, living thing that I know (other than the living things like earth, wind, water, plants, animals and humans, but you get the idea).
Keep in mind that legal/illegal can (and often is) be different from ethical/unethical. In a perfect world, laws protect everyone equally from unethical behavior. But nowadays, law is more and more misused to protect the upper class and oppress the lower class. Not saying it wasn’t so before already, but it’s leaning that way a lot stronger in recent times again.
The same can be said about ethics; to an elite, opressing the working class is ethical
It’s obvious that they are different. In the old understanding of things, you sometimes have to do illegal stuff when it’s moral. Enemies have to be fought, laws have to be broken before changed. At the same time laws were perceived as something specific and precise.
Now there’s some weird perception that all laws have an inertia of moral virtue because of being descended from popular will or something like that. At the same time it’s a fuzzy, almost mystical, entity and asking “why the hell should I do that” from authority is like attacking that entity. In the old understanding of things it wasn’t. So laws have become fuzzy, and it has become a small sacrilege to question them.
Which is what always happens, a thing perceived strictly and literally will always run into contradictions resolved outside it, and such a resolution is a normal process. Like with segregation.
And if you make an outside resolution absolutely impossible, the thing will become fuzzy.