I read 1984 again recently. The government needs to be in a constant state of war to keep the populus under control. It's scary how many parallels you can draw between the UK and USA today and Orwell's fantasy.

yes indeed. 1984 is my favorite book.

and the 3rd reich also... the reichstag fire anyone?

Umm, you know, a lot of kids don't realize this, but that book is actually satire. He obviously doesn't intepret anything he says. Anyway, I wouldn't take up any orwallianisms at face value, he really didn't have any experience with what he calls 'totalitarian' at all. The world of his imagination is just that, imaginary.

.

Why, thank you, sir.

Umm, you know, a lot of kids don't realize this, but that book is actually satire. He obviously doesn't intepret anything he says. Anyway, I wouldn't take up any orwallianisms at face value, he really didn't have any experience with what he calls 'totalitarian' at all. The world of his imagination is just that, imaginary.

the book is actually satire? Well I think we all knew that.
He obviously doesn't interpret anything he says? Elaborate please. He didn't have experience with what he calls totalitarian? What kind of experience would he need to have? You mean because he didn't grow up in an actual dictactorship like yourself he could not have views and foresight on world politics and fascism?

Of course his world was imaginary, it's a fiction novel. Who was arguing that? But how can you use that argument against so many people who see obvious parallels to his vision in modern society?

*edited with less rage

"the book is actually satire? Well I think we all knew that."
so if youre a christian and hear a comic say "god is republican" you go head and vote republican?
"Elaborate please."
One obviously interprets to own experience/beliefs. Some people start to draw parallels between Nth gov't and 1984, others laugh at BBC and move on, and yet others aren't even amused.
"You mean because he didn't grow up in an actual dictatorship like yourself he could not have views and foresight on world politics and fascism?"
Uh no, I mean he could have, but he didn't.

"how can you use that argument against so many people who see obvious parallels to his vision in modern society?"
Easy, try to get laid and see if any helicopters fly over.
edit:
Let me put it this way.
A utopia is when everything is great.
An anti utopia is when everything is bad.
Obviously, in reality, everything is never all bad or all good. That's it.

Not everything in 1984 is all bad though.

And I'm not sure if you know that but satires are usually meant to address certain. As in this case the drive of governments to control "their" people.

Uhm yes, oh thank you great Orwell for that great bit of insight, Government wants to govern. That shall make me shit my pants and *fight the system*, at the same time.

By now I highly doubt you read the book, or if you did understood it.

yes of course!!

wait, I'm sorry, did you mean to address any relevant issues, or just the ones people make up, like in your post?

no of course not, why would I?


Just to keep up with you sarcastic style...


The point is not only that governments not only stive to control people but that the longer they exist and with none questioning them they will try to increase that control.
Especially if there are things going wrong, such as murder and terrorism.
And while they still claim to do everything for the people in fact a lot of their actions hurt the people in one way or another.

Additionally the longer any government officials are in power they will always try to keep it. Which in the case of most countries means political parties who share an agenda while the specific heads exchange.

Seeing any similarites to both 1984 and our world. yet?


Oh, and just in case I complete misread you, but to me and obviously others, your first comment (#8) clearly discredits the book and people who read it ("kids").
And as I said in my own first statement the idea of education thrugh sarcasm is to exagerate certain szenarios to make people more aware.

"The point is not only that governments not only strive to control people but that the longer they exist and with none questioning them they will try to increase that control."
A lot of people strive to control over a lot of different things. Your point distills to that fact. Great.
"Especially if there are things going wrong, such as murder and terrorism." Sigh.
"And while they still claim to do everything for the people in fact a lot of their actions hurt the people in one way or another."
Yes, there are all sorts of people. Bad people too. Great.
"Additionally the longer any government officials are in power they will always try to keep it. Which in the case of most countries means political parties who share an agenda while the specific heads exchange."
Coming back to the first one. Or are we? Some people are not too greedy and like to divide power for many many various reasons.
"Seeing any similarities to both 1984 and our world. yet?"
I guess....
"Oh, and just in case I complete misread you, but to me and obviously others, your first comment (#8) clearly discredits the book and people who read it ("kids")."
I'm saying that it bolsters a childish outlook on things and displays authors great fictional talents completely due to his lack of experience and topical insight. This does, if you will, discredit it in the eyes of those who see it as a bible of sorts, but regardless, I think it is a necessary read anyone out there.
Unfortunately the fact that its satire allows the book to be greatly misused and used as a propaganda peace, do they call this 'double irony'? Like In Russia for example, the translated title was literally 'BIG brother', not "older brother', and 'watching you' as opposed to 'watching over', and those are different words in Russian, with obviously different meaning pallets, hope it come through on the way back to English.

actually they did the same translations into German (Big Brother/Watching you). Kinda interesting.

