7 ms·

> Everyone on HN acts like there's no possible reason for people to support these types of activities. And they're right. You don't need to play devil's advoca

by duairc 13y ago

> Everyone on HN acts like there's no possible reason for people to support these types of activities. And they're right. You don't need to play devil's advocate. The devil has enough advocates.

tptacek 13y ago
EXTERMINATE ALL RATIONAL THOUGHT. Questions are not allowed. Consideration is not allowed. Context is not allowed. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
- duairc 13y ago
  There's a Deleuze quote about this that I really like: “It is not the slumber of reason that engenders monsters, but vigilant and insomniac rationality”. What I understand this to mean is that the nature of “rationality” is such that a rational person can rationalize anything. Nobody is saying “EXTERMINATE ALL RATIONAL THOUGHT”, obviously this is just you trolling, but to the extent that anything intelligent can be distilled from your reply, that's my response to it. We can always rationalise anything, especially misdeeds committed by those in positions of power over us. Sometimes it's important to halt that process and stop and just say "this is definitely fucked up", and yes, not to question it any further. It can actually be really hard not to question it sometimes, especially if you trust, or have been conditioned to trust, those in positions of power over you who are abusing you. You want to find reasons to defend their abuse of their power, you don't want it to be what it looks like. And you can find reasons for it, you always can. You will. But abuse is still abuse. So sometimes you have to stop and just say “this is fucked”.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    "There's no possible reason for people to support these programs", the preceding comment says, "and so it is pointless and even harmful for us to talk about possible reasons".
    - duairc 13y ago
      > There's no possible reason for people to support these programs and so it is pointless and even harmful for us to talk about possible reasons. I almost agree with this, were it not equivocating two different senses of the phrase “possible reason”. There's no legitimate reason for people to support these programs and so it is pointless and even harmful for us to talk about possible reasons. There are possible reasons to support these programs, but they're not legitimate or sensible or reasonable or good. And that's precisely why it is harmful to talk about possible reasons to support these programs. You make it harder for people to be sure in their own minds that they are as fucked up as they seem, which makes it harder to build resistance to them, which is an urgent necessity. It might sound like what I'm talking about is immaterial, but it's not. To build resistance you need morale, to have morale you need at the very least to have the surety that you're right. To participate in the endless repetition of half-baked, rational-sounding defences of the indefensible is to make it harder for those who want to attack the indefensible to believe that they're not crazy. But we need them to believe that they're not crazy.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        Who decides what's legitimate and what's not?
        duairc 13y ago
        The short answer is: you. Obviously there is no objective universal criteria for legitimacy or morality or anything like that. It will come down to what your personal politics are, a fact which will itself be hugely influenced by your material position in the web of power relations that structures your social reality.
        ateeqs 13y ago
        This is true.
      - vasilipupkin 13y ago
        So I agree with the article and I agree that NSA has gone too far. But your comment feels like you have bought a jump to conclusions mat from "office space". If, for example, during the process of obtaining clearance, you were to receive certain information that you don't have now, perhaps that would change your opinion of legitimacy of these programs from a binary 0 or 1 to a more nuanced probability distribution
  - md224 13y ago
    > Sometimes it's important to halt that process and stop and just say "this is definitely fucked up", and yes, not to question it any further. In my opinion, there are few things more tragic than someone carrying out actions with serious consequences on behalf of a belief that they refuse to question. I believe I understand your pragmatic concerns. It is hard to act passionately while simultaneously entertaining doubts about your underlying beliefs. Obviously one does not need to set a timer and rigorously question their beliefs every five minutes. However, it is important that one welcomes evidence to the contrary and is willing to engage with that evidence. To do otherwise is to risk becoming a slave to dogma.
    - duairc 13y ago
