4 ms·

Paging /u/tptacek: looking for HN's contrarian position

throwawaymaroon 11y ago
It's pretty simple: focus on the flaws of the EFF instead of the problems the EFF points out. If you want to be against the establishment, you have to be perfect in pedigree, politics, and poise. Your arguments must not only be factually correct on every level (which by itself would be fine to point out) but must also be in obeisance to the status quo by explicitly recognizing the good intentions of the establishment. All of this will be prefaced with "I'm no fan of the TPP, but..." Here's how you write as an establishment equivocator: --- There are certainly parts of the TPP which overreach. But the EFF is well known for taking things out of proportion [ignoring the absurd proportions of the actual situation]. Here we see another example: [point out something from the current EFF statement that is alarmist or not quite relevant to the TPP specifically, for instance...] a lot of what the EFF describes about copyright is specific to US law and copyright. The EFF is really just hitting its usual talking points and very little of this relates to the TPP; the TPP is just an excuse to talk about what they always talk about.
- lawnchair_larry 11y ago
  This was actually pretty well done. Give the guy some credit.
sarciszewski 11y ago
> /u/tptacek I don't believe he even owns a Reddit account. The convention we follow here is as follows: 'tptacek
- tptacek 11y ago
  s/convention we follow here/idiosyncratic convention I've been trying for years to start/g
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    Close enough, right?
- kobayashi 11y ago
  Thanks, I've been on HN for a while (most of the time without having an account, due to a quirk of HN's signup process) but never figured out how to link to users. Glad to finally know.
tptacek 11y ago
It bugs me when people suggest I'm "contrarian", because I do not as a rule arrive at positions by trying to think of the opposite of what the prevailing sentiment on HN will be. In this case, though: the site is positively littered with things I've said about TPP. Short summary: I'm ambivalent about TPP, dismissive of the notion that it's a secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it is one. That's about it. I immediately acknowledge that I have a big blind spot about TPP: I'm an American, and TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy, but a pretty significant impact on countries in Asia that had policies different from those of the US.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  That's exactly what an NSA stooge would want us to believe...
  - pekk 11y ago
    Unfortunately, this being HN, I really can't tell if you are being serious or not.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      He is 100% serious.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > it's a secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it is one. It's important to realize - and this is true for most topics, not just the TPP - that there isn't much practical difference between a "secret conspiracy" and a "loose collection of parties with similar interests". In casual language, it's easier to say something like They [it's always 'they'] planned this! The people pushing the TPP are trying to scam us! when what is really intended might be closer to The people in a position that has actual decision-making power or influence usually got to that position by using large amounts of money. The sources of that money vary, but in any case an attitude is cultivated where money ends up as the primary indicator when judging success. When considering future policies, people with this type of attitude will tend to prefer plans that maximize what they see as "success"m which is any plan that maximizes money, regardless of other effects. Hence concepts like the ISDS (both as an idea and it's idiotic implementations) are seen as absolutely necessary to "protect investors" (maximize money/success), while national sovereignty, health-and-safety regulations, and the possibility of laws that require exposing source code are all seen as roadblocks to success. Therefor, without any need for conspiracy, plans such as the TPP can gain significant support because it aligns with the priorities of the people in power. or something like that. Obviously, the latter is harder to say and probably impossible to say as a sound-bite. The former statement - which sounds like it requires a conspiracy - is often used as a shorthand, sometimes for brevity, sometimes because the speaker doesn't know how to articulate the longer variation in detail. Of course, sometimes people actually intend to make an accusation of conspiracy... and sometimes villainous people actually do get together and make harmful plans. I suggest that it's useful to assume a charitable interpretation when reading this kind of statement for two reasons: 1) Hanlon's Razor, and 2) often the details don't really matter (an international treaty can be just as damaging regardless of it's origin). Unfortunately, American politics has always had a certain paranoid style[1]. > TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy That may be true in the short term, but it's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are enacted. If our position in the world changes in the future, we may find the tools the TPP creates being used against us. The American Empire is rapidly in decline[2]. While it's hard to say what that means for the political and economic future of the world, it's probably safe to say that at least some of the power that America currently holds will move elsewhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics#Recurring_paranoia_in_American_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-FW7-dc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-FW7-dc