And no I don't see that book as a bible. I don't actually have any book that I would see like that. Except maybe the "Dubbel" but that's just the bible for German engineers :P



Anyway, more importantly, I did not want to say that those people are necessarily bad or evil. Often they really want to protect and want security but they use the wrong means. And if noone protests they will believe it was the right thing to do.

but unfortunately, the reality is even grimmer in the fact that you can't actually achieve anything without 'bad' methods. In fact, there is no 'good' and 'bad' or morals in politics because all of it just too complex and relativistic to be defined in those terms. (And this, in turn, is exactly why a lot of views expressed in this forum are childish and simplistic.)

true

discussing on ESR is so pointless. its lol.

Uh no, I mean he could have, but he didn't.

I know he didn't. You think you're enlightening anyone? The book is a WARNING on things that might happen, a foreshadowing. You seem to think it about the way things were when he lived. You've completely missed the point.

As for the rest of your post: Stop posting drunk.

my bad, wasting time here

bout time you figured that out

yeah, stupid me, hope is so illogical

Move to china m8

why m8

To enjoy the joys of Starlinist communisim at work

I don't think you have a clue, but n1, very funny, \o/ etc m8

it's whatever you want it to be. it does have the markings of satirical elements, but that doesn't mean that's what it has to be to me. also, I'm pretty sure it's largely influenced by We, so whatever that brings to the discussion..

personally, I don't see it as satire at all, although I acknowledge that it can be seen that way. I also don't think it's intended as a foretelling. I just think it's a good, fiction book.

All the more worrying then, that his fiction has become quite like reality?

yeah, worrying for your psychologist

Hi, just wanted to say that he did have some experience - he'd been in Spain during the Civil War, and saw some of his Trotskyite and anarchist friends murdered on the orders of Joe Stalin.
Tim

populace. it's also scary how many parallels you can draw between it and esreality, but much less worrying.

if at all

.

Yeah, who cares about a few more speed cameras aswell, right? Oh wait sorry, that would make us a nanny state according to you, but regular cameras are fine.

People can't be trusted, if they could there would be no war, or murder, or gvt, or things like a police force.

Most people need to be governed like children whether they like it or realise it. Without rules the world would be CHAOS. Far worse than it is now.

You know how you could totally prevent terrorism? By putting everyone in a cell. Civil liberties are too important to be put aside in the name of security. And as hnns pointed out, terrorism itself is already a VERY minor cause of death.

I agree. I have no problem with the government putting cameras outside in trouble places and shit. Maybe putting them in streets is a bit much unless there's alot of trouble there and the residents request it, but by shops and shit, I couldn't give a fuck.

.

I just really think we shouldn't be putting them by shops, it violates people's privacy.

Oh wait, I said the exact opposite.

.

He's saying the opposite. He even told you that....

He doesn't mind cameras in shopping areas (Or I presume areas with masses of people) but doesn't want them in other places, e.g. just in random streets.

people make up the police force and government ergo they cannot be trusted either

.

so is a cat

ren cat

It's not really about having an extra camera or two on the street. It's about going further. More and more cameras, will be put up, and measures will be put in place to monitor us "for our protection".
Because really, if we allow people to completely monitor our lives they will eventually control it. Such a system WILL be abused by people who dont like certain kinds of people.

.

do you really believe that? Cause I don't.

If you wat long enough and take the freedoms away one by one it would most likely work.
For example noone would go and try to put a camera in your house at first, but instead install a camera on the outside that can reach an angle to look thrugh the windows.
Later that camera would be '"upgraded" to see in infrared.
And so on.

.

Don't need it I'm sitting in a underground bunker in the middle of a steel cage. Let them try to get me!

