5 ms·

I know some commenters support Anonymous because they would rather have that kind of chaos than government clamping down even further on the internet, and I agr

I know some commenters support Anonymous because they would rather have that kind of chaos than government clamping down even further on the internet, and I agree. But I think it's a false choice. Certainly we can acknowledge the mob that's Anonymous is a phenomenon that is not in our best interests. Surely we can acknowledge that having to choose between censorship and crime is a false choice, right? I don't have to choose between supporting the government in buying a new fire truck and letting my house burn down, do I?

bandushrew 16y ago
Im very sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
- bandushrew 16y ago
  I may have got it. The problem is that there is no gradient with computers. I either control my computer, or I dont. There is no middle ground. I can either surf the internet and post anonymously, or I cannot. Nobody in power is fighting for my right to do those things. Everybody is more concerned about their own petty little secrets than about the freedom that I care about. 'Mob Rule' has a bad name, but the simple truth is that democracy and freedom is based around it. Warlords and Dictators, oppressive governments and totalitarian states dont exist because of 'Mob Rule', they exist because of the absence of it. Eqypt is just now fighting for 'Mob Rule', and it is doing so with a mob. 'Mob Rule' is just another name for democracy. Sometimes the mob can be ugly, when they hang witches or crucify innocent people, but it can also be awesomely constructive. Freedom is like that.
- lhnz 16y ago
  He's opposing a viewpoint that assumes that you can only have extremes which strengthens the belief that there are only two choices (two-valued orientation). Perhaps take a read of http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_1.html http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_1.html ("The Edge of the Circle")? Do we really need to have complete anarchy or for the government to have complete authority? Seems like a bit of a slippery-slope fallacy to me.
  - seabee 16y ago
    aka a "false dichotomy"
markkat 16y ago
>I don't have to choose between supporting the government in buying a new fire truck and letting my house burn down, do I? I don't see how this choice is analogous. Anon has yet to threaten my interests, at least to any degree that would concern me. However, they have been a thorn in the side of those who have threatened my interest to a greater degree. This kind of battle is part of a healthy society. I think democracy is rooted in the ability for a group of citizens to bring significant and disruptive challenges to institutionalized powers. Democracy is a social agreement in which all remains well as long as fairness more or less prevails. Currently, Anon seems a reasonable check. Also, IMO crime is not something that shouldn't happen. It is just something that should carry risk and consequence. At times, crime should be committed. The protesters in Egypt are committing a crime. In some real ways, economic for one, their actions are disruptive and hurtful. But, they had to weigh the consequences and come to a decision.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Democracy is a social agreement in which all remains well as long as fairness more or less prevails. "Democracy" doesn't have a darned thing to do with "fairness". Democracy means exactly one thing: the strength of the majority to force their will upon the minority. There's no reason to believe that the result will be fair in any known moral system, and plenty of historical examples where it hasn't been fair.

bandushrew 16y ago

Im very sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

bandushrew 16y ago
I may have got it. The problem is that there is no gradient with computers. I either control my computer, or I dont. There is no middle ground. I can either surf the internet and post anonymously, or I cannot. Nobody in power is fighting for my right to do those things. Everybody is more concerned about their own petty little secrets than about the freedom that I care about. 'Mob Rule' has a bad name, but the simple truth is that democracy and freedom is based around it. Warlords and Dictators, oppressive governments and totalitarian states dont exist because of 'Mob Rule', they exist because of the absence of it. Eqypt is just now fighting for 'Mob Rule', and it is doing so with a mob. 'Mob Rule' is just another name for democracy. Sometimes the mob can be ugly, when they hang witches or crucify innocent people, but it can also be awesomely constructive. Freedom is like that.
lhnz 16y ago
He's opposing a viewpoint that assumes that you can only have extremes which strengthens the belief that there are only two choices (two-valued orientation). Perhaps take a read of http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_1.html http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_1.html ("The Edge of the Circle")? Do we really need to have complete anarchy or for the government to have complete authority? Seems like a bit of a slippery-slope fallacy to me.
- seabee 16y ago
  aka a "false dichotomy"

markkat 16y ago

>I don't have to choose between supporting the government in buying a new fire truck and letting my house burn down, do I? I don't see how this choice is analogous. Anon has yet to threaten my interests, at least to any degree that would concern me. However, they have been a thorn in the side of those who have threatened my interest to a greater degree. This kind of battle is part of a healthy society. I think democracy is rooted in the ability for a group of citizens to bring significant and disruptive challenges to institutionalized powers. Democracy is a social agreement in which all remains well as long as fairness more or less prevails. Currently, Anon seems a reasonable check. Also, IMO crime is not something that shouldn't happen. It is just something that should carry risk and consequence. At times, crime should be committed. The protesters in Egypt are committing a crime. In some real ways, economic for one, their actions are disruptive and hurtful. But, they had to weigh the consequences and come to a decision.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Democracy is a social agreement in which all remains well as long as fairness more or less prevails. "Democracy" doesn't have a darned thing to do with "fairness". Democracy means exactly one thing: the strength of the majority to force their will upon the minority. There's no reason to believe that the result will be fair in any known moral system, and plenty of historical examples where it hasn't been fair.