Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
/c/[email protected] - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
/c/[email protected] - General memes
The origin of the quote is not Goebbels.
Someone else has traced the quotation to a novel by Upton Sinclair in The Profits of Religion (do a books.google.com search for the phrase and you will find it.
In short, it is highly unlikely that Goebbels said this. As is usually the case with such quotations, no one who cites it provides a source.
Randall Bytwerk, expert in Nazi propaganda (Prof. Randall Bytwerk)
Eh. I still think "bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality" was said by Stalin :)
I don't know about the quote in question, but I do find it quite absurd when people still feel the need to distance the American government from the Nazis, when it is a well documented fact that the actions of the former inspired and shaped the latter with systems that either still exist in one form or another, or have left a horrific legacy (Native American reservations, the prison industrial complex, racial wealth gaps, to name a few off the top of my head).
This is all in reference to the government.
All a person if they care about privacy from the government, you'll get most yes. All them if they care Google sells anonomized data about what they are searching for, and most won't give 2 fucks.
For most people they would be happy with strong protections from the government buying private data if they actually were presented the argument in a way they understood.
And that's why nobody listens to privacy advocates, this type of shit.
Upton Sinclair also referenced a similar argument in his book The Profits of Religion, published in 1917 :
Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends — people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." My answer was that a study of many labor cases had taught me the methods of the agent provocateur. He is quite willing to take real evidence if he can find it; but if not, he has familiarized himself with the affairs of his victim, and can make evidence which will be convincing when exploited by the yellow press.[2]
It really comes down to trust, or the lack thereof. People don't trust their governments and governments don't trust their people. I think this mistrust originates from governments so often being imposed on the people, rather than the government being subordinate to the people. If the government were truly subordinate to the people, I don't think privacy would be nearly as much of a concern.
Is it just the government?
I am trying to think if your neighbours would rat you out to other groups.
Having seen how "the gentlemen of the press" behave, I can easily believe there are people who would guard their privacy jealously to protect themselves from the feckless bastards who are "brave crusaders for justice and freedom".
Nothing to do with the government. Nothing to do with breaking the law, or even coming close. Just because they have no desire to see their lives on the front pages of every paper and their personal lives made so much fodder for the public.
This makes sense on the face of it, but trust is fleeting. Let's say we do establish trust in a democratically elected government and allow them to 'violate' our privacy for the common good. Who's to say the next elected representatives are just as trustworthy? If the laws and systems we create allow for violation of privacy in the long term they will be abused at some point.
Well, I think there's much more to making a government subordinate to its people than just electing representatives, especially if our options for representation are limited. I'm talking about a more radical departure from the status quo, about making the people the ultimate authority.
Not sure how that works exactly but I'll still want my privacy from "the people." if there is the potential for abuse there will be abuse, I'd rather limit the data leak right at the source.
I'm not necessarily opposed to privacy rights, but it would ultimately be the government that would have to enforce those rights, so how do you ensure that the government adequately enforces your privacy rights and that there isn't any possibility for abuse?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
This shit right here is why I'll never trust them. You'd be a fool to.
Who would you be more suspicious of? A neighbor who always keeps their blinds closed? Or the neighbor who always peeks out of their window?
Or the neighbor ~~who always peeks out of their window?~~ who insists that they must be allowed to stick a periscope through everyone's blinds and have a look around?
I dunno. I wouldn't make assumptions and would keep my wifi password secure and keep my blinds closed either way.
People who say this seem so very unwilling to practice what they preach and abandon their privacy.
According to this the idea was coined even before WWI
Can't believe Goebbels would stoop so low as plagiarism
😄👏👏