4 ms·

It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. I'm reminded a little of the rabid followers of Ron Paul... they couldn't under

by skwirl 13y ago

It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. I'm reminded a little of the rabid followers of Ron Paul... they couldn't understand why the general public ignored their candidate when they were so beyond certain that he was not only the best choice, but self-evidently the only choice for the continuation of the American experiment. Their supporters called on each other to pester their friends and family and hijack every poll and discussion on the Internet, which is very similar to what I'm seeing called on in many threads here and on reddit. It could also be that a small majority do agree with you, but simply don't care. I'm sure you can think of some policies of the federal government you don't like, but you just don't spend any time trying to fight, other than the occasional Internet comment (you have gone beyond the occasional Internet comment on this issue, right?) When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way.

gambler 13y ago
It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. Disagrees based on what? Labeling someone as traitor doesn't constitute a rational counter-argument to concerns regarding privacy and government checks and balances in this case. Such argument should start with something like "I feel these programs are necessary because" and end with something that doesn't involve ultra-generic buzzwords.
betterunix 13y ago
"It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you" It is possible but almost certainly not the case. Most people do not know enough about computers to understand what the NSA programs even entail. It is pretty hard for the general public to make informed decisions about computer or Internet policies, laws, or government involvement.
ignostic 13y ago
>"When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way." Would you like to point out where I made such an idiotic claim? I didn't mean or intent to imply that the only reason people don't agree with me is because they don't know. My point was simply that a lot of people are ignorant. What's not useful is this sort of straw-man pedantry. As for those who agree but don't care: it's hard to blame them. I signed petitions, I sent letters to my elected representatives. I tried to attend a protest, but it was so pathetic that I left. I try, but there's a sense of futility to it all. I'm very open to suggestions on how we can have a greater impact.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  > I sent letters to my elected representatives. Were they stuffed with cash? Nothing talks like campaign donations. All the vote promises in the world don't mean squat if they can't print enough flyers so that Joe Blow will recognize their name when they step into the booth. Of course, no politician is going to care about donations on the level that your average middle-class American can afford to give. Maybe crowd-fund a large sum for donation whose receipt is contingent upon an agreement to vote a certain way on certain issues, with highly public and embarrassing repercussions if they do not?

by skwirl 13y ago

gambler 13y ago

It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you. Disagrees based on what? Labeling someone as traitor doesn't constitute a rational counter-argument to concerns regarding privacy and government checks and balances in this case. Such argument should start with something like "I feel these programs are necessary because" and end with something that doesn't involve ultra-generic buzzwords.

betterunix 13y ago

"It's possible that the public does understand the issue and disagrees with you" It is possible but almost certainly not the case. Most people do not know enough about computers to understand what the NSA programs even entail. It is pretty hard for the general public to make informed decisions about computer or Internet policies, laws, or government involvement.

ignostic 13y ago

>"When the public doesn't agree with you, or just doesn't care that much about your issue, it doesn't mean they are lazy uninformed idiots. That is a sophomoric way of looking at the world, it's not true, and it's not useful to think that way." Would you like to point out where I made such an idiotic claim? I didn't mean or intent to imply that the only reason people don't agree with me is because they don't know. My point was simply that a lot of people are ignorant. What's not useful is this sort of straw-man pedantry. As for those who agree but don't care: it's hard to blame them. I signed petitions, I sent letters to my elected representatives. I tried to attend a protest, but it was so pathetic that I left. I try, but there's a sense of futility to it all. I'm very open to suggestions on how we can have a greater impact.

Wingman4l7 13y ago
> I sent letters to my elected representatives. Were they stuffed with cash? Nothing talks like campaign donations. All the vote promises in the world don't mean squat if they can't print enough flyers so that Joe Blow will recognize their name when they step into the booth. Of course, no politician is going to care about donations on the level that your average middle-class American can afford to give. Maybe crowd-fund a large sum for donation whose receipt is contingent upon an agreement to vote a certain way on certain issues, with highly public and embarrassing repercussions if they do not?