Well I already said multiple times, I’m not arguing against privacy, but the fact this whole post wraps around “i didnt know the origin of the quote” and its not only false but also he apparently didn’t even make that claim in the first place is baffling to me. There are one million and two good arguments for privacy and against the stupidity of the nothing to hide reply, but spreading emotionally manipulative misinformation to create an artificial feeling of a deadbeat argument is not the right approach.
I don’t get why you put so much effort into shifting the view away from half the content of the post instead of just admitting to misinformation or sending sources. There are people out there that see text on a picture with, Snowden interview in the back and actually think it’s legit information. It’s necessary to highlight fact from fiction so people don’t get a wrong sense of reality, which is a problem we are currently facing across the globe.
my friend who is ex military, has a smart house built around amazon Alexa said he had nothing to hide, when i rebuffed with how that phrase has nazi ties he’d gone white.
propaganda is an amazingly powerful thing all you need is a catchy sentence and itll will be repeated years after.
the quite had been used by authoritarian regimes, as i understand it the Nazi’s didn’t use the direct quite as they don’t speak English and things don’t translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.
not to say your wrong as your not just saying that using Nazis as a vehicle to get the point across isn’t completely dishonest, usually best to use a more broad approach like “authoritarian regimes” rather than Nazis
[…] as i understand it the Nazi’s didn’t use the direct quite as they don’t speak English and things don’t translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.
okay so where did you mentioning Göbbels come from, or a speech.
in my original response to you tagging me i had not mentioned Göbbels or a speech but rather than a normal dialogue you put words i had never said in my mouth.
In my original debate I did not tag you because I had the debate with you, but because I used your comment as reference to bring my point across why misinformation crafted like that can fire pretty quick. People will trust a privacy related meme with a text on it and unrelated Snowden interview in the back. The only thing that I brought up to you is what I brought up replying directly to your comment.
the chat with my ex military friend was months ago and this misinformation has been commonly miss-attributed to Nazi propaganda, also i was not saying your wrong rather that most authoritarian regimes have used similar sentiments to meet the same end. in my original comment i had agreed with you and reading prior through this thread i would commend but its frustrating when someone misses the point of my response.
Yes it’s OK, it’s not about you, I was just forming an argument in a different debate where it suited the purpose. I see your point, I was just responding to the part where you said that the Nazis didn’t used to speak English and pointed out again, that it does not matter if the Nazis spoke English or German because the matter is not lost in translation but there is completely no evidence that the speech exists or that Göbbels had this or a similar catch phrase.
In total it’s a common figure of speech being used by many totalitarian regimes or the ones that want to become one. It’s a simple manipulation tactic to shift the blame to the consumer and open the door for corruptive misuse. Which is of course really bad, which also wraps up the whole thing that made me get into this debate in the first place, using manipulative techniques to pull us into the “good side” with misinformation is kinda equally bad/wrong so we can now choose to live in hypocrisy or point out the flaw. I chose pointing out the flaw.
Because it is one phrase in one part of one frame of the entire post.
Yeah it’s wrong. Plenty of people have pointed it out already (you appear to have read the entire thread so you cannot have missed the fact other people have pointed it out as well).
But, as I said, to suggest that that is the most important part of the interview – he fucked up and that is ALL WE MUST PAY ATTENTION TO – is… just wrong. It is, quite frankly, something the NSA would have us to do discredit everything else he says.
Also there are quotes from three or four other people in the entire length of the post. All of which I am pretty sure are accurately sourced. Unless you think Terry Pratchett stole his work from Stalin.
It’s actually two frames and the title of the entire post that points to this conclusion, so yeah… Why are you coming at me with these straw man arguments that the NSA would and take into consideration I believe Terry Pratchett stole from Stalin. What does that have to so with the fact that the claim is neither correct 'nor did he actually say that in the interview.
I have not read every comment, but I’m thrilled seeing your debate there. I’m going to look into it.