      In a way I actually agree with nearly everything you say, I just think you haven't taken what you say to its logical conclusion. The thing you seem to be missing is that there are no “neutral” beliefs. There's no “middle” in terms of ideology. Doing “nothing” is de facto maintaining the status quo, and acting to maintain the status quo is a positive action just as much as acting to abolish it is. The belief that the status quo should be maintained is a positive belief just as the belief that it should be abolished it is. Right? The thing is, by the very nature of ideology, those who wish to maintain the status quo rarely have their beliefs subjected to the same level of scrutiny as those who to abolish it. Therefore it is very easy for those who wish to maintain the status quo to believe that their beliefs and actions are sane, rational, reasonable, etc., because everything seems to reinforce that, while those who wish to abolish it are often portrayed as insane, irrational, “extremist”, etc., and as someone who does wish to abolish the status quo, it's very hard not to internalise some of that. Being constantly bombarded with that, having all of your beliefs constantly scrutinised from every angle inevitably manifests itself as incapacitating self-doubt that's very difficult to overcome sometimes. Sometimes the only way to cope with this is to temporarily suspend this constant questioning of everything you believe in. It is far more common that people who wish to maintain the status quo are slaves to dogma than that people who wish to abolish it are. Often, the latter do not have a choice about whether or not their beliefs are rigourously questioned every five minutes. But the former can comfortably go their whole lives without ever having their beliefs rigourously questioned by anybody. Edit: I think an NSA agent participating in these programs out of a belief that they are “serving their country” and who refuses to question what “serving their country” actually means is a slave to dogma. I do not think that somebody who believes that their communications should not be monitored or recorded without their consent and who refuses to question that belief is a slave to dogma.
  - ateeqs 13y ago
    I thought you were trolling, and he was just responding to you?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Speaking of rational arguments...
- dasil003 13y ago
  You're trampling over his legitimate point, which is that gears of the US government PR machine are massive, and the well-fed targets of their propaganda are well-fed and cozy, and yet the dangers of government overreach are bigger than ever. Are there potentially reasons why "terrorism" might in fact be a greater threat to our ideals and way of life then government power? Sure! Anything's possible. But such threats would need to be justified publicly, they can not be justified behind closed doors with classified documents.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    His entire point appears to be that an entire branch of discussion is out of bounds. If I'm trampling, consider it counter-trampling.
    - duairc 13y ago
      I don't know where you're getting this “out of bounds” thing from. I didn't tell anybody to shut up. I didn't tell them that they can't say what they're saying. And even if I did, it's not like I'm in any position of power to force them not have that discussion. I just alluded to the negative consequences of having such a discussion (yes, discussions on the Internet do not exist in a vacuum, and they do have material effects in the real world, therefore we have a responsibility to choose carefully what discussions we have and what we say). People can still choose whether or not they want to have it. Edit: I know there is no malice intended in this, and it's not directly related to the discussion at hand, but I would appreciate it if people didn't assume that my preferred pronoun set was he/him/his. In general, it's best to use they/them/their unless you've been explicitly asked to use otherwise.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I looked you up before referring to you as a "he", but if your preferred pronoun is "they", I'm happy to respect that.
        duairc 13y ago
- Zigurd 13y ago
  So, let's hear your defense of this. EDIT: Well since you have the power to channel the mind of the beltway security gnome, let's hear their defense of it.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    You really can't discern between someone who can imagine NSA employees who believe in what they're doing, and someone who supports the NSA? Oh, wait. This is an Internet message board. Of course you can't.
    - abraininavat 13y ago
      Why the childish tone in the midst of people trying to have a serious discussion?
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Going a bit Bill Lee there.
bsgreenb 13y ago
Trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator doesn't mean that one agrees with their actions. Rather, it's a way of getting a better understanding of the problem For example, it's useful to look at the causes of various evil historical deeds because they shed light on how to prevent them from occuring. To say that exploring the causes of these deeds is tantamount to supporting them is to throw away any sense of rational discovery.
- ewzimm 13y ago
  Unfortunately this kind of thinking dominates American politics. We can't even consider why our opponents do what they do. But many people in tech have indulged in accessing secured computers. It's easy to see how somebody on one side could be swayed to the other without acting irrationally.
- duairc 13y ago
  Trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator doesn't mean that one agrees with their actions, no, but the post that I replied to implied that there exist reasons to support “these types of activities”, which does imply agreement with the actions of the perpetrator. Edit: And also, it has to be said that trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator far too often amounts to little more than apologetics and defence of the indefensible, empathising with the perpetrator and blaming the victim. I'm not saying it's never useful to consider, but it's not like it's an uncommon thing to do. Blaming the victim is nearly always the default in this culture.
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    "There exist reasons" != "There exist good reasons"
    - duairc 13y ago
      This is true. I tried to clarify this equivocation in another one of my posts in this thread.

