4 ms·

because it did not have a catastrophic outcome at that time. This time it did. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But do you not detect even a w

because it did not have a catastrophic outcome at that time. This time it did. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But do you not detect even a whiff of hypocrisy in this whole thing? It should have been portrayed as the terrible thing that it is today back when Obama did it. That is what I have an issue with.

grzm 9y ago
Which is more important to you, pointing out hypocrisy in others or taking advantage of an increase in the number of people who share you belief that this is something that should be fixed? I can understand possibly be worried that they may be "fair-weather friends" or some such, but by focusing on the common ground rather than on infighting, you may help build a non-partisan coalition that might effect real change. Yeah, I can understand the frustration, but quibbling amongst ourselves only serves a common enemy. Let's use the momentum to move forward.
- downandout 9y ago
  I’d welcome a non-partisan coalition that would fight the bias of the press, which led to this and many other issues. Unfortunately, such a group will never form because most of the press either endorses or excuses everything done by the left, and castigates everything done by the right. No more clear example of that exists than this situation. Therefore, the left has no incentive to fight the bias of the press, because it favors their side on nearly every issue. The ironic part is that by making the misuse of Facebook data acceptable (even celebrated) when Obama did it, the press may have inadvertently helped Trump get elected years later. They’re upset now, but they’re just trying to put the genie that they unleashed back in the bottle. We reap what we sow.
  - grzm 9y ago
    So, the answer is to continue reinforcing the divisiveness and polarization, giving up because it's others that are causing the issue? That's one of the ways we got to the point we're at. Sounds defeatist to me, and something I'm not willing to do. I encourage you not to, either.
    - downandout 9y ago
      I’m an Independent. I find it harder and harder to stay in the middle because the views of everyone else - on both sides - are so extreme. It would be wonderful to get rid of divisiveness and polarization. But in the imperfect world in which we live, it seems that the only way to even try to bring a little sanity back to things is to point out hypocrisy wherever I see it, and hope those that are practicing it feel ridiculous enough when they are exposed that they change their ways.
      - grzm 9y ago
        Where you stand on the (multi-axis) political spectrum doesn't matter if the actions you're taking continue to divide people and work against your goals. Pointing out hypocrisy in others may feel good and righteous in the moment, but puts people on the defensive and they stop listening to you: it's a remarkably poor way to get someone to change their behavior. People don't respond well if you're intent is to make them feel ridiculous. It's just a part of typical human psychology, and one you're working against if your goal is to actually make a change. Does yelling at your computer make it work better? (Perhaps an increasingly poor example in the age where voice commands are becoming popular.) Or figuring out what's wrong and doing what needs to be done to fix it? Gotta work with the facts on the ground, not how you think it should be. And maybe by doing so, you can move what is towards what should be.
        Covzire 9y ago
        I find the idea that you shouldn't point out hypocrisy because it might trigger divisiveness, divisive. It stinks of a desire to shut down debate because it's not going the way you want.
        grzm 9y ago
        What's your goal? What do you actually want to accomplish in the end? I'm asking in all seriousness. And following up, how do you plan to accomplish that goal? In the case of working for user data privacy, we're working against companies that are benefiting from the data they collect and their lobbyists, as well as people who aren't aware of the situation and often only see the benefits of the apps they're using. And those people cross many demographic and political lines. I don't think user privacy is a partisan issue. It's going to be an uphill battle. You think pointing out all of the differences and disagreements of those who don't agree with you, all of the inconsistencies you see in their positions is going to help? I sincerely don't think so. The point isn't that pointing out hypocrisy is wrong, it's that it gets in the way of your goals. If it's more important to you to point out those inconsistencies than improve the user privacy situation, I think you have your priorities wrong. If you think you can only remedy the user privacy situation by first correcting their inconsistencies, I think that's wrong-headed and doomed to failure on both counts. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion and free to disregard mine.
zzzeek 9y ago
no not really, here is an example: the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. It was serious, there were six deaths, but it wasn't a catastrophe. I was living in NYC at that time, and for me, I realized there were terrorists trying to blow up parts of New York City and quite frankly it scared the crap out of me from that point on how insecure things were, how easy it would be for the WTC (a building I worked in a few times) to be attacked again. But this was not a very widespread sentiment. The problem (terrorists targeting NYC) was there, but the catastrophic outcome was not. Then of course terrorists from roughly the same organization tried again on the same building eight years later and it was the largest attack in US history by orders of magnitude. Terrorism proceeded to become the key societal and political issue pretty much for a whole generation. The problem was there for a long time, the hazard was there for a long time, but it's only when we get the catastrophic outcome; e.g. the Uber car actually killed someone, the plane actually crashed, the WTC was actually destroyed, it's largely rational that that is when lots of people care. There's nothing unusual or hypocritical about it. You might not think the outcome of this election was catastrophic but the reporters who cover the government and the white house do. They know the norms and customs that have been in place for many decades and they see that they've been ripped to shreds in just a little over a year. They know this is a catastrophe and they are rightfully trying to shine a light on every possible thing that we can get at to both patch the situation and hopefully prevent it from happening again.

