4 ms·

Okay, I reread the article b/c I was starting to feel like I read something completely different. At no point does the author mention the government and at no

Okay, I reread the article b/c I was starting to feel like I read something completely different. At no point does the author mention the government and at no point does he mention making every aspect of your life public. Seems like most of the people replying either didn't read the article and they just want to vent. There are legitimate reason to have secrets, and there are reasons that are stressors and actually serve no purpose. Completely different topic: "Be the change you want to see in the world" I didn't think anyone actually believe that literally till now. You want everyone to picks and chooses what laws to abide by? The reality is that punishment goes into the cost benefit analysis everyone does. For example: Say I believe I should have the right to hire a prostitute. Should I do it out of principle? How about if I don't want to risk going to jail? Is that not a valid reason? In this case I'm okay with having my right infringed, because I realize that it's not just my world to live in, and we as a society agree on some rules - some of which I don't like.

coldtea 13y ago
>At no point does the author mention the government and at no point does he mention making every aspect of your life public. No, but others in this discussion did (mention both) -- a discussion is not constrained by exactly what served to start it, it explores other tangents. Especially in this case, it was inevitable that TFA's advice, while meant for personal use, also had to be considered in relation with the current privacy issues in general. >"Be the change you want to see in the world" I didn't think anyone actually believe that literally till now. You want everyone to picks and chooses what laws to abide by? No, I want everyone to fight against injustice and for his principles, instead of self-identifying as an "average Joe" (only concerned with his personal affairs). >In this case I'm okay with having my right infringed, because I realize that it's not just my world to live in, and we as a society agree on some rules - some of which I don't like. Perhaps, but there's still a huge part of life, involving perhaps 100% of the population, that's against some law or another. From a 19-yo drinking beer with his friends, to a guy ripping of a DVD using DeCSS, to Kerouac using his drugs and America getting a literary masterpiece out of it. And to millions of gays, for example, having sex besides sodomy being a crime back in the day ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_State... ). What makes society tolerable is that not all those laws are (or can) be 100% enforced all the time. A total lack of privacy brings any of those "offenses" towards being discoverable and punishable, which is a dystopia in itself.
- blah32497 13y ago
  "a discussion is not constrained by exactly what served to start it, it explores other tangents" I think you're derailing the conversation. The author brings up a good and interesting point and you go on a rant about privacy and the government. ~99% of people on this website already agree with you. You're preaching to the choir. It's what's called a "circle jerk". Mutual masturbation. Letting out your pent up frustrations.
jarrett 13y ago
"At no point does the author mention the government and at no point does he mention making every aspect of your life public." That's correct. I made the root post for this particular comment thread, and I consciously expanded the discussion to include broader questions of privacy. That's why I began by saying that the author's explicit claims were fine, but that I also noticed a possible subtext. We're not declaring the author wrong, because he never explicitly said the things with which we're now disagreeing. We're stating a position that some people hold, then disagreeing with that position.

coldtea 13y ago

>At no point does the author mention the government and at no point does he mention making every aspect of your life public. No, but others in this discussion did (mention both) -- a discussion is not constrained by exactly what served to start it, it explores other tangents. Especially in this case, it was inevitable that TFA's advice, while meant for personal use, also had to be considered in relation with the current privacy issues in general. >"Be the change you want to see in the world" I didn't think anyone actually believe that literally till now. You want everyone to picks and chooses what laws to abide by? No, I want everyone to fight against injustice and for his principles, instead of self-identifying as an "average Joe" (only concerned with his personal affairs). >In this case I'm okay with having my right infringed, because I realize that it's not just my world to live in, and we as a society agree on some rules - some of which I don't like. Perhaps, but there's still a huge part of life, involving perhaps 100% of the population, that's against some law or another. From a 19-yo drinking beer with his friends, to a guy ripping of a DVD using DeCSS, to Kerouac using his drugs and America getting a literary masterpiece out of it. And to millions of gays, for example, having sex besides sodomy being a crime back in the day ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_State... ). What makes society tolerable is that not all those laws are (or can) be 100% enforced all the time. A total lack of privacy brings any of those "offenses" towards being discoverable and punishable, which is a dystopia in itself.

blah32497 13y ago
"a discussion is not constrained by exactly what served to start it, it explores other tangents" I think you're derailing the conversation. The author brings up a good and interesting point and you go on a rant about privacy and the government. ~99% of people on this website already agree with you. You're preaching to the choir. It's what's called a "circle jerk". Mutual masturbation. Letting out your pent up frustrations.

jarrett 13y ago

"At no point does the author mention the government and at no point does he mention making every aspect of your life public." That's correct. I made the root post for this particular comment thread, and I consciously expanded the discussion to include broader questions of privacy. That's why I began by saying that the author's explicit claims were fine, but that I also noticed a possible subtext. We're not declaring the author wrong, because he never explicitly said the things with which we're now disagreeing. We're stating a position that some people hold, then disagreeing with that position.