4 ms·
This kind of dismissive post deserves some sort of name, because it's not the first time on HN I've read about "the common person (mom) doesn't care about surve
by rmxt 11y ago
This kind of dismissive post deserves some sort of name, because it's not the first time on HN I've read about "the common person (mom) doesn't care about surveillance"... perhaps an "appeal to mom", as a subset of the "appeal to moderation" or "think of the children", is a useful categorization. Sure, it's useful to understand what the composite voter believes and stands for, but this post teeters on the brink of declaring surveillance ethically valid, and therefore worthy of continuance, merely because most people have other things dominating their political compass.
- rayiner 11y agoYou're mixing up two different things: 1) Whether surveillance is ethical; 2) Whether surveillance means "the government isn't 'working for you'". The "appeal to mom" is perfectly valid as a response to assertions of (2), which is what 'DickingAround invoked.
- rmxt 11y agoI'm not doing this mixing unintentionally -- I'm trying to sort out what you are trying to achieve in your response to the GP. The "appeal to mom" is, I agree, a valid response to part of DickingAround's assertion. A fair amount of people do indeed, agree with "mom's opinion". However, I am attempting to disentangle your (presumably techno-capable, 20-30-40-something year old) apathy (distaste?) for HN's predominating views on surveillance ("echo chamber", "I'm not going to vote") from the opinion of people like your mother. Leaning on the opinion of middle-aged America so as to justify your apathy towards surveillance smacks of the easy way out when talking about tangled corporate and government interests.