4 ms·

As each generation is born not caring about privacy and posting everything for likes, I fear more are being coached to not have privacy as a priority.

candiodari 4y ago
In Europe this was actually done in most countries because of the absurdly incredible damage the (even very limited) information governments had during WW2 did to millions of people. That illustrated that even extremely basic information, including merely a list of all citizens, was abused by governments. And not just for racist reasons, equally to force people into occupying forces (like Russia is doing now in Ukraine) Today we're back to pointing to governments abusing data to target minority children or immigrants to show this. And of course, governments oppose any limiting of the scope of their data collection by pointing out "security issues" (we can't have CHILDREN communicate privately! Look! 3 out of 5 million children got seduced with drugs to go into prostitution!). Of course, governments' collection of data is not even effective, the government GOT it's data collection wishes from 10 years ago that it said was going to use for prevention (police can now access both comments from teachers AND medical reports on any kid) ... and yet the number of children ... went up, not down. And of course, nobody wants to point out that 3 out of 3 of those children ran away from government help first chance they got. Nobody seems to feel this might indicate that perhaps something is wrong with the government, and the government's reputation, that needs to be fixed first. They are of course arguing the solution to their reputation problem is to collect more information on EVERYONE, and use more violence against children for less and less reasons, where any small excuse can be found (because 3 children were actually confirmed to have this happen to them ... the government locked up over 300 children, generally against both their own and their parents wishes. Somehow this didn't make any difference in the numbers at all, and frankly I find it very, very hard to believe the number would have risen 100 TIMES without them doing this)
Dalewyn 4y ago
Strong men make good times. Good times make weak men. Weak men make bad times. Bad times make strong men.
- p_j_w 4y ago
  If this little bit of so-called wisdom were true, one would expect Russia to be going through some good times now given the state of the Soviet Union in the late 70s until its dissolution. It seems about as realistic as one should expect such a simplistic reduction of an insanely complex world to be: not at all.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    The unique culture, history and geography of Russia produces a different sort of dynamic: Strong men create bad times. Bad times create strong men.
- gherkinnn 4y ago
  Rubbish. Why can't this idiotic meme die already?
  - kipchak 4y ago
    While the above is overly simplistic, the basic concept has historical precedent under the general umbrella Social Cycle Theory which is likely why it persists. The same basic idea is described in Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah as "Asabiyyah", for example. There is also the Greek kyklos, or the more recent Cyclical Theory[1], Strauss-Howe generational theory or Secular cycles theory,[2] which roughly maps on to the meme's cycles. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclical_theory_(United_States_history) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclical_theory_(United_States... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#Secular_cycles_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#Secular_cy...
    - csomar 4y ago
      The meme is a bad interpretation of "Asabiyyah" which covers something else, entirely. It's also not clear whether it's still valid today with the globalized world-order created by the US and its allies.
      - 4y ago
colinsane 4y ago
my ideal is to bring my complete, unadulterated self everywhere i may go. pursue authenticity, lower the barrier between myself and others. if i hide my intimate thoughts behind a wall of privacy then i may never experience intimacy. i may never feel at home among my friends or neighbors. i put my pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else, anyone who wants to look through my window in the morning can verify that for themselves. shame is defeated by coming out of your shell, not hiding inside it. i draw the shades and recede to my private world only when i want to remove stimuli for the sake of deep focus. or when i'm fearful of this abstract mass of power hanging always above me at every moment and threatening to destroy me if i'm honest about how i enjoy the "wrong" drugs, or about how i embrace a moral compass which guides me to not fund the machine that takes my brothers away from me and pits them in armed conflict against my sisters, come tax season. ! as far as i can tell that's the only "good" reason to embrace privacy: that in this crazy contradiction it's impossible to be authentic if the wrong people know you as you are. i don't think it's good to use that as a basis on which to idealize privacy in the abstract. i think it's deeply disturbing and we should use it as a basis to fight all these real things which make one fear authenticity. privacy is a necessary stopgap: negating power imbalances is the most proximate thing to a solution. kudos to the young and bold who seek to find themselves among others. praise to the old and scarred who fight to make that possible.

