About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 1:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, I support the overall thrust of this article in spades. But I'm alarmed at your bagging of fellow-SOLOists to illustrate your point. I remember the ribbing about X's vocation. It was just that. Ribbing. In jest, as the suggestions indicate: "hooker," "stripper," "spy" etc.. I'm certain no one seriously expected you to spill the beans, let alone thought you ought to do so.

This individual had already struck me personally as not quite right. There was something unusually furtive about him, often an element of mind-games or conspiratoriality in his mail to me. So when you announced you were sworn to secrecy about his profession, I just thought it was par for the course. I was intrigued to think that anyone who wasn't a spy would wish to keep his profession secret, and probably was the source of some lewd hypotheses like those above. But I repeat—at least as far as I was concerned, there was no serious expectation that you would break your vow. Folk were just having fun with it. Why bring this up publicly so long after the event?

Linz

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 3:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

I like your article, but I always sense you live life with your defenses up. Expecting people to disappoint you has a certain way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, half of maintaining privacy, if that is your wont, is not putting yourself in public situations to begin with. I empathize, however, with some of the experiences you describe from the South. Having lived there (small town Georgia) for 5 years from kindergarten through 4th grade, I won't live there  again.

The other thing I notice is that you are a really nice guy, don't try so hard to hide that fact.

Jim


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 6:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

Wonderful article.

Your application of selfishness through assertiveness because it keeps the stress level down is spot on. It is in your own best interest to not live under a lot of unnecessary stress.

Still, the propensity for vicious gossip in small social structures always raises its ugly head. Always has. Always will. That seems to be a part of human nature that needs to be educated with sound principles.

Public figures have a harder problem with all this. I especially like the following quote, having suffered with this all my life, as I am one who has normally sought public exposure (an artist thing):
Such informants had an incentive to snoop and to squeal on their fellow tribe members to curry political favor with those in power—or simply to make themselves feel more moral through vicious gossip.

Such true words.

Note to James. As one who enjoys a very sporadic pleasure of Luke's company - I can assure you that your assessment is correct. He is one hell of a nice guy.

(I'll save the juicy stuff for private e-mails...  //;-)

(Just joking...)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/07, 1:34pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 1:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

I too see the erosion of privacy as an assault on liberty. But unlike you, I see it as an institutional, rather than a personal threat. Although I am sort-of a "geek", busy-bodies intruding in my social relations never threatened me as much as institutions. If I was ever socially assaulted as you were, I would have easily compared sex to drugs; "you haven't dropped acid? You don't know what you're missing! You've never done crack! Just because I didn't go to a gay, pedophile, brothel in Thailand doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed life as much as you!"

If you're date is asking, in essence, if your are a "slut", and you're indignant over being asked the number of your sex-partners, its easy enough to say, "how many liaisons do you define as too promiscuous for your interest? How many have you had? Will you hold me to a double-standard?" That shifts the burden of privacy back to the enquiring party, where the burden belongs. I agree that, if you're not romantically interested, there's no reason to answer such questions. The same with other, vocational or social affiliations.

But rather than your quote "People who mind other people's business do not have good enough business of their own to mind." I would say, "friendly people with friendly intentions don't set friends up to humiliate themselves". Honestly answer "That's a no-win question! If I say few, you laugh and say I'm inferior; if I say many, you laugh and say I'm a slut!, So either explain you're notions of sex as a frivolous pass-time, or as a social-sacrament, otherwise, just go f' off asshole!".

I believe honesty is always best. After a few encounters like that, you'll be left alone, with whatever people of wisdom and honor happen to be around. If there are none, you're better of moving elsewhere.

I am planning on writing an essay on privacy on a blog I will (hopefullly soon) start. But its theme is going to be, "If you're not guilty, what have you got to hide?" Plenty!!!

Why don't you discuss government poking into you're bank account? Poking into you're medical records? Business and employers poking into private matters - like medical records? Even grocery stores, Walmart, keeping track of pharmacy as well as other purchases? Credit card companies? Internet service providers keeping dossiers on surfing? Even you're own G.D., M.F. car keeping track of how fast you go, and how fast you stop, to testify against you! Your cell phone able to be remotely started to record you, your On-Star able to be remotely started to bug you and track you, you're Dentist looking at you're dental records, and reporting busted-teeth to the police for spouse abuse (I recently asked my dentist why I had to sign a privacy-waver; I'm not married; I don't have a spouse - he gave a lame answer).

