Sexy Moon
deeply uncomfortable with rights organizations making pragmatic appeals against internet surveillance. would way rather see them saying something like "human decency recognizes the absolute right of people to have private conversations without government eavesdropping."
1+
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

@Moon I think there was a typo in your post, or i misunderstood...

Isnt this:

> human decency recognizes the absolute right of people to have private conversations without government eavesdropping.

An example of this

> rights organizations making pragmatic appeals against internet surveillance

1
Sexy Moon
@freemo a pragmatic appeal means arguing "we shouldn't do it because it won't work" or "it would be too costly to implement"
1+
Ruru! 🦉
I think such arguments come up from assumption that a lot of people don't really give a shit about human rights, privacy, decency, etc but do care about their wallets and their job.

If you stand up and say "internet surveillance is violation of human rights" people will say that you're just another lefty whiner triggered by some meaningless shit. But if you provide a pragmatic argument about implementing surveillance would be too expensive and have too much side effects, they may listen.
1+
Sexy Moon
@lonelyowl @freemo they are all BS left-wing oriented pragmatic arguments like "women won't be able to keep abortion plans secret from the government" which is a stupid argument on multiple levels if you actually think about it
1+
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

@Moon

Wait, what exactly do people use "women won't be able to keep abortion plans secret from the government" to aruge?

@lonelyowl

1+
Sexy Moon
@freemo @lonelyowl their argument is that because state governments have attacked abortion, if the government can read your emails then they could punish you for trying to get an abortion. the reason this is a stupid argument is 1. you could use this argument for any law that anybody disagrees with that everyone else thinks is a good idea 2. the case in question, a woman was caught talking about abortion on facebook and the state government subpoenaed facebook and she went to jail. the problem is the real reason wasn't she wanted to get an abortion, it's because she gave birth, killed the kid and disposed of the corpse, it didn't actually have anything to do with abortion. and 3. the government already knows if you had an abortion because they already track all your finances and travel so what'sd the difference. it all just falls apart if you scrutinize it, it's really just an appeal to liberal fears.
1+
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Follow

@Moon

It probably isnt the best of arguments, but I dont think its as bad as you do.. like #1 I agree on (and partly why its a bad argument).. #2 obviously using that particular case is questionable at best, and the mother was in the wrong. But I think saying it has nothing to do with abortion is not entierly fair. It is related to abortion int he sense that it never would have happened if abortions were legal. So clearly there is some relationship there. #3 is half valid... like year they do, but no need to make it easier.

@lonelyowl

· · 1 · 0 · 0
Sexy Moon
@freemo @lonelyowl I see the point you're making but ultimately they are making an argument against all government power. as long as facebook is used and they store the messages, at least in the USA the government absolutely has the power to get a warrant and get that data. the irony is this woman got caught not because of government forcing facebook to store her private messages forever to stop crime, but because facebook already was storing her private messages forever because facebook's entire business model is built on top of surveillance.
1
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

@Moon

Yea and thats why i agree, its a poorly framed argument even if it may hint at some valid truths in there while it does.

@lonelyowl

1
Sexy Moon
@freemo @lonelyowl so to bring it back around to my original argument, I think that arguing from values is less assailable than the types of arguments they're trying to make. I think they're making emotional arguments disguised as practical ones, I think that these types of arguments are easier to make people flip. in my lifetime americans have really turned against a lot of the first amendment arguments i was taught in like, grade school because they were so universally considered american values at that point. the NRA is successful because their primary argument against gun control is "fuck you"
1
Hildegunst von Mythenmetz of programming
@Moon @freemo @lonelyowl what do you think would it need to use "fuck you" as an argument for something else?
0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

qoto.org

More…

v3.5.19-qoto · Privacy policy