I never thought I'd have this thoughts in the US. Never.
You need to read more books. Start with something about coal mine strikes, or the general history of the labor rights movement.
The reality is, nobody is going to shoot you and your friends in the head for marching around chanting about NSA surveillance. They won't even point firehoses at you, or sic dogs on you. You are freer than Americans have been at virtually any other point in our country's history.
"Freer"? The number of citizens in prison has vastly accelerated in the last 20 years [1]. This alone is proof that we are not freer. No need to shoot someone in the head when you can throw them in jail for a joke on facebook [2], and best of all, hand the bill back to taxpayers.
That kid doesn't deserve what happened to him. That being said, what do you think the response should be for publicly threatening to kill school children? Remember, threats of violence have never been protected speech.
Yeah, but thats the weird thing. Sarcasm is obvious, until it isn't. In 2013, is it reasonable to systematically ignore someone who says "i think imma shoot up a kindergarten?" I guess what I'm asking is what's the criteria you and I are using to determine he wasn't serious? I intuitively know he almost certainly wasn't going to act on that statement, but assuming I'm a law enforcement officer, how do I justify ignoring it?
The sarcasm was obvious from the comment alone, the sarcasm was doubly obvious when the statement is taken in the correct context, and the sarcasm is particularly obvious since the kid fucking said he was joking.
Discretion and basic human intelligence is a vital part of the system, and in that case it is not being used.
A readable introduction to the bits of US history that high-school textbooks delicately gloss over is Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me.
Includes not only an intro to labor history, but also to civil rights history, and American Indian war-of-extermination history, and of course the charming US imperial history of the 20th century. (Not that any other country's imperial history is much prettier.)
"Lies My Teacher Told Me" is a good book if you don't have much time or if you don't have a decent background in US history. I think Zinn's "A People's History of the US" is a much better book for the HN reader who is interested in the subject and willing to sit down with a longer book.
Zinn's book is worth reading, but shouldn't be your only source. E.g. it just skips over everything that couldn't be considered "A People's History", like pretty much all international politics; even if you like Zinn's (clearly-laid-out) biases just fine, it's rather incomplete as a general history book.
If you want to fill in some gaps, and want to ensure you don't end up as some kind of do-gooder, add Kissinger's Diplomacy. It's very interesting, and the ideas in it probably won't leave you wanted for war crimes in several first-world countries.
It seems that tptacek was specifically talking about history that would be considered "a people's history." The comment I was replying to was a recommendation about a book that fills in the gaps of US history textbooks. It seems like this subthread is concerned with US history, especially with the history of the actions/policies of the government+ruling class.
Joachim, I apologize for being snippy in my comment. It was late at night and I should have just gone to bed. Lets agree to disagree on the level of drift in the discussion and agree that I could have been much more civil in my reply.
Indeed. Labor history in the US is riddled with some very scary things.
To add to that, I'd also recommend Eight Hours For What We Will. It's an excellent look at another aspect of labor history--the history of working class leisure. Very fascinating and insightful.
With due respect, I believe this is exactly the wrong interpretation of our present circumstances in the context of history. In the events you cite (and for most of this country's history prior to now), people actually had the power to organize and effect change, which at the time, could only ever be met with brute force by the powers-that-be.
The government didn't have the capability of near-omniscience, down to the level of an individual. They couldn't video-surveil entire cities in real time. They couldn't execute military action at massive scale. They didn't operate in a climate of such overwhelming political apathy that allowing military forces to operate domestically, seize people off the street, and throw them in a hole, forever, generates little more than an online petition and a few calls to Congress.
In short, we are orders of magnitude less free than we have ever been, simply by virtue of the incomprehensible power of the federal government. Just because they have not deigned to exercise it on a large scale (up till now), doesn't mean they can't, or won't. It just means they haven't needed to (yet). As is the case on many topics, I believe Frank Zappa summed it up best:
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
> You need to read more books. Start with something about coal mine strikes, or the general history of the labor rights movement.
The reality is, nobody is going to shoot you and your friends in the head for marching around chanting about NSA surveillance.
Hmmm. That feels a little condescending. I could be wrong.
At any rate, I didn't say that they'd shoot, firehose or otherwise physically interface with you in any way. There are far more effective ways to cause pain in the modern age than to actually touch someone. For example, the IRS could harass the shit out of you for the next ten years. That'd be life changing. Or how about your boss and co-workers get phone calls asking about your "suspicious activities".
Yet again, here's the link from another thread on HN:
How about them apples? They might not shoot you, but they can sure as hell ruin your life.
My point is that the regime we seem to be constructing --a system where we are all naked and exposed in front of our government at many levels-- is one where we become their property to do with as they wish. They gather data on you at every level and can then turn your own life against you.
The point is that our government should not have the power to do this. Period.
Along these lines (and without disagreeing with most of the grandparent post), I think it's good to look outside US borders as well as within them.
For example, a frequent objection to the government of today is its willingness to engage in drone strikes. It's true that these represent a significant change in battle, since US is risking only some flying hardware but no longer a pilot. It's also true that whenever we attack someone elsewhere we risk creating a new enemy who wishes to avenge the first target.