Anyway, I'm sure you won't believe me, but observations of more or less random people is not fiction. Some aquaintances of my parents who represented a conservative German party in Tunisia would discuss politics only outside and never on the phone.

.

Those people really were not the type to be paranoid.
Personally I was really surprised when they said those things.

Do you know anything about that country? Why are you spouting nonsense about people you don't know? Wait, why is anyone talking to dird??

They can allready monitor you completely. In fact, if you've got a passport, a license and fingerprints taken, having more cameras won't mean anything at all.

What made you come to this astounding conclusion? How does a passport, license and fingerprints make my life supervised 24/7?

Knowing people who are in police. The thing is, no one ever will bother actually monitoring you 24/7, the point is, if they wanted to, they always could. The purpose of the systems is to track things in the past. God knows how many months worth of all internet traffic is being collected already, for example. And to what end?

I'm just wondering, my fingerprints were once taken for fun at the age of 10 (like elementary school visiting a police department), I have never ever shown my driving license to anyone and my passport run out like almost a year ago.. I never get to show any of that stuff anywhere, so how do I get controlled by that? I could move house etc. without anyone noticing it, while cameras would obviously change that completely.

I think you're seeing what I'm saying now! :)
You do and you don't, obviously. And nothing really changes here.

And maybe license wasn't a good example, it could be CC for some countries, etc

a person I know went missing in cambodia, all interpol needed was his passport + visa details and found him almost instantly, his dad had been searching for around six weeks.

i'm sure they can do something :)

but that's maybe because it's easy to find an ugly and tall brit in cambodia.

seriously ... how, do u think, did they find him ? by tracking down his implant ?
i guess it was just luck.

Yes it must be. Interpol and police must have real big chargers for their luck-generators.

i'm tired ... fo.

Please don't tell me your point is: "since they can already monitor you so closely it's pointless to protest to further privacy invasion. I mean they're already doing it!"

*edited with less rage

nah, my point is you have little privacy left to care about

does that not concern you? :)

Uhm, it's not at the top of my 'concerns to act about' list :)

makes me sad when someone proudfully says such a thing

Yeah, the proudness in the fact that I don't care if the government knows where I live is just dripping from my post.

Yeah, the proudness in the fact that I don't care if the government knows where I live is just dripping from my post.

But that's not at all what you said. You said quote:

nah, my point is you have little privacy left to care about

figure out which post you're replying to before posting

what is with you? it's a straightforward dialouge in which you first claimed that we have little privacy to care about, and then I asked if that didn't concern you, in which you replied no.
You'd think "site admin" would have figured out how the reply system on this site works and not behave like a goddamn child with twists that don't even make sense. not that I didn't realize this about you two years ago.

I said that because if you want to raise an issue with how much I think the government could possibly find out, reply to the original.
Oh hey, I really don't know when I figured you don't understand the main point of a post! I don't care much. That doesn't mean I'm proud of anything.

What are you talking about? Why should I care if someone knows something about me that I don't care about? Anything I want to keep secret, I do.
No, I, personally, don't care if police investigator wants to know my alibi. No, I don't think anyone at NSA or Google actually reads my personal email and is going to emberass me on national TV. I am in unfortunate enough situation where I have other things to worry about.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517...;plindex=9

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948...;plindex=0

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

all three worth noticing and seeing.. they're long, true.. but things like these don't come packaged in 22 minute episodes with 8 minutes of commercial like most are used too watch.. :P and as all of them say, don't listen to me, look at the evidence and think for yourself

the first two links don't work.

err.. sorry :P

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105

alex jones gets debunked more often than jamerio crosses the street to avoid dangerous minorities

everybody crosses the street to avoid jamerio

uve made me extremely paranoid and i hate the fucking old bastard leaders of this world even more!

Wow those Alex Jones videos are pathetic.

What a load of bullshit, that's as bad as watching Fox news.

i do not care that much about your opinion, neither about alex jones' opinions on such important matters.. i care about the facts and evidence..

your opinions are even less valuable without adding why and proof of why they are bullshit.. i don't think questions have been answered by the administration, rather silenced and "forgotten about" ..

what are the titles of the first two movies? links aren't working

Totally agree about the terrorism part. It's scary how much the US govt. reduces the civil liberties of its citizens by saying those are necessary measures in the war against terror. I actually had to do a paper on how policies and measures taken by the Bush administration were introduced as necessary to fight terrorism, it's scary.

