9 ms·

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 t

by 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 ericb 16y ago

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.