15 ms·

The effect of claiming that people act like NSA propagandists is indistinguishable from claiming they are an NSA propagandist, except that the wording allows yo

by tux3 1y ago

The effect of claiming that people act like NSA propagandists is indistinguishable from claiming they are an NSA propagandist, except that the wording allows you to weasel out of it. This turns a thread about cryptography into a thread about attacking someone's particular posting style. This is not going to advance the discussion in any sort of useful direction, the only thing this can do is divide people further while cementing existing positions. If your IDS thinks well-known free software people are NSA agents because they disagree in a style you don't like, the problem is with the IDS.

anonym29 1y ago
If someone doesn't want to be characterized as sounding like an NSA advocate, perhaps they should consider not advocating for NSA objectives. Anyway, sounds like I'm being dismissed for being "divisive" despite raising substantive security concerns, just like djb. Readers: form your own conclusions about the repetitive patterns here; don't listen to the people telling you not to trust your own eyes. Note the hallmarks: zero engagement with the substance of the critique (functional equivalence), ad-hom strawman attacks against my character as a response to a misrepresentation of my position, emotional manipulation techniques: demanding focus on tone / civility, maligning moral character of opponent (accusations of divisiveness), still trying to reframe a critique about behavior into an attack against identity that it isn't.
- wartywhoa23 1y ago
  This quacking of theirs just gives them out as a duck many of us suspected them to be.
  - skininthegame25 1y ago
    It is uncouth to accuse a person of being an X without evidence. It is dishonest to state categorically that a person is not an X unless a person is in the position to know. A pattern of behavior is a kind of evidence and the observed pattern of behavior does not seem to be in dispute. There is no evidence presented that the person making a categorical statement is in a position to know about anyone's role or lack of a role in the NSA's clandestine activities.

by tux3 1y ago

anonym29 1y ago

If someone doesn't want to be characterized as sounding like an NSA advocate, perhaps they should consider not advocating for NSA objectives. Anyway, sounds like I'm being dismissed for being "divisive" despite raising substantive security concerns, just like djb. Readers: form your own conclusions about the repetitive patterns here; don't listen to the people telling you not to trust your own eyes. Note the hallmarks: zero engagement with the substance of the critique (functional equivalence), ad-hom strawman attacks against my character as a response to a misrepresentation of my position, emotional manipulation techniques: demanding focus on tone / civility, maligning moral character of opponent (accusations of divisiveness), still trying to reframe a critique about behavior into an attack against identity that it isn't.

wartywhoa23 1y ago
This quacking of theirs just gives them out as a duck many of us suspected them to be.
- skininthegame25 1y ago
  It is uncouth to accuse a person of being an X without evidence. It is dishonest to state categorically that a person is not an X unless a person is in the position to know. A pattern of behavior is a kind of evidence and the observed pattern of behavior does not seem to be in dispute. There is no evidence presented that the person making a categorical statement is in a position to know about anyone's role or lack of a role in the NSA's clandestine activities.