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
Backwardsname on
0
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered 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 totally. I definitely want a totalitarian regime to have complete power over its citizenry, and definitely never tried to outline how privacy is a stupid, pathetic, illusory defense against totalitarianism, and how it's impossible to look at history and draw a causal link between less privacy and totalitarianism (though you can draw a link in the other direction)
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
Backwardsname on
0
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered 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
I think they should have the option to do what they want
This stupid world you're envisioning is completely impossible. Oh we'll just always KNOW when people are doing bad things because of cameras and shit. What if the person watching the camera that's supposed to be monitoring those bigots is a bigot too? So instead of going down and breaking up a gay-bashing, they just sit back and let it happen? People do awful things on tape all the fucking time. ALL THE FUCKING TIME. People will put masks over their faces. Are you going to outlaw the sale of masks? No more skiing or Halloween. What the fuck is wrong with you.
You are the silliest of geese.
And I only say that because I have to.
Jordyn on
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
that's right, no one can ever do anything wrong if everyone always knows what you're doing
what a fantastic idea
uh, kind of, yeah
people commit crimes only if they think they can get away with them
that's why when there are more police on the national mall in DC (the only place in the country that actually puts more police out on the streets as a result of the terrorist rainbow code), crime rates drop substantially in the entire surrounding area.
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
A dozen people saying that people should be able to stay in the closet if they want to isn't anything like that
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
Goddamnit
A gay boy is never assaulted in school because assault it is illegal
Not because people know he is gay
Why do you think being watched stops people from doing illegal things?
All being watched does is make it easy to convict people AFTER they do illegal things
that's right, no one can ever do anything wrong if everyone always knows what you're doing
what a fantastic idea
uh, kind of, yeah
people commit crimes only if they think they can get away with them
that's why when there are more police on the national mall in DC (the only place in the country that actually puts more police out on the streets as a result of the terrorist rainbow code), crime rates drop substantially in the entire surrounding area.
So now that we've stopped all crime ever, let's keep making people better in other ways too!
We'll make sure they only read the best books and watch the best news and think the right thoughts because we know what's best for everybody.
This stupid world you're envisioning is completely impossible. Oh we'll just always KNOW when people are doing bad things because of cameras and shit. What if the person watching the camera that's supposed to be monitoring those bigots is a bigot too? So instead of going down and breaking up a gay-bashing, they just sit back and let it happen? People do awful things on tape all the fucking time. ALL THE FUCKING TIME. People will put masks over their faces. Are you going to outlaw the sale of masks? No more skiing or Halloween. What the fuck is wrong with you.
You are the silliest of geese.
And I only say that because I have to.
You're the one trying to posit the negative consequences of a hypothetical world with no privacy. I'm just saying, in that same thought experiment, you also wouldn't be able to get away with anything.
If we're talking about the real world, you'll note I admit several times in the thread that a total elimination of privacy is probably neither feasible or desirable.
I said that, ON THE WHOLE, privacy does more harm than good
If I could, at a stroke, get rid of all privacy, I'd probably do it, sure
But my arguments with regard to real policy are obviously not "get rid of all privacy" because how would you even go about it
I'm actually arguing a nuanced position. Everyone is trying to engage with the debate in terms of a hypothetical world with no privacy, and I'm merely filling in the parts they're leaving out
that's right, no one can ever do anything wrong if everyone always knows what you're doing
what a fantastic idea
uh, kind of, yeah
people commit crimes only if they think they can get away with them
that's why when there are more police on the national mall in DC (the only place in the country that actually puts more police out on the streets as a result of the terrorist rainbow code), crime rates drop substantially in the entire surrounding area.
So now that we've stopped all crime ever, let's keep making people better in other ways too!
We'll make sure they only read the best books and watch the best news and think the right thoughts because we know what's best for everybody.
So, you're against reducing the crime rate because it's totalitarian?
Hey, stop the presses, guys! Let's all head for Somalia -- the freest place on earth! We know because they have lots of crime!
Backwardsname on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered 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"
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
Goddamnit
A gay boy is never assaulted in school because assault it is illegal
Not because people know he is gay
Why do you think being watched stops people from doing illegal things?
All being watched does is make it easy to convict people AFTER they do illegal things
Cameras don't prevent convenience store hold-ups
Only because they're easily circumvented.
As I've said, we have plenty of examples throughout history of increased government monitoring of the populace results in less criminality.
You just have to make sure that the method you choose actually works. Again, the best evidenced method we have is very simple: hire more cops, put them on the street. This reduces crime, because people know they can't get away with it.
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
Goddamnit
A gay boy is never assaulted in school because assault it is illegal
Not because people know he is gay
Why do you think being watched stops people from doing illegal things?
All being watched does is make it easy to convict people AFTER they do illegal things
Cameras don't prevent convenience store hold-ups
Only because they're easily circumvented.
As I've said, we have plenty of examples throughout history of increased government monitoring of the populace results in less criminality.
