Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jgon 4400 days ago
This is now the bog standard reply of the closet fascists who support the NSA and their rampant spying. They've had to switch to this response because their previous response "You're just being paranoid", has been utterly blown apart by the Snowden revelations and thank god for that.

Both replies avoid grappling in a substantive fashion with the question of whether or not these activities are moral and something we should accept in our society, but at least the second reply doesn't actively shut down the conversation. Whereas before they could claim that we are being paranoid and there would be no real comeback to that, and thus our points could be safely dismissed, at least now one can reply "No we shouldn't be surprised, and now let's discuss whether or not it is something that should continue."

I'll add finally, that yes apparently we should be surprised because the same closet fascists now adopting this whole grizzled "wise to how the world works" persona have previously spent the last few decades strongly claiming that the NSA would never flagrantly violate the constitution in this manner, that they were stalwart defenders of America and apple pie. You can see the same sort of evolution with torture, where the people proclaiming that it is a "necessary" action in today's ruthless dog-eat-dog world were the exact people talking about how not torturing was what separated our good hearted security agents from those savages employed by "evil empires" such as Russia or China.

At the end of day, I am heartened because now at least the cards are on the table and these activities can't just be denied as the figments of paranoid imaginations. The conversation is moving along a bit, however slowly.

1 comments

> This is now the bog standard reply of the closet fascists who support the NSA and their rampant spying.

Yea man, those "closet fascists and their support of the NSA" and their statements in no uncertain terms that the NSA always been despicable. So let me get this straight: between 1) people who have always been fine with the NSA until a couple mos ago and 2) people who have always been disgusted by them and see this as an (unsurprising) affirmation of that disgust: the LATTER are closet fascists? You realize that even someone like rms fits directly into your characterization of "closet fascist", right? That should help you understand how stupid your conclusion is.

Your core issue is that you're conflating "hey man this has happened for ages and it's just how the world works" with "this has happened for ages, where the fuck have you been, people who are just deciding to get mad now that it's in fashion?". The former is definitely a bog-standard apologist tactic (though I'd argue that it's been around for a lot longer than just Snowden; it's basically the neo-con anthem, and neocons aren't exactly in the "closet"), but the latter couldn't be more different from apologia.

> I'll add finally, that yes apparently we should be surprised because the same closet fascists now adopting this whole grizzled "wise to how the world works" persona have previously spent the last few decades strongly claiming that the NSA would never flagrantly violate the constitution in this manner, that they were stalwart defenders of America and apple pie. You can see the same sort of evolution with torture, where the people proclaiming that it is a "necessary" action in today's ruthless dog-eat-dog world

Again, you're mixing up two different views. "People who actually paid attention before it was fashionable" doesn't consist only of the people defending this bullshit, it also consists of plenty of people that were protesting it. I know it makes you feel better about ignoring this for so long to pretend that the only people paying attention were apologists, but that's just flat-out, 100% wrong.

For what it's worth I entirely agree with you about people who dislike this and are also unsurprised by it. Andreesen makes it very clear he not the latter.

He is claiming both that we should be unsurprised by it, and that because of this lack of surprise it isn't a big deal that we should care about. I am emphatically not coming down on people who are now, and have always been, against this type of surveillance.

My mistake, your comment sounded like a direct rebuttal to what I was expressing, which was that it was unsurprising and still despicable, not unsurprising and thus defensible. It also seemed like you were just assuming that anyone unsurprised must be condoning it. That's my mistake, I misread the subtext of your comment.