SIATD v2 wrote:You're missing the point - why pick 'snow' in the first place?
Because it's part of their sinister plan to spy on people from Minnesota. I don't know, YOU tell ME. In reality, it's for some reason that would make total and complete sense if you had the facts. Which you don't. Which is why this is nothing to get worked up about.
In which case why are you getting worked up about it? And if I don't have the 'facts' then you don't have the 'facts', in which case how can you be certain that it would make total and complete sense? That appears to be an argument from ignorance - because I can't prove (to your satisfaction) that this is part of a incremental but very real shift towards a schizoid state, a society of paranoia, it therefore is all fine and dandy and there's nothing to worry about?
Madness. Utter madness. Certainly not philosophy, at any rate.
Again, this is just playing at prejudice. If you're the type of person who's already deeply paranoid about Government intelligence, this will fuel your fire. If you're on the fence or ambivalent, there's no data here to move you to a change of position.
How ironic that you speak of playing at prejudice, only to go on to characterise anyone who has concerns about this as 'deeply paranoid'. Paranoia, of course, is unjustified, thus even your own pejorative description of my position (as you assume it) precludes the possibility of it being true.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Certainly not philosophy.
So unless something is truly 'news' in the sense of being new, you don't care about it?
New or exciting, I suppose.
And yet you believe in the story of Jesus, an ages-old reworking of previous messianic myths? Very odd.
Reason, I'd like to think. My motivation is that this just seems like a bunch of sensationalist trash designed to work people up and play to their suspicions without actually providing any information. That sort of thing bugs me.
Perhaps it bugs you because you have assumed (by your own admission without access to the 'facts') that it cannot be true. You are trying to take this story and this document and say that in isolation it proves nothing. A truism for sure, because no one piece of evidence considered in isolation can ever prove anything. So what?
I think you are failing to distinguish between RT's rather sensationalising coverage and what the file itself actually shows. I suspect this is deliberate, due to your above arguments illustrating how you clearly don't want to believe this is true. The thing is, I don't want to believe this is true. But having looked at the evidence (of which this is just one tiny example which considered out of context doesn't prove anything) I found that it is true. Truth isn't just about believing what you like, and dismissing anyone who thinks otherwise as them just believing what they want. You have to hold yourself to a better standard than that if you want your opinions about the world to be meaningful value-judgments rather than just a melange of repetitive propaganda and the path of least resistance.
Of course Twitter is a tool for social control, and Facebook, and Myspace before it. That's why I never use them and never will. But for the people who have addicted themselves to telling the entire fucking universe about every waking moment of their lives (and submitting themselves to the review and approval of strangers and near-strangers for it all), it should come as no surprise that 'the entire fucking universe' includes people who work for the FBI, NSA, Coca-Cola, and so on. That's a purely 'have your cake and eat it too' attitude to think otherwise.
I am not defending people posting a picture of every meal they eat on twitter and facebook. You are utterly trivialising and might I say sensationalising this disagreement because you have run out of stronger arguments. This makes you a hypocrite, given your own expression of distaste for sensationalising this same issue. Or is it like above, where you don't know the facts but you're allowed to say it will invariably just 'make sense' but I, who actually knows a hell of a lot more about this than you do, am not allowed an opinion on the subject? There it was an epistemological hypocrisy. Here it's a moral hypocrisy, you are criticising RT's coverage of this story and then adopting the same tabloid rhetorical mechanisms to try to dismiss the importance of this.
It's pathetic, utterly pathetic. Certainly not philosophy.
This isn't about invasion of privacy, it's about an atmosphere and mentality that will lead to self-censorship, it is about breeding compliant citizens.
Social media was about those things long before the Government got involved (if there was such a time). Self-censorship and complacency comes about just fine by the very nature of the media itself. Which is why you ought not do it if such things concern you.
I don't. I'm not on twitter. I am on facebook, but I never post status updates about what I am doing, I just use it as a means of keeping in touch with people. This isn't really about me worrying for myself. Funnily enough I am capable of worrying about a general direction the world is heading in, a general mentality that I don't really suffer from because I'm smart and self-disciplined enough to resist it but which afflicts a lot of people. Aside from making those people easier to control, it also makes them a lot less happy for NO GOOD REASON. Look at the fear in the eyes of most Westerners, particularly women. Bombarded with stories about how they will inevitably die in a plane crash or a 'home invasion' or a tsunami or by being anally raped to death by big black criminals/arab terrorists, they have no way to distinguish what to be afraid of and what to ignore.
Yet on this very thread, when I at least try to clarify what's happening here, you turn up with a load of bullshit, illogical twaddle and hypocrisy and say 'I don't want to know about this, how dare you bring it to my attention?!!!' You didn't have to open the thread. If you don't care about it then feel free to shut the hell up and let people just read about it and think about it for themselves.
It is several different factors. This isn't about stopping people from using the word 'snow', it's about making people think 'maybe I shouldn't write 'snow' because they might be watching',
Anyone who wasn't already thinking that way was insanely naive to begin with.
Tell me Ucci, does this cynicism make you behave in a way that makes you happy? Because fundamentally, you are going to die. Probably not bum-raped by terrorists and possibly not in a FEMA camp gas chamber but at some point. Now, maybe there's a heaven and maybe there isn't, but I'm pretty sure if there is that being a miserable cynic is not a prerequisite for entry. And if there isn't a heaven then you might want to attend a little more to how your choices about what you believe and why affect how happy you are about yourself and what you're doing in this world. I don't mean to condescend to you, but there it is.
Yes, the internet in a nutshell. With or without the Government. How many massive political movements have sprung up recently because people were shamed/manipulated into it through a semantic contagion spreading through their social media? Can you even count them on your fingers anymore? Think what you want, but by posting what I am the way I am, I'm actually resisting the effects of social media that you are trying to capitalize on this thread, and arguing for reason rather than 'movement'.
You have argued from ignorance, illogically, and hypocritically. That isn't reason. It just isn't.
Why, what do you expect they will find? The vast, vast majority of people talking about this stuff are the security services themselves.
The vast majority of people talking about pork and snow?
Probably, yes. Who talks about snow unless it's snowing or has recently snowed? Who, aside from a few scaly beasts like yourself living in nippy climes, sees a lot of snow?
And besides, if you're right about the above, then what's the problem? Let the spies spy on each other.
Or just get rid of them...?
It would have been quicker to answer the question. Do you think Governments should be prohibited from monitoring social media?
No. I think they shouldn't because a) it's the wrong thing to do, morally and strategically and b) because it results from a diseased mentality. Who would prohibit them from doing such a thing? The government. The government prohibiting itself from doing something? Yeah, that really sounds like it is going to be enforced.
That's what I mean about dividing the debate into polar opposites, a trait very common to Christian Americans. This isn't about either the government can spy on everyone as much as it likes OR the government should prohibit itself from spying on everyone as much as it likes. It goes to questions of morality and mentality, which are far more important than theoretical institutional structures like laws.
Look, just tell me what you want- You want an open social networking forum where everybody in the world can say things to everybody else in the world that comes with a guarantee that entities you don't trust will never see or take advantage of the information you give? No. That's not even coherent. So tell me what you really want- just to bitch? OK fine- which is why this is nothing exciting.
See above re: trivialising and sensationalising and how it makes you a hypocrite.