4 ms·

The more important question is why do you assume that anything will change her mind. It is fine to be charitable and assume that somebody can eventually see re

by woodman 11y ago

The more important question is why do you assume that anything will change her mind. It is fine to be charitable and assume that somebody can eventually see reason, but continuing to do so after several years is just foolish. Some people are just dangerous and need to be avoided... We already have that mentality for wild animals, were you don't get morally outraged when a bear attacks a hiker - the bear is just being a bear. There are plenty of people like that, completely single-minded in their pursuit of goals that are against your own interests. Now I'm not suggesting that we send a zookeeper with a tranquilizer gun after Feinstein... just do everything you can to avoid her. This is what they did in the first crypto war, where developers would travel out of the country in order to write encryption software.

pstuart 11y ago
The more important answer: obviously she doesn't understand or care about the impact on privacy and appeals to reason don't seem to be an avenue. My original snarky remark (which got plenty of downvotes) was implying that she will only care if she feels the pain herself. As for "just avoiding" a senior senator who has power over the laws of the land, I can only assume that means moving out of the country -- that's a rather arrogant and elitist approach (we're not all single brogrammers without ties to our communities).
- woodman 11y ago
  > ...obviously she doesn't understand or care... That isn't logically consistent, if she doesn't understand then appeals to reason are a potential avenue. By offering that unreasonable bit of charity you undermine your argument. > ...that's a rather arrogant and elitist approach... You are projecting. Why would would need to "assume that means moving out of the country" when I clearly pointed to the first crypto war? The battle over cryptography in the 90s demonstrated several methods of resistance that avoided directly confronting "a senior senator", and didn't requiring "moving out of the country". While I don't know the family situation of everybody on this list [0], I doubt they are all "brogrammers". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk?section=Noteworthy%20cypherpunks#Noteworthy_cypherpunks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk?section=Noteworthy%...

by woodman 11y ago

pstuart 11y ago

The more important answer: obviously she doesn't understand or care about the impact on privacy and appeals to reason don't seem to be an avenue. My original snarky remark (which got plenty of downvotes) was implying that she will only care if she feels the pain herself. As for "just avoiding" a senior senator who has power over the laws of the land, I can only assume that means moving out of the country -- that's a rather arrogant and elitist approach (we're not all single brogrammers without ties to our communities).

woodman 11y ago
> ...obviously she doesn't understand or care... That isn't logically consistent, if she doesn't understand then appeals to reason are a potential avenue. By offering that unreasonable bit of charity you undermine your argument. > ...that's a rather arrogant and elitist approach... You are projecting. Why would would need to "assume that means moving out of the country" when I clearly pointed to the first crypto war? The battle over cryptography in the 90s demonstrated several methods of resistance that avoided directly confronting "a senior senator", and didn't requiring "moving out of the country". While I don't know the family situation of everybody on this list [0], I doubt they are all "brogrammers". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk?section=Noteworthy%20cypherpunks#Noteworthy_cypherpunks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk?section=Noteworthy%...