4 ms·
> "when you get down to it they are basically just folks trying to make a living and feed their family like any one else." aka: "The Yuppie Nuremberg Defense"
by jlgreco 13y ago
> "when you get down to it they are basically just folks trying to make a living and feed their family like any one else."
aka: "The Yuppie Nuremberg Defense"
Anyway, the theory of operation here is that if you create social cost for the decision to work for the NSA, then the NSA will have a more difficult time recruiting new mathematicians. Even if you only get 5% of all graduates to swear to themselves that they won't take a job with the NSA, that is 5% of the top talent that the NSA will no longer be able to recruit.
Your "better and more positive" solution can and should be tried at the same time. We should do both. Ostracize the participants, and welcome them back into the fold with open arms and juicy salaries if they 'see the error of their ways'.
- pmorici 13y agoI don't think the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense applies here. They would have to know what they are doing was clearly wrong for starters what makes you think the average rank and file employee would even have that kind of a big picture view?
- jlgreco 13y agoThey are free to mount the defense that what they are doing is not wrong, but if they are instead resorting to "Hey man, I've got a mortgage to pay" then I am going to call "Yuppie Nuremberg Defense". If their personal finances is what they are offering in defense of themselves, then it absolutely applies. Regardless, this proposal really does not count on any sort of innate notion among the NSA rank and file that what they are doing is wrong. What it counts on is NSA rank and file valuing their non-NSA social, academic, and professional contacts. "If you take that job, you are dead to me.", coming from colleagues and friends, does not really have anything to do with what the prospective NSA employees "big picture" on the ethics of that line work. If we want to convince prospective NSA employees that taking an NSA job is ethically wrong, then that is something that we can do in addition to this. Convince them they are wrong, and let them know that social ties will be severed if they go through with it.
- pekk 13y agoNSA is literally Hitler now, is it?
- jlgreco 13y ago> "NSA is literally Hitler now, is it?" The "Yuppie Nuremberg Defense" is a pop-culture reference to the movie Thank You For Smoking. In the movie, the phrase is used to describe the defense "I've got a mortgage to pay", offered up by a lawyer^W spokesperson who worked for large Tobacco firms. (The Yuppie Nuremberg Defense should not be confused with the Superior Orders defense (often called the Nuremberg Defense); with the Yuppie version the defendant asserts that the listener should excuse them because they did it for the money, not because they were commanded to.) So, if we assume that analogies, references, and allusions to history are verboten, I am actually saying "The NSA is literally Big Tobacco". How senselessly inflammatory of me.
- javert 13y agoYes. The US is, actually, on a path towards authoritarianism. We have the same variables as Hitler (or Stalin), just assigned with different values.
- typon 13y agoThe classic I dont have an argument therefore I will invoke Godwin's Law laziness.
- summerdown2 13y agoPlease consider which is more likely: a) The author believes the NSA has a toothbrush moustache, wears its hair combed in a side parting, and is responsible for invading Poland and starting world war two, or. b) You have taken a metaphor literally when it was really meant as an illustration of why a certain line of argument is not accepted any more. Please don't do this. This type of exaggeration has a tendency to shut discussions down rather than allow the points to be considered.