4 ms·

Again with the Gish Gallop. Given your remark about good faith efforts, I'm forced to conclude that was actually projection, and you're not interested in havin

Again with the Gish Gallop. Given your remark about good faith efforts, I'm forced to conclude that was actually projection, and you're not interested in having a good faith discussion. I read your first three sources (skimmed the last of those, really), and in all three, the "chilling effect" you claim still remains a hypothetical. There's lots of "could" and "can" in those pieces, but no "did". I still see plenty of large-scale demonstrations in New York City, and in fact I hear of more of them, not fewer, at time goes on. Some of that is availability of said information/coverage/my information bubble, but it's certainly not evidence of a "chilling effect", despite the vast increase in city-wide surveillance that New York City has seen over the same time period. The evidence you present here is worth less than my own lived experience in this case, simply because it tells what could happen without contextualizing that within what has actually happened. Take the second example from your second source, about the DEA planning to use ALPRs at gun shows[1]. If you ignore the sensationalism, the story is actually boring: the DEA and ATF considered whether or not they could use readers at gun shows to help track illegal gun sales. They didn't end up doing it, likely because it would have been illegal to do so. This is the system working. This is not evidence of a them using this technology to enact an authoritarian surveillance state. This is a state that has broad access to this kind of technology, and then often doesn't use it because it's legally obligated that they not, unless they can provide the proper justification. It's also an example that is (again!!) unrelated to the claim you are making. The rest is just more of the same Gish Gallop, and I'm tired of engaging with you on this. Even if your intent about having a good faith discussion is sincere, in practice you are still not engaging in a good-faith way. What I asked for was simple: evidence of a concrete statement you presented as fact. What you've given me is a laundry list of closely related things, but nothing that actually matches the context of the statement you made. This is not a good-faith discussion in practice, because you refuse to keep the discussion narrowly focused and instead just gesture wildly at a bunch of things that are related (but many of whom are still arguing hypotheticals!), and that you feel should stand in for the evidence in asking for. But it doesn't, and given your repeated deflections, I'm forced to conclude that you don't have said concrete evidence. [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-future/dea-planned-monitor-gun-show-attendees-license-plate-readers-new-emails-reveal https://www.aclu.org/news/free-future/dea-planned-monitor-gu...

soulofmischief 2y ago
It's not gish gallop, I was trying to be thorough. If you don't wish to participate in this discussion, that's fine. But your accusations of projection and my arguing in bad faith are uncalled for. I am allowed to bring up whatever I wish in support of my argument. You come across as insatiable, unwilling to do due diligence, and extremely selective. You misunderstand the entire chilling effect argument, and are looking for some kind of mysterious hard evidence which you are just going to have to locate on your own. To a rational person, the simple argument of government overreach and regime changes, and examples of such as I provided, and the concept of the authoritarian ratchet is enough to support limitations on mass surveillance. Discounting it all as "gish gallop" is incredibly uncharitable and negative.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  No, I understand the chilling effect argument perfectly. Chilling effects are sometimes very real, but more often are invoked as pure hypotheticals that are intentionally structured to be unfalsifiable. They're also often used in places where there's no actual evidence to support such an effect. Your claim and subsequent lack of concrete examples are a prime demonstration of this. Many of the sources you cited in your last comment contained more rhetoric than logic, so it's somewhat ironic that you're trying to claim to be a rational person whilst being swayed by such arguments.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    You think you understand, but you don't. I made a convincing, well-cited argument as to the prevalence of police and government abuse of existing surveillance tools across multiple US cities, and established that NYC has an authoritarian government. I linked to pieces from prominent organizations specifically dealing with chilling effects and ALPRs, which can be used as the basis for further research. I linked to a Supreme Court ruling in which a judge specifically mentioned how surveillance causes a chilling effect and a reduction in freedom of expression. You are unwilling to accept any of this and also unwilling to do your own research. You mistake a well-rounded argument for gish gallop. You're looking for "logic" and not "rhetoric", but those are such vague, moving targets. These are all references which I provided you on short notice due to your own refusal to research the subject. These are not the pieces which "swayed" me. I have been reading deeply about this subject for decades and I cannot possibly be bothered to compile an extensive list of books and articles which you will probably discount and not read, I cannot simply transmit my knowledge to you. At some point you have to do the work yourself and connect the dots, if you have a specific form of evidence you are looking for, spend some time looking for it. It's honestly a given that mass surveillance creates a chilling effect and erosion of trust, and the onus should really be on you to disprove it.

soulofmischief 2y ago

It's not gish gallop, I was trying to be thorough. If you don't wish to participate in this discussion, that's fine. But your accusations of projection and my arguing in bad faith are uncalled for. I am allowed to bring up whatever I wish in support of my argument. You come across as insatiable, unwilling to do due diligence, and extremely selective. You misunderstand the entire chilling effect argument, and are looking for some kind of mysterious hard evidence which you are just going to have to locate on your own. To a rational person, the simple argument of government overreach and regime changes, and examples of such as I provided, and the concept of the authoritarian ratchet is enough to support limitations on mass surveillance. Discounting it all as "gish gallop" is incredibly uncharitable and negative.

try_the_bass 2y ago
No, I understand the chilling effect argument perfectly. Chilling effects are sometimes very real, but more often are invoked as pure hypotheticals that are intentionally structured to be unfalsifiable. They're also often used in places where there's no actual evidence to support such an effect. Your claim and subsequent lack of concrete examples are a prime demonstration of this. Many of the sources you cited in your last comment contained more rhetoric than logic, so it's somewhat ironic that you're trying to claim to be a rational person whilst being swayed by such arguments.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  You think you understand, but you don't. I made a convincing, well-cited argument as to the prevalence of police and government abuse of existing surveillance tools across multiple US cities, and established that NYC has an authoritarian government. I linked to pieces from prominent organizations specifically dealing with chilling effects and ALPRs, which can be used as the basis for further research. I linked to a Supreme Court ruling in which a judge specifically mentioned how surveillance causes a chilling effect and a reduction in freedom of expression. You are unwilling to accept any of this and also unwilling to do your own research. You mistake a well-rounded argument for gish gallop. You're looking for "logic" and not "rhetoric", but those are such vague, moving targets. These are all references which I provided you on short notice due to your own refusal to research the subject. These are not the pieces which "swayed" me. I have been reading deeply about this subject for decades and I cannot possibly be bothered to compile an extensive list of books and articles which you will probably discount and not read, I cannot simply transmit my knowledge to you. At some point you have to do the work yourself and connect the dots, if you have a specific form of evidence you are looking for, spend some time looking for it. It's honestly a given that mass surveillance creates a chilling effect and erosion of trust, and the onus should really be on you to disprove it.