It's just history repeating itself.
Applebaum is probably less worried about his stuff being moved around to harass him and more worried about obtaining new computer hardware and a new place to live at this point. I really doubt that the main purpose of this attack was harassment.
So, if the Stasi does something, and it is the reason they are maligned, and I do the same thing at all to any degree, you're saying I'm on par with the Stasi? Please help me understand your sentence.
>What would it take to put you on par then?
Well, let's back up and look at the sport of golf, where the term "par" is commonly used. If I play the game, I'm golfing. Does that put me on par with Tiger Woods? No. In order to be on par with Tiger Woods, I need to be right up there matching Tiger Woods.
The argument that the _use of a technique_ puts the invaders (whoever they are) on par with the Stasi is fallacious. If you want to use hyperbole, go ahead. But don't claim it's logical just because it feels good.
On the other hand we are stuck in this gravity well, with an adversary with unlimited reach and electronic eyes and ears everywhere. So the comparison may be much less far fetched than we'd like to believe. After all, the GDR had people who just "went along" and didn't mind any of the STASI stuff either; how is our situation any different? Some people not currently directly affected care, but I would guess all that don't, are not currently directly affected... because once this stuff turns on you, you're not in Kansas anymore, I bet you.
Sure, we are talking about one of many components of why the Stasi are maligned.
Basically this is not a "Hitler was a vegetarian; you're a vegetarian" type of scenario. Rather this is a "Hitler wrote a book blaming Jews for everything; you wrote a book blaming Jews for everything" scenario. Yes, writing an anti-semitic book is by no means Hitler's greatest crime, it barely even ranks on that list; but you can be sure it is very central to the reasons that he is maligned.
In other words, harassment by the Stasi is not an incidental attribute of the Stasi. It is one of many defining attributes of what the Stasi were.
As for "par," you're using two different senses of the word. Your analogy could work by acknowledging that par in golf is a comparison to the estimate made by the course designers, not to other golfers. In this way, "on par with the Stasi" is a comparison to the behavior (née "estimate") of that group.
Two mathematicians in different disciplines are both mathematicians, even though their motivations and training are not exactly the same.
Arnold Schwarzenegger? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1002-01.htm You cite that guy as some kind of super centered human? ("even Arnold Schwarzenegger")
Also, where does the power differential come into play? Arnold snagging the shirt from a competitor, that's cute; but try an adversary with a near unlimited budget and arsenal, and many, many, many people. Try being one person, living in a foreign country because you would feel even more unsafe at home.
This, is being a bully. Not as a "human", but as a machinery built of humans (which can take on radically different properties btw). To bring up Arnold is correct in a way, but not because it's "normal" in any sense other than chimpanzees hunting others for fun and profit is "normal". Fuck normal. The question is, do we at this point in time and going forward want that. That is always the question. Some call it civilization, or decency.
And as for being on par with the STASI: http://apps.opendatacity.de/stasi-vs-nsa/english.html
Your argument is kinda that it's not being the STASI because it's being a normal human being. Just pause and think about that. By your logic not even the STASI Zersetzung was actually STASI Zersetzung, because it's just normal individuals doing what normal individuals do. There is nothing you could not justify with that.
Fact is, if you were the target of this, you'd appreciate support, you'd love to see a change. But since you're not, you tell us what Appelbaum probably cares most about. He talks about how he realized how surveillance kills human relationships, how he lost many friends and even his girlfriend because they could NOT stand that pressure.
And you tell us it's not harrassment... just astonishing. Just no.
Where did I do that?
>And you tell us it's not harrassment... just astonishing. Just no.
Again you misread me. It may be harassment, but what was my point about harassment? Read again please.
by saying "even Arnold Schwarzenegger". What does the "even" mean, then?
Another interesting thought is that he actually stole the shirt to demoralize, so for Zersetzungspurposes.
> what was my point about harassment?
That's it's "natural", and therefore not Zersetzung. Not really much of a point if you ask me.
Very important factoid!
Well, he can be worse too, I guess.
And no, the ends do not justify the means. Especially since the ends are shitty in this case too.