"This imbalance (of usable knowledge on an institutional level) is a palpable problem, not just for Graeber, but for us all. Whether it’s prosecution for the three felonies a day we are all alleged to commit, or mere public humiliation, the risk of abuse by means of knowledge (and the lying pretense of knowlege) is a real engine of fear."
Clearly a politically-biased article. No facts at all, not even bothering to look for them, but a clearly the government is out to get him. And everyone.
Well, it's not like the police and the state don't do "revenge harassment" for tons of people, from journalists and activists to artists, and hasn't done that historically far before McCarthy and Hoover.
From "This Lennon guy speaks against Vietnam war, let's revoke his visa", to "talk to his boss and create commotion to get this guy fired, he's a commie", to "he refused to cooperate with the TSA, let's show him who's the boss here", to far worse.
But if you start with the assumption that such things don't happen or only happened "in the past" (perhaps because of a few bad apples), everything sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. Mainly this stems from a lack of historical knowledge and perspective, so people cannot estimate correctly how possible (and frequent) those kind of events have been (and how little concrete proof is usually available, until decades later, when those things get declassified or a leak happens). They try to comprehend them armed with mass media news reports and school level history knowledge.
There's absolutely nothing "intellectually gratifying" about this story.
That's not to say it's not possibly important, just that it's not the right place for it. Reddit and many other sites offer discussion of this kind of thing. Very few sites offer quality discussion of hacking/startups, and if this one fills up with politics, there'll be one less.
Did you vote for it because it's fascinating and interesting and you learned something new, or because it angers you and you want to get the message out?
Since you seem to say, with your earlier comment, that this kind of thing is "nothing new", what is new and interesting about it to you?
If I get a bunch of teenage girls to sign up to HN so they can vote up Justin Bieber stories, is that evidence of Justin Bieber being intellectually gratifying?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying in this case, the OP is inferring an awful lot from a couple of tweets. Call the guy and ask him what happened!
If it is true as alleged, this sort of article does a disservice to him and what he's working for (to me). I look at something like this and see someone who has messed up and is blaming someone else. There is a "technicality" involved but it can't be mentioned apparently. A technicality would normally be something very specific that would be easy to mention, I would think.
On the other hand, I'm sure a bunch of hysterical people will be linking this on facebook as proof that the man is out to get them.
It says he wasn't on the original occupancy as he wasn't born when the paperwork was originally handled but was one when the building was finished and moved in. He claims when he tried to get on it in the past via his mother the coop stalled until she was dead.
Is this some sort of rent-control problem? Where his parents lived in a rent-controlled apartment and passed it down to him improperly? (I have no idea how rent-control buildings in NYC work, this is the only that makes any sense without details)
I wish this article had more evidence. It's really hard to evaluate the claims either way.
What makes me skeptical is that there's no obvious motive for this. Imagine if you're one of those people that happens to be super rich enough to be part of the 1%. The OWS people probably just seem like ants to you. You might not take kindly to them, but you probably have other things to do with your time, especially since this is well after the movement (basically) failed. This sort of petty revenge seems like the kind of thing that happens when you have nothing better to do, it's high school politics, so I just have trouble imagining the motive. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just don't see the evidence yet.
If you'd like to learn more context, he wrote _The Democracy Project_. (He's fine with people downloading it.) There's also a wealth of videos of free talks he gave. For instance, you might reconsider your premise that Occupy "failed" — where did you learn that, and why do you believe it?
>What makes me skeptical is that there's no obvious motive for this. Imagine if you're one of those people that happens to be super rich enough to be part of the 1%. The OWS people probably just seem like ants to you. You might not take kindly to them, but you probably have other things to do with your time
That's very hypothetical. In actual life, in modern history, people have been targeted for participating in such actions (and even for far less).
And it's not like the 1% is involved itself, or even knows about it directly.
The role of the police and various state agencies, as they perceive it (and as their budget and higher policy orders allow them to continue to foster that perception) is to stomp people like those, to "maintain order". They are "un-american", "troublemakers", etc.
22 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 40.1 ms ] threadFrom "This Lennon guy speaks against Vietnam war, let's revoke his visa", to "talk to his boss and create commotion to get this guy fired, he's a commie", to "he refused to cooperate with the TSA, let's show him who's the boss here", to far worse.
But if you start with the assumption that such things don't happen or only happened "in the past" (perhaps because of a few bad apples), everything sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. Mainly this stems from a lack of historical knowledge and perspective, so people cannot estimate correctly how possible (and frequent) those kind of events have been (and how little concrete proof is usually available, until decades later, when those things get declassified or a leak happens). They try to comprehend them armed with mass media news reports and school level history knowledge.
Here are the guidelines, folks: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics". It's not like someone posted some trivial Republicans vs Democrats story.
You also missed the part where it says: "Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups.".
Do they find this story interesting? Well, it was upvoted to the first page, wasn't it?
There's absolutely nothing "intellectually gratifying" about this story.
That's not to say it's not possibly important, just that it's not the right place for it. Reddit and many other sites offer discussion of this kind of thing. Very few sites offer quality discussion of hacking/startups, and if this one fills up with politics, there'll be one less.
Isn't that something for the voting HN members to decide? And haven't they decided already?
Since you seem to say, with your earlier comment, that this kind of thing is "nothing new", what is new and interesting about it to you?
If I get a bunch of teenage girls to sign up to HN so they can vote up Justin Bieber stories, is that evidence of Justin Bieber being intellectually gratifying?
Well, looks like it got [dead]ed in any case.
On the other hand, I'm sure a bunch of hysterical people will be linking this on facebook as proof that the man is out to get them.
https://twitter.com/davidgraeber
It says he wasn't on the original occupancy as he wasn't born when the paperwork was originally handled but was one when the building was finished and moved in. He claims when he tried to get on it in the past via his mother the coop stalled until she was dead.
Of course it also happens to other people to, naturally, but if those kind of things start happening en masse...
Is this some sort of rent-control problem? Where his parents lived in a rent-controlled apartment and passed it down to him improperly? (I have no idea how rent-control buildings in NYC work, this is the only that makes any sense without details)
[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/nyregion/occupy-movement-w...
What makes me skeptical is that there's no obvious motive for this. Imagine if you're one of those people that happens to be super rich enough to be part of the 1%. The OWS people probably just seem like ants to you. You might not take kindly to them, but you probably have other things to do with your time, especially since this is well after the movement (basically) failed. This sort of petty revenge seems like the kind of thing that happens when you have nothing better to do, it's high school politics, so I just have trouble imagining the motive. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just don't see the evidence yet.
Incidentally, Aaron Swartz recommended Chomsky's _Understanding Power_, which provides some general context. (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/epiphany)
That's very hypothetical. In actual life, in modern history, people have been targeted for participating in such actions (and even for far less).
And it's not like the 1% is involved itself, or even knows about it directly.
The role of the police and various state agencies, as they perceive it (and as their budget and higher policy orders allow them to continue to foster that perception) is to stomp people like those, to "maintain order". They are "un-american", "troublemakers", etc.