Some technical understanding of this issue is prerequisite to understanding how the negative consequences outweigh the positive.
Most of the tea-bagging protesters are protesting stuff that is way over their head, but they don't need a good technical understanding of since the issues are dumbed down to terms which fit their competence. I'm afraid this issue has been dumbed down as well. "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about."
Of course they'll treat this like a once-size fits all psuedo-ratiocination and utter it whenever something about "privacy on the internet" pops up.
Basically, I don't think this'll find its way on stage until it's too late. Like roc said, this alone should be enough.
I really don't believe anything anybody says when they use phrases like "tea-bagging", "tree hugger",or "pinko". I have lived in rural areas most of my life, and I don't think any of the current discussion is over these people's heads. I think it is a comfortable way of dismissing and diminishing people. It makes you feel superior. This has happened since the beginning of the country (ignorant colonists) through the ages (anti-war protestors, suffrage).
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Just to be clear I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. Just adding to what you said.
So you don't like the phrase "tea-bagging" and you don't like someone seemingly decreasing a group of people's relative value. I'm on your side.
Saying "tea-bagging" was lazy. Forgive me. As for the second cause for offense (perhaps too strong a word), well someone has to be qualified to make decisions. That's why we're a republic and not a democracy, because a mob (a group of people) can be ignorant.
And keep in mind that I was talking about technical understanding, not intelligence.
Anyway, I don't really have time for this right now, which is part of the reason I wasn't too careful choosing my words before. And this post will probably turn out to be not-so-fleshed out too, which I don't really care about right now.
I tend to get a little touchy about this type of "word" stuff.... Your right, mobs are often ignorant, but some of the key moments in our history of civil rights were described by one side as mobs.
I am not sure technical understanding is really the necessary item. I think it comes down to understanding the implications on your daily life. I know I get caught up in explaining the technical workings of things, but the best explanations to a general audience are almost always the little stories about what this will do in real life (tech example: technical specifications vs an Apple product introduction).
I guess I am in "the technical understanding makes it much easier to see all the implications, but I think understanding just the implications is good enough" camp. I am not sure this is a good thing, but with all the stuff in life, it might have to do.
Taking an example, I think the whole school webcam spying story is ripe for this type of thing. Really, I think the technical understanding is well above the heads of most people (including some tech writers I see). But, the implications won't be lost on any father of a teenage daughter. I expect that with our current media's prejudice towards the juicy, if the student who was suspended at the start of this was female and not male, well...
I appreciate why you're touchy, but think about it:
GOVT DEATH PANELS!
That's all you need to know, to realize that the assessment of "semi-facts, lies, and emotion blended into an easily palatable gruel" is, in fact, the majority of Tea Party-er thinking.
Not all of the people who are against socialized healthcare believe the "death panel" idiocy. Not all of them pretend they're doing some revolutionary act by joining the Tea Party.
But they're all hopelessly ignorant of how socialized medicine really works. And what the word "socialism" means.
Well, putting the whole bill http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text on a billboard would be rather tough, so that's the sound bite that summarizes some of the believed implications of section 3403.
This actually goes along with the back and forth between myself and RevRal. To have a technical understanding of the bill, you probably need to be a serious specialist lawyer (after waiting for the RFP and rule making). Since most people don't fit those qualification, you tend to see people explaining the implications to people. One of the implications mentioned is cutting off money to do life saving procedures based on a medical panels ruling. In a world where people use the words "prolife" and "prochoice", I don't think "GOVT DEATH PANELS" is such a stretch.
(now to really wander) As to government socialized medicine. I grew up under US gov provided health care. They very nearly killed one family member, lost critical records on another, and misdiagnosed my and my brother's backs. I don't think all of those people are "hopelessly ignorant". I would imagine quite a few have family members "served" by the VA. Go google IHS and "don't get sick in June".
> It is well established that socialized medicine entails rationing.
Every system entails rationing.
In a private system, your resources and your choices determine how decisions are made.
In a "public" system, govt decides. Yup - they'll take resources that you might have used for for your care and spend it on someone else and deny you care.
We already hear "we're not going to pay to care for fatties or smokers". If they're not going to get care, I think that it's wrong to take their money. That's just me.
At the risk of being further downvoted :).