Why should I be forced to testify against myself? Do I lie to the bank, getting a fake ID? Do I lie to employers about the Prozac? Or about the congenital disease? Do I lie at Walmart? To Visa? Do I disable the car's data-logger? Do I surf through an encrypted proxy-server? Should I post with a pseudonym, so my employer won't fire or discriminate, if I'm not the right political gender?

I think you missed a great opportunity to rant ad-nausea about institution evil that enslaves us. Corporate busy-bodies, bribed or hacked by private investigators, pose an extreme threat. Black-lists that trash credit, et. Gossip by assholes never scared me near as much as institutional oppression by fascist bureaucrats!

Once I worked in a small town fixing military radios, and I'd go to work and hear people chatting about what I discussed with my parents on my phone the night before. I got sick of that B.S. Hopefully soon, I'll be selling non-linear junction detector kits, or plans, that is if the FCC or NSA doesn't stomp me down.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 3:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott, my short answer to your post is that I can readily do much more about social snoopers than I can about institutional ones.  As for the latter, the book How To Be Invisible by J.J. Luna outlines methods for insitutional privacy for those who want it that badly.  I do appreciate the "snappy comebacks to snoopy remarks" you suggested and will keep them in mind for the next time I need them against social snoopers.

I have no easy answers to the creep of institutional snoopers at the corporate and government levels.  Your observations corroborate my central thesis that snooping has its roots in human tribalism and evidently remains ingrained in human nature.  We should feel no surprise that the most powerful also have the greatest ability to snoop with impunity.

My point remains the same: Most people seem not to accept the basic premise of civil decency, "None of your business."


Post 5

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 7:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Instead of "That's none of your business!" try "How DARE you ask such a question!?!?".

Scott,

your == of you
you're == you are

When you use these two words randomly then what you write frequently makes absolutely no sense. At minimum it slows the reader and increases the probability of summary rejection due to illiteracy.

Post 6

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 7:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

What is the point of this? 

your == of you
you're == you are

When you use these two words randomly then what you write frequently makes absolutely no sense. At minimum it slows the reader and increases the probability of summary rejection due to illiteracy.

Absolutely makes no sense...illiteracy.  Why the gratuitous insult  for someone who created an intelligent, interesting post?  I'm sure he knows the difference, his only sin, in all probability, was that he didn't proof read.


Post 7

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 7:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

The chief of a larger tribe needed to employ religious mythologies to enforce moral codes when he could no longer keep an eye on all those within the tribe.
I have long been suspicious of this line of thought.  It is too cynical.  If the chief wanted to enforce rules he could have and more probably did employ a police force or an intelligence agency, not a religion.  I agree with Rand and others that religion was man's early attempt at philosophy.  The State became involved only after religion captured the imagination of the masses.


Post 8

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Luke. Interesting article!

I've been successful with this response: "Why would you ask me that?"

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually, Robert, I'm pretty sure that that's how it got done in many if not most cases (I'm being careful here because in this we haven't narrowed it down- we're looking basically at all people/all time/all religion). Here's why, it's Jospeph Campbell 101, really (read his stuff, I'm just throwing down the big chunks). First, you have to understand the evolution of the subjects of myth from the earliest times on out. First, the objects of worship were mainly animals (think cave paintings)- animals were mysterious, powerful creatures, non-humans that man lived among (and often had to eat, which goes to hunting rituals, etc.). Next, it was cosmology, and this is probably where you want to start screwing into it. Depending on case, you might be dealing with pure celestial gods, god-men, or god-animal hybrids. Somewhere around this point, what you saw was the elevation/integration of rulers; they were merging with the whatever local god(s). The local ruler assumed the role of god's representative on earth- he was the local rep :), and this got bought into bigtime, mainly because there was a lot of theatrical stuff that got done to support it (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain- at the high end,  things like where they'd engineer hidden mechanical devices to make thrones rise, fires start, temple doors open, you get it). Word spreads of this kind of power, and shit runs downhill like in any organization. People weren't always as afraid of fucking up for communal (or personal) reasons as they were for supernatural ones. Pissing off the earthly local demigod is bad enough, and without question it points to the possibility of really pissing off the Big Dogs.

So, yeah, no doubt- I can see it. Why bother tying up valuable resources when you can use what to your average local was not recognizable as paranoia, but consequences. And, of course, this was supported by interpretation of omens and so forth (think of the prophets as the marketing dept.) that, go figure, supported whatever the agenda needed supported.

