>> ^NordlichReiter:

Oh no she didn't.
She played the John Stuart, fucking, Mill card. Mill was a classical liberal among other things.
I believe she was referring to his Axiom:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

>> ^enoch:

i am going to go out on a limb and say that this weasel is a paid whore with the flimsy cover that he is working as a "private citizen".


Indeed. What seems to have happened is that the US intelligence agencies aren't allowed to do some kinds of spying, so they just went ahead and outsourced the entire thing to "citizen groups".

You know, the kind that are funded by the government and have surveillance state cronies heading them.

>> ^kranzfakfa:

This is from the HOPE (Hackers from Planet Earth) conference in New York, back in July.
>> ^Yogi:
Why would this guy go in front of this audience? Also where the heck is this anyways?



Yeah I looked it up...watched the rest of it...read about how he was just diagnosed with Aspergers which is interesting. I don't know exactly what happened here but it's pretty clear he's keeping most everything from us, not an unreasonable position considering how upset the audience was with him.

I think there could be an interesting moral argument about this situation specifically, and I think because of the moderator and the general tone of the room in this setting it wasn't had.

This is from the HOPE (Hackers from Planet Earth) conference in New York, back in July.

>> ^Yogi:

Why would this guy go in front of this audience? Also where the heck is this anyways?

I've personally heard high-ranking officers make comments about Afghanistan that would land them in the news papers. Do I write a news article blasting them? No, because I know that they were just letting off steam and they expected those around them to sympathize with them but not take it as a serious comment on the state of the war.

I see three options available for a reporter in this situation; ignore the comments and write the glowing reviews Cenk is talking about, ignore the comments and write a balanced article like Lara is talking about, or shit all over people who trusted you and write what they said in confidence just so you can write a controversial, military-blasting article.

I think people should stay somewhere in the middle.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

When the purpose of your story is to delve into the personalities, thoughts & attitudes of Military "Top Brass..
How is withholding relevant statements because they might be damaging NOT protecting the military?
Good faith & not snitching is more important to you than truth and actuality?
You would rather read a sugar-coated article about how old men with glorified scout badges are "working so hard to end this war"?
About how they need just a few thousand more troops [human ammo] from other countries?

>> ^Skeeve:

Cenk seems to think that using one's discretion when it comes to printing private statements is somehow protecting the big bad thing called the military.

When the purpose of your story is to delve into the personalities, thoughts & attitudes of Military "Top Brass..

How is withholding relevant statements because they might be damaging NOT protecting the military?

Good faith & not snitching is more important to you than truth and actuality?

You would rather read a sugar-coated article about how old men with glorified scout badges are "working so hard to end this war"?

About how they need just a few thousand more troops [human ammo] from other countries?


>> ^Skeeve:


Cenk seems to think that using one's discretion when it comes to printing private statements is somehow protecting the big bad thing called the military.

snitches get stitches

The big brown lopsided ball is the quaffle. Chasers try to put that through a hoop for 10 points. The medium size dark balls are bludgers, which chase after people and try to hit them.
The little one is the golden snitch. If the seeker catches it, he gets 150 points and the game ends. Usually whichever team catches the snitch first wins. Harry is seeker. The whole game is basically a metaphor for harry's role in the stuggle against voldemort. When Krum catches the golden snitch but still loses the quiddich world cup by 10 points, that foreshadows phyrric victory in the little hangleton graveyard.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
You know - I'm going to go ahead and use one profanity for a change, though I usually eschew the practice. But all this neoliberal whining about the health care protesters is BULLSHIT.
I have a very good memory. I recall that in the Bush years, the Democrat party was pretty cool with the fine art of public protesting. Democrat protests were FAR more organized and planned by neolib far-left interests than the current protests are.
But now all of a sudden the protesters are 'nazis'... The White House sets up a snitch program to rat out fellow citizens... Unions thugs are roughing up protesters... Leaders of the house & senate are maligning US citizens and even Godwined the issue... Neolib apologists and propogandists like Madcow whining about how 'bad' protesting is... Hmmm - Democrats don't seem to think protests are so cool any more. Community activists are now a bunch of 'nazis'... My, how things change in just a few months...
I didn't mind the protests against Bush, even though they were Democrat hired rent-a-mobs. But there's nothing WRONG with that. If the protests didn't actually reflect the will of the people, then they would have gone nowhere. But the Iraq war protests had traction becuse the American people didn't support the war in general. The protests reflected the national mood and attitude - so they were legigimate despite being fostered and fomented by neolib special interest groups.
The same thing is true of the protests now. This is not just a bunch of bussed in rent-a-mobs. This is a wide spread protest by a HUGE number of citizens who do not like what is happening. They're motivated by the stimulus bill, or unemployment, cap & trade, takeovers of auto companies, the huge deficit spending, the health bill, or any number of about a million things Obama has said/done/planned since he took office.
I think they also reflect the rather alarming attitude that Democrats demonstrating since they took power. They are acting about 100X more totalitarian and nazi-esque than the Republicans ever did under Bush. They drip with contempt towards their own citizens. They insult and demean opposition. They ignore the polls that show there is not a lot of support for what they're doing. They're brusque, callous, and haughty - and they don't mind showing it. What's worse, there are some very scary things going on like Union thugs roughing up protestors and shoving private citizens out of public meetings. That's jackbooted, brownshirted, oppression being bought and paid for by Democrats - just the stuff they accused Bush of doing.
And then there's the Democrat party's blatant hypocrisy. They whine at citizens for not saving money while they spend like drunken sailors. They tell companies to drive to Washington while they buy brand new private jets and go on massively expensive junkets.
Combine the lack of support for unpopular legislation with the Democrat propensity for voter disdain and utter hypocrisy... Is it any small wonder that people are protesting en masse? It's a wonder this didn't hit them much sooner, to be frank. They've crossed a line and reached a tipping point. This isn't just some Republican orchestrated thing. This is a massive citizen uprising against a government that is becoming too intrusive.
The neoliberals flacks like Madcow can sneer at the citizens all they want. But these are CITIZENS of the United States that are trying to get invovled in the process - and the Democrats are treating them like they're scum. The Democrat party is playing with fire here. If they keep up this kind of condescention and deny the reality of the situation (that people DON'T want this) then they're going to end up repeating 1994 in 2010.


