4 ms·

Why are you coming at me with strawman arguments. Did I say we should stop using databases altogether? No. I said this is a reason to dislike them. Did I say

Why are you coming at me with strawman arguments. Did I say we should stop using databases altogether? No. I said this is a reason to dislike them. Did I say we should go back to using paper recordkeeping for everything? No. Again, that was never argued. Have you considered that maybe there's a middle-ground between collecting, trading, and analyzing every possible scrap of data we can squeeze out of people... and the Butlerian Jihad?

ChrisLomont 4y ago
Also a strawman. Every database I listed is not the "Butlerian Jihad," they're all simple databases to keep track of identities for very reasonable reasons. >Did I say we should stop using databases altogether? Claiming this is a reason to dislike all databases coupled with your wistful statement "it's not like the old days..." sure looks like your advocating for the old days. >Have you considered that maybe there's a middle-ground between collecting, trading, and analyzing every possible scrap of data we can squeeze out of people... and the Butlerian Jihad? Yes, which is why I mocked your dislike of all such databases (including as you wrote, banks and ISPs) and a weird reference to ancient systems as if they were a better option. If you thought middle ground was a good solution, you could have simply written that instead of writing two extremes. But you chose the extremes.
- falcrist 4y ago
  > Every database I listed is not the "Butlerian Jihad," I didn't say what you listed amounted to the "Butlerian Jihad," but you were clearly and deliberately implying that I said we should get rid of every database. That's a strawman argument. You need to stop. Ok? > Claiming this is a reason to dislike all databases coupled with your wistful statement "it's not like the old days..." sure looks like your advocating for the old days. Nope. It's possible to dislike things and still compromise with them. > Yes, which is why I mocked your dislike of all such databases Right. You approached the conversation in bad faith. Quite a lot of that going on in this thread. > a weird reference to ancient systems as if they were a better option. A pointed reference to the fact that paper records couldn't be completely compromised remotely. A strength that's very, very pertinent to the discussion of a leak that includes ALL of California gun owners. > But you chose the extremes. This is precisely the strawman to which I was referring. YOU chose the extremes, not me. You've been told by the source (me) that this is not what was being said. Now you need to stop pretending it was. I generally expect a higher level of conversation here than on certain other social media websites. I see that when it comes to political discussion, my expectations are unfounded.

ChrisLomont 4y ago

Also a strawman. Every database I listed is not the "Butlerian Jihad," they're all simple databases to keep track of identities for very reasonable reasons. >Did I say we should stop using databases altogether? Claiming this is a reason to dislike all databases coupled with your wistful statement "it's not like the old days..." sure looks like your advocating for the old days. >Have you considered that maybe there's a middle-ground between collecting, trading, and analyzing every possible scrap of data we can squeeze out of people... and the Butlerian Jihad? Yes, which is why I mocked your dislike of all such databases (including as you wrote, banks and ISPs) and a weird reference to ancient systems as if they were a better option. If you thought middle ground was a good solution, you could have simply written that instead of writing two extremes. But you chose the extremes.

falcrist 4y ago
> Every database I listed is not the "Butlerian Jihad," I didn't say what you listed amounted to the "Butlerian Jihad," but you were clearly and deliberately implying that I said we should get rid of every database. That's a strawman argument. You need to stop. Ok? > Claiming this is a reason to dislike all databases coupled with your wistful statement "it's not like the old days..." sure looks like your advocating for the old days. Nope. It's possible to dislike things and still compromise with them. > Yes, which is why I mocked your dislike of all such databases Right. You approached the conversation in bad faith. Quite a lot of that going on in this thread. > a weird reference to ancient systems as if they were a better option. A pointed reference to the fact that paper records couldn't be completely compromised remotely. A strength that's very, very pertinent to the discussion of a leak that includes ALL of California gun owners. > But you chose the extremes. This is precisely the strawman to which I was referring. YOU chose the extremes, not me. You've been told by the source (me) that this is not what was being said. Now you need to stop pretending it was. I generally expect a higher level of conversation here than on certain other social media websites. I see that when it comes to political discussion, my expectations are unfounded.