“Let the good guys see your messages” erases the dialectical materialism of the situation. All guys are guys looking out for their own class interests.
So if you let the Powers That Be surveil you, you have nothing to fear if you happen to be their friend. If they dislike you, you surely have something to fear.
“The powers that be” doesn’t describe anything, nothing permanent anyway. The only constant is change, and that applies to leadership of any sort. A friendly leadership today is a hostile leadership tomorrow because its all a game of musical chairs. The tools to violate privacy, once created, will fall into all hands. In my opinion, we will learn the easy way… or the unfortunate way.
That said, I didn’t understand most of your message but responded to the small part that was communicated clearly.
Finally I’d like to (hopefully constructively) critique of your writing style. In the future I think that you should prioritize understandability and explanation over vocabulary and brevity. What use is a display of swordsmanship to a blind crowd?
“The powers that be” doesn’t describe anything, nothing permanent anyway.
That statement didn’t even imply permanency.
friendly leadership today is a hostile leadership tomorrow because its all a game of musical chairs.
Liberal, parliamentary democracy is not the only form of governance, nor even this divisive as you paint it you know? And even then, the parties of a liberal democracy are but splinters in the interests they themselves represent. Capitalist interests.
Some of them may be “we should give them some crumbs so they quiet down” types, a social democrat minority, and others are “DEFUND EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE MILITARY AND PRIVATIZE THE REST” neoliberals, the majority nowadays. Nonetheless, they are on the same team of interests which has existed in the united states since ITS INCEPTION. Not that small of a timeframe.
The tools to violate privacy, once created, will fall into all hands. In my opinion, we will learn the easy way… or the unfortunate way.
As OP said, these are but tools and depending on who weilds them, and who you are yourself, your relation to these tools changes. It’s not a universal evil, I for example would prefer a government keeping tabs on nazis and not leftists of all kinds (anarchists, communists). That’s why do many Americans don’t care. These tools don’t hinder them, and help maintain the status quo they benefit from.
In the future I think that you should prioritize understandability and explanation over vocabulary and brevity. What use is a display of swordsmanship to a blind crowd?
When addressing a group of size, you can’t please everyone, as different listeners will have different bits of prior knowledge.
I assumed an audience on an ML forum would know the difference between an idealist argument and a dialectical materialist one (rather than being a “blind crowd”). If not, that can’t be helped: you can’t customise speech to a varied audience.
I understand your perspective. Hopefully my critique wasn’t overstepping. I’m just one person with some ideas I thought would help you. Maybe so, maybe not! Seems like we’re both trying and that is all we can do. Have a nice day.
You could erase the first two sentences of this comment and lose literally nothing. Which is pretty impressive, considering how important “dialectical materialism” sounds.
Lack of dialectical materialism.
“Let the good guys see your messages” erases the dialectical materialism of the situation. All guys are guys looking out for their own class interests.
So if you let the Powers That Be surveil you, you have nothing to fear if you happen to be their friend. If they dislike you, you surely have something to fear.
“The powers that be” doesn’t describe anything, nothing permanent anyway. The only constant is change, and that applies to leadership of any sort. A friendly leadership today is a hostile leadership tomorrow because its all a game of musical chairs. The tools to violate privacy, once created, will fall into all hands. In my opinion, we will learn the easy way… or the unfortunate way.
That said, I didn’t understand most of your message but responded to the small part that was communicated clearly.
Finally I’d like to (hopefully constructively) critique of your writing style. In the future I think that you should prioritize understandability and explanation over vocabulary and brevity. What use is a display of swordsmanship to a blind crowd?
That statement didn’t even imply permanency.
Liberal, parliamentary democracy is not the only form of governance, nor even this divisive as you paint it you know? And even then, the parties of a liberal democracy are but splinters in the interests they themselves represent. Capitalist interests. Some of them may be “we should give them some crumbs so they quiet down” types, a social democrat minority, and others are “DEFUND EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE MILITARY AND PRIVATIZE THE REST” neoliberals, the majority nowadays. Nonetheless, they are on the same team of interests which has existed in the united states since ITS INCEPTION. Not that small of a timeframe.
As OP said, these are but tools and depending on who weilds them, and who you are yourself, your relation to these tools changes. It’s not a universal evil, I for example would prefer a government keeping tabs on nazis and not leftists of all kinds (anarchists, communists). That’s why do many Americans don’t care. These tools don’t hinder them, and help maintain the status quo they benefit from.
Did I do good? xddd
When addressing a group of size, you can’t please everyone, as different listeners will have different bits of prior knowledge.
I assumed an audience on an ML forum would know the difference between an idealist argument and a dialectical materialist one (rather than being a “blind crowd”). If not, that can’t be helped: you can’t customise speech to a varied audience.
I understand your perspective. Hopefully my critique wasn’t overstepping. I’m just one person with some ideas I thought would help you. Maybe so, maybe not! Seems like we’re both trying and that is all we can do. Have a nice day.
You seem to agree with the post, so why does your comment read like you are trying to show you are superior to it?
I agree with Snowden not the other person
You could erase the first two sentences of this comment and lose literally nothing. Which is pretty impressive, considering how important “dialectical materialism” sounds.
The first two sentences are about the general model; the rest applies it to the particular subject.