Amazing NSA excuse

[Juan]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:37:23 +0200
rysiek <rysiek at hackerspace.pl> wrote:


> > 	Too bad I simply stated a fact.
> 
> Well, actually, you haven't really stated anything. You just said
> "grarpamp, you're wrong",

	And that, indeed, is a statement. Grarpamp said he was told
	pigs fly. I replied  ¨what you´ve been told is wrong¨.
	<---statement.


 
> without saying anything about in what
> manner he supposedly is wrong, and why you think he is wrong.

	You are right. I didn´t provide any further comment. Just
	like grarpamp did =). 

	Now, as far as I can tell, grarpamp´s statement is meant as
	irony. He isn´t just saying that writting letters to
	politicians ´works´ - he´s saying it in a particular way which
	underscores the message. 

	By saying ¨Oh, I was told this works¨, he actually means ¨this
	definitely works and only idiots would doubt it¨


> 
> > 	Your sarcasm is out of place and the joke is on you.
> > 
> > 	I suggest that you, too, get to the core of political
> > 	theory...and practice
> 
> See, the problem is not that we disagree, the problem is that so far
> you haven't really said anything. grarpamp stipulated that "X" works,
> or so he has heard, you said "nope" and neither of you offered any
> support.

	Again, he just basically stated a falsehood, and ´supported´ it
	by hearsay, If we assume he wasn´t being ironic. 

	Either way, irony or not, he made an unsupported and mostly
	wrong assertion. 

	I replied with an unsupported but correct assertion. 


> 
> I can find some support for grarpamp's stipulation in my own practice
> and history, and while I appreciate your smirk cynicism, saying "read
> political theory" is simply not enough of an argument.
> 

	Except I didn´t mean it as an argument. 

> Not to mention, neither I nor grarpamp said anything on what is the
> exact mechanism of how civil participation works.
> For instance, I
> would be the first to admit that it's not a silver bullet and I'm far
> from the naïve, idealistic view of "politicians really listen to what
> we write"; rather, usually, it's a game of interests, and sometimes
> -- like during the ACTA crisis in EU -- public involvement can be
> just the straw that's needed to change something.

	Ah, OK,. I can agree with that.

	But your position strikes me as rather different from what
	grarpamp said. 

	Whereas you´re saying that some kind of public involvement
	*can* work, and you are correctly noting the nature of the
	political  system (corrupt by design), grarpamp did nothing of
	the sort. 


	

> 
> > > No, please, no need for any more concrete information, I think we
> > > can all agree that at this point it would be hard to not be
> > > convinced to what you so skilfully put forward.
> > 
> > 	bla bla bla - sign some useless petition to your masters,
> > play the politicians´ game. Fancy that you are an oh so great
> > 	activist.
> 
> And your solution instead is what exactly? "Nah, sit on yer arse,
> nothing's gonna change"? That sounds familiar:

	I didn´t say ¨nothing´ gonna chage¨.

	But I´ll say it now : nothing is going to change IF you use the
	´democratic tools´ given to us  serfs  by the ´democratic
	masters´.

	If public involvement means rioting and killing state
	personnel, then we are talking. 

	If public involvment means taking money from the pentagon to
	create an ´anonimity network´ to spy on ¨the west´s enemies¨
	, then public involvement is a bad joke. Counterproductive. Or
	exactly what the powers that be want. 

	
> http://rys.io/en/112
> 
> I am really curious as to what exactly is your reason to even write
> such e- mails?


	Well, at the very least, to correct people like grarpamps, and
	any other people  who either support the american
	government in particular, or support the fuckingly stupid  and
	criminal idea of ¨good government¨ and ¨good politicians¨ in
	general.

	I would have thought that preaching anarchy in this list would
	be be preaching to the choir, but I am not so sure that´s the
	case now.

	
> If you know of a better solution, why not share? If
> there is no solution you can see, at all, why not get on with your
> life of bliss and not- giving-a-fsck? Surely, if civil participation
> can't do shit, your e-mail to this list can do even less!
> 

	Except I didn´t say that civil participation can´t do shit. I
	objected to the particular kind of civil participation that
	grarpamp suggested. 

	Did he, for instance write  ¨I was told civil DISOBEDIENCE
	works¨? and then I shot down his assertion? Nope...