4 ms·

> People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. If that was actually the case then how do they not catch whistleblowers

> People want to believe that govt and big tech are this omniscient, monolithic entity. If that was actually the case then how do they not catch whistleblowers who leave trails of evidence months before leaking? Power. Cowardice. People saying "it's all fine" because they don't want to live in a world where the only reason they're not in fear or pain is because they kissed the ring. It would not reflect well on them, so they choose to view it differently. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... If the above is possible, why wouldn't it be possible where the stakes and capabilities are orders of magnitude higher? Plus, the problem isn't to so much to keep anything "secret". Usually it's enough to offer another view point aligned with power, that people can flock to out of cowardice and/or as a token of allegiance. We all know who Assange is, we know that he was hounded and tortured for calling attention to war crimes. So? Nothing happened to anyone responsible, and at best Assange might be free, one day. Similar for Snowden. So yeah, why wouldn't people just blow whistles all the time, right? And come to think of it nobody -- that is, none of the power centers, all sorts of "sides" in all sorts of conflicts -- can stand honesty. They may disagree on the lies they want to push instead, but they all agree that the truth is not an option, knowingly or not. No need to plan anything, they can just go by smell and instinct and they'll work together to persecute people with integrity without even realizing they're doing it. "Omniscience" in this context certainly doesn't include being aware of oneself, it's more like a stalker who knows every little detail about the life of their victim, but has no clue that they themselves have a massive problem. "It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us." -- Adam Curtis

scandox 3y ago
The problem with Curtis' "weirdos" theory is that it discounts the existence of the weirdos themselves. The weirdos exist and other weirdos know (better than anyone) that other weirdos exist. So they have to deal with a world of weirdos. They need to enter that reality. Which in doing they also do perpetuate. But it's nonsense to imply that it is just imposed on us and could somehow be dispensed with. It has to exist and in existing it has to be dealt with.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  The "Team America" theory of dicks, pussies and assholes? I flat out don't buy it. It's not like Assange and Snowden are just such mean fuckers out to harm the poor American public that you have to fight dirty to combat them -- even though you really don't want to. That's laughable. Or that COINTELPRO was just the only way to handle MLK. No, you fight corruption and criminality with integrity. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, the only way to justice and peace, on small and large scales. But everybody just wants to shine light on the their opponents, while believing the stuff they made up about themselves, and made others believe. So there's a lot of half-measures, if even, a lot of lip-service. We want to catch the terrorists who aren't on our payroll, the unpredictable factors, and want to make sure the ones that are don't get caught, the valuable assets. (and it doesn't even matter who says that to whom, this "we" applies to everyone with the means to read this, all nations are equally fucked up in that regard, certainly all the powerful ones). So nothing really gets cleaned up.
  - pas 3y ago
    Integrity is good, but there's no universal law dictating that it will always prevail no matter what. That said - I guess - it's not surprising that most of HN (and hope that most non-ignorant people) would agree that a lot of states are way over the optimum non-integrity point. (For example intelligence and counter-intelligence toward geopolitically important adversarial targets is probably something that makes sense, drone-bombing random groups of people because war-on-something hysteria probably doesn't.)
    - pyinstallwoes 3y ago
      Integrity reflects cosmos, thus order. The lack, reflects chaos. Congruent to universal patterns and thus laws one could argue that indeed, acting with integrity is a universal law of good. I’d argue however that better than integrity is what we try to ascribe and describe with the word love. To me it seems when one acts with love then every action is properly constrained, and most importantly acts of discipline; for acts of discipline without love inevitably become acts of abuse. Love is the constraint that trends towards cosmos, integrity, and that which is good.
KETpXDDzR 3y ago
"everything will be alright" is the most popular conspiracy theory in the world

scandox 3y ago

The problem with Curtis' "weirdos" theory is that it discounts the existence of the weirdos themselves. The weirdos exist and other weirdos know (better than anyone) that other weirdos exist. So they have to deal with a world of weirdos. They need to enter that reality. Which in doing they also do perpetuate. But it's nonsense to imply that it is just imposed on us and could somehow be dispensed with. It has to exist and in existing it has to be dealt with.

johnnyworker 3y ago
The "Team America" theory of dicks, pussies and assholes? I flat out don't buy it. It's not like Assange and Snowden are just such mean fuckers out to harm the poor American public that you have to fight dirty to combat them -- even though you really don't want to. That's laughable. Or that COINTELPRO was just the only way to handle MLK. No, you fight corruption and criminality with integrity. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, the only way to justice and peace, on small and large scales. But everybody just wants to shine light on the their opponents, while believing the stuff they made up about themselves, and made others believe. So there's a lot of half-measures, if even, a lot of lip-service. We want to catch the terrorists who aren't on our payroll, the unpredictable factors, and want to make sure the ones that are don't get caught, the valuable assets. (and it doesn't even matter who says that to whom, this "we" applies to everyone with the means to read this, all nations are equally fucked up in that regard, certainly all the powerful ones). So nothing really gets cleaned up.
- pas 3y ago
  Integrity is good, but there's no universal law dictating that it will always prevail no matter what. That said - I guess - it's not surprising that most of HN (and hope that most non-ignorant people) would agree that a lot of states are way over the optimum non-integrity point. (For example intelligence and counter-intelligence toward geopolitically important adversarial targets is probably something that makes sense, drone-bombing random groups of people because war-on-something hysteria probably doesn't.)
  - pyinstallwoes 3y ago
    Integrity reflects cosmos, thus order. The lack, reflects chaos. Congruent to universal patterns and thus laws one could argue that indeed, acting with integrity is a universal law of good. I’d argue however that better than integrity is what we try to ascribe and describe with the word love. To me it seems when one acts with love then every action is properly constrained, and most importantly acts of discipline; for acts of discipline without love inevitably become acts of abuse. Love is the constraint that trends towards cosmos, integrity, and that which is good.

KETpXDDzR 3y ago

"everything will be alright" is the most popular conspiracy theory in the world