National Standard Spring/Summer 2001
This is a FANTASTIC list, and extremely well-sourced. Here are the 10 pro-NSA arguments which get demolished:
- NSA surveillance is legal.
- If I’ve done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide. So why should I care about any of this?
- But the media says the NSA only collects my “phone metadata,” so I’m safe.
- Aren’t there are already checks and balances in our system to protect us against NSA overreach?
- But I trust Obama (Bush, the next president) on this.
- But don’t private companies like Facebook already have access to and share a lot of my personal data? So what’s wrong with the government having it, too?
- All this surveillance is distasteful and maybe even illegal, but isn’t it necessary to keep us safe? Isn’t it for our own good? Haven’t times changed and shouldn’t we acknowledge that?
- Terrorists are everywhere and dangerous.
- We’ve stayed safe. Doesn’t that just prove all the government efforts have worked?
- But doesn’t protecting America come first — before anything?
I’ve got 0, perfect color vision it says, nice, specially since i am quite short-sighted :)
"We live in a society in which monogamous pairing is the norm.
We’re taught to desire and seek one other person – namely, our “soulmate,” the one person who will make us whole and happy. And supposedly, when we find that person, we will no longer have desires for others.
This kind of thinking is what Dean Spade calls the “romance myth” – the heterosexual monogamous romance that all women should naturally desire.
Because we are socialized in a culture that teaches us that monogamy is right and natural, monogamy is often not a conscious choice for people, but is more of a default for how to be in relationships.”
- an educational article that is important in the times when mono-normativity is just another platform for discrimination, even less critically assessed than hetero-normativity.
“The key rhetorical device for TED talks is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony (an “epiphimony” if you like ) through which the speaker shares a personal journey of insight and realisation, its triumphs and tribulations.
What is it that the TED audience hopes to get from this? A vicarious insight, a fleeting moment of wonder, an inkling that maybe it’s all going to work out after all? A spiritual buzz?
I’m sorry but this fails to meet the challenges that we are supposedly here to confront. These are complicated and difficult and are not given to tidy just-so solutions. They don’t care about anyone’s experience of optimism. Given the stakes, making our best and brightest waste their time – and the audience’s time – dancing like infomercial hosts is too high a price. It is cynical.
If we really want transformation, we have to slog through the hard stuff (history, economics, philosophy, art, ambiguities, contradictions). Bracketing it off to the side to focus just on technology, or just on innovation, actually prevents transformation.
Instead of dumbing-down the future, we need to raise the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us. This is not about “personal stories of inspiration”, it’s about the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconceptualisation: the hard stuff that really changes how we think. More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins.
At a societal level, the bottom line is if we invest in things that make us feel good but which don’t work, and don’t invest in things that don’t make us feel good but which may solve problems, then our fate is that it will just get harder to feel good about not solving problems.
In this case the placebo is worse than ineffective, it’s harmful. It’s divertsyour interest, enthusiasm and outrage until it’s absorbed into this black hole of affectation.
Keep calm and carry on “innovating” … is that the real message of TED? To me that’s not inspirational, it’s cynical.”