Edit: Haha “plenty of people” dude why are you so butthurt and offended about it?
Well I already said multiple times, I’m not arguing against privacy, but the fact this whole post wraps around “i didnt know the origin of the quote” and its not only false but also he apparently didn’t even make that claim in the first place is baffling to me. There are one million and two good arguments for privacy and against the stupidity of the nothing to hide reply, but spreading emotionally manipulative misinformation to create an artificial feeling of a deadbeat argument is not the right approach.
I don’t get why you put so much effort into shifting the view away from half the content of the post instead of just admitting to misinformation or sending sources. There are people out there that see text on a picture with, Snowden interview in the back and actually think it’s legit information. It’s necessary to highlight fact from fiction so people don’t get a wrong sense of reality, which is a problem we are currently facing across the globe.
Just look at this comment from @[email protected]
the quite had been used by authoritarian regimes, as i understand it the Nazi’s didn’t use the direct quite as they don’t speak English and things don’t translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.
not to say your wrong as your not just saying that using Nazis as a vehicle to get the point across isn’t completely dishonest, usually best to use a more broad approach like “authoritarian regimes” rather than Nazis
There is no evidence of this speech nor of Göbbels coining the phrase in any way. It’s not a language barrier problem.
Yea and now your putting words in my mouth. Take it easy
This is the part I replied to.
okay so where did you mentioning Göbbels come from, or a speech. in my original response to you tagging me i had not mentioned Göbbels or a speech but rather than a normal dialogue you put words i had never said in my mouth.
In my original debate I did not tag you because I had the debate with you, but because I used your comment as reference to bring my point across why misinformation crafted like that can fire pretty quick. People will trust a privacy related meme with a text on it and unrelated Snowden interview in the back. The only thing that I brought up to you is what I brought up replying directly to your comment.
the chat with my ex military friend was months ago and this misinformation has been commonly miss-attributed to Nazi propaganda, also i was not saying your wrong rather that most authoritarian regimes have used similar sentiments to meet the same end. in my original comment i had agreed with you and reading prior through this thread i would commend but its frustrating when someone misses the point of my response.
Yes it’s OK, it’s not about you, I was just forming an argument in a different debate where it suited the purpose. I see your point, I was just responding to the part where you said that the Nazis didn’t used to speak English and pointed out again, that it does not matter if the Nazis spoke English or German because the matter is not lost in translation but there is completely no evidence that the speech exists or that Göbbels had this or a similar catch phrase.
In total it’s a common figure of speech being used by many totalitarian regimes or the ones that want to become one. It’s a simple manipulation tactic to shift the blame to the consumer and open the door for corruptive misuse. Which is of course really bad, which also wraps up the whole thing that made me get into this debate in the first place, using manipulative techniques to pull us into the “good side” with misinformation is kinda equally bad/wrong so we can now choose to live in hypocrisy or point out the flaw. I chose pointing out the flaw.
Because it is one phrase in one part of one frame of the entire post.
Yeah it’s wrong. Plenty of people have pointed it out already (you appear to have read the entire thread so you cannot have missed the fact other people have pointed it out as well).
But, as I said, to suggest that that is the most important part of the interview – he fucked up and that is ALL WE MUST PAY ATTENTION TO – is… just wrong. It is, quite frankly, something the NSA would have us to do discredit everything else he says.
Also there are quotes from three or four other people in the entire length of the post. All of which I am pretty sure are accurately sourced. Unless you think Terry Pratchett stole his work from Stalin.
It’s actually two frames and the title of the entire post that points to this conclusion, so yeah… Why are you coming at me with these straw man arguments that the NSA would and take into consideration I believe Terry Pratchett stole from Stalin. What does that have to so with the fact that the claim is neither correct 'nor did he actually say that in the interview.
I have not read every comment, but I’m thrilled seeing your debate there. I’m going to look into it.
Edit: Haha “plenty of people” dude why are you so butthurt and offended about it?