GHFigs
There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant.
If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult.
If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.
But what color are they going to paint the shades?
The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. Hoffer argues that even when their stated goals or values differ mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable. Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam.
When you find a metaphor that works for you, the "rules" become rather intuitive. Lately I think of my information consumption habit as something of a diet: Eat when you are hungry. Stop eating when you are full. Stock only enough food for your anticipated needs. Favor nutritious foods. When possible, share meals with friends and family.
You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many warranted searches useless.
Pedophiles (or more specifically: child pornographers) routinely use strong cryptography and effectively nobody cares.
The confounding thing with stimulants of all varieties is that even people without any problem tend to report improvement.
"They" in this case is the chief of a metro police department, whose forensic and surveillance resources are more often spent on pedophiles and drug dealers than terrorism. What else would they say?
If the article's authors wanted a "what about the terrorists?" quote they would have gone to a counter-terrorism official, just like they rang someone at the DEA for a "but drug organizations!" quote.
You're reading a paint-by-numbers article about government impotence and corporate supremacy like it's finely crafted pro-government propaganda.
Let's hope the public will see through their manipulative talking points.
You (and most HN commenters) didn't. Why should they? e.g.:
a) "Beyond lobbying the companies, there is little law enforcement can do without congressional action."
b) "A half-dozen police and federal officials interviewed said that Apple, in particular, was taking an aggressive posture on the issue."
When you take away the outrage-kindling, the gist of the article is that the stodgy old Washington government is incompetent and hip California tech companies are glorious. Not exactly a controversial opinion among the commentariat.
This "okayness" is something people determine by looking at their community and peer group, not by looking at statistics. It's the same effect that causes the middle class to buy houses and cars that it can't really afford.
In practice, many low-wage workers already get these resources, but via the government (i.e. your taxes) rather than the company.
0. Are you sure you didn't just misunderstand what was being said?
there is essentially no evidence that actions are unaffected by beliefs and viewpoints
1. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. I was responding to a post that specifically refers to "unacceptable viewpoints", not unacceptable actions. It's the refusal to make a distinction at all that is unsettling, especially when it's being described as the proper heuristic for determining whether someone is above scrutiny or not.
and that's precisely what you're asking us to uncritically accept
2. I'm not asking you to uncritically accept anything. I'm stating my personal unwillingness to uncritically accept the notion that thinking the wrong thing or having a minority point of view ought to itself a punishable offense. A person's merit is not the sum of the popularity of his beliefs.
It's deeply unsettling that you refer to beliefs and viewpoints instead of speech or actions, and moreover that a person's political views are only to be scrutinized if they're minority views.
Kind of makes you wonder what value the The Intercept is adding, doesn't it?
Do you include William Binney, 30 year veteran of the NSA, in that cohort?
Conveniently, you've also accurately described what happens when someone expresses concern about negative side effects of new social rules.