4 ms·

Now, I am against these machines and such actions myself. But "little Nazi's" is just Godwins law (i.e. a silly thing to say) and "cancer machines" is the typi

by ErrantX 16y ago

Now, I am against these machines and such actions myself. But "little Nazi's" is just Godwins law (i.e. a silly thing to say) and "cancer machines" is the typical climate of fear nonsense we are trying to resist from the TSA. So yeh, people probably have a problem not with the sentiment but with the language you use :) Seriously, c'mon.

tomjen3 16y ago
My point exactly - the reason I use these things are that they _work_. Not on hn, maybe, but in the real world. And I don't give any amount of fecal matter that people are scared, I just don't want them to trample on other peoples rights.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  And I don't give any amount of fecal matter that people are scared And that is why I hate and despise such a sentiment. It highlights what is wrong with society that it is ok to push a position through fear. People are controlled through fear, and persisting that method of making a point is only prolonging the problem. You're no better than them. I apologise for being blunt, no offence intended.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    The method may be the same, the intend is different and no real harm is done, unlike the tsa. Look I would love to have a rational discussion with people about this, but that will have to wait until they come down, people who are already scared shitless can't think straight, so either we step in and direct them -- though means one of us like -- or we let the politicians do so for us -- and end up in a place we have even more.
    - sorbus 16y ago
      The ends do not justify the means. Ever. That doesn't mean that you can use bad means for good ends, though. It just means that you can't say that "the intend [sic] is different," and act as if that makes it okay. Bad means are always bad; if something is harmful when used for one purpose it's harmful when used for another.
elblanco 16y ago
I agree, but I also like "pornoscan" as a descriptor.
ericb 16y ago
Sure, little nazis is hyperbole and not useful for the discussion, but there is something that bugs me. Godwin's law is usually used to imply that a reference to Nazi's means a conversation has jumped the shark. This marginalizes legitimate parallels. The loss of rights and slippery slope toward a totalitarian state in Germany started gradually, like putting a frog in cold water and gradually turning up the heat until it boils. When my choices in order to travel are to be 1-seen naked, or 2-groped, at the government's behest this is a serious loss of rights, and comparing it to serious losses of freedoms in totalitarian states is perfectly fair.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Oh, absolutely. There are important similarities (in fact, scary ones) to what happened in Germany in the 1930's and what is happening in the US (and, to a lesser extent, other countries). But "little nazis" trivializes that discussion; and uses the same pressure points as the TSA use. In fact the commenter above is basically advocating (in his other posts more than the first one) a form of short-term benevolent almost-totalitarianism "for the greater good" (better us telling you what to do than them). There are a number of historical examples of this, and its failings as well. Point is; this is a classic example of Godwins law. If the GP had made a serious comparison then fine, but the aim was different. Is this a loss of fundamental rights? I think... partly it is, partly it isn't. Try as I might I can't find myself completely outraged by the actual process here, it makes me uncomfortable and some of the bad examples make me mad (from a personal perspective I don't care either if someone wants to rub their hands on me so I can get on a plane). But what does concern me is the precedent in forcing us to submit to invasive checks; and that is where our fundamental rights (to my mind) come into play. Do we have a fundamental right to get on a plane without invasive checks? Not entirely. But we do have the fundamental right not to be suspected, molested and mistreated at the hands of the government, and if this is a minor example if that happening, we should stamp on it now.
  - ericb 16y ago
    I'm not defending the op, just pointing out something about Godwin's law that is pertinent. I think we're in agreement, only difference being that I am actually outraged. My theory is this: because technology intermediates the process, our natural revulsion is subverted. Consider, if instead you had to strip naked and be ogled by security personnel and have a photo taken, would that affect your feelings? In terms of fundamental rights, I think freedom to travel is pretty fundamental to pursuit of happiness and unreasonable search and seizure. I have trouble with the argument from "existence of alternatives" and find that this is often just as absurd an argument as silly nazi references. Like arguments that end with "move to another country then" "just take a boat" is not a practical solution. Flying isn't a luxury if your family is overseas, or necessary for your work.

by ErrantX 16y ago

tomjen3 16y ago

My point exactly - the reason I use these things are that they _work_. Not on hn, maybe, but in the real world. And I don't give any amount of fecal matter that people are scared, I just don't want them to trample on other peoples rights.

ErrantX 16y ago
And I don't give any amount of fecal matter that people are scared And that is why I hate and despise such a sentiment. It highlights what is wrong with society that it is ok to push a position through fear. People are controlled through fear, and persisting that method of making a point is only prolonging the problem. You're no better than them. I apologise for being blunt, no offence intended.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  The method may be the same, the intend is different and no real harm is done, unlike the tsa. Look I would love to have a rational discussion with people about this, but that will have to wait until they come down, people who are already scared shitless can't think straight, so either we step in and direct them -- though means one of us like -- or we let the politicians do so for us -- and end up in a place we have even more.
  - sorbus 16y ago
    The ends do not justify the means. Ever. That doesn't mean that you can use bad means for good ends, though. It just means that you can't say that "the intend [sic] is different," and act as if that makes it okay. Bad means are always bad; if something is harmful when used for one purpose it's harmful when used for another.

elblanco 16y ago

I agree, but I also like "pornoscan" as a descriptor.

ericb 16y ago

Sure, little nazis is hyperbole and not useful for the discussion, but there is something that bugs me. Godwin's law is usually used to imply that a reference to Nazi's means a conversation has jumped the shark. This marginalizes legitimate parallels. The loss of rights and slippery slope toward a totalitarian state in Germany started gradually, like putting a frog in cold water and gradually turning up the heat until it boils. When my choices in order to travel are to be 1-seen naked, or 2-groped, at the government's behest this is a serious loss of rights, and comparing it to serious losses of freedoms in totalitarian states is perfectly fair.

ErrantX 16y ago
Oh, absolutely. There are important similarities (in fact, scary ones) to what happened in Germany in the 1930's and what is happening in the US (and, to a lesser extent, other countries). But "little nazis" trivializes that discussion; and uses the same pressure points as the TSA use. In fact the commenter above is basically advocating (in his other posts more than the first one) a form of short-term benevolent almost-totalitarianism "for the greater good" (better us telling you what to do than them). There are a number of historical examples of this, and its failings as well. Point is; this is a classic example of Godwins law. If the GP had made a serious comparison then fine, but the aim was different. Is this a loss of fundamental rights? I think... partly it is, partly it isn't. Try as I might I can't find myself completely outraged by the actual process here, it makes me uncomfortable and some of the bad examples make me mad (from a personal perspective I don't care either if someone wants to rub their hands on me so I can get on a plane). But what does concern me is the precedent in forcing us to submit to invasive checks; and that is where our fundamental rights (to my mind) come into play. Do we have a fundamental right to get on a plane without invasive checks? Not entirely. But we do have the fundamental right not to be suspected, molested and mistreated at the hands of the government, and if this is a minor example if that happening, we should stamp on it now.
- ericb 16y ago
  I'm not defending the op, just pointing out something about Godwin's law that is pertinent. I think we're in agreement, only difference being that I am actually outraged. My theory is this: because technology intermediates the process, our natural revulsion is subverted. Consider, if instead you had to strip naked and be ogled by security personnel and have a photo taken, would that affect your feelings? In terms of fundamental rights, I think freedom to travel is pretty fundamental to pursuit of happiness and unreasonable search and seizure. I have trouble with the argument from "existence of alternatives" and find that this is often just as absurd an argument as silly nazi references. Like arguments that end with "move to another country then" "just take a boat" is not a practical solution. Flying isn't a luxury if your family is overseas, or necessary for your work.