Alternatively, Chuck knows where Janice lives because, duh, Google. He tracks her down but is arrested when he comes within 300 yards of her home because of that tracking device that was put on him after the court proceeding which successfully convicted him thanks to the CCTV cameras in the elevators of the building he used to live in with Janice.
this is the problem with arguments on the internet
i disagree with backwards name about this, but if someone had brought up the topic ("hey i think privacy is an inherently harmful concept, what do you think about that") in an actual real life conversation i would have been interested in talking it out and seeing where it went
on the internet, most of the responses to any position that it's easy to tell will be unpopular are going to be from people who are sure they can crucify the poster for having that opinion. there's very little good-faith argument when people are reasonably sure that a) they're right and b) most people already agree with them, even though in actual conversation it can be interesting/illuminating to debate ideas even when you're pretty sure your opinion isn't going to change as a result. on the internet, though, the quickest responses will always be from people eager to tell the poster how dumb they are, and if the poster in question doesn't give up right there they'll probably end up making progressively dumber posts about it anyway.
it's reaallly hard to get people on the internet to debate in good faith an idea they're sure they don't agree with or even think is dumb, but in an actual conversation that seems to be less of an issue. i'm not sure where exactly the difference lies, but it makes discussions like this one kind of painful to watch.
Alternatively, Chuck knows where Janice lives because, duh, Google. He tracks her down but is arrested when he comes within 300 yards of her home because of that tracking device that was put on him after the court proceeding which successfully convicted him thanks to the CCTV cameras in the elevators of the building he used to live in with Janice.
NIGHTMARE SCENARIO
Because of a lack of privacy, in other words?
I don't see a lot of people in this thread railing against google maps
this is the problem with arguments on the internet
i disagree with backwards name about this, but if someone had brought up the topic ("hey i think privacy is an inherently harmful concept, what do you think about that") in an actual real life conversation i would have been interested in talking it out and seeing where it went
on the internet, most of the responses to any position that it's easy to tell will be unpopular are going to be from people who are sure they can crucify the poster for having that opinion. there's very little good-faith argument when people are reasonably sure that a) they're right and b) most people already agree with them, even though in actual conversation it can be interesting/illuminating to debate ideas even when you're pretty sure your opinion isn't going to change as a result. on the internet, though, the quickest responses will always be from people eager to tell the poster how dumb they are, and if the poster in question doesn't give up right there they'll probably end up making progressively dumber posts about it anyway.
it's reaallly hard to get people on the internet to debate in good faith an idea they're sure they don't agree with or even think is dumb, but in an actual conversation that seems to be less of an issue. i'm not sure where exactly the difference lies, but it makes discussions like this one kind of painful to watch.
haha this is not a case of everyone but backwards failing to "debate" in good faith
backwards is just as if not more guilty of this than most of the people that have posted an opinion on this
if he said this shit in person at a party, I'd consider him just as idiotic and would tell him so to his face
you stop at the bakery to get a bagel for breakfast, but they are out of plain bagels so you are forced to choose between a garlic chive bagel and a cinnamon raisin bagel
You seem to think that people only use privacy to get away with things and that's dumb.
uh, mostly
privacy is about controlling how others perceive you
convincing people whether or not you are guilty of a crime fits into that basic principle
we like privacy because it allows us to lie, to cover up our embarrassments, to maintain social status in the social realm, and to maintain perceived wealth and autonomy in the public realm
of course, if people all just revealed their "embarrassing" secrets, then I wonder if they would cease to be embarrassing
look at this forum, for chrissakes
we're the goddamn frontline in the march towards the end of privacy
we share incredibly intimate detail with people we hardly know
as a result, no one is embarrassed about masturbating or weird sexual kinks or anything else, really.
Isn't that part of why we like SE++? We don't have to be shameful or embarrassed all the time? It's because we don't keep things private here.
this is the problem with arguments on the internet
i disagree with backwards name about this, but if someone had brought up the topic ("hey i think privacy is an inherently harmful concept, what do you think about that") in an actual real life conversation i would have been interested in talking it out and seeing where it went
on the internet, most of the responses to any position that it's easy to tell will be unpopular are going to be from people who are sure they can crucify the poster for having that opinion. there's very little good-faith argument when people are reasonably sure that a) they're right and b) most people already agree with them, even though in actual conversation it can be interesting/illuminating to debate ideas even when you're pretty sure your opinion isn't going to change as a result. on the internet, though, the quickest responses will always be from people eager to tell the poster how dumb they are, and if the poster in question doesn't give up right there they'll probably end up making progressively dumber posts about it anyway.