.

Try googling guantanamo.

.

it's in french but you can easily read the Public Law 107-40 and the Patriot Act for yourself. The FBI received, for example, the right to ask anything to internet service providers, only by saying it was for an investigation related to terrorism. The terms of the Geneva convention of 1949 have been largely ignored, some people can be detained indefinitely without being judged/proven guilty of anything. Of course there's also the giant legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court has ruled several measures unconstitutional but the Bush administration then finds ways to go "around" the judgement.

.

"none of those are intrusions on the general public" well clearly they are since investigations can be conducted on anyone as long as the agency claims it has to do with terrorism?
"people being held without charge are 'of concern' to the government" what is that supposed to mean? There are barriers to what the govt can do precisely because the fear of democracies has always been the executive becoming too powerful. Just because some people are "of concern" to the govt doesn't mean it should be allowed to know everything about them.

"There are barriers to what the govt can do precisely because the fear of democracies has always been the executive becoming too powerful."
That's a common misconception. It's a matter of efficiency first, and a matter of publicism second.

what?

.

My point was that the government a.k.a. a small group of people shouldn't be able to have that much information on anyone without any real proof that the person is guilty of something. The term "terrorism" itself has no precise and universally accepted definition, and potentially anyone could be labeled as dangerous. Leaders of the opposition, for example, could easily be described as "terrorists", and that's what they are/were in several countries.

It would not be difficult for someone even in a low rank of the government to have you placed on that list for doing nothing tangible and as a result you potentially end up in Guantanamo if that's what is deemed necessary.

You seem to misunderstand that normal people who have commited crimes or are in the process of conspiring to can be aptly dealt with by the current legal system. The whole reason this new stuff exists is go around that system and essentially arrest people for thought crime etc.

none of those are intrusions on the general public. people being held without charge are 'of concern' to the government and are a tiny minority,

Actually ALL those intrusions are on the general public, that minority IS THE GENERAL PUBLIC you dumbass

.

shut up you fucking tard i mean intrusions affecting everybodies daily lives. its a tiny proportion that things like that happen too

It does affect everybodies daily lives. The possibility of it effecting your daily life shouldn't exist, but you're to naive to get this. It's a proportion that things like that happen to? I assume you're still talking about general rights being stepped on. And you obviously think it's ok because hey it's such a tiny porpotion. Yes that's a great way of thinking. As long as its not you. Well it is you.

and whether they constitute the general public when theyre looking at blowing up bits of it is disputable

Wait so now you're talking about people who are actually guilty of something? No wonder you misunderstood.

now if you dont like our system go back to your own country!

I knew you were pretty thick and you clearly have the mindset of a child but even that does excuse your stupidity on this one.
I AM in my own country. What are you smoking, dude.

The possibility of it effecting your daily life shouldn't exist

and it doesn't, because I already exist. or maybe it does, but it's zero. and zero doesn't exist. QED (quantum electrodynamics).

also: every sentence in this post (except for the last one) begins with a conjunction. hello. whoops.

.

young women should certainly care and check their showers

You're not getting the point. It's not "a couple muslims", it could be anyone. Precisely because you don't have to be found guilty of anything.

Oh communism in UK!!!!

what's with the random irrelevant posts?

What's with your pattern recognition!!!!

.

Yeah, if they're searching for terrorists as in terrorists, they'll only follow your info if needed and really of interest. What if the government/whoever is in charge wants to get rid of you (e.g. because you're part of the opposition) and just labels you as terrorist? I could be wrong, but doesn't happen such stuff in eastern Europe all the time? One party winning elections, the other party demonstrating something was wrong or unfair, police arrives, beats the shit out of them and arrests them? I'm quite sure all these people were really bad terrorists, yeah... oh wait!

spyteman pretty much said what I was going to explain... Who's to say who's a terrorist and who isn't? In Eastern countries (and others ofc), members of the opposition have countless times been described as terrorists and put to jail/killed. You just shouldn't blindly give all the power to the executive.

Um, there is no need to define 'terrorists' because whatever they're doing, still ends up with some criminal offense. Also, why are you talking to DIRD? :)

Uh, yes there is a need. Criminal offenses are very different from terrorist actions. Criminals and terrorists aren't treated the same way both legally and politically.