The proper definition of "rationing" is ; Government allocation of scarce resources and consumer goods, usually adopted during wars, famines, or other national emergencies.
http://www.answers.com/topic/rationing
The conflation of private and governmental actions is exactly one of the things that has gotten us into the current troubles. If I choose to buy cake and not pencils today, I am not rationing myself. If the government says I can only have so many pencils or cake, I am subject to rationing.
Government is the only authorized agent of force. Private citizens are not allowed to force others to do their bidding. That is against the law: you cannot take my cake from me by force. Unfortunately, with our government becoming more and more unlimited, the force it can exert is correspondingly larger.
> Most of the tea-bagging protesters are protesting stuff that is way over their head
Oh really? You need to keep up. While the story used to be "ignorant", when folks actually looked at them, instead of relying on the US-lef "anyone who opposes me must be dumb" stereotype, they found that the Tea Party folks were, on the whole, better educated etc.
Man, this whole tea-party thing was fairly inconsequential to the point I was trying to make. I brought it up as an example and because my parent brought it up.
This was the supplement I was trying to tack onto my parent's comment: "Some technical understanding of this issue is prerequisite to understanding how the negative consequences outweigh the positive." This concerning internet privacy.
And I said "tea-bagging protesters" as a quick, lazy, way to refer to a group of people. My intent wasn't pejorative, but I am aware of the sexual act. I just didn't make the connection while writing.
I am aware of the seething tone of my comment, but besides that I didn't say anything untruthful. I could have said this:
Most [members of almost any group of people] are [discussing|protesting] stuff that is way over their head, but they don't need a good technical understanding of since the issues are dumbed down to terms which fit their competence.
I emphasized the word "need" for a reason.
If a person has a low level of competence or technical understanding of a subject, then it makes sense that you're going to have to dumb down the communication in order for them to get some semblance of understanding.
Thus, we place our trust in qualified experts. Thus we (generally) accept what is taught to us in schools about chemistry and mathematics, because it's better than re-learning it for ourselves and because we assume we're learning from an expert.
But my position on internet privacy is a little different. I feel that you do need a minimal technical understanding of the issue. A technical understanding that most people don't have, thus the issue slips by. All this in response to this part of my parent's comment: "I really don't know what has to happen for online privacy to get a stage."
So again, I'm basically saying I don't think this'll find its way on stage until it's too late. Because there aren't enough people who have enough technical understanding of this issue.
So, This: Some technical understanding of this issue is prerequisite to understanding how the negative consequences outweigh the positive.
Then the Tea-party thing as an example of where the issue would slip through (though I admit I may be wrong on this point).
Then This: I don't think this'll find its way on stage until it's too late. Because there aren't enough people who have enough technical understanding of this issue.
Anyway, this is all my fault for not writing clearly enough. I'm outta here. I should also apologize if I sound like an irritated a-hole. I didn't sleep last night.
So let's say we have a process that has consequences.
If I get you right, you believe the crowd doesn't need a technical understanding of the process as long experts (people with the technical understanding) provide a dumbed-down explanation. Except in the case of internet privacy where the crowd needs a minimal technical understanding of the issue. My basic belief is that a minimal explanation of process and an explanation of the consequences of the process is enough for the crowd.
Would you say internet privacy is different from say health care because of the technical nature or because it is more abstract or......
> But my position on internet privacy is a little different. I feel that you do need a minimal technical understanding of the issue.
> Some technical understanding of this issue is prerequisite to understanding how the negative consequences outweigh the positive.
What technical understanding do you think that someone needs in this case?
I'll help - do they need to understand more than "if your mail is hosted by Yahoo, Yahoo stores it" and "if your mail is in outlook, it's on your machine or that of your employer"? Those those two pieces of information establish where your mail is stored both before and after reading.
Note that the distinction that the DoJ was trying to make, that read mail stored outside your control isn't private, is not a technical issue, but a legal one.
> And I said "tea-bagging protesters" as a quick, lazy, way to refer to a group of people.
If it had been a similar reference about a different group of people, you have been driven out as a racist.
Most of the tea-bagging protesters are protesting stuff that is way over their head, but they don't need a good technical understanding of since the issues are dumbed down to terms which fit their competence. I'm afraid this issue has been dumbed down as well. "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about."
Of course they'll treat this like a once-size fits all psuedo-ratiocination and utter it whenever something about "privacy on the internet" pops up.
Basically, I don't think this'll find its way on stage until it's too late. Like roc said, this alone should be enough.