3 ms·

Meh…I trust nothing. Not the government, not the media, and definitely not activist hackers. If you are unscrupulous enough to hack someone else’s data, you a

Meh…I trust nothing. Not the government, not the media, and definitely not activist hackers. If you are unscrupulous enough to hack someone else’s data, you are not trustworthy enough for me to trust that you haven’t manipulated the data you claim you have hacked.

explodes 1y ago
How are you supposed to trust anyone fighting for good?
- kcplate 1y ago
  Just what exactly is “good”? People on both sides of this think they are doing good by their actions (even justifying the bad they do because of their “virtues”). Also, both sides have lots of people agreeing with them so I really don’t think there is some underlying universal common human “good” that establishes one side as right and another wrong excusing the bad actions of one side in the fight of the other on this topic. Seems to me bad actions are just “bad”.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    > Now this he understood. It wasn’t damn politics, where good and bad were just, apparently, two ways of looking at the same thing or, at least, were described like that by the people who were on the side Vimes thought of as “bad.” — Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
You're free to go then
- kcplate 1y ago
  …or stay.
theoreticalmal 1y ago
I’m curious as to who you do trust
- kcplate 1y ago
  Well that’s easy—People who I know for a fact who haven’t: lied to me, done bad things, or are willing to do illegal things. Can you say that about the government, media, or activist hackers? I know I can’t.
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    That's also quite convenient in that it allows you to say "shrug" to basically everything under the sun. Who would provide communication and awareness on this specific issue, then? Someone/something specific. Not just "not people I can't trust", that's a negative set.
    - kcplate 1y ago
      > Who would provide communication and awareness on this specific issue, then? Maybe a good start is someone who doesn’t break the law to do it? I mean the issue is caused by a government breaking its own laws, correct? Isn’t that what’s bad? I guess I don’t see how breaking a law to expose someone else breaking a law makes you virtuous and trustworthy.
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        But you're doing it again. You're saying "I don't trust X Y and Z". So who do you trust? "Someone who doesn't break the law." Who? Because you're only just saying "I don't believe anything because everyone lies" and you can't name a specific person/group/entity that you'd trust, it's just this nebulous and vague "people who don't break the law". So again, who would you trust to break this story (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the allegations are correct)? Because so far you have "not the media", "not the government" and "not people involved".
antifa 1y ago
I like the game theory analysis going on behind this comment. What if it's all a prank and we allowed this random disappeared man to get their constitutionally mandated Due Process for nothing???
- kcplate 1y ago
  According to the Homeland Security tweet actually linked in the article as evidence of his deportation…he received due process when a federal judge ordered his deportation. After which…he was deported. So…like I said…who you going to trust? The government, the media, the hackers? All are bad actors here. Ain’t no one here with clean hands…including you by suggesting that due process wasn’t provided when the article you are commenting about actually said that it was.

explodes 1y ago

How are you supposed to trust anyone fighting for good?

kcplate 1y ago
Just what exactly is “good”? People on both sides of this think they are doing good by their actions (even justifying the bad they do because of their “virtues”). Also, both sides have lots of people agreeing with them so I really don’t think there is some underlying universal common human “good” that establishes one side as right and another wrong excusing the bad actions of one side in the fight of the other on this topic. Seems to me bad actions are just “bad”.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  > Now this he understood. It wasn’t damn politics, where good and bad were just, apparently, two ways of looking at the same thing or, at least, were described like that by the people who were on the side Vimes thought of as “bad.” — Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago

You're free to go then

kcplate 1y ago
…or stay.

theoreticalmal 1y ago

I’m curious as to who you do trust

kcplate 1y ago
Well that’s easy—People who I know for a fact who haven’t: lied to me, done bad things, or are willing to do illegal things. Can you say that about the government, media, or activist hackers? I know I can’t.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  That's also quite convenient in that it allows you to say "shrug" to basically everything under the sun. Who would provide communication and awareness on this specific issue, then? Someone/something specific. Not just "not people I can't trust", that's a negative set.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    > Who would provide communication and awareness on this specific issue, then? Maybe a good start is someone who doesn’t break the law to do it? I mean the issue is caused by a government breaking its own laws, correct? Isn’t that what’s bad? I guess I don’t see how breaking a law to expose someone else breaking a law makes you virtuous and trustworthy.
    - FireBeyond 1y ago
      But you're doing it again. You're saying "I don't trust X Y and Z". So who do you trust? "Someone who doesn't break the law." Who? Because you're only just saying "I don't believe anything because everyone lies" and you can't name a specific person/group/entity that you'd trust, it's just this nebulous and vague "people who don't break the law". So again, who would you trust to break this story (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the allegations are correct)? Because so far you have "not the media", "not the government" and "not people involved".

antifa 1y ago

I like the game theory analysis going on behind this comment. What if it's all a prank and we allowed this random disappeared man to get their constitutionally mandated Due Process for nothing???

kcplate 1y ago
According to the Homeland Security tweet actually linked in the article as evidence of his deportation…he received due process when a federal judge ordered his deportation. After which…he was deported. So…like I said…who you going to trust? The government, the media, the hackers? All are bad actors here. Ain’t no one here with clean hands…including you by suggesting that due process wasn’t provided when the article you are commenting about actually said that it was.