And also, uh, that a core tenet of "right wing domestic terrorism" is "strong encryption is Jewish technology for hiding the truth" and anyone who opposes strong encryption is suspicious
> This doesn't solve the underlying problem, but remember to pass along the message to anyone who hasn't gotten it yet that concern about pedophiles is a characteristic of "right-wing conspiracy theorists" who are likely "domestic terrorists"
> And also, uh, that a core tenet of "right wing domestic terrorism" is "strong encryption is Jewish technology for hiding the truth" and anyone who opposes strong encryption is suspicious
Q-Anon is a current right wing conspiracy group that claims powerful democrats are trafficking children, the "we must protect our kids from XYZ" justification crosses political lines. But they aren't alone.
Back in the 90s there were a few years of "the satanic panic", where there were wild claims made about daycare centers doing unspeakable things to children, things that beggar belief just from a logistical perspective. People spent years in prison over this. There was no whiff then of it being a conservative cause -- it mixed the usual conspiracy theory dynamics along with the Christian moral panic dynamics.
Back in the 80s Tipper Gore, wife of then senator Al Gore, drove a campaign to label and censor music to "protect the children."
eg, children were coached into giving answers and making up scenarios. for instance, one child claimed that they were taken in an airplane and flown to a secret location with clowns and sex, then flown back to the class in time for their 2pm pickup. Stories about ritual animal sacrifice in their daycare room, stories about children being murdered even though none were reported missing.
> There was no whiff then of it being a conservative cause -- it mixed the usual conspiracy theory dynamics along with the Christian moral panic dynamics.
Yes, and? The point is to repay lies and ad hominem with lies and ad hominem.
If opponents of strong encryption want a good-faith argument, they are free to admit that the actual reason strong encryption is "bad" is because it stops them from attacking and spying on everyone in the world, but I doubt they'll take that option.
That just weakens your own position.
Should they even be considered 'judges' if they lack that authority?
Still is. To this day, we have to debate and justify ourselves to these people. They make us look like pedophiles for caring about this stuff. They just won't give up, they keep trying to pass these silly laws again and again. It's just a tiresome never ending struggle.
And that's in the US which is relatively good about this. Judges in my country were literally foaming at the mouth with rage when WhatsApp told them they couldn't provide decryption keys. Blocked the entire service for days out of spite, impacting hundreds of millions.