C'mon really dont be that stupid, first of all with the war on Irak most of the people at that time was Ok with it, when they saw that everything was a lie and a personal agenda of some is when the protest begin not before , but now they are protesting for something that has not even happen, for someone as ignorant as you it has to ring a bell or are these rednecks that naive not to ask some question or see diferent opinions before taking a side?. C'mon

You know - I'm going to go ahead and use one profanity for a change, though I usually eschew the practice. But all this neoliberal whining about the health care protesters is BULLSHIT.

I have a very good memory. I recall that in the Bush years, the Democrat party was pretty cool with the fine art of public protesting. Democrat protests were FAR more organized and planned by neolib far-left interests than the current protests are.

But now all of a sudden the protesters are 'nazis'... The White House sets up a snitch program to rat out fellow citizens... Unions thugs are roughing up protesters... Leaders of the house & senate are maligning US citizens and even Godwined the issue... Neolib apologists and propogandists like Madcow whining about how 'bad' protesting is... Hmmm - Democrats don't seem to think protests are so cool any more. Community activists are now a bunch of 'nazis'... My, how things change in just a few months...

I didn't mind the protests against Bush, even though they were Democrat hired rent-a-mobs. But there's nothing WRONG with that. If the protests didn't actually reflect the will of the people, then they would have gone nowhere. But the Iraq war protests had traction becuse the American people didn't support the war in general. The protests reflected the national mood and attitude - so they were legigimate despite being fostered and fomented by neolib special interest groups.

The same thing is true of the protests now. This is not just a bunch of bussed in rent-a-mobs. This is a wide spread protest by a HUGE number of citizens who do not like what is happening. They're motivated by the stimulus bill, or unemployment, cap & trade, takeovers of auto companies, the huge deficit spending, the health bill, or any number of about a million things Obama has said/done/planned since he took office.

I think they also reflect the rather alarming attitude that Democrats demonstrating since they took power. They are acting about 100X more totalitarian and nazi-esque than the Republicans ever did under Bush. They drip with contempt towards their own citizens. They insult and demean opposition. They ignore the polls that show there is not a lot of support for what they're doing. They're brusque, callous, and haughty - and they don't mind showing it. What's worse, there are some very scary things going on like Union thugs roughing up protestors and shoving private citizens out of public meetings. That's jackbooted, brownshirted, oppression being bought and paid for by Democrats - just the stuff they accused Bush of doing.

And then there's the Democrat party's blatant hypocrisy. They whine at citizens for not saving money while they spend like drunken sailors. They tell companies to drive to Washington while they buy brand new private jets and go on massively expensive junkets.

Combine the lack of support for unpopular legislation with the Democrat propensity for voter disdain and utter hypocrisy... Is it any small wonder that people are protesting en masse? It's a wonder this didn't hit them much sooner, to be frank. They've crossed a line and reached a tipping point. This isn't just some Republican orchestrated thing. This is a massive citizen uprising against a government that is becoming too intrusive.