"Criminal offenses are very different from terrorist actions."
What are 'terrorist actions", and why should law enforcement deal with those, unless they're violations of laws?
"Criminals and terrorists aren't treated the same way both legally and politically." If you mean different types of criminals are treated differently, of course. All problems should also be pursued by policy makers. Thats a matter of preempting a problem or solving a problem that has many symptoms.

There is a legal distinction between criminals and terrorists. Look it up.

Why don't you look it up too? And show where.
The only distinctions in the law systems I know are purely semantical.

First link I found (see the part where people suspected of terrorism can be arrested and detained without warrants)
I'm not going to bother providing you with much more detail since I don't think you're taking the discussion very seriously anyway. The fact remains that there's a legal distinction between criminals and terrorists.

Waait a second, I was talking about criminal/terrorist distinctions in basic crime law, not bureaucratic governing. That's made in criminal code, and the changes you linked to have to do with 'emergency powers' and prevention, not prosecution of such actions? I think that's exactly why these emergency powers can be extended to almost anyone. Anyway, I already conceded that policy makers need obviously address the issue at the same time.

Yes, the particular link I gave has to do with prevention, and suspected terrorists can be arrested, detained etc without a warrant. Investigations can be conducted on them, their privacy can be invaded without having to prove that they're guilty of anything. That's not the case with criminals. It also works for prosecution, the most obvious example being the removal of the fair trial right (see the USA).

That's like saying 1984 would be a great way to model society as long as you're not Winston.

Did you put 'effect' in italics to try and correct him? Because in that context he used affect right and you used effect wrong.

i'm not one to correct my engrish sucks.

It would be nice to think that the governments of whichever countries uses the laws it introduces solely for the purposes they were meant for. But when you see peaceful protestors arrested under the terrorism act, you realise that it just doesn't work. If a law is there, it is used. See how the government are trying to move Brian Haw under an organised crime act, or how protesters are being arrested as terrorists. The fact is that laws are used if they can be, since there is no police force that ensures a government acts morally.

.

Actually these are documented cases of terrorism laws being used to stop peaceful protests. They are documented because they have gone to court. There's plenty of information about how terrorism laws are affecting regular (non-terrorist) people. Watch "Taking Liberties" if you get a chance, some incredible things going on in this country.

Yes, this just in, media poops into your head.

I've got to agree to be honest, the attack on Glasgow is just hilarious, they not only picked a real shit targer but managed to fuck it up good and proper.

Then one of the cars in London was outside of Tiger Tiger, obviously they don't like night clubs (Probably because belonging to a terrorist organisation means you don't get to go to clubs, only bomb plot meetings).

Lets be honest, I think there is more chance of Jamerio becoming PM than terrorists being any real threat to the "West".

"ZOMG OH SHIT GUY WITH BACKPACK GOT ON TRAIN!!!!!!!!! BLOODY TERRORIST IMMIGRANT COME TO JIHAD ME!" (C) Jamerio

To be honest if I was a terrorist, my #1 target would be deffo be Jamerio.

heheh, we should focus all terrorist watch units on jamerio. the damage he's capable of producing on a daily basis by MERE WORDS are catastrophic. if they only knew.

They do know. They just think that I don't know :)

I used to work for this company who I knew were spying and reading staff email, so I took great pleasure in showing that contempt.

It was interesting to see how you could get away with saying sackable stuff in an email about company bosses reading staff mail ,BUT the exceptions that were made becaue they knew that what they were doing was wrong and the fact that they knew what I knew what they were doing. It totally spoiled their big brother power trip.

It was an interesting experiment seeing their attitudes change over a period of about 2 years. Watching them wanting to say something but knowing that they would have to blow their cover by doing so, even though they knew I already knew.

you see an employer will always believe that their staff need them more than an employer needs them.

But I always saw it the other way around, I mean if there is no trust or enjoyment at a workplace then all you are is a moneky earning a salary to live. So you might aswell have some fun out of it.

hehe, that's a pretty fucked up situation you were in. I don't think I could last two years in that making that point. Maybe one week then i'd quit, I take it you must've really needed/enjoyed the job?

