3 ms·

> This entire "progressive" attitude that everything continually gets better, besides being based on this recent most-peaceful time in history, That seems to b

by imgabe 11y ago

> This entire "progressive" attitude that everything continually gets better, besides being based on this recent most-peaceful time in history, That seems to be pretty clear evidence that things get better. If some time in history were more peaceful than now, then I could see saying that there hasn't been progress. But by definition, if we're making progress, of course the present would be more peaceful than any time before it. > relies on individuals pushing forth and being the change to their local social groups while simultaneously hiding from the larger social machines that would quickly squash them. At some point the larger social machine has to be challenged. The longer it takes for that to happen, the more entrenched and harder to change it will get. > The distilled results are then used, by somebody, to investigate and persecute outliers, engage in price discrimination, and implement commercial psychological warfare (advertising). Outliers like people who don't pay fines they were legitimately assessed? Is it really persecution to find someone who owes money and ask them to pay it? Price discrimination? Is this really a problem? If you're not willing to pay the asking price for something, don't pay it. The fact that somebody else might have gotten a better price is irrelevant. Price is determined by how much the buyer values the thing they're buying. That's how markets work. If anything this is a social benefit, as it makes people with money to spare subsidize goods for people without. If one guy willing to pay $600 for a plane ticket makes it possible for the airline to sell tickets at $200 to people who wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford them, that seems like a net benefit. And advertising? Really? That's the big boogeyman here? Someone is going to collect all my data and use it to show me an ad? Heaven forfend, I might look at an ad. Oh, the persecution. "Commercial psychological warfare" is needlessly dramatic. It's an ad. Mostly, it's just stupid, and online easy to block. > a problem caused solely by government requiring people to publicly broadcast their identity, putting them at the mercy of private surveillance. I've still never once heard what the actual problem is. Every time this issue comes up, there's never been a single explanation of what somebody is going to do with an archive of my location data. Is the government going to use it to persecute me? How? The government already knows where I live and where I work. If they want to find me and persecute me, they'll do it. They don't need a list of every license plate camera I passed in the last 6 months to do that. Some anonymous stalker is going to hack into the database and figure out I have a 76% chance of being at a particular coffee shop on a Wednesday afternoon and they're going to wait for me there? Really? They wouldn't just, I don't know, wait outside my house? Wouldn't that be easier? I've yet to see anyone explain how a database of past location data enables anyone to do something to you that wouldn't be more easily accomplished by other already available means. The fluidity of information works in both directions. It's also easier for us to collect information about the government and expose abuse and corruption (e.g. the previously mentioned NSA leaks). > Government obviously has an inherent interest in tracking everything and everyone down to the last quark "Government" doesn't have an interest in anything. It's an abstract concept with no will of its own. Some individuals have an interest in tracking certain things (like delinquent fines) and others have other interests.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 11y ago
> That seems to be pretty clear evidence that things get better There have been many collapses throughout history and attitudes of invincibility usually precede them. There's also the evidence of us being born in this period of history, implying it is likely the most populous. I'm not asserting that collapse is going to happen, simply arguing against confidence in either outcome. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. > The longer it takes for that [challenging the social machine] to happen, the more entrenched and harder to change it will get. So yeah, let's get those non-molesting pedophiles to stand up next week and publicly proclaim their desires. I'm suuuure there will be some enlightened discourse, after which they will be accepted. (BTW, if you don't want the social machine to become entrenched and harder to change, doesn't giving it omniscience seem like a poor idea?) > Outliers like people who don't pay fines they were legitimately assessed Outliers like people who drive too much. Or go to too many fast food restaurants. Or hit the liquor store in the middle of the week. Or who don't go to church. Or who do go to chuch. Or who play hooky from work. And yes, outliers who are going to work so they can afford to pay a ticket. Every specific situation has a direct "fix", but the entire point is that these things should not have to be lobbied for for decades to change everyone's perceptions (or people can simply never agree). Our society is kept moving by white lies that reconcile the difference between reality and the prescriptive model dictated by social norms/government. Your viewpoint assumes that perfect enforcement will cause the prescriptive model to have to adjust to match reality, but would-be social engineers have never worked that way - the entire reason the present model is far off from reality is because they believing that imposing top-down visions is desirable. > [Government is] an abstract concept with no will of its own The organisms we call governments do, like all organisms, whether conscious or unconscious. Getting back to the crux of the matter, we are never going to see eye to eye. The "example" I keep stating and you keep brushing aside is simply that _I_ would like privacy where possible - for at least self-contained situations. I simply do not wish to trust everyone else to completely empathize with me (having similar computational power, how could they possibly simulate me?), but really I need no further justification for my desire. If you cannot respect my (and others' like me) desire, then you are yet another social engineer with a grand plan for everyone - exactly the type of person I desire privacy from!

by imgabe 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 11y ago

> That seems to be pretty clear evidence that things get better There have been many collapses throughout history and attitudes of invincibility usually precede them. There's also the evidence of us being born in this period of history, implying it is likely the most populous. I'm not asserting that collapse is going to happen, simply arguing against confidence in either outcome. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. > The longer it takes for that [challenging the social machine] to happen, the more entrenched and harder to change it will get. So yeah, let's get those non-molesting pedophiles to stand up next week and publicly proclaim their desires. I'm suuuure there will be some enlightened discourse, after which they will be accepted. (BTW, if you don't want the social machine to become entrenched and harder to change, doesn't giving it omniscience seem like a poor idea?) > Outliers like people who don't pay fines they were legitimately assessed Outliers like people who drive too much. Or go to too many fast food restaurants. Or hit the liquor store in the middle of the week. Or who don't go to church. Or who do go to chuch. Or who play hooky from work. And yes, outliers who are going to work so they can afford to pay a ticket. Every specific situation has a direct "fix", but the entire point is that these things should not have to be lobbied for for decades to change everyone's perceptions (or people can simply never agree). Our society is kept moving by white lies that reconcile the difference between reality and the prescriptive model dictated by social norms/government. Your viewpoint assumes that perfect enforcement will cause the prescriptive model to have to adjust to match reality, but would-be social engineers have never worked that way - the entire reason the present model is far off from reality is because they believing that imposing top-down visions is desirable. > [Government is] an abstract concept with no will of its own The organisms we call governments do, like all organisms, whether conscious or unconscious. Getting back to the crux of the matter, we are never going to see eye to eye. The "example" I keep stating and you keep brushing aside is simply that _I_ would like privacy where possible - for at least self-contained situations. I simply do not wish to trust everyone else to completely empathize with me (having similar computational power, how could they possibly simulate me?), but really I need no further justification for my desire. If you cannot respect my (and others' like me) desire, then you are yet another social engineer with a grand plan for everyone - exactly the type of person I desire privacy from!