candiodari 4y ago

In Europe this was actually done in most countries because of the absurdly incredible damage the (even very limited) information governments had during WW2 did to millions of people. That illustrated that even extremely basic information, including merely a list of all citizens, was abused by governments. And not just for racist reasons, equally to force people into occupying forces (like Russia is doing now in Ukraine) Today we're back to pointing to governments abusing data to target minority children or immigrants to show this. And of course, governments oppose any limiting of the scope of their data collection by pointing out "security issues" (we can't have CHILDREN communicate privately! Look! 3 out of 5 million children got seduced with drugs to go into prostitution!). Of course, governments' collection of data is not even effective, the government GOT it's data collection wishes from 10 years ago that it said was going to use for prevention (police can now access both comments from teachers AND medical reports on any kid) ... and yet the number of children ... went up, not down. And of course, nobody wants to point out that 3 out of 3 of those children ran away from government help first chance they got. Nobody seems to feel this might indicate that perhaps something is wrong with the government, and the government's reputation, that needs to be fixed first. They are of course arguing the solution to their reputation problem is to collect more information on EVERYONE, and use more violence against children for less and less reasons, where any small excuse can be found (because 3 children were actually confirmed to have this happen to them ... the government locked up over 300 children, generally against both their own and their parents wishes. Somehow this didn't make any difference in the numbers at all, and frankly I find it very, very hard to believe the number would have risen 100 TIMES without them doing this)

Dalewyn 4y ago

Strong men make good times. Good times make weak men. Weak men make bad times. Bad times make strong men.

p_j_w 4y ago
If this little bit of so-called wisdom were true, one would expect Russia to be going through some good times now given the state of the Soviet Union in the late 70s until its dissolution. It seems about as realistic as one should expect such a simplistic reduction of an insanely complex world to be: not at all.
- stametseater 4y ago
  The unique culture, history and geography of Russia produces a different sort of dynamic: Strong men create bad times. Bad times create strong men.
gherkinnn 4y ago
Rubbish. Why can't this idiotic meme die already?
- kipchak 4y ago
  While the above is overly simplistic, the basic concept has historical precedent under the general umbrella Social Cycle Theory which is likely why it persists. The same basic idea is described in Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah as "Asabiyyah", for example. There is also the Greek kyklos, or the more recent Cyclical Theory[1], Strauss-Howe generational theory or Secular cycles theory,[2] which roughly maps on to the meme's cycles. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclical_theory_(United_States_history) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclical_theory_(United_States... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#Secular_cycles_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#Secular_cy...
  - csomar 4y ago
    The meme is a bad interpretation of "Asabiyyah" which covers something else, entirely. It's also not clear whether it's still valid today with the globalized world-order created by the US and its allies.
    - 4y ago

colinsane 4y ago

my ideal is to bring my complete, unadulterated self everywhere i may go. pursue authenticity, lower the barrier between myself and others. if i hide my intimate thoughts behind a wall of privacy then i may never experience intimacy. i may never feel at home among my friends or neighbors. i put my pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else, anyone who wants to look through my window in the morning can verify that for themselves. shame is defeated by coming out of your shell, not hiding inside it. i draw the shades and recede to my private world only when i want to remove stimuli for the sake of deep focus. or when i'm fearful of this abstract mass of power hanging always above me at every moment and threatening to destroy me if i'm honest about how i enjoy the "wrong" drugs, or about how i embrace a moral compass which guides me to not fund the machine that takes my brothers away from me and pits them in armed conflict against my sisters, come tax season. ! as far as i can tell that's the only "good" reason to embrace privacy: that in this crazy contradiction it's impossible to be authentic if the wrong people know you as you are. i don't think it's good to use that as a basis on which to idealize privacy in the abstract. i think it's deeply disturbing and we should use it as a basis to fight all these real things which make one fear authenticity. privacy is a necessary stopgap: negating power imbalances is the most proximate thing to a solution. kudos to the young and bold who seek to find themselves among others. praise to the old and scarred who fight to make that possible.