Edward Snowden Interview: 'There Is Still Hope - Even for Me'
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
> "I think it is this new atmosphere of fear and that it won't change until we, as a public, learn to perform a new kind of alchemy and recognize fear when it is being presented. We need to learn to eat fear, to convert it into an energy that can be used to better a society rather than to terrorize and weaken it."
A huge percentage of the modern news media is fear-based. In the last U.S. presidential election, both candidates were running on largely fear-based platforms (fear of Mexicans on one end, fear of Trump on the other.) Even most political movements emphasize the terrible thing they're afraid of or angry about instead of actual changes that could be made to fix things. This can't be how things keep working.
I'm optimistic that we'll learn this "alchemy," though, for the simple reason that the onslaught of media-terror has become so absurdly intense that people can't help but become jaded. The first time you hear about a murder in your area, it's terrifying; the second time, a bit more expected; what about the tenth? The hundreth? We're being asked to believe in so many terrible things at once that the human mind is just going to give up at some point.
As long as we can lose fear without also losing concern, we'll be alright.
Having said that, I'm only 30, so don't know if the local pattern of rising fear is part of a larger story of less fear (compared to cold war days, for example).
There has definitely been a spike in fear-culture post 9/11.
It's fearing something that causes far fewer deaths than asthma so much you'll throw away the rights that underpin democracy, that's what's crazy; not fear. We won't even ban artificial fragrances, re asthma, much less toss away all privacy.
> As long as we can lose fear without also losing concern, we'll be alright.
I read this as fear being the emotional reaction to a threat, and concern being the rational reaction. You can say "this is a problem, what can I/we/government do to fix it?" without also having to say "OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE", but it needs to be learned. (Which reminds me that the Enchiridion of Epictetus is still on my reading list.)
We like to think others are acting from fear whereas we are merely concerned, other married couples argue but we "discuss", etc. The old joke about this comes from Bertrand Russell and went something like this: "I love children, you are a scout leader, they are a pederast."
Also relevant and always worth it: The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear, 3 part BBC documentary by Alan Curtis.
It's a perfect technique in the age of too much information. Authoritarian regimes of the 20th century were about restricting information - those of the 21st are about creating so much noise that finding truth begins to feel meaningless.
The Russian "firehouse of falsehood" propaganda model:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE10...
I'm interested that he called out the idea of "deep state." He defines it as political forces that outlast a presidency (by that definition of course it exists i.e. any political party), but perhaps the implied element is a secretive nature and power over a president.
I wonder if there's an objective way to answer this.
Annie Hacker: No of course not, silly of me. They're just called the opposition.
James Hacker: They're only the opposition in exile. The Civil Service is the opposition in residence."
Curiously, this dialogue appears in an episode called Big Brother, in which the Minister is trying to add safeguards to a national citizens database.
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was example of single man holding some amount of 'deep state' power.
There justified is fear that increased secrecy in security apparatus in US has started acting in more autonomous way. In the current government the power over WH likely comes mostly from competence difference.
Instead of seeing this as some sort of covert manipulation, maybe this phenomenon is a reflection of just how much people prefer the status quo. IIRC a lot of jurisprudence is based on deferring to status quo. It seems natural that a new president's administration should remind them "hey, listen, we've thought about item Q on your agenda a lot and we can't do it because of X, Y, and Z."
On the other hand, I've shown up on software teams before and asked, "Hey can we try Best Practice X?" -- only to learn that "Yes, we have all thought long and hard about Best Practice X but it Just Couldn't Possibly Apply Here. Also, Dave doesn't care for it." ;)
Very well said. In many ways, Snowden keeps the bar high for what we should aspire to be, and what we can be.
I'm glad he's doing okay though.
I believe he did the world a great favour and history will look back on what he did with kindness, even if so many do not look on it that way now.
iPhone X 623 6 hours ago | 1290 comments
Edward Snowden Interview: 'There Is Still Hope - Even for Me' 74 points 4 hours ago | 16 comments
As they move past from their earthly feelings of shame, whenst they stuck their heads in the sand, now they revel in their vice.