3 ms·

>largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. If we actually want to convince people that this needs cha

by slg 6y ago

>largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. If we actually want to convince people that this needs change, we need to hold both sides of the debate to the same standard. We searched for any concrete evidence of these measures adding safety, found none, and then concluded it didn't add safety. The next step is to look for concrete examples of how this erodes freedom for a normal American citizen. Otherwise you are arguing one theoretical with another and most people will tune out.

Grimm1 6y ago
The act of secretly (or I guess not so secretly now) monitoring civilian information is a loss of a freedom in and of itself. Freedom from undue government interference in an otherwise normal citizen's life. It's existence is confirmation in and of itself, another overreach.
- slg 6y ago
  What do you mean in tangible and concrete terms? How has my life been made worse by these laws? You need to explain that because these abstract concepts don't seem to motivate people to action.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    Your life is worse because the government is openly antagonist towards the populace it was created to serve. Even if it doesn't effect you now all you need to do is look at historical examples from other nations going down the same path. There's a reason the poem "First they came ..." exists and it's a direct counter point to the argument you're making. Otherwise I don't know what you want here, historically the masses mostly don't do anything until they start starving. Most large acts of rebellion were put together by a small band of agitators often high ranking members of the establishment who for whatever reason decide they've had enough then publicize and promote it and then often pay the common folk to fight. The US for instance was majority founded by a bunch of rich people who were tired of the type of taxes levied on them. The continental army for instance was paid to fight. My point being is any action is going to be taken by people who care about the abstract notions, the rank and file will be paid to care or provided some equal material value.
    - slg 6y ago
      >Your life is worse because the government is openly antagonist towards the populace it was created to serve. What does this mean in relation to the debate about NSA spying? How is the NSA antagonizing me? What is one example of a material impact on my life? >Even if it doesn't effect you now all you need to do is look at historical examples from other nations going down the same path. There's a reason the poem "First they came ..." exists and it's a direct counter point to the argument you're making. This is getting into slippery slopes and hypotheticals that don't seem to motivate anyone and they are the exact arguments that are used in defense of this spying. If we demand examples of the safety this spying supposedly provides, we need examples of the freedom this spying destroys. >Otherwise I don't know what you want here, historically the masses mostly don't do anything until they start starving... I am looking for anything that will motivate people to political action. It doesn't need to motivate people to overthrow the government. A simple here is why you real life is worse so vote for this candidate, volunteer with organization, donate to this cause, etc.
      - Grimm1 6y ago
        Something being bad doesn't have to have a material impact on you to be bad you should be against it simply because in principal it's a bad thing. Government over reach is a slippery slope and is bad therefor spying via overreach is bad. I'm not your personal savior I don't really care what you believe and I wasn't here to convince anyone of anything let alone you, I stated my personal beliefs. Edit: I'll also leave off with where if your beliefs don't include government spying being bad you and I likely are coming from very ideologically different starting points and I have no intention of trying to spend my time walking you from A to B I'll leave that for the evangelists I have other things to fill my time.
        slg 6y ago
        You can reread my comments and you will see I am not against you on this. I started my first comment with "If we...". I am including myself in with the people who are failing. I believe we need to get better at explaining this issue. We need people who are "trying to spend [their] time walking you from A to B" because flatly saying "you should be against it simply because in principal it's a bad thing" is not going to motivate any political change.
mafuy 6y ago
Isn't this something that has been shown in history time and time again? Look e.g. at recent German history: Nazis abused data collection to find and kill Jews and political opponents, and soviet Stasi invaded privacy to find, imprison and torture political opponents. Beyond this concrete evidence, there is also the indirect impact by the "chilling effect". I believe many or most of us experienced this effect already. So I'm entirely certain that the negative impact is easy to see.

by slg 6y ago

Grimm1 6y ago

The act of secretly (or I guess not so secretly now) monitoring civilian information is a loss of a freedom in and of itself. Freedom from undue government interference in an otherwise normal citizen's life. It's existence is confirmation in and of itself, another overreach.

slg 6y ago
What do you mean in tangible and concrete terms? How has my life been made worse by these laws? You need to explain that because these abstract concepts don't seem to motivate people to action.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  Your life is worse because the government is openly antagonist towards the populace it was created to serve. Even if it doesn't effect you now all you need to do is look at historical examples from other nations going down the same path. There's a reason the poem "First they came ..." exists and it's a direct counter point to the argument you're making. Otherwise I don't know what you want here, historically the masses mostly don't do anything until they start starving. Most large acts of rebellion were put together by a small band of agitators often high ranking members of the establishment who for whatever reason decide they've had enough then publicize and promote it and then often pay the common folk to fight. The US for instance was majority founded by a bunch of rich people who were tired of the type of taxes levied on them. The continental army for instance was paid to fight. My point being is any action is going to be taken by people who care about the abstract notions, the rank and file will be paid to care or provided some equal material value.
  - slg 6y ago
    >Your life is worse because the government is openly antagonist towards the populace it was created to serve. What does this mean in relation to the debate about NSA spying? How is the NSA antagonizing me? What is one example of a material impact on my life? >Even if it doesn't effect you now all you need to do is look at historical examples from other nations going down the same path. There's a reason the poem "First they came ..." exists and it's a direct counter point to the argument you're making. This is getting into slippery slopes and hypotheticals that don't seem to motivate anyone and they are the exact arguments that are used in defense of this spying. If we demand examples of the safety this spying supposedly provides, we need examples of the freedom this spying destroys. >Otherwise I don't know what you want here, historically the masses mostly don't do anything until they start starving... I am looking for anything that will motivate people to political action. It doesn't need to motivate people to overthrow the government. A simple here is why you real life is worse so vote for this candidate, volunteer with organization, donate to this cause, etc.
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      Something being bad doesn't have to have a material impact on you to be bad you should be against it simply because in principal it's a bad thing. Government over reach is a slippery slope and is bad therefor spying via overreach is bad. I'm not your personal savior I don't really care what you believe and I wasn't here to convince anyone of anything let alone you, I stated my personal beliefs. Edit: I'll also leave off with where if your beliefs don't include government spying being bad you and I likely are coming from very ideologically different starting points and I have no intention of trying to spend my time walking you from A to B I'll leave that for the evangelists I have other things to fill my time.
      - slg 6y ago
        You can reread my comments and you will see I am not against you on this. I started my first comment with "If we...". I am including myself in with the people who are failing. I believe we need to get better at explaining this issue. We need people who are "trying to spend [their] time walking you from A to B" because flatly saying "you should be against it simply because in principal it's a bad thing" is not going to motivate any political change.

mafuy 6y ago

Isn't this something that has been shown in history time and time again? Look e.g. at recent German history: Nazis abused data collection to find and kill Jews and political opponents, and soviet Stasi invaded privacy to find, imprison and torture political opponents. Beyond this concrete evidence, there is also the indirect impact by the "chilling effect". I believe many or most of us experienced this effect already. So I'm entirely certain that the negative impact is easy to see.