Mummelmann said:
Nuvendil said:
This kind of bifurcation of complex discussions is exactly what has caused intellectual discussion and philosophy among common people this generation to grind to a freaking halt. Are you a mysoginist or a feminist? Are you a hyper liberal or a hyper conservative? Do you want to take all guns away or do you have an abram in your basement? Are you an authoritarian yes man or a total freedom near-anarchist? And don't try to explain a middle ground or how extremes are almost always the worst options in complex situations because then your an indecisive coward who is unwilling to fight for freedom or order, depending on who you are talking to.
As for the Apple vs FBI debate, there IS no debate if both parties involved would get their heads out of their asses and use common sense. If incriminating documents were in a vault with an incinerator wired to the door to destroy evidence when the lock is picked or door is forced, you wouldn't just try to open it and hope for the best. You would find a specialist or preferably the designer to get it open for you. That's literally all this is. The smart phone is the vault, the "erase everything if you get the code wrong" is the incinerator. If the FBI would treat it as such and Apple would comply like what a normal, rational individual would there wouldn't *be* a debate. But no, even at the highest levels people have to make drama and get in pissing contests over simple issues.
|
The top bit; wow, just wow. Spoken as if you tore it out of my brain, I had this exact conversation at work today. I live in Sweden, the land without nuances and I feel like that every single day here, everything is polarized and either or and almost no one accepts middle ground suggestions.
Great post.
|
It's the same around here. It's because everything is made politics today.
Basically it's a tactic that's used by the red-green movement: you start with an offensive to get your opponent defensive. Your argument is morally/sentimentally the only option, which usually opposes an option based on values/freedom/resposibility - but only in the said context, i.e one-eyed view - and only the extremes exists. Should pedestrians be run over or should cars be banned. All the middle ground suggestions are based on your personal values, and personal values can't be the option because that way you can't drive your agenda.