See, I'm a religious person, but it doesn't mean I don't recognize the same evils that occured through organized, politicized religion. Basically, I view it as a top-down management fuckup situation. Here, take a look at even a basic concept about equatorial religion that Campbell speaks of to see how far and for how long bad things can get done:


…In those zones, furthermore, the common sight of rotting vegetation giving rise to new green shoots seems to have inspired a mythology of death as the giver of life; whence the hideous idea followed that the way to increase life is to increase death. The result has been, for millenniums, a general rage of sacrifice through the whole tropical belt of our planet, quite in contrast to the comparatively childish ceremonies of animal-worship-and-appeasement of the hunters of the great plains: brutal human as well as animal sacrifices, highly symbolic in detail; sacrifices also of fruits of the field, of the first-born, of widows on their husbands’ graves, and finally of entire courts together with their kings.  The mythic theme of Willing Victim has become associated here with the image of a primordial being that in the beginning offered itself to be slain, dismembered, and buried; and from whose buried parts then arose the food plants by which the lives of the people are sustained.

 

 

So, not that anyone around here needs any more grim reminders, but that just reinforces how much power you can yield, either by mistake or intention.

 

Just my .02

 

best,

rde


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

In post #3 Scott used your and you're a total of 18 times. Eight of those usages were incorrect. Such a percentage is not a simple matter of lack of proof reading. Even if it were, such carelessness shows a lack of consideration for the reader.

My practice is to ignore such things for quite a while but eventually my patience wears thin and so I comment.

If that sort of thing doesn't bother you, fine. Just ignore my pointing it out.

Post 11

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

your such a stick in the mud.

Ethan

EDIT Emphasis added for the comically challenged.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 11/08, 1:17pm)


Post 12

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 2:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You sure your not really working for CHAOS, Ethan?

Post 13

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

Watt are ewe infrring about the weigh we due are ciphering? Your going to give us the paranoids. Just on hackount of how we right donut makes us dumb. Your hat tack is underpreciated.


rde
I'm watching you, Dawe...


Post 14

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You sound just like a rocker, Rich - be careful else you'll be revealing yourself...

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 5:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

In post #3 Scott used your and you're a total of 18 times. Eight of those usages were incorrect. Such a percentage is not a simple matter of lack of proof reading. Even if it were, such carelessness shows a lack of consideration for the reader.

My practice is to ignore such things for quite a while but eventually my patience wears thin and so I comment.


My sincere and profound apologies! I will increase my efforts to deal with "your/you're" as well as my use of "there/their/they're", and my apostrophes, which I systemically screw up too.

Funny, its not because I don't know better, I just start typing and that's what comes out, and the spell-checker of course doesn't stop me. Some sort of subconscious thing. But I know it can be damn annoying and detracts from read-ability, as well as reducing my credibility.

So thanks,

Scott

Post 16

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

Your observations corroborate my central thesis that snooping has its roots in human tribalism and evidently remains ingrained in human nature. We should feel no surprise that the most powerful also have the greatest ability to snoop with impunity.


What is the nature and essence of busy-bodies? People that need to snoop almost certainly are subjectivists, playing what, in Transactional Analysis, Berne would call a "game". The canonical game is "mine is better", so such people are no doubt motivated by envy, either in search of dirt, or to find out if they're "normal" or not by the experience of others.

Institutionally, the busy-body bureaucrats are playing NIGYYSOB (Now I've Got You, You Son Of A Bitch). When everyone is cheating on their taxes, making insider stock deals, and pushing the envelope in an arbitrary legal environment, knowing who can be prosecuted for political ends is political power.

What scares me most, is that as politicians and police get better at monitoring wealth with computers and databases, they will get better at passing regulations and contriving crimes and fines to extort it.

Scott

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott Stephens wrote:
My sincere and profound apologies! I will increase my efforts to deal with "your/you're" as well as my use of "there/their/they're", and my apostrophes, which I systemically screw up too.

Attaboy, Scott, that's the spirit!

BTW, it's "systematically."  :-)

REB


Post 18

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 9:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know, Roger—he may have a systemic problem! :-)

Scott—exemplary reaction to some valid criticism. Someone pulled you up legitimately, and you took it in exactly the right spirit.

Linz

Post 19

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 6:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/09, 9:01am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.