it's reaallly hard to get people on the internet to debate in good faith an idea they're sure they don't agree with or even think is dumb, but in an actual conversation that seems to be less of an issue. i'm not sure where exactly the difference lies, but it makes discussions like this one kind of painful to watch.
haha this is not a case of everyone but backwards failing to "debate" in good faith
backwards is just as if not more guilty of this than most of the people that have posted an opinion on this
if he said this shit in person at a party, I'd consider him just as idiotic and would tell him so to his face
Yes and then I would blink once, and then turn back to all the people who aren't 43, boring, and balding, and resume my conversation.
Backwardsname on
0
Options
FramlingFaceHeadGeebs has bad ideas.Registered Userregular
A young gay boy is never assaulted at his school because of the omnipresent monitoring technology, and he subsequently graduates Valedictorian and attends a prestigious university instead of having his legs broken by bigoted douchebags.
NIGHTMARE SCENARIO
you could just teach the douchebags that beating gay people up is bad
yeah I think that's a pretty good option too
everyone else in this thread thinks it's best just to keep gay people in the closet where they won't bother anyone
much more civilized
You don't get to decide
Society can't force people to stay closeted
Society ALSO CAN'T FORCE people to come out
People don't have to run their lives based on your notion of "civilized"
Right, this is the classical Western notion that individual freedom overrules all other forms of well-being. The problem is that we make concessions to this all the time, and then try to backtrack and make up post-hoc excuses for why it's not really an infringement of freedom, but that's disingenuous.
In the real world, freedom is one of a whole array of forms of well-being. And, frankly, we're influenced and incentivized by innumerable variables in the world. Few if any decisions are truly voluntary. All our decisions are subject to pressure and influence. I don't like to work weekends, but I have to for my job. I can't afford to lose my job because then I'd be broke. It's not exactly voluntary, but it's not totally forced either. Why is it so hard for people to interpret the world on a gradient instead of as binary?
Nothing is completely voluntary, and nothing is completely involuntary. It's all about where you are on the spectrum.
Why people get so irrationally freaked out when government is the entity applying pressure (even slight
pressure!) is baffling to me.
I don't know what truly voluntary/ truly involuntary has to do with anything but my position is not limited to the government specifically
Society AS A WHOLE does not get to dictate that, for example, the best way to live a gay life is to be out and to help educate others and show people "hey, now that I know a gay person, I won't be a bigot"
Society can encourage people to come out and convince individuals that it is okay and safe to come out
But Society cannot force people to come out
And, in your world of no privacy, everyone would know the intimate details of everyone else at all times
The world we have now, of privacy in individual matters, is perfectly fine and highly preferable to a life where there is no privacy at all
Ubik on
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
everyone else in this thread thinks it's best just to keep gay people in the closet where they won't bother anyone
much more civilized
You don't get to decide
Society can't force people to stay closeted
Society ALSO CAN'T FORCE people to come out
People don't have to run their lives based on your notion of "civilized"
Right, this is the classical Western notion that individual freedom overrules all other forms of well-being. The problem is that we make concessions to this all the time, and then try to backtrack and make up post-hoc excuses for why it's not really an infringement of freedom, but that's disingenuous.
In the real world, freedom is one of a whole array of forms of well-being. And, frankly, we're influenced and incentivized by innumerable variables in the world. Few if any decisions are truly voluntary. All our decisions are subject to pressure and influence. I don't like to work weekends, but I have to for my job. I can't afford to lose my job because then I'd be broke. It's not exactly voluntary, but it's not totally forced either. Why is it so hard for people to interpret the world on a gradient instead of as binary?
Nothing is completely voluntary, and nothing is completely involuntary. It's all about where you are on the spectrum.
Why people get so irrationally freaked out when government is the entity applying pressure (even slight
pressure!) is baffling to me.
I don't know what truly voluntary/ truly involuntary has to do with anything but my position is not limited to the government specifically
Society AS A WHOLE does not get to dictate that, for example, the best way to live a gay life is to be out and to help educate others and show people "hey, now that I know a gay person, I won't be a bigot"
Society can encourage people to come out and convince individuals that it is okay and safe to come out
But Society cannot force people to come out
And, in your world of no privacy, everyone would know the intimate details of everyone else at all times
The world we have now, of privacy in individual matters, is perfectly fine and highly preferable to a life where there is no privacy at all
I just stopped reading that post as soon as I got to 'classical Western notion' because I could tell right there that his head was far enough up his ass that he couldn't hear us anyway.
