8 ms·
Rule of thumb: If something invokes "protect the children" to justify itself or to push it's agenda, it is advocating something. Not only that it is doing so in
by fitblipper 5y ago
Rule of thumb:
If something invokes "protect the children" to justify itself or to push it's agenda, it is advocating something. Not only that it is doing so in an underhanded and emotionally targeted way. I'm not saying politico is the primary source of advocacy in this situation, but they are at least echoing it and helping frame the debate around that.
- duduuegeh 5y agoSeems like a rule that fails pretty fast if children actually need protecting.
- dsomers 5y agoI’m really shocked at how causally some HN commenter will discount the very real problem of online child pornography. It honestly disgusts me how people will hardly acknowledge it’s a real problem.
- II2II 5y agoThe fifth and sixth sentence of the article explicitly states the concern of child protection being used as an underhanded and emotional tactic. While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate. The problem lies with the fragility of our political system. It is so fragile that debating the effectiveness of the legislation can be shut down with a handful of emotionally charged words. It is so fragile that seeking alternatives which don't impact fundamental rights is overlooked in the interests of expediency. Of course, creating such rules of thumb is a symptom of the same disease. It is a tool to discourage debate rather than encourage it.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)
- azernik 5y agoWe assign those rights as a society and, more relevantly here, as a political system. The people who draft our constitutions and (like for all political norms) those who create our political discourse have more influence in defining them than the general population, but these norms have to be agreed to by a fairly large swathe of society to be effective.
- briefcomment 5y ago> fairly large swathe of society I don't think a majority necessarily carries power. The uber rich and intelligence agencies carry far more power than any mass of citizens.
- azernik 5y agoa) I said "fairly large swathe" b) Elites exert control by persuasion; they control the discourse, they organize larger movements, &c. There are still limits to what popular opinion will go along with. c) Intelligence agencies are, in most rich democratic countries, not a major lever of political power. Government economic institutions, police, courts, and the like are much more influential in both day-to-day lives and in shaping popular conceptions of the "rules of the game".
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoYou are speaking of rights. I’m speaking of “fundamental rights”. How are they different?
- azernik 5y ago"Fundamental" rights are the ones whose existence is not considered a matter for debate in society.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoNo such right exists. Can you name one?
- croes 5y ago> legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate The problem is they don't reduce it. It doesn't prevent the abuse and rape nor does it prevent the trade. They install mass surveillance that catches some idiots.
- permo-w 5y agoIt sounds like you’ve lifted your ethics from an episode of The Simpsons People should judge things like this based on the content and context of the legislation, not based on a 3 word summary of its justification. There’s your rule of thumb