Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

77 comments

  • OK so I'm a privacy advocate. I'm pro privacy, pro simplicity and accessibility for none techies. I'm pro Snowden and everything.

    But,

    there is no evidence for this attribution. You can often find it in reader comments and on social media with the source: “Goebbels, speech on the introduction of the GeStaPo 1933”. There was no such speech, nor was there an “Introduktion der Gestapo”, an expression that is completely unusual in German.

    Edit: I actually found the interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flej-73VLW8) but can't even find the spot where he's actually making the claim seen in the picture. What the fuck is this??????

    • I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the post if that is your takeaway from it.

      • No if it's misinformation trying to sell a feeling rather than facts it's actually the right thing to focus on. As I said, it's not like I'm defending the argument, that you have nothing to hide yada yada, I'm not the guy that needs convincing, I'm already trying to convince others.

        • He goes on to say that privacy is the foundation of all other rights.

          Also the actual idea that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is bullshit seems to be quite importance.

          Whether you realise it or not, you are implying that because he got the source of the quote wrong, everything else he said is not worth listening to. That somehow he is invalidated as a source for EVERYTHING HE SAYS because of this one thing.

          Which most peoplew ould fundametnally disagree with.

          • Well I already said multiple times, I'm not arguing against privacy, but the fact this whole post wraps around "i didnt know the origin of the quote" and its not only false but also he apparently didn't even make that claim in the first place is baffling to me. There are one million and two good arguments for privacy and against the stupidity of the nothing to hide reply, but spreading emotionally manipulative misinformation to create an artificial feeling of a deadbeat argument is not the right approach.

            I don't get why you put so much effort into shifting the view away from half the content of the post instead of just admitting to misinformation or sending sources. There are people out there that see text on a picture with, Snowden interview in the back and actually think it's legit information. It's necessary to highlight fact from fiction so people don't get a wrong sense of reality, which is a problem we are currently facing across the globe.

            my friend who is ex military, has a smart house built around amazon Alexa said he had nothing to hide, when i rebuffed with how that phrase has nazi ties he'd gone white.

            propaganda is an amazingly powerful thing all you need is a catchy sentence and itll will be repeated years after.

            Just look at this comment from @squid_slime@lemm.ee

            • the quite had been used by authoritarian regimes, as i understand it the Nazi's didn't use the direct quite as they don't speak English and things don't translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.

              not to say your wrong as your not just saying that using Nazis as a vehicle to get the point across isn't completely dishonest, usually best to use a more broad approach like "authoritarian regimes" rather than Nazis

              • There is no evidence of this speech nor of Göbbels coining the phrase in any way. It's not a language barrier problem.

                • Yea and now your putting words in my mouth. Take it easy

                  • [...] as i understand it the Nazi's didn't use the direct quite as they don't speak English and things don't translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.

                    This is the part I replied to.

                    • okay so where did you mentioning Göbbels come from, or a speech. in my original response to you tagging me i had not mentioned Göbbels or a speech but rather than a normal dialogue you put words i had never said in my mouth.

                      • In my original debate I did not tag you because I had the debate with you, but because I used your comment as reference to bring my point across why misinformation crafted like that can fire pretty quick. People will trust a privacy related meme with a text on it and unrelated Snowden interview in the back. The only thing that I brought up to you is what I brought up replying directly to your comment.

            • Because it is one phrase in one part of one frame of the entire post.

              Yeah it's wrong. Plenty of people have pointed it out already (you appear to have read the entire thread so you cannot have missed the fact other people have pointed it out as well).

              But, as I said, to suggest that that is the most important part of the interview -- he fucked up and that is ALL WE MUST PAY ATTENTION TO -- is.......... just wrong. It is, quite frankly, something the NSA would have us to do discredit everything else he says.

              Also there are quotes from three or four other people in the entire length of the post. All of which I am pretty sure are accurately sourced. Unless you think Terry Pratchett stole his work from Stalin.

              • It's actually two frames and the title of the entire post that points to this conclusion, so yeah... Why are you coming at me with these straw man arguments that the NSA would and take into consideration I believe Terry Pratchett stole from Stalin. What does that have to so with the fact that the claim is neither correct 'nor did he actually say that in the interview.

                I have not read every comment, but I'm thrilled seeing your debate there. I'm going to look into it.

                Edit: Haha "plenty of people" dude why are you so butthurt and offended about it?

77 comments