Framling on
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
Guess what? Hiring more cops does not reduce privacy at all
Privacy on the whole brings more good than harm
The good of people being free to order their personal lives how they see fit, in the way that is best for them, greatly outweighs any harm of hiding bad things
See this is the thing. People define privacy however they want to, because they think privacy is "good," so anytime where privacy is reduced must be an instance where it wasn't REAL privacy. It's a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
The invention of the police force is absolutely a reduction in privacy. You are now observed by the government where you were not before.
Your actions are monitored, recorded, and you are held responsible for them where you were not before.
How is that not a reduction in privacy? You are using a shifting definition of privacy to preserve its perceived "goodness." But if you're just using privacy to be synonymous with things that are good, why not just say "good" instead?
People do this all the time with basic values and it's retarded. People never want to say justice or freedom or safety are bad, because they use those terms basically as proxies for "good." The problem is that they're not complete synonyms. It muddies our discourse. It makes a clash of ideas more difficult to attain, because it often precludes a true meeting of the minds.
You seem to think that people only use privacy to get away with things and that's dumb.
uh, mostly
privacy is about controlling how others perceive you
convincing people whether or not you are guilty of a crime fits into that basic principle
we like privacy because it allows us to lie, to cover up our embarrassments, to maintain social status in the social realm, and to maintain perceived wealth and autonomy in the public realm
of course, if people all just revealed their "embarrassing" secrets, then I wonder if they would cease to be embarrassing
look at this forum, for chrissakes
we're the goddamn frontline in the march towards the end of privacy
we share incredibly intimate detail with people we hardly know
as a result, no one is embarrassed about masturbating or weird sexual kinks or anything else, really.
Isn't that part of why we like SE++? We don't have to be shameful or embarrassed all the time? It's because we don't keep things private here.
Really?
You think EVERYONE shares their sexual fetishes? You think they all share ALL of them? And it's possible they're lying, or saying they're into shit that's "cool" just to fit in.
This is NOT a judgement free zone.
And it's not a privacy free zone! How many forumers are on here that you only know by their handle? That you know NOTHING about?
Jordyn on
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
A young gay boy is never assaulted at his school because of the omnipresent monitoring technology, and he subsequently graduates Valedictorian and attends a prestigious university instead of having his legs broken by bigoted douchebags.
NIGHTMARE SCENARIO
you could just teach the douchebags that beating gay people up is bad
yeah I think that's a pretty good option too
everyone else in this thread thinks it's best just to keep gay people in the closet where they won't bother anyone
much more civilized
but those things aren't mutually exclusive
i mean you could teach people that beating up gays is wrong and leave the gay person the right to stay in the closet if they want to
this is the problem with arguments on the internet
i disagree with backwards name about this, but if someone had brought up the topic ("hey i think privacy is an inherently harmful concept, what do you think about that") in an actual real life conversation i would have been interested in talking it out and seeing where it went
on the internet, most of the responses to any position that it's easy to tell will be unpopular are going to be from people who are sure they can crucify the poster for having that opinion. there's very little good-faith argument when people are reasonably sure that a) they're right and b) most people already agree with them, even though in actual conversation it can be interesting/illuminating to debate ideas even when you're pretty sure your opinion isn't going to change as a result. on the internet, though, the quickest responses will always be from people eager to tell the poster how dumb they are, and if the poster in question doesn't give up right there they'll probably end up making progressively dumber posts about it anyway.
it's reaallly hard to get people on the internet to debate in good faith an idea they're sure they don't agree with or even think is dumb, but in an actual conversation that seems to be less of an issue. i'm not sure where exactly the difference lies, but it makes discussions like this one kind of painful to watch.
this is a good post
thanks
just, like, to be clear, though, i think you've made some bad posts about this too ("gosh, being glib and straw-manning is fun!"). but that's sort of what always happens. someone presents an unpopular position, gets shit on for it, tries to remain reasonable about it for a while and then gives up and makes the same kind of taunting posts they were getting in the first place.
I just stopped reading that post as soon as I got to 'classical Western notion' because I could tell right there that his head was far enough up his ass that he couldn't hear us anyway.
Ho ho! You hear that, guys? Referring to the actual history of ideas is so pretentious it invalidates anything you say.