You just have to make sure that the method you choose actually works. Again, the best evidenced method we have is very simple: hire more cops, put them on the street. This reduces crime, because people know they can't get away with it.
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
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
Goddamnit
A gay boy is never assaulted in school because assault it is illegal
Not because people know he is gay
Why do you think being watched stops people from doing illegal things?
All being watched does is make it easy to convict people AFTER they do illegal things
Cameras don't prevent convenience store hold-ups
Only because they're easily circumvented.
As I've said, we have plenty of examples throughout history of increased government monitoring of the populace results in less criminality.
You just have to make sure that the method you choose actually works. Again, the best evidenced method we have is very simple: hire more cops, put them on the street. This reduces crime, because people know they can't get away with it.
oh hey you know how Britain has CCTV
you know, thousands of cameras watching everything at once?
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.
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.
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
Goddamnit
A gay boy is never assaulted in school because assault it is illegal
Not because people know he is gay
Why do you think being watched stops people from doing illegal things?
All being watched does is make it easy to convict people AFTER they do illegal things
Cameras don't prevent convenience store hold-ups
Only because they're easily circumvented.
As I've said, we have plenty of examples throughout history of increased government monitoring of the populace results in less criminality.
You just have to make sure that the method you choose actually works. Again, the best evidenced method we have is very simple: hire more cops, put them on the street. This reduces crime, because people know they can't get away with it.
oh hey you know how Britain has CCTV
you know, thousands of cameras watching everything at once?
Posts
if you personally had the capabilities to instantly erase everything "evil" in the world instantly, would you?
by your own working definition of evil
you hate privacy so much
you give it up first.
Let's go.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
This is a quality post that was overlooked IMO
NIGHTMARE SCENARIO
only Bname gets to have privacy
that's how these sort of views work!
was me
BName wants 1984 to become fact
obviously he is not a complete loon
Hey so apparently you haven't read anything I've posted or this is just a retarded straw-man
Because basically I've been positing nothing but advances in the mutual, universal destruction of privacy
Yes if you take away one person's privacy but not another's, you screw the first person
However if you remove privacy in general...
what a fantastic idea
SEND ME YOUR BANK INFO
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
yeyyy
you could just teach the douchebags that beating gay people up is bad
Yeah totally. I definitely want a totalitarian regime to have complete power over its citizenry, and definitely never tried to outline how privacy is a stupid, pathetic, illusory defense against totalitarianism, and how it's impossible to look at history and draw a causal link between less privacy and totalitarianism (though you can draw a link in the other direction)
Thank you for accurately summing up my argument.
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
I think they should have the option to do what they want
You are the silliest of geese.
And I only say that because I have to.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
uh, kind of, yeah
people commit crimes only if they think they can get away with them
that's why when there are more police on the national mall in DC (the only place in the country that actually puts more police out on the streets as a result of the terrorist rainbow code), crime rates drop substantially in the entire surrounding area.
A dozen people saying that people should be able to stay in the closet if they want to isn't anything like that
The hell are you doing
cause at my current job
there are uniformed loss prevention dudes at all entrances
100 real cameras, 100 fake ones, and 2 undercover officers
and people still all the time
Goddamnit
A gay boy is never assaulted in school because assault it is illegal
Not because people know he is gay
Why do you think being watched stops people from doing illegal things?
All being watched does is make it easy to convict people AFTER they do illegal things
Cameras don't prevent convenience store hold-ups
So now that we've stopped all crime ever, let's keep making people better in other ways too!
We'll make sure they only read the best books and watch the best news and think the right thoughts because we know what's best for everybody.
You're the one trying to posit the negative consequences of a hypothetical world with no privacy. I'm just saying, in that same thought experiment, you also wouldn't be able to get away with anything.
If we're talking about the real world, you'll note I admit several times in the thread that a total elimination of privacy is probably neither feasible or desirable.
I said that, ON THE WHOLE, privacy does more harm than good
If I could, at a stroke, get rid of all privacy, I'd probably do it, sure
But my arguments with regard to real policy are obviously not "get rid of all privacy" because how would you even go about it
I'm actually arguing a nuanced position. Everyone is trying to engage with the debate in terms of a hypothetical world with no privacy, and I'm merely filling in the parts they're leaving out
So, you're against reducing the crime rate because it's totalitarian?
Hey, stop the presses, guys! Let's all head for Somalia -- the freest place on earth! We know because they have lots of crime!
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"
Only because they're easily circumvented.
As I've said, we have plenty of examples throughout history of increased government monitoring of the populace results in less criminality.
You just have to make sure that the method you choose actually works. Again, the best evidenced method we have is very simple: hire more cops, put them on the street. This reduces crime, because people know they can't get away with it.
someone get thanatos in here
it'll be great
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
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
I think I'm gonna back to posting silly pictures. This guy is boring.
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
oh hey you know how Britain has CCTV
you know, thousands of cameras watching everything at once?
well it doesn't work
http://www.1in12.com/publications/cctv/ditton.htm
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 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.
Fair enough.
I don't really care what mode of observation is effective, just as long as they are effective.