3 ms·
Not a convincing argument. You need people to agree with you if you want to win in a democracy. This attitude, while entirely understandable, will leave you alo
by nothrabannosir 8y ago
Not a convincing argument. You need people to agree with you if you want to win in a democracy. This attitude, while entirely understandable, will leave you alone and naked.
- mpweiher 8y agoIt's not an argument. It is a statement. > win in a democracy This is why fundamental rights such as this are enshrined in constitutions and not up for grab by normal political processes. An important aspect of liberal democracies is protection of the minorities. The majority can't just do what it wants, there are limits.
- nothrabannosir 8y agoIf the majority is big enough it bloody well can. And it will. Protection of minorities only exists because the majority wants it. Not that it is relevant in this conversation: “people who value privacy” are not a group considered a minority who need protecting from the majority. If you want people to help you protect your privacy, you need to convince them, plain and simple. Asking the electorate for help in electing privacy conscious officials and telling them to fuck off when asked why is going to get us absolutely nowhere. That’s the plain truth of our privacy debate today: we are losing, and we need help but we can’t convince people to help us. Ideas of civil liberty are not cutting it. Evidently. If you need any more convincing, look at how the public sees Snowden. And weep.