It's pretty simple: focus on the flaws of the EFF instead of the problems the EFF points out. If you want to be against the establishment, you have to be perfect in pedigree, politics, and poise. Your arguments must not only be factually correct on every level (which by itself would be fine to point out) but must also be in obeisance to the status quo by explicitly recognizing the good intentions of the establishment. All of this will be prefaced with "I'm no fan of the TPP, but..." Here's how you write as an establishment equivocator: --- There are certainly parts of the TPP which overreach. But the EFF is well known for taking things out of proportion [ignoring the absurd proportions of the actual situation]. Here we see another example: [point out something from the current EFF statement that is alarmist or not quite relevant to the TPP specifically, for instance...] a lot of what the EFF describes about copyright is specific to US law and copyright. The EFF is really just hitting its usual talking points and very little of this relates to the TPP; the TPP is just an excuse to talk about what they always talk about.

lawnchair_larry 11y ago
This was actually pretty well done. Give the guy some credit.

sarciszewski 11y ago

> /u/tptacek I don't believe he even owns a Reddit account. The convention we follow here is as follows: 'tptacek

tptacek 11y ago
s/convention we follow here/idiosyncratic convention I've been trying for years to start/g
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  Close enough, right?
kobayashi 11y ago
Thanks, I've been on HN for a while (most of the time without having an account, due to a quirk of HN's signup process) but never figured out how to link to users. Glad to finally know.

tptacek 11y ago

It bugs me when people suggest I'm "contrarian", because I do not as a rule arrive at positions by trying to think of the opposite of what the prevailing sentiment on HN will be. In this case, though: the site is positively littered with things I've said about TPP. Short summary: I'm ambivalent about TPP, dismissive of the notion that it's a secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it is one. That's about it. I immediately acknowledge that I have a big blind spot about TPP: I'm an American, and TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy, but a pretty significant impact on countries in Asia that had policies different from those of the US.

kasey_junk 11y ago
That's exactly what an NSA stooge would want us to believe...
- pekk 11y ago
  Unfortunately, this being HN, I really can't tell if you are being serious or not.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    He is 100% serious.
pdkl95 11y ago
> it's a secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it is one. It's important to realize - and this is true for most topics, not just the TPP - that there isn't much practical difference between a "secret conspiracy" and a "loose collection of parties with similar interests". In casual language, it's easier to say something like They [it's always 'they'] planned this! The people pushing the TPP are trying to scam us! when what is really intended might be closer to The people in a position that has actual decision-making power or influence usually got to that position by using large amounts of money. The sources of that money vary, but in any case an attitude is cultivated where money ends up as the primary indicator when judging success. When considering future policies, people with this type of attitude will tend to prefer plans that maximize what they see as "success"m which is any plan that maximizes money, regardless of other effects. Hence concepts like the ISDS (both as an idea and it's idiotic implementations) are seen as absolutely necessary to "protect investors" (maximize money/success), while national sovereignty, health-and-safety regulations, and the possibility of laws that require exposing source code are all seen as roadblocks to success. Therefor, without any need for conspiracy, plans such as the TPP can gain significant support because it aligns with the priorities of the people in power. or something like that. Obviously, the latter is harder to say and probably impossible to say as a sound-bite. The former statement - which sounds like it requires a conspiracy - is often used as a shorthand, sometimes for brevity, sometimes because the speaker doesn't know how to articulate the longer variation in detail. Of course, sometimes people actually intend to make an accusation of conspiracy... and sometimes villainous people actually do get together and make harmful plans. I suggest that it's useful to assume a charitable interpretation when reading this kind of statement for two reasons: 1) Hanlon's Razor, and 2) often the details don't really matter (an international treaty can be just as damaging regardless of it's origin). Unfortunately, American politics has always had a certain paranoid style[1]. > TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy That may be true in the short term, but it's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are enacted. If our position in the world changes in the future, we may find the tools the TPP creates being used against us. The American Empire is rapidly in decline[2]. While it's hard to say what that means for the political and economic future of the world, it's probably safe to say that at least some of the power that America currently holds will move elsewhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics#Recurring_paranoia_in_American_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-FW7-dc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-FW7-dc