4 ms·

Your point seems to be that because these people want to play a game using us as pieces, we should accept that they should get what they want. You never really

Your point seems to be that because these people want to play a game using us as pieces, we should accept that they should get what they want. You never really get to why, though. You just leave it there, like a religious belief. Care to expand the reasoning?

dogma1138 10y ago
Have you ever fought with your loved one? do you tell them everything? do you tell everyone everything all the time? If so we have a name for that, but you can't really hold a relationship if you act like that. We don't go and broadcast everything that was said to us in confidence, we don't share every thought we have. If say there was an email from hilary saying that "The US would back X amount of billions in guaranteed loans to provide funding for infrastructure informer FARC controlled zones" one party now knows exactly how much to ask for, one party now knows a limit, one party now has more power... Or here is another example say on day 2 of the negotiations there would be some preliminary agreement on how many and what type of sentences would be commuted that's just one small point of the negotiation it hasn't been finalized but if leaked it can blow up the entire deal. FARC can say it's too little, the Colombian government/people can say it's too much, and all over something that haven't been finalized or agreed upon, on something that is likely to change 50 times over during the negotiations. You seem to think for some reason that leaking things prematurely isn't using you as pieces, it is you are a puppet of your emotions and feeding you specifically tuned information is effectively playing you like a string.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  It's not possible to tell everyone everything all the time. Further, everyone would be so spammed by everyone else, it's likely no one would be able to know what was going on. It has become (and assuming we are still here in the future, it will become even moreso) easier to broadcast more. The primary reason people don't go around broadcasting everything is because they can't. Most people have been capable of broadcasting very little. Consider what you are arguing (or at least, appear to be): "Yeah, we fucked you over in the past (and we may do so again in the future) and we didn't want to tell you about it (and tried not to [and will try to not tell you about it in the future]), but just play nice and give us this stuff we want, please?" I see this argument continuing to be rejected wholesale.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  So release more information that allows the people to make rational choices. The people are irrational because they are treated as pawns and manipulated with controlled information. If two countries are negotiating in ways that would upset their own citizens, then those countries' leaders should only blame themselves for the way they have conditioned their citizens to behave.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    More often than not there isn't more information to release, because that information isn't there yet. People are irrational because they are irrational.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      People are irrational because they are irrational. So let's fix that first instead of continuing to manipulate the flow of information; the rest will follow.
      - jospoortvliet 10y ago
        Right. Replace people with computers perhaps? Because our few pounds of gray matter will never be rational. Us techies tend to think we are, which is exactly why we're even more prone to act irrational in some situations!
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Defeatism ensures defeat. Instead of thinking of reasons not to try, why not try to come up with solutions?
fixermark 10y ago
The condensed version is "There are some issues so contentious that negotiation by committee does not work." Imagine trying to end WWII if every citizen of every nation in that war were sitting at the negotiating table.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  WWII ended with unconditional surrender IIRC. A good modern example would be the middle east peace process, every time there are negotiations and a deal is on the table it blows up more often than not because of premature and selective release of information. The selective part doesn't have to be intentionally i.e. in one side only releasing part of the information but simply because the other points were not settled upon yet. Negotiations are like trying to balance an egg on a point of a needle, if they aren't they are often one sided.

dogma1138 10y ago

Have you ever fought with your loved one? do you tell them everything? do you tell everyone everything all the time? If so we have a name for that, but you can't really hold a relationship if you act like that. We don't go and broadcast everything that was said to us in confidence, we don't share every thought we have. If say there was an email from hilary saying that "The US would back X amount of billions in guaranteed loans to provide funding for infrastructure informer FARC controlled zones" one party now knows exactly how much to ask for, one party now knows a limit, one party now has more power... Or here is another example say on day 2 of the negotiations there would be some preliminary agreement on how many and what type of sentences would be commuted that's just one small point of the negotiation it hasn't been finalized but if leaked it can blow up the entire deal. FARC can say it's too little, the Colombian government/people can say it's too much, and all over something that haven't been finalized or agreed upon, on something that is likely to change 50 times over during the negotiations. You seem to think for some reason that leaking things prematurely isn't using you as pieces, it is you are a puppet of your emotions and feeding you specifically tuned information is effectively playing you like a string.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
It's not possible to tell everyone everything all the time. Further, everyone would be so spammed by everyone else, it's likely no one would be able to know what was going on. It has become (and assuming we are still here in the future, it will become even moreso) easier to broadcast more. The primary reason people don't go around broadcasting everything is because they can't. Most people have been capable of broadcasting very little. Consider what you are arguing (or at least, appear to be): "Yeah, we fucked you over in the past (and we may do so again in the future) and we didn't want to tell you about it (and tried not to [and will try to not tell you about it in the future]), but just play nice and give us this stuff we want, please?" I see this argument continuing to be rejected wholesale.
nitrogen 10y ago
So release more information that allows the people to make rational choices. The people are irrational because they are treated as pawns and manipulated with controlled information. If two countries are negotiating in ways that would upset their own citizens, then those countries' leaders should only blame themselves for the way they have conditioned their citizens to behave.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  More often than not there isn't more information to release, because that information isn't there yet. People are irrational because they are irrational.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    People are irrational because they are irrational. So let's fix that first instead of continuing to manipulate the flow of information; the rest will follow.
    - jospoortvliet 10y ago
      Right. Replace people with computers perhaps? Because our few pounds of gray matter will never be rational. Us techies tend to think we are, which is exactly why we're even more prone to act irrational in some situations!
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        Defeatism ensures defeat. Instead of thinking of reasons not to try, why not try to come up with solutions?

fixermark 10y ago

The condensed version is "There are some issues so contentious that negotiation by committee does not work." Imagine trying to end WWII if every citizen of every nation in that war were sitting at the negotiating table.

dogma1138 10y ago
WWII ended with unconditional surrender IIRC. A good modern example would be the middle east peace process, every time there are negotiations and a deal is on the table it blows up more often than not because of premature and selective release of information. The selective part doesn't have to be intentionally i.e. in one side only releasing part of the information but simply because the other points were not settled upon yet. Negotiations are like trying to balance an egg on a point of a needle, if they aren't they are often one sided.