On the other hand, this has to be viewed in the context of diminishing casualties over time. Drone strikes are far more discriminating than cruise missile attacks, which were the preferred means of retaliation 20-30 years ago; and cruise missile strikes are in turn more discriminating than tactics like carpet bombing of 40-50 years ago. It's instructive to compare this with America's first outing on the international stage, the Spanish-American war (1895-98), which was rapidly followed by the Philippine-American war (1899-1902), when the newly-acquired territory of the Philippines promptly rebelled. The latter conflict was truly horrific, with the US engaging in what would be indisputably classed as genocide today. Moral low points of the 'war on terror' have involved US soldiers photographed in mocking poses with prisoners of war or dead bodies. Back then, veterans were proud to pose atop the massed bones of thousands, in scenes as gruesome as anything from WW2. If you can overlook the messy design and are interested in the history, this is about the most comprehensive resource online: http://moviephilippines.blogspot.com/2013/04/documentary-phi... ...but given that these events took place over a century ago, books are still a better resource (which was how I learned about it).
My point here is not to say there's 'nothing to see here,' but to warn against a kind of historical revisionism that paints the past in idealistic terms as some sort of Eden from which we have since fallen, because appeals to the idea of a noble past to which we must turn back can be leveraged to resurrect injustice as easily as ideals.
I strongly recommend looking for the Penguin Classics edition of the Federalist Papers, which contains an outstanding introduction of ~70 pages by historian Isaac Kramnick which delineates the factors and factions that gave birth to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The actual positions of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists still echo through American politics today, and it's worth remembering that the (many) opponents of the Constitution considered it a tyrannical imposition on what had up to then been a confederacy of free States. Whether that change in the form of government made Americans more or less free remains a matter of intense dispute.
You need to read more books. Start with something about coal mine strikes, or the general history of the labor rights movement.
Or look at the LGBT history. For example, the modern gay rights movement in USA, started with the Stonewall riots in 1969. At the time cross-dressing or drag was illegal, you have to wear enough items of "gender appropriate" clothing, if you're a man wearing make up, you were arrested! Dancing with members of the same sex was illegal and an arrestable offence. So much for their constitutional rights.
You can also look at recent history and see the progression in the last 10 years. Although I believe you're right nobody will shoot you in the head tomorrow, we don't know how worse this is going to get in the next 10 or 20 years.
I'm not trying to be, I'm simply trying to gain an understanding of whether your statements may come from a place of bias. I am sorry if it came off offensive.
You know, a lot of people here look up to you. When you write stuff like that it has a lot more influence than when some newbie account does. I would probably say that the influence is negative, assuming HN is a thing that you care about.
After submitting I see that you changed your post. The link is not much better.
> I'm glad you approve. No, wait, I don't give a shit.
So someone asked if you've done work for the NSA. Who cares? Clearly you have the ability, it's not the most offensive thing in the world even if it's a bit naive. The person doesn't necessarily know that it's totally against your values, assuming that this is the source of the offense.
Good. I think this place would be better if we all had a more appropriate level of contempt for comments accusing people of being shills.
I'm not offended at someone suggesting I might have worked for NSA. You still don't get it.
(I changed the parent not because I'm uncomfortable with it, but because I wrote it before I saw the comment below that I ended up replying to; either "go fuck yourself" or the response I wrote downthread work for me, but both together seemed pointless).
You're offended because of the suggestion that your comment about the extent of free speech we have with respect to protesting the NSA might be motivated by your own previous work experience with the NSA.
Even if true, I wouldn't say this indicated you were a shill, because shills are generally paid to push propaganda.
People are naturally biased by their experiences in positive or negative ways. You made what could be construed as a pro-NSA comment in an environment dominated by anti-NSA sentiment, and somebody made an assumption that maybe you had a good experience working at the NSA and wanted to clarify it.
For what it's worth, it never occurred to me that you were a shill or a former employee, the suggestion is absurd and totally out of left-field.
Look at the comment at the root of this thread that kicked it off. No, that commenter did not infer that maybe I had an interesting experience at NSA that I wanted to share. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with NSA. It's pretty clear what that commenter was trying to say. They can go fuck theirself.
Respectfully, not because I'm fed up talking about this but because I don't want to be one of those threads where 'pg has to comment and say "will you guys please stop", I'm going to leave it at that.
I'm glad you approve. No, wait, I don't give a shit.
HN has too much tolerance for this 1000% totally bogus intellectually insulting rhetorical tactic. It demeans everyone.
The people writing these idiotic "you must be a shill for {Microsoft,Mozilla,NSA}" comments think they're clever, but what they're really saying is "not only do I not understand what the Fundamental Attribution Error is, but I can't even comprehend the idea of someone disagreeing with me or even presenting a fact or idea that challenges my preconceptions; no, it's much more likely that this is a bad faith comment than that I don't know everything there is to know about every topic".
And then other people cheer them on!
There is no online community anywhere on the Internet less capable of spotting a shill than Hacker News. Any competent shill could immediately see how to game the site.
Heh. I wasn't offering my approval so don't go jumping the gun there and assuming things.
I was just offering a perspective on effective methods of communication. Whether it means anything to anyone other than myself, it has no effect on my continued meager offerings in the future.
Today at noon, I hope to see tptacek-class crypto experts at our Seattle Westlake Mall, I hope to see some crypto hackavists providing popular personal security advice and tools.
You need to read more books. Start with something about coal mine strikes, or the general history of the labor rights movement.
The reality is, nobody is going to shoot you and your friends in the head for marching around chanting about NSA surveillance. They won't even point firehoses at you, or sic dogs on you. You are freer than Americans have been at virtually any other point in our country's history.