5 ms·

I remember a time not long ago when skepticism of government was considered healthy, even here on HN.

by harold 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago
There's not that fine a line between skepticism and ignorant paranoia. Many people here on HN react in a paranoid manner to government initiatives without bothering to even read the proposals or educate themselves about the situation beyond what they hear from the echo chamber.
- adventured 14y ago
  The government has earned a very large dose of paranoia. They keep trying to intentionally rob us of our liberty, and they've been doing it mostly as behind-closed-doors as they can get away with. The old joke is it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. The government keeps demonstrating it's really out to get us, or specifically it wants vast new powers over every remaining corner of freedom, including the Internet.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    It doesn't matter what they've earned. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You can't mitigate your wrongness by saying you came by it honestly. (That goes for me too, of course. Totally possible I'm wrong.)
    - clicks 14y ago
      You come off as overly authoritarian in your comments such that a chance for measured discussion is I think probably often quelled by your domineering attitude. Since the last decade our civil liberties have only been eroding -- that is the trend, not the opposite of that or something. So a good amount of leeriness is probably healthy and very well warranted. It's great that you're reading the executive orders and getting down to things, but please don't go off on those who by default take the position of skepticism. There's a reason they are that way, and that reason is a pretty good one.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        This attitude drives me nuts. It's a message board. What do you want from me? We're not settling public policy, we're discussing it. How does it help anyone for me to issue prolix disclaimers about how certain I am about things? How does that even matter? If you think I'm wrong, say I'm wrong, and preferably, why you think that. If I agree, I'll say so. I'll do the same. I have no actual "authority" on HN.
        rayiner 14y ago
        Don't you know that HN is srsbusiness.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        You're dodging the point. Being skeptical does not give you license to be ignorant. That is to say it's possible to believe that our civil liberties have been eroding for the last decade* and base it on actual evidence instead of knee-jerk reactions to any government action. *) And I tend to agree with you. The history of the U.S. has been a waxing and waning of civil liberties, and I think we're in a waning point right now. That said, the long term trend has been towards more liberty.

I remember a time not long ago when skepticism of government was considered healthy, even here on HN.

by harold 14y ago

I remember a time not long ago when skepticism of government was considered healthy, even here on HN.

There's not that fine a line between skepticism and ignorant paranoia. Many people here on HN react in a paranoid manner to government initiatives without bothering to even read the proposals or educate themselves about the situation beyond what they hear from the echo chamber.

adventured 14y ago
The government has earned a very large dose of paranoia. They keep trying to intentionally rob us of our liberty, and they've been doing it mostly as behind-closed-doors as they can get away with. The old joke is it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. The government keeps demonstrating it's really out to get us, or specifically it wants vast new powers over every remaining corner of freedom, including the Internet.
- tptacek 14y ago
  It doesn't matter what they've earned. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You can't mitigate your wrongness by saying you came by it honestly. (That goes for me too, of course. Totally possible I'm wrong.)
  - clicks 14y ago
    You come off as overly authoritarian in your comments such that a chance for measured discussion is I think probably often quelled by your domineering attitude. Since the last decade our civil liberties have only been eroding -- that is the trend, not the opposite of that or something. So a good amount of leeriness is probably healthy and very well warranted. It's great that you're reading the executive orders and getting down to things, but please don't go off on those who by default take the position of skepticism. There's a reason they are that way, and that reason is a pretty good one.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      This attitude drives me nuts. It's a message board. What do you want from me? We're not settling public policy, we're discussing it. How does it help anyone for me to issue prolix disclaimers about how certain I am about things? How does that even matter? If you think I'm wrong, say I'm wrong, and preferably, why you think that. If I agree, I'll say so. I'll do the same. I have no actual "authority" on HN.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Don't you know that HN is srsbusiness.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      You're dodging the point. Being skeptical does not give you license to be ignorant. That is to say it's possible to believe that our civil liberties have been eroding for the last decade* and base it on actual evidence instead of knee-jerk reactions to any government action. *) And I tend to agree with you. The history of the U.S. has been a waxing and waning of civil liberties, and I think we're in a waning point right now. That said, the long term trend has been towards more liberty.