by duairc 13y ago

> Everyone on HN acts like there's no possible reason for people to support these types of activities. And they're right. You don't need to play devil's advocate. The devil has enough advocates.

tptacek 13y ago

EXTERMINATE ALL RATIONAL THOUGHT. Questions are not allowed. Consideration is not allowed. Context is not allowed. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

duairc 13y ago
There's a Deleuze quote about this that I really like: “It is not the slumber of reason that engenders monsters, but vigilant and insomniac rationality”. What I understand this to mean is that the nature of “rationality” is such that a rational person can rationalize anything. Nobody is saying “EXTERMINATE ALL RATIONAL THOUGHT”, obviously this is just you trolling, but to the extent that anything intelligent can be distilled from your reply, that's my response to it. We can always rationalise anything, especially misdeeds committed by those in positions of power over us. Sometimes it's important to halt that process and stop and just say "this is definitely fucked up", and yes, not to question it any further. It can actually be really hard not to question it sometimes, especially if you trust, or have been conditioned to trust, those in positions of power over you who are abusing you. You want to find reasons to defend their abuse of their power, you don't want it to be what it looks like. And you can find reasons for it, you always can. You will. But abuse is still abuse. So sometimes you have to stop and just say “this is fucked”.
- tptacek 13y ago
  "There's no possible reason for people to support these programs", the preceding comment says, "and so it is pointless and even harmful for us to talk about possible reasons".
  - duairc 13y ago
    > There's no possible reason for people to support these programs and so it is pointless and even harmful for us to talk about possible reasons. I almost agree with this, were it not equivocating two different senses of the phrase “possible reason”. There's no legitimate reason for people to support these programs and so it is pointless and even harmful for us to talk about possible reasons. There are possible reasons to support these programs, but they're not legitimate or sensible or reasonable or good. And that's precisely why it is harmful to talk about possible reasons to support these programs. You make it harder for people to be sure in their own minds that they are as fucked up as they seem, which makes it harder to build resistance to them, which is an urgent necessity. It might sound like what I'm talking about is immaterial, but it's not. To build resistance you need morale, to have morale you need at the very least to have the surety that you're right. To participate in the endless repetition of half-baked, rational-sounding defences of the indefensible is to make it harder for those who want to attack the indefensible to believe that they're not crazy. But we need them to believe that they're not crazy.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      Who decides what's legitimate and what's not?
      - duairc 13y ago
        The short answer is: you. Obviously there is no objective universal criteria for legitimacy or morality or anything like that. It will come down to what your personal politics are, a fact which will itself be hugely influenced by your material position in the web of power relations that structures your social reality.
        ateeqs 13y ago
        This is true.
    - vasilipupkin 13y ago
      So I agree with the article and I agree that NSA has gone too far. But your comment feels like you have bought a jump to conclusions mat from "office space". If, for example, during the process of obtaining clearance, you were to receive certain information that you don't have now, perhaps that would change your opinion of legitimacy of these programs from a binary 0 or 1 to a more nuanced probability distribution
- md224 13y ago
  > Sometimes it's important to halt that process and stop and just say "this is definitely fucked up", and yes, not to question it any further. In my opinion, there are few things more tragic than someone carrying out actions with serious consequences on behalf of a belief that they refuse to question. I believe I understand your pragmatic concerns. It is hard to act passionately while simultaneously entertaining doubts about your underlying beliefs. Obviously one does not need to set a timer and rigorously question their beliefs every five minutes. However, it is important that one welcomes evidence to the contrary and is willing to engage with that evidence. To do otherwise is to risk becoming a slave to dogma.
  - duairc 13y ago
    In a way I actually agree with nearly everything you say, I just think you haven't taken what you say to its logical conclusion. The thing you seem to be missing is that there are no “neutral” beliefs. There's no “middle” in terms of ideology. Doing “nothing” is de facto maintaining the status quo, and acting to maintain the status quo is a positive action just as much as acting to abolish it is. The belief that the status quo should be maintained is a positive belief just as the belief that it should be abolished it is. Right? The thing is, by the very nature of ideology, those who wish to maintain the status quo rarely have their beliefs subjected to the same level of scrutiny as those who to abolish it. Therefore it is very easy for those who wish to maintain the status quo to believe that their beliefs and actions are sane, rational, reasonable, etc., because