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."

@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

@freemo a pragmatic appeal means arguing "we shouldn't do it because it won't work" or "it would be too costly to implement"
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.
@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
Arguments shouldn't be smart or correct, they should help us to get rid of surveillance.

However, maybe i'm too cynical about it because of general mood of the place i grow up 😀
Follow

@lonelyowl

I have this funny idea that if arguments should be smart, correct AND help us get rid of survellance... in fact id argue they **need** to be smart and correct if they are to help us get rid of it.

@Moon

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.