4 ms·

so lets look at this from above.. 1: a law is proposed, to solve some problem (real or otherwise is irellevant). 2: wait shiiiieet, this law kindof sucks, it

so lets look at this from above.. 1: a law is proposed, to solve some problem (real or otherwise is irellevant). 2: wait shiiiieet, this law kindof sucks, it could really hurt people. 3: I KNOW! lets fix it by making it not hurt us, only those we govern! you do not get to claim incompetence to get you out of what you did in step 3. (and no, not you personally, obviously)

repelsteeltje 2y ago
The incompetence will generally get you stuck in step 1, ignorance: law looks great because designers don't see deficiencies. Step 2 is progress: now you're wittingly incompetent. Step 3 is a misguided solution to 2 but the incompetence is that designers still deeply believe that step 1 was essentially a great plan. Shielding yourself is a naive, human reaction. It isn't intrinsically malicious. This is where they slowly start realizing their good intentions result in a weapon of mass surveillance. I'm hoping for step 4 where they find a way to mitigate 2 for all people. One way would be: retract 1 altogether.
- redeeman 2y ago
  thats just naive, they shield themselves because they understand enough to know that its bad, and they dont want it. its sorta like if i began spraying a harmful chemical on the local population because I thought genuinely that it would help reduce mosquito diseases and be a really great thing for everyone. Then I learn its really harmful to humans, so I equip myself with a hazmat suit and carry on with my plan. I do not get to claim "incompetence"
  - repelsteeltje 2y ago
    Fair enough, I suppose I'm naive and I like the analogy. You're right in claiming that wearing the hazmat suit has clear signs of competence, appreciation of the dangers. I'm (naively) hopeful that wearing it day in day out will ultimately make them feel uncomfortable, maybe guilty about their activities, change their act, reconsider spraying a harmful chemicals, etc. The incompetence I was alluding to lies in proposing these types of laws in first place. Well intended, but harmful. Understanding the dangers forces knee jerk reaction to at least make sure they themselves are safe from harm. Dumb solution, but progress made on learning about the dangers. But I say dumb as in short sighted, not malicious. If they'd thought this through they'd understand these exemptions don't protect future-thems, their loved ones or whomever else is powerless, yet needy of their (political) support.
    - redeeman 2y ago
      no, they are simply malicious.

repelsteeltje 2y ago

The incompetence will generally get you stuck in step 1, ignorance: law looks great because designers don't see deficiencies. Step 2 is progress: now you're wittingly incompetent. Step 3 is a misguided solution to 2 but the incompetence is that designers still deeply believe that step 1 was essentially a great plan. Shielding yourself is a naive, human reaction. It isn't intrinsically malicious. This is where they slowly start realizing their good intentions result in a weapon of mass surveillance. I'm hoping for step 4 where they find a way to mitigate 2 for all people. One way would be: retract 1 altogether.

redeeman 2y ago
thats just naive, they shield themselves because they understand enough to know that its bad, and they dont want it. its sorta like if i began spraying a harmful chemical on the local population because I thought genuinely that it would help reduce mosquito diseases and be a really great thing for everyone. Then I learn its really harmful to humans, so I equip myself with a hazmat suit and carry on with my plan. I do not get to claim "incompetence"
- repelsteeltje 2y ago
  Fair enough, I suppose I'm naive and I like the analogy. You're right in claiming that wearing the hazmat suit has clear signs of competence, appreciation of the dangers. I'm (naively) hopeful that wearing it day in day out will ultimately make them feel uncomfortable, maybe guilty about their activities, change their act, reconsider spraying a harmful chemicals, etc. The incompetence I was alluding to lies in proposing these types of laws in first place. Well intended, but harmful. Understanding the dangers forces knee jerk reaction to at least make sure they themselves are safe from harm. Dumb solution, but progress made on learning about the dangers. But I say dumb as in short sighted, not malicious. If they'd thought this through they'd understand these exemptions don't protect future-thems, their loved ones or whomever else is powerless, yet needy of their (political) support.
  - redeeman 2y ago
    no, they are simply malicious.