God forbid any of you try to refer to John Locke or Adam Smith
You seem to think that people only use privacy to get away with things and that's dumb.
uh, mostly
privacy is about controlling how others perceive you
convincing people whether or not you are guilty of a crime fits into that basic principle
we like privacy because it allows us to lie, to cover up our embarrassments, to maintain social status in the social realm, and to maintain perceived wealth and autonomy in the public realm
of course, if people all just revealed their "embarrassing" secrets, then I wonder if they would cease to be embarrassing
look at this forum, for chrissakes
we're the goddamn frontline in the march towards the end of privacy
we share incredibly intimate detail with people we hardly know
as a result, no one is embarrassed about masturbating or weird sexual kinks or anything else, really.
Isn't that part of why we like SE++? We don't have to be shameful or embarrassed all the time? It's because we don't keep things private here.
Really?
You think EVERYONE shares their sexual fetishes? You think they all share ALL of them? And it's possible they're lying, or saying they're into shit that's "cool" just to fit in.
This is NOT a judgement free zone.
And it's not a privacy free zone! How many forumers are on here that you only know by their handle? That you know NOTHING about?
Compared to regular day-to-day interactions with people in the real world, there is much less that people here choose to keep private, and there is much less embarassment
Backwardsname on
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
Guess what? Hiring more cops does not reduce privacy at all
Privacy on the whole brings more good than harm
The good of people being free to order their personal lives how they see fit, in the way that is best for them, greatly outweighs any harm of hiding bad things
See this is the thing. People define privacy however they want to, because they think privacy is "good," so anytime where privacy is reduced must be an instance where it wasn't REAL privacy. It's a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
The invention of the police force is absolutely a reduction in privacy. You are now observed by the government where you were not before.
Your actions are monitored, recorded, and you are held responsible for them where you were not before.
How is that not a reduction in privacy? You are using a shifting definition of privacy to preserve its perceived "goodness." But if you're just using privacy to be synonymous with things that are good, why not just say "good" instead?
People do this all the time with basic values and it's retarded. People never want to say justice or freedom or safety are bad, because they use those terms basically as proxies for "good." The problem is that they're not complete synonyms. It muddies our discourse. It makes a clash of ideas more difficult to attain, because it often precludes a true meeting of the minds.
A police force is not a reduction in privacy because there is no privacy in public (!!)
In public matters, privacy doesn't exist (or exists to a far lesser extent)
Just because you define privacy differently, doesn't mean I'm using "privacy" as a proxy for "good"
There's less embarassment because of 1. Privacy! and 2. Being with similar people.
When we all hang out together, there's still less embarassment than with strangers, and the people we don't know are okay with sharing because hey! We don't know them!
Jordyn on
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
How is ANONYMOUSLY POSTING ON AN INTERNET FORUM a march towards the end of privacy?
maybe part of the difference is that the actual conversations to which i'm comparing this tend to be closer to one-on-one, while on a forum like this one everyone participates at the same time
this is fine for a lot of things, but when you have one person presenting an unpopular opinion it makes it really easy for them to get crucified without any actual discussion happening. in an actual conversation, someone would present an unpopular opinion and then argue it out with one other person. on a forum like this, someone presents an opinion and if it's unpopular, there's bound to be 10 people jumping on them for it, which makes it really easy for the discussion to descend into dumb stuff like taunting/trolling/personal attacks because there's one guy just getting mobbed.
redhead on
0
Options
FramlingFaceHeadGeebs has bad ideas.Registered Userregular
I just stopped reading that post as soon as I got to 'classical Western notion' because I could tell right there that his head was far enough up his ass that he couldn't hear us anyway.
Ho ho! You hear that, guys? Referring to the actual history of ideas is so pretentious it invalidates anything you say.
God forbid any of you try to refer to John Locke or Adam Smith
You'd just have your head up your ass
I went back and looked, and I was right, your point was retarded.
Framling on
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
A police force is not a reduction in privacy because there is no privacy in public (!!)
There was privacy from the government though. There are plenty of arenas in life today where we have privacy from the government but not other entities, and we still freak out when government invades that privacy.
Backwardsname on
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
A police force is not a reduction in privacy because there is no privacy in public (!!)
There was privacy from the government though. There are plenty of arenas in life today where we have privacy from the government but not other entities, and we still freak out when government invades that privacy.
Honest question, please name an arena in life where we have privacy from the government but not other entities
And I disagree; The sphere in which the police operates was never private. Crimes, almost universally, are harm done to other people. Which is public. Which was never private. Which was prosecuted by society. And now by society through the government
There's less embarassment because of 1. Privacy! and 2. Being with similar people.
