7 ms·

> "And having been transparent with his coreligionists about his loss of faith and with his ex-wife about his lost willingness to be monogamous, he gradually ca

> "And having been transparent with his coreligionists about his loss of faith and with his ex-wife about his lost willingness to be monogamous, he gradually came to this life philosophy: Society would be better if no one had any secrets." Spoken like someone blessed to have been born a white heterosexual male in 21st century America. I wonder if he'd feel the same way if he was a homosexual in an incredibly homophobic town. He also seems to have reversed cause and effect here. Its not necessarily asymmetrical information that gives people power, but rather power that results in asymmetrical information. There's no magic switch to reveal all information in the universe, so its going to be government thats better at keeping secrets than you in a society that expects defacto transparency. Have fun trying to prosecute the government for keeping secrets when they have every detail on your life catalogued. You can't base a life philosophy around "if everyone magically did the right thing then..."

ggreer 12y ago
Similar to how violence is acceptable in defense of self and others, I think the same holds for lying or withholding information. If telling the truth risks inviting harm, it's right to lie. Since societies judge some lifestyles harshly, being less open than Dyer is perfectly ethical. I agree that Dyer is fortunate to be able to take such an extreme position, but I do think society would be better off if we moved toward his ideal, rather than away from it.
- bad_user 12y ago
  I do think that society cannot evolve towards ideals that go against the human nature. Lets be honest here, we're humans, we have flaws - any ideals that do not work within the constraints of human nature are bound to fail. Lets do a thought exercise - at extremes, what would be like if every human would be connected to the thoughts of other humans? What would be like if your friends would hear every dirty thought you have about them in a moment of weakness? What would be like if your wife that's miles away would be able to feel you admiring a hot chick passing by? The outcome is simple to grasp - in order for us to survive, we'll stop being humans - feelings for one would not belong in this world, which would raise the question of why we'd want to live our miserable lives anymore? And if you think that we should at least have privacy of our own thoughts since the line has to be drawn somewhere, then you just acknowledged the need for privacy and yes, where should the line be drawn is a very good question and the answer should be that's up to the individual, because a heterosexual white male doesn't have the same problems as a gay afro-american.
shkkmo 12y ago
Power can be used to obtain asymmetrical information, However, asymmetrical information can also directly be used to obtain Power. (The simplest example is blackmail).
- kijin 12y ago
  No, no, no, both of you are doing it wrong. Asymmetrical possession of information is power. They're not cause and effect, they are the same thing. Remember the dude who said knowledge === power? He really meant "===", not "if A then B," and not even "==" (if you use certain dynamically typed languages). So what this guy is really saying is that he's okay with other people having unlimited power over him, so long as everyone has similarly unlimited power over everyone else, since they'll all hopefully cancel each other out. He's not just talking about the future of privacy, he's talking about the future of power. I suppose it's going to be a rather suffocating world, but at least all the animals in the farm might finally have a chance to be equal. Gotta give him credit for coming up with one of the more imaginative ways to achieve equality. Thanks, but I'd rather live in a world where everyone has equally limited power over everyone else.
nsajko 12y ago
But wouldn't government have less of an advantage over you in that respect in that society than it currently has?
- tolmasky 12y ago
  Our society currently theoretically condemns murder, I don't think that government is more harshly judged for the people it kills than the citizenry is. I don't see why in a society that condemns secrecy government would be held more accountable for secrets than its citizenry.
adwf 12y ago
I'm reminded of an example of this - read the Lethal Car Decorating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_US_Special https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_US_Special If you can't get hold of the episode, they essentially paint pro-homosexuality slogans on the side of their vehicles and drive through an Alabama town. It's scary to think that even in this day and age there are people who will react in such a fashion. And if you think this is bad, driving through the town... imagine living there as a gay man. PS: I'm aware that Top Gear is an entertainment show and not everything may be exactly as it appears, but I believe this was legit in this case.
- claar 12y ago
  > but I believe this was carefully-edited-to-give-the-impression-they-wanted in this case, as-usual. FTFY
  - adwf 12y ago
    Perhaps, but it's undeniable that they were actually pelted with stones and chased when driving through the town. Editing can only do so much.
- thieving_magpie 12y ago
  That episode, entirely, is fake. The rednecks throwing things, all of it. I'm not trying to be rude or spoil your Weltanschauung or something.
  - adwf 12y ago
    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/extra-top-gear-in-alabama/ http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/extra-top-gear-in-alabama/ http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2009/10/05/richard-the-rednecks-were-real/ http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2009/10/05/richard-the... They seem to be pretty serious when claiming that it wasn't fake. They've admitted in the past when their sketches are faked, with absolutely no qualms about it. It seems odd that they would specifically claim that this one was definitely not fake. I don't doubt that they dramatised the footage to make it seem like it was a lot more scary than perhaps the actual events were. But that doesn't mean the events didn't happen. Anyway, judging by the responses, I can see this is a bit of a touchy subject so I'm going to take a pass on this thread from now on. No judgement on right/wrong, just going to bed ;)