Nope, I just enjoyed being a C**t.

The way I saw it it was their wrong doing that started it and that forced me and others into a situation where I/we either had to become complacent or contempetous.
I only do one of those emotions and it's not complacency.

Stringing them along meant I forced them into a similiar mindset.

the problem with your post is that you think the governments want to defeat the terrorists, or that it's a big issue to them. truthfully, it's as big an issue to them as it is to you (e.g. it isn't).

they don't want to defeat the terrorists. the reason they are doing exactly what the terrorists want is because it's the same thing they want. now they just have an excuse.

how is that a problem with my post? because it looks like we agree

I didn't say it was a problem with your post. oh, wait. I did.
sup.

I started posting before I read the last 4 or 5 sentences. the reason? well, who cares? I'm too bored to talk about it, and it's too difficult to use this site fo discussion. tata. :x XOXOXO

Oh, a government conspiracy thread.
If you don't like what they're doing and have a certain mistrust, then vote for someone else. Simple!

haha so you your response to anyone critizicing the government is "just vote someone else! simple!". that's a great view to have, if only all citizens were like yourself.

Yeah, that's the thing about democracy. People in general are unable to see what they actually vote for... and then they get a 4 year dictatorship. You just have to hope they'll learn from their mistakes. I mean, they can't live in constant terroism fear forever, right? Or maybe they can. Let's see

Yeah that makes lots of sense bearing in mind when the individual does that and the majority continue to vote for the people we're talking about nothing has changed...so what was your point exactly?

My point is even simpler. Stop whining like a conspiracy lunatic and actually do something. Vote for someone who shares your opinions or become a poltician yourself. It's what we got democracy for, right? RIGHT?

That's right.

You're just being an idiot now. Neither of those two solutions work. You vote and it affects nothing since other people's votes outweigh yours, you become a politician and nobody votes for you.

You don't seem the understand the importance and relevance of social criticism. The answer to all problems is not doing it yourself, believe it or not sometimes it's getting the person already in a position to do something about it to do something.

Yeah, call people idiots, now you really hit a blow in the flawed society.
I mean, who's the real idiot here, the guy who whines(oh excuse me, critisizes) at society. Or the guy trying to make a difference?

And remember, if you're a good enough politician then majority WILL be on your side.

you're not making much sense at all. if you think openly questioning government is stupid then you don't have a clue about democracy. and yeah, I did vote.

Guess I'm just fed up of people calling the government evil all the time. Even if they were evil some random critisizm wouldn't do much good anyway, might even backfire.

I think his implication is that this particular thread and speculations here are not very effective. Perhaps more effective would be to keep calling your representative in the government and someone who does actually have access to public media.

i realize this rant wont change anything, it's just something i put together when reading Yet Another Terrorist news report.. i was up three straight days when writing this so it's not exactly coherent and as you've probably figured i wasn't in the best of moods, but I think I got my point across and quite a few people agreed. Why is it wrong to post my thoughts on what I consider flaws in our society, even knowing it wont change anything? have you never done this?

It's not.

Made worse by the UK's system of voting anyway. The problem with supporting the other parties that are against these things is they are usually one policy parties who would have no skill/expertise in getting anything else done.

of course they want to frighten you because a frightened public is much easier to govern ... you can get away with nearly everything while doing it under the cover of a "war on terror". look at the fucking mess the usa has become and the uk is becoming (CCTV my ass).

so as long as this "threat to our freedom" is stuck in people's minds...

exactly

frighten the public too much and they'll turn....

You haven't studied history then?

now a days i think they would, more ways to communicate, general public have a better understanding of politics so on and so on, More right of free speech.

general public have a better understanding of politics

No, they don't. They THINK they do, but they're totally clueless on everything.

actually its true, uk road cameras are everywhere, recently on the news the police now want control over even traffic cameras for road charges etc to increase intel and tracking ability of possible people/vehicles, theres also many standard cameras on our streets to monitor our drunken nights out on the weekend and so on, and their use is growing day by day.

just to 2nd u

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6902543.stm

http://www.alternet.org/story/57001/

What do you expect when people like this have money and power?

tbh I don't care if the goverment watches my every move, cause I don't cause (except for the occasional spliff and whatever) I don't have anything to hide. I mean what's the big deal, rly