3 ms·

Virgil seems to be willfully ignorant. Tor needs greater political support in the West because of second crypto wars. Tor also needs more funding that is availa

by zmanian 10y ago

Virgil seems to be willfully ignorant. Tor needs greater political support in the West because of second crypto wars. Tor also needs more funding that is available for work on privacy and anonymity to support use cases like Securedrop. Too much of Tor's current funding is tied to censorship resistance applications of Tor.

Sniffnoy 10y ago
People can be wrong without being willfully ignorant. There's no reason to assume bad faith. You could make a perfectly good argument along the lines of what you say without that accusation. Why add it in? (Note that you haven't actually fully made that argument. We have multiple competing concerns here (as we always do[0]). Virgil has made an argument based on one; you are trying to make an argument based on another. The question then is, which one outweighs the other? Since neither of you are actually responding to the other's arguments, merely expressing different concerns, it is impossible to tell from your arguments alone. (To put it another way, in pg's "Hierarchy of Disagreement"[1], you're purely counterarguing with no attempt at refutation.) Calling Virgil "willfully ignorant" makes it sound like his argument carries no weight or has already been refuted, but this is not the case.) [0] http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_... [1] http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
romanpoet 10y ago
Okay, if Tor decides they'd pare back of the rest of the world to "focus at home", that would be a perfectly fine thing, logically consistent thing to do However, this argument doesn't generate any virtue points. My sole claims about Tor are (1) they've pivoted and (2) their short-sightedness. They want to be rah-rah human-rights, but their angle of pursuit of human-rights is, ironically, notably counter-productive.

by zmanian 10y ago

Sniffnoy 10y ago

People can be wrong without being willfully ignorant. There's no reason to assume bad faith. You could make a perfectly good argument along the lines of what you say without that accusation. Why add it in? (Note that you haven't actually fully made that argument. We have multiple competing concerns here (as we always do[0]). Virgil has made an argument based on one; you are trying to make an argument based on another. The question then is, which one outweighs the other? Since neither of you are actually responding to the other's arguments, merely expressing different concerns, it is impossible to tell from your arguments alone. (To put it another way, in pg's "Hierarchy of Disagreement"[1], you're purely counterarguing with no attempt at refutation.) Calling Virgil "willfully ignorant" makes it sound like his argument carries no weight or has already been refuted, but this is not the case.) [0] http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_... [1] http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

romanpoet 10y ago

Okay, if Tor decides they'd pare back of the rest of the world to "focus at home", that would be a perfectly fine thing, logically consistent thing to do However, this argument doesn't generate any virtue points. My sole claims about Tor are (1) they've pivoted and (2) their short-sightedness. They want to be rah-rah human-rights, but their angle of pursuit of human-rights is, ironically, notably counter-productive.