ggreer 12y ago

Similar to how violence is acceptable in defense of self and others, I think the same holds for lying or withholding information. If telling the truth risks inviting harm, it's right to lie. Since societies judge some lifestyles harshly, being less open than Dyer is perfectly ethical. I agree that Dyer is fortunate to be able to take such an extreme position, but I do think society would be better off if we moved toward his ideal, rather than away from it.

bad_user 12y ago
I do think that society cannot evolve towards ideals that go against the human nature. Lets be honest here, we're humans, we have flaws - any ideals that do not work within the constraints of human nature are bound to fail. Lets do a thought exercise - at extremes, what would be like if every human would be connected to the thoughts of other humans? What would be like if your friends would hear every dirty thought you have about them in a moment of weakness? What would be like if your wife that's miles away would be able to feel you admiring a hot chick passing by? The outcome is simple to grasp - in order for us to survive, we'll stop being humans - feelings for one would not belong in this world, which would raise the question of why we'd want to live our miserable lives anymore? And if you think that we should at least have privacy of our own thoughts since the line has to be drawn somewhere, then you just acknowledged the need for privacy and yes, where should the line be drawn is a very good question and the answer should be that's up to the individual, because a heterosexual white male doesn't have the same problems as a gay afro-american.

shkkmo 12y ago

Power can be used to obtain asymmetrical information, However, asymmetrical information can also directly be used to obtain Power. (The simplest example is blackmail).

kijin 12y ago
No, no, no, both of you are doing it wrong. Asymmetrical possession of information is power. They're not cause and effect, they are the same thing. Remember the dude who said knowledge === power? He really meant "===", not "if A then B," and not even "==" (if you use certain dynamically typed languages). So what this guy is really saying is that he's okay with other people having unlimited power over him, so long as everyone has similarly unlimited power over everyone else, since they'll all hopefully cancel each other out. He's not just talking about the future of privacy, he's talking about the future of power. I suppose it's going to be a rather suffocating world, but at least all the animals in the farm might finally have a chance to be equal. Gotta give him credit for coming up with one of the more imaginative ways to achieve equality. Thanks, but I'd rather live in a world where everyone has equally limited power over everyone else.

nsajko 12y ago

But wouldn't government have less of an advantage over you in that respect in that society than it currently has?

tolmasky 12y ago
Our society currently theoretically condemns murder, I don't think that government is more harshly judged for the people it kills than the citizenry is. I don't see why in a society that condemns secrecy government would be held more accountable for secrets than its citizenry.

adwf 12y ago

I'm reminded of an example of this - read the Lethal Car Decorating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_US_Special https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_US_Special If you can't get hold of the episode, they essentially paint pro-homosexuality slogans on the side of their vehicles and drive through an Alabama town. It's scary to think that even in this day and age there are people who will react in such a fashion. And if you think this is bad, driving through the town... imagine living there as a gay man. PS: I'm aware that Top Gear is an entertainment show and not everything may be exactly as it appears, but I believe this was legit in this case.

claar 12y ago
> but I believe this was carefully-edited-to-give-the-impression-they-wanted in this case, as-usual. FTFY
- adwf 12y ago
  Perhaps, but it's undeniable that they were actually pelted with stones and chased when driving through the town. Editing can only do so much.
thieving_magpie 12y ago
That episode, entirely, is fake. The rednecks throwing things, all of it. I'm not trying to be rude or spoil your Weltanschauung or something.
- adwf 12y ago
  http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/extra-top-gear-in-alabama/ http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/extra-top-gear-in-alabama/ http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2009/10/05/richard-the-rednecks-were-real/ http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2009/10/05/richard-the... They seem to be pretty serious when claiming that it wasn't fake. They've admitted in the past when their sketches are faked, with absolutely no qualms about it. It seems odd that they would specifically claim that this one was definitely not fake. I don't doubt that they dramatised the footage to make it seem like it was a lot more scary than perhaps the actual events were. But that doesn't mean the events didn't happen. Anyway, judging by the responses, I can see this is a bit of a touchy subject so I'm going to take a pass on this thread from now on. No judgement on right/wrong, just going to bed ;)