everything seems to reinforce that, while those who wish to abolish it are often portrayed as insane, irrational, “extremist”, etc., and as someone who does wish to abolish the status quo, it's very hard not to internalise some of that. Being constantly bombarded with that, having all of your beliefs constantly scrutinised from every angle inevitably manifests itself as incapacitating self-doubt that's very difficult to overcome sometimes. Sometimes the only way to cope with this is to temporarily suspend this constant questioning of everything you believe in. It is far more common that people who wish to maintain the status quo are slaves to dogma than that people who wish to abolish it are. Often, the latter do not have a choice about whether or not their beliefs are rigourously questioned every five minutes. But the former can comfortably go their whole lives without ever having their beliefs rigourously questioned by anybody. Edit: I think an NSA agent participating in these programs out of a belief that they are “serving their country” and who refuses to question what “serving their country” actually means is a slave to dogma. I do not think that somebody who believes that their communications should not be monitored or recorded without their consent and who refuses to question that belief is a slave to dogma.
- ateeqs 13y ago
  I thought you were trolling, and he was just responding to you?
jlgreco 13y ago
Speaking of rational arguments...
dasil003 13y ago
You're trampling over his legitimate point, which is that gears of the US government PR machine are massive, and the well-fed targets of their propaganda are well-fed and cozy, and yet the dangers of government overreach are bigger than ever. Are there potentially reasons why "terrorism" might in fact be a greater threat to our ideals and way of life then government power? Sure! Anything's possible. But such threats would need to be justified publicly, they can not be justified behind closed doors with classified documents.
- tptacek 13y ago
  His entire point appears to be that an entire branch of discussion is out of bounds. If I'm trampling, consider it counter-trampling.
  - duairc 13y ago
    I don't know where you're getting this “out of bounds” thing from. I didn't tell anybody to shut up. I didn't tell them that they can't say what they're saying. And even if I did, it's not like I'm in any position of power to force them not have that discussion. I just alluded to the negative consequences of having such a discussion (yes, discussions on the Internet do not exist in a vacuum, and they do have material effects in the real world, therefore we have a responsibility to choose carefully what discussions we have and what we say). People can still choose whether or not they want to have it. Edit: I know there is no malice intended in this, and it's not directly related to the discussion at hand, but I would appreciate it if people didn't assume that my preferred pronoun set was he/him/his. In general, it's best to use they/them/their unless you've been explicitly asked to use otherwise.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I looked you up before referring to you as a "he", but if your preferred pronoun is "they", I'm happy to respect that.
      - duairc 13y ago
Zigurd 13y ago
So, let's hear your defense of this. EDIT: Well since you have the power to channel the mind of the beltway security gnome, let's hear their defense of it.
- tptacek 13y ago
  You really can't discern between someone who can imagine NSA employees who believe in what they're doing, and someone who supports the NSA? Oh, wait. This is an Internet message board. Of course you can't.
  - abraininavat 13y ago
    Why the childish tone in the midst of people trying to have a serious discussion?
moocowduckquack 13y ago
Going a bit Bill Lee there.

bsgreenb 13y ago

Trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator doesn't mean that one agrees with their actions. Rather, it's a way of getting a better understanding of the problem For example, it's useful to look at the causes of various evil historical deeds because they shed light on how to prevent them from occuring. To say that exploring the causes of these deeds is tantamount to supporting them is to throw away any sense of rational discovery.

ewzimm 13y ago
Unfortunately this kind of thinking dominates American politics. We can't even consider why our opponents do what they do. But many people in tech have indulged in accessing secured computers. It's easy to see how somebody on one side could be swayed to the other without acting irrationally.
duairc 13y ago
Trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator doesn't mean that one agrees with their actions, no, but the post that I replied to implied that there exist reasons to support “these types of activities”, which does imply agreement with the actions of the perpetrator. Edit: And also, it has to be said that trying to identify the motivations of an action from the perspective of the perpetrator far too often amounts to little more than apologetics and defence of the indefensible, empathising with the perpetrator and blaming the victim. I'm not saying it's never useful to consider, but it's not like it's an uncommon thing to do. Blaming the victim is nearly always the default in this culture.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  "There exist reasons" != "There exist good reasons"
  - duairc 13y ago
    This is true. I tried to clarify this equivocation in another one of my posts in this thread.