Not to pick on you for any reason, but I interpret it that way
too. And FWIW I thought akomtu's comment was quite funny.
Saying that a state of affairs already exists is no kind of moral or
rational argument against the wrongs of bad circumstances. In it's
most charitable interpretation it's just empty "whataboutism". A less
charitable take is that it's tacit support for a situation by
propagating morale-sapping defeatism.
I'm glad that more people are starting to call out "Privacy is dead
just give up" naysayers.
Now, I'm not saying you are one or that is your intent, but please
be mindful that statements that seem to normalise bad circumstances in
an offhand way can can't help but be interpreted at lending assent.
As Howard Zinn put it [1]:
"The power of a bold idea uttered publicly in defiance of dominant
opinion cannot be easily measured. Those special people who speak
out in such a way as to shake up not only the self-assurance of
their enemies, but the complacency of their friends, are precious
catalysts for change."
The same goes for bad ideas as for bold ones. So instead of simply
amplifying what is in a rotten world, why not go one step further
and say what should be if you wish to say anything at all.
> Now, I'm not saying you are one or that is your intent, but please be mindful that statements that seem to normalise bad circumstances in an offhand way
In case it was not clear, the parent comment I was responding to was mentioning "if we do that, we'd be tracked day and night wherever we go" (I paraphrase) and to me it's amusing that that poster did not notice that it's already happening right now.
That does not say anything about this being desirable or not, again.
> say what should be if you wish to say anything at all.
You don't have any say about how I should comment on HN.
Not to pick on you for any reason, but I interpret it that way too. And FWIW I thought akomtu's comment was quite funny.
Saying that a state of affairs already exists is no kind of moral or rational argument against the wrongs of bad circumstances. In it's most charitable interpretation it's just empty "whataboutism". A less charitable take is that it's tacit support for a situation by propagating morale-sapping defeatism.
I'm glad that more people are starting to call out "Privacy is dead just give up" naysayers.
Now, I'm not saying you are one or that is your intent, but please be mindful that statements that seem to normalise bad circumstances in an offhand way can can't help but be interpreted at lending assent.
As Howard Zinn put it [1]:
The same goes for bad ideas as for bold ones. So instead of simply amplifying what is in a rotten world, why not go one step further and say what should be if you wish to say anything at all.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn:_You_Can%27t_Be_Ne...