When we all hang out together, there's still less embarassment than with strangers, and the people we don't know are okay with sharing because hey! We don't know them!
But this group still has a social/status hierarchy and functions pretty closely with how social groups function in the real world.
And, hell, a lot of us DO know each other, and hang out in real life.
It's a mutual assurance thing
We don't mind sharing these things with people because they're sharing in return
We don't mind sharing things we're not embarrassed of! Just like off the internet!
But opinions that are unpopular, people will keep those to themselves. I mean there might someone here who thinks CAD is a great comic, but goddamn, they are not gonna tell us that.
Jordyn on
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
0
Options
Snowbeati need somethingto kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
i think the best counter-example is the goatmon debacle from a year or two back
goatmon was basically an inoffensive poster, slightly annoying, but just kinda blended in. then he made some unpopular remarks or something and somebody went and dug up the fact that he was a bit of a furry (probably teefs). two years on, people are still making fun of him for that
this is when non-privacy and sharing things on the internet isn't a good thing. it's also a prime reason why this is not a non-judgmental environment
I don't know there's obviously truth to the idea of opening up to your social circle but even if other people talk about, say, their love lives it's no guarantee that everyone will feel comfortable enough to participate
Privacy is relative and wait we've been here haven't we
i think the best counter-example is the goatmon debacle from a year or two back
goatmon was basically an inoffensive poster, slightly annoying, but just kinda blended in. then he made some unpopular remarks or something and somebody went and dug up the fact that he was a bit of a furry (probably teefs). two years on, people are still making fun of him for that
this is when non-privacy and sharing things on the internet isn't a good thing. it's also a prime reason why this is not a non-judgmental environment
That is an example of when one party had their privacy removed and while others had it intact though. In that kind of situation the lack of privacy is damaging. Should everyones preferences be known to all there would be much less judging and humiliation going on.
Backwards is right in this, and I cannot comprehend how you guys can continue to attack something that so easy to see. Privacy is merely a way in which we control others perceptions, that is it, the end.
Whether this is good or bad would be the area of debate, not whether or not it is true.
Posts
The government and society cannot commandeer the individual to be agents of social change by forcing them to reveal intimate details of their life
Because of a lack of privacy, in other words?
this is a good post
I don't see a lot of people in this thread railing against google maps
just trying to highlight an inconsistency
haha this is not a case of everyone but backwards failing to "debate" in good faith
backwards is just as if not more guilty of this than most of the people that have posted an opinion on this
if he said this shit in person at a party, I'd consider him just as idiotic and would tell him so to his face
I don't know who would be against maps.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
garlic chive
fuck that sounds amazing
uh, mostly
privacy is about controlling how others perceive you
convincing people whether or not you are guilty of a crime fits into that basic principle
we like privacy because it allows us to lie, to cover up our embarrassments, to maintain social status in the social realm, and to maintain perceived wealth and autonomy in the public realm
of course, if people all just revealed their "embarrassing" secrets, then I wonder if they would cease to be embarrassing
look at this forum, for chrissakes
we're the goddamn frontline in the march towards the end of privacy
we share incredibly intimate detail with people we hardly know
as a result, no one is embarrassed about masturbating or weird sexual kinks or anything else, really.
Isn't that part of why we like SE++? We don't have to be shameful or embarrassed all the time? It's because we don't keep things private here.
Yes and then I would blink once, and then turn back to all the people who aren't 43, boring, and balding, and resume my conversation.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
I don't know what truly voluntary/ truly involuntary has to do with anything but my position is not limited to the government specifically
Society AS A WHOLE does not get to dictate that, for example, the best way to live a gay life is to be out and to help educate others and show people "hey, now that I know a gay person, I won't be a bigot"
Society can encourage people to come out and convince individuals that it is okay and safe to come out
But Society cannot force people to come out
And, in your world of no privacy, everyone would know the intimate details of everyone else at all times
The world we have now, of privacy in individual matters, is perfectly fine and highly preferable to a life where there is no privacy at all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLakgUosAsM
I just stopped reading that post as soon as I got to 'classical Western notion' because I could tell right there that his head was far enough up his ass that he couldn't hear us anyway.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
See this is the thing. People define privacy however they want to, because they think privacy is "good," so anytime where privacy is reduced must be an instance where it wasn't REAL privacy. It's a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
The invention of the police force is absolutely a reduction in privacy. You are now observed by the government where you were not before.