grzm 9y ago

Which is more important to you, pointing out hypocrisy in others or taking advantage of an increase in the number of people who share you belief that this is something that should be fixed? I can understand possibly be worried that they may be "fair-weather friends" or some such, but by focusing on the common ground rather than on infighting, you may help build a non-partisan coalition that might effect real change. Yeah, I can understand the frustration, but quibbling amongst ourselves only serves a common enemy. Let's use the momentum to move forward.

downandout 9y ago
I’d welcome a non-partisan coalition that would fight the bias of the press, which led to this and many other issues. Unfortunately, such a group will never form because most of the press either endorses or excuses everything done by the left, and castigates everything done by the right. No more clear example of that exists than this situation. Therefore, the left has no incentive to fight the bias of the press, because it favors their side on nearly every issue. The ironic part is that by making the misuse of Facebook data acceptable (even celebrated) when Obama did it, the press may have inadvertently helped Trump get elected years later. They’re upset now, but they’re just trying to put the genie that they unleashed back in the bottle. We reap what we sow.
- grzm 9y ago
  So, the answer is to continue reinforcing the divisiveness and polarization, giving up because it's others that are causing the issue? That's one of the ways we got to the point we're at. Sounds defeatist to me, and something I'm not willing to do. I encourage you not to, either.
  - downandout 9y ago
    I’m an Independent. I find it harder and harder to stay in the middle because the views of everyone else - on both sides - are so extreme. It would be wonderful to get rid of divisiveness and polarization. But in the imperfect world in which we live, it seems that the only way to even try to bring a little sanity back to things is to point out hypocrisy wherever I see it, and hope those that are practicing it feel ridiculous enough when they are exposed that they change their ways.
    - grzm 9y ago
      Where you stand on the (multi-axis) political spectrum doesn't matter if the actions you're taking continue to divide people and work against your goals. Pointing out hypocrisy in others may feel good and righteous in the moment, but puts people on the defensive and they stop listening to you: it's a remarkably poor way to get someone to change their behavior. People don't respond well if you're intent is to make them feel ridiculous. It's just a part of typical human psychology, and one you're working against if your goal is to actually make a change. Does yelling at your computer make it work better? (Perhaps an increasingly poor example in the age where voice commands are becoming popular.) Or figuring out what's wrong and doing what needs to be done to fix it? Gotta work with the facts on the ground, not how you think it should be. And maybe by doing so, you can move what is towards what should be.
      - Covzire 9y ago
        I find the idea that you shouldn't point out hypocrisy because it might trigger divisiveness, divisive. It stinks of a desire to shut down debate because it's not going the way you want.
        grzm 9y ago
        What's your goal? What do you actually want to accomplish in the end? I'm asking in all seriousness. And following up, how do you plan to accomplish that goal? In the case of working for user data privacy, we're working against companies that are benefiting from the data they collect and their lobbyists, as well as people who aren't aware of the situation and often only see the benefits of the apps they're using. And those people cross many demographic and political lines. I don't think user privacy is a partisan issue. It's going to be an uphill battle. You think pointing out all of the differences and disagreements of those who don't agree with you, all of the inconsistencies you see in their positions is going to help? I sincerely don't think so. The point isn't that pointing out hypocrisy is wrong, it's that it gets in the way of your goals. If it's more important to you to point out those inconsistencies than improve the user privacy situation, I think you have your priorities wrong. If you think you can only remedy the user privacy situation by first correcting their inconsistencies, I think that's wrong-headed and doomed to failure on both counts. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion and free to disregard mine.

zzzeek 9y ago

no not really, here is an example: the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. It was serious, there were six deaths, but it wasn't a catastrophe. I was living in NYC at that time, and for me, I realized there were terrorists trying to blow up parts of New York City and quite frankly it scared the crap out of me from that point on how insecure things were, how easy it would be for the WTC (a building I worked in a few times) to be attacked again. But this was not a very widespread sentiment. The problem (terrorists targeting NYC) was there, but the catastrophic outcome was not. Then of course terrorists from roughly the same organization tried again on the same building eight years later and it was the largest attack in US history by orders of magnitude. Terrorism proceeded to become the key societal and political issue pretty much for a whole generation. The problem was there for a long time, the hazard was there for a long time, but it's only when we get the catastrophic outcome; e.g. the Uber car actually killed someone, the plane actually crashed, the WTC was actually destroyed, it's largely rational that that is when lots of people care. There's nothing unusual or hypocritical about it. You might not think the outcome of this election was catastrophic but the reporters who cover the government and the white house do. They know the norms and customs that have been in place for many decades and they see that they've been ripped to shreds in just a little over a year. They know this is a catastrophe and they are rightfully trying to shine a light on every possible thing that we can get at to both patch the situation and hopefully prevent it from happening again.