[anamax]

> 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.

Thus the new attack is that they're elitists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04...

Which reminds me - you do know that "tea bagging" is a reference to a sex act, right? Since you're using it as a pejorative....

Frankly, I think that you're hosed if you're relying on hipsters.

[RevRal]

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.

[protomyth]

first, sorry to cause you trouble

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......

[anamax]

> 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.