3 ms·

> If the person understands why the freedom of speech is important You can also try Edward Snowden's analogy: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to

> If the person understands why the freedom of speech is important You can also try Edward Snowden's analogy: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” Sadly I worry that many people don't care about freedom of speech either. I wonder if such people would also be unmoved by this analogy: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about the right to vote because the party you support is currently in power.”

lern_too_spel 5y ago
That's a terrible analogy. You could just as well say that you don't care about the right to bear arms because you have nothing to shoot. Besides, I have never heard anybody say they have nothing to hide, so it is a strawman. There are hundreds of good arguments for a right to privacy. This isn't one of them.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Assuming you're saying that my analogy is terrible (and not Snowden's), I agree that it doesn't directly argue for the right to privacy. My intention was rather to show (as a proof by contradiction) that the "logic" of devaluing privacy and freedom of speech would also suggest that voting is unnecessary. There is a real temptation for people to think "Society is generally fine the way it is, so I don't want things to change", which makes them react negatively to things like protests or even whistleblowing (because it causes them cognitive dissonance). Such people might feel confident that even if the government did abuse its power, it would only spy on, or silence, or hurt people who aren't like them. They therefore may not feel that these fundamental rights are doing them much good, and they don't consciously exercise them. However, many of them would exercise their right to vote, and could imagine the government turning against them if there were no more elections.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    I was saying that Snowden's analogy is terrible.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

That's a terrible analogy. You could just as well say that you don't care about the right to bear arms because you have nothing to shoot. Besides, I have never heard anybody say they have nothing to hide, so it is a strawman. There are hundreds of good arguments for a right to privacy. This isn't one of them.

dane-pgp 5y ago
Assuming you're saying that my analogy is terrible (and not Snowden's), I agree that it doesn't directly argue for the right to privacy. My intention was rather to show (as a proof by contradiction) that the "logic" of devaluing privacy and freedom of speech would also suggest that voting is unnecessary. There is a real temptation for people to think "Society is generally fine the way it is, so I don't want things to change", which makes them react negatively to things like protests or even whistleblowing (because it causes them cognitive dissonance). Such people might feel confident that even if the government did abuse its power, it would only spy on, or silence, or hurt people who aren't like them. They therefore may not feel that these fundamental rights are doing them much good, and they don't consciously exercise them. However, many of them would exercise their right to vote, and could imagine the government turning against them if there were no more elections.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  I was saying that Snowden's analogy is terrible.