The neoliberals flacks like Madcow can sneer at the citizens all they want. But these are CITIZENS of the United States that are trying to get invovled in the process - and the Democrats are treating them like they're scum. The Democrat party is playing with fire here. If they keep up this kind of condescention and deny the reality of the situation (that people DON'T want this) then they're going to end up repeating 1994 in 2010.

Hate to be a snitch, but the mayor of NY's gonna give a $1000 for this.. This be a dupe'th...
http://www.videosift.com/video/Genesis-Revisited-A-Scientific-Creation-Story

...snitch perverts...

I like it.

Im not advocating torture, warterboarding, or anything of the sort. I want to point out though that you can not speak in objective terms with stuff like this. Waterboarding works by provoking fear and panic in the captive, which understandably can cause mental problems in the long run for some percentage of captives.

If you think about it though, even in your made-for-tv law shows what happens when they have a suspect? They start talking about them going to jail for life, maybe getting pegged as a snitch even if they're set free, maybe its just a longer jail sentence for not cooperating or confessing. Any one of these things is a possible cause of panic, especially if your innocent but being confronted with 20 years in jail for something you didn't do. Now would you argue that even threatening jail time could not POSSIBLY cause long term mental issues? Can you guarantee that everyone comes out of even routine interrogation without a nightmare/panic attack regarding it for the rest of their life? You might argue "but most people would be ok after such questioning" but what if 1% of people had a lasting nightmare or panic attack because of it, what percentage of people suffering side effects is ok or justifiable? Who decides that percentage and what side effects should be taken into account?

My point isnt that waterboarding is like normal interrogation, anyone with half a brain can see its a much more severe method of getting information out of someone and I personally would not want it to happen to anyone i know. But the point is if you say that you shouldn't use panic or fear to coerce confessions or information, then where do you draw your line? Is that line objectively justifiable to everyone? If its not, how do YOU defend where your line was drawn? Who ultimately should decide where that line lies?

And a very good point was brought up, what methods of getting someone to talk who otherwise doesn't want to talk has no harmful effects? Keep in mind i havent even addressed the topic of effectiveness and reliability of information.

So as with many issues that people argue about forever, you may identify that one thing is a problem (such as waterboarding or cutting limbs off) but what is the ultimate solution to the problem of:

How do I get needed information out of someone in a fair and humane way who otherwise does not want to give said information?

With CAREFUL scrutiny on the words fair and humane, which are both subjective terms (not to say I'm wishy washy on that topic, but id hazard a guess that you couldn't come up with a definition of said words that would be agreeable to every person in the US much less the world).

I spose even "Needed" is subjective, is it needed information when you're trying to find out if a suspected terrorist IS a terrorist? Or if the captive might have info on another person we have reasonable or specific intel stating that they are planning a terrorist attack that may kill 1, 5, 10, 100, 1000 people? Lets not forget the obvious and cliche question of, "would you have waterboarded a person if it meant you could have prevented 9/11?" How many peoples lives would need to hang in the balance before waterboarding is justifiable if at all? What about even worse torture? What would you be willing to do for intel that would prevent the detonation of a dirty bomb or small nuclear device in a major city?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'The Onion, News, Network, Cigarette, Prices, Handjobs, Handjob, Economy' to 'The Onion, News, Network, Cigarette, Prices, Handjobs, Handjob, Economy, Snitches' - edited by MrFisk

>> ^burdturgler:
What you're suggesting is far worse than the ugly, yet necessary process of Siftquisition. Sending little "notes" and back channel pm snitching to admins so they can ban people without any community involvement ... it doesn't work. It is completely not what this site is about. This site is built on 100% community participation, which includes users being banned.
You would wind up with just as much public outcry and sift talk posts saying WHY WAS SO AND SO BANNED?!!
The public nature and ugliness of it would not go away.



Well your "little notes" and "back channel snitching" concepts seem to be straw men to me. While I don't have nearly as much history with Da Sift, I'll have to disagree with the idea that there would suddenly be a slew of people trying to get eachother banned, just because it could be done privately (which it still can today, without the public siftquisitions.)

Maybe I haven't been around long enough to see these siftquisitions happening with any regularity, but even from my brief yet awesome experience, this is the first I've seen of it, and not only has it gotten ever uglier, but also more frequent.

And the "why was so and so banned" idea would also probably not happen with the vast majority of us "outsider" users, as we aren't on the inside of any cliques or friendships that many of you have, and wouldn't even notice if say a "mxxcon" or "evilspongebob" was banned.


[edit] btw: how is a private note to an admin, not "community participation"? If I call the police on my neighbor for using a power-tool at 4AM in his yard, is that not "community participation"? Should I call a town hall meeting to discuss what my neighbor is doing, or simply let the authorities know that he's breaking the rules?

hmmm!!!!