Your actions are monitored, recorded, and you are held responsible for them where you were not before.
How is that not a reduction in privacy? You are using a shifting definition of privacy to preserve its perceived "goodness." But if you're just using privacy to be synonymous with things that are good, why not just say "good" instead?
People do this all the time with basic values and it's retarded. People never want to say justice or freedom or safety are bad, because they use those terms basically as proxies for "good." The problem is that they're not complete synonyms. It muddies our discourse. It makes a clash of ideas more difficult to attain, because it often precludes a true meeting of the minds.
I've only ever seen this kind of pathetic personal attack coming from people like TFS.
Really?
You think EVERYONE shares their sexual fetishes? You think they all share ALL of them? And it's possible they're lying, or saying they're into shit that's "cool" just to fit in.
This is NOT a judgement free zone.
And it's not a privacy free zone! How many forumers are on here that you only know by their handle? That you know NOTHING about?
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
but those things aren't mutually exclusive
i mean you could teach people that beating up gays is wrong and leave the gay person the right to stay in the closet if they want to
thanks
just, like, to be clear, though, i think you've made some bad posts about this too ("gosh, being glib and straw-manning is fun!"). but that's sort of what always happens. someone presents an unpopular position, gets shit on for it, tries to remain reasonable about it for a while and then gives up and makes the same kind of taunting posts they were getting in the first place.
alas, internet
Ho ho! You hear that, guys? Referring to the actual history of ideas is so pretentious it invalidates anything you say.
God forbid any of you try to refer to John Locke or Adam Smith
You'd just have your head up your ass
I know, I don't even look 43!
Compared to regular day-to-day interactions with people in the real world, there is much less that people here choose to keep private, and there is much less embarassment
A police force is not a reduction in privacy because there is no privacy in public (!!)
In public matters, privacy doesn't exist (or exists to a far lesser extent)
Just because you define privacy differently, doesn't mean I'm using "privacy" as a proxy for "good"
When we all hang out together, there's still less embarassment than with strangers, and the people we don't know are okay with sharing because hey! We don't know them!
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
Maybe not for sexual fetishes because we don't give a fuck about those.
But go offer up an unpopular opinion and see how much you get judged for it.
Oh hey lookit that.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
this is fine for a lot of things, but when you have one person presenting an unpopular opinion it makes it really easy for them to get crucified without any actual discussion happening. in an actual conversation, someone would present an unpopular opinion and then argue it out with one other person. on a forum like this, someone presents an opinion and if it's unpopular, there's bound to be 10 people jumping on them for it, which makes it really easy for the discussion to descend into dumb stuff like taunting/trolling/personal attacks because there's one guy just getting mobbed.
I went back and looked, and I was right, your point was retarded.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
There was privacy from the government though. There are plenty of arenas in life today where we have privacy from the government but not other entities, and we still freak out when government invades that privacy.
Honest question, please name an arena in life where we have privacy from the government but not other entities
And I disagree; The sphere in which the police operates was never private. Crimes, almost universally, are harm done to other people. Which is public. Which was never private. Which was prosecuted by society. And now by society through the government
But this group still has a social/status hierarchy and functions pretty closely with how social groups function in the real world.
And, hell, a lot of us DO know each other, and hang out in real life.
It's a mutual assurance thing
We don't mind sharing these things with people because they're sharing in return
But opinions that are unpopular, people will keep those to themselves. I mean there might someone here who thinks CAD is a great comic, but goddamn, they are not gonna tell us that.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
goatmon was basically an inoffensive poster, slightly annoying, but just kinda blended in. then he made some unpopular remarks or something and somebody went and dug up the fact that he was a bit of a furry (probably teefs). two years on, people are still making fun of him for that
this is when non-privacy and sharing things on the internet isn't a good thing. it's also a prime reason why this is not a non-judgmental environment
Privacy is relative and wait we've been here haven't we
is that what you people want
my blood on your hands
I guess we are just a bunch of judgmental douchebags after all
i tell them because i do not really know them
That is an example of when one party had their privacy removed and while others had it intact though. In that kind of situation the lack of privacy is damaging. Should everyones preferences be known to all there would be much less judging and humiliation going on.
Backwards is right in this, and I cannot comprehend how you guys can continue to attack something that so easy to see. Privacy is merely a way in which we control others perceptions, that is it, the end.
Whether this is good or bad would be the area of debate, not whether or not it is true.