Comment by Quothling

I don't think Overton implied any causality between the phases of the window, just that distinct phases exist and that forces act on the window to cause it to shrink, expand, and shift.

Teddy Roosevelt was the son of a wealthy and famous railroad baron, but he used that upbringing and status to rein in corporate monopolies and bust the oil barons' empires wide open, which started the decline of the gilded age. All that to say, being a wealthy, elite and privileged oil heiress doesn't necessarily mean this person doesn't want to end oil consumption.

(I don't know anything about her.)

If it is, would that bad? Seems like a person who might really have strong personal investment in the situation. Using the oil companies' profits to try to shrink them, seems good.

I suspect their research is as rigorous and valid as their philosophy.

If it’s a “well known tactic” (well known by whom?) then it’s a counter-productive one - the more the extreme is heard in the mainstream, the more rational the slightly less extreme version sounds (It’s something the right-wing tends to use extremely effectively, the left wing spends too much energy infighting)

You do have a valid point but mildly “hurting” (or rather inconveniencing) the justice minister of Denmark out of all places seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I mean he’s hellbent on using 1984 as a guidebook and forcing it on everyone in the EU.

> I have heard this claim before but I find it unconvincing. I have given up support of movements for which activists have acted cruelly or otherwise immorally.

Most people aren't this particular brand of irrational.

The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is a matter of which side of the fence you stand on. They are basically the same thing, especially these days when you get marked as terrorist for talking bad about the people in power.

Two towrers falling, man of the weat warring man of the east, all seeing stones in every mans hand for the kings to see and understand through and a fiery behavioural ring, burning in the dark ready to consume all civilzation in endless war.

> A successful case might be Luigi Mangione.

There have been several public opinion polls that included questions about Luigi Mangione. He’s consistently unpopular among the average population and his actions are generally unsupported. Not at all surprising for an extremist activist who literally committed murder in public.

It’s only when you visit smaller internet bubbles like Reddit where you can start to get into areas where it feels like his actions are widely supported.

A lot of activists are like this: If you go into little bubbles that align with their actions they seem popular. Zoom out and look at the population, including people they were trying to persuade and reach, and they’re not popular like they seem within the bubble.

>A successful case might be Luigi Mangione.

Sorry, but how was that murder successful?

Did it achieve the effect that everyone is getting cheaper healthcare now?

OR, on the contrary, it only achieved that CEOs are now getting more anonymity and private security, while the plebs are getting more invasive law enforcement tracking like Palantir and Flock shoved up their ass to prevent them from doing something like that again?

I don't know about this case, so I can only speak in general.

A lot of times people that say this don't make a strong case that some theoretical more moderate protest would be effective. There is just a feeling that if they personally feel offended by the actions of the protester then it's probably a bad thing.

In reality it's often more complicated. I know some people that are involved with controversial protests, and the effectiveness of their actions is definitely something they think about. It can't be too extreme, that will put people off like you say. But often there is conversations like in this thread, "this protester goes too far, but they do have a point". This moves the Overton window in the desired direction.

The goal isn't too make you like the protester, it's to make you think about the issues.

Worked for the IRA. Working for Hamas. Working for the Islamic Republic.

Cowards would have you believe otherwise, but force is sometimes the only way to get what you want.

It really doesn't matter if you come across as the villain as long as you impose great enough costs for not delivering your desired reality.

> crazy man's personal vendetta. Who can vouch he won't go further and ie won't kidnap a kid to achieve his goals.

You just committed exactly the kind of escalation that you condemn when it's about him.

So what if someone can vouch for him? What's that worth? "Vouching" is worthless in any circumstance I can think of, and nobody can give you guarantees about anything. I can't vouch that you won't do exactly the same, or that you weren't the masked police who raced to the breakers so he's not filmed while breaking the law (innocent people have nothing to hide, right?), or that you're not one of the politicians pushing for oppressive laws for your personal benefit.

Out of curiosity, what is Jesper's strategy?

    > He's been campaigning against big tech in our schools for like a decade

This doesn't tell me much about how he campaigns

    > I'm Danish and lars kragh andersen is a bit of a grey zone. He obviously goes over the line, he tried to put GPS trackers on the cars of ministers. He "stalks" their families, and dox their children online. He gave an interview on how he'd ignore people carrying a kilo gram of weed when he was a cop because he doesn't agree with the "war on drugs".
    > On the flip-side, he's sort of right. I assume that putting a GPS tracker on the car of our minister of justice is illegal, but that same minister (Peter Hummelgaard) is one of the key forces behind anti-encryption here in Europe. Similarily the politicians he stalk and harras are pro Palintir getting access to all our data, so Lars Andersen is sort of giving the politicians a taste of what they want to give everyone.
    > He goes way too far though. Especially if he actually wants change, the way he "protests" is directly damaging his own cause, since nobody is going to sympathise with harrassing children.
    > I suspect next time he'll have his cameras running with backup powers though.

By contrast, I've got a much clearer idea of Lars and his strategies by a description of his actions

I think you and I disagree. I don’t think Jesper is focused on the right issues.

Big tech (private companies who largely just care about profits) and foreign governments (the Americans for example), are way lower on my “things Europe should be worried” about list. They’re there of course, but lower.

Private companies don’t have the ability to ruin your life in the same way your own government does. They just want your money. And the US government is truly a disinterested party. 99% of Americans couldn’t place Denmark on a map (I’m not kidding). When push comes to shove, they fundamentally do not care what happens here.

The real threat is our own governments, who we have given the legal authority to enact all the negative outcomes that will come from totalitarian erosions of privacy and over regulation of individuals. Building up this scary “foreign boogieman” and stoking this moral panic is what is enabling the authoritarian action.

Pointing fingers at Big Tech and the US is a giant distraction tactic so you don’t look at the terrible things our own domestic politicians have done and the fact they have zero plans to do the hard things needed to get us out of this mess. It's just champagne and smiling over dinner, while the old eat the young, the government eats the private sector, and endless legislation eats away your opportunity to do anything more exciting than build powerpoints at a braindead consulting firm.

The police definitely need to intervene, but I'd like to think that playing tit-for-tat with the government is a valid protest, and that this won't result in a loss of freedom.

I guess they need to ascertain whether he's operating organically, or at the behest of another nation, and whether he's scouting out ministers for something bigger in the future.

Though, the irony in all this, is that it all could've been avoided if the government weren't acting at the behest of another nation, and scouting out what they can get away with on their authoritarian warpath. Maybe the police are arresting the wrong people.

By the same standard it would be reasonable to intervene when politicians are indiscriminately interfering with personal communications devices of everyone without any judicial oversight?

Will the police intervene and arrest the ministers when the laws the ministers are enacting result in the same outcome for me?

1984 will be banned as being too inspirational, perhaps?

Why fuss over "unregulated" chemists when the vast majority of harms come directly from officially licensed and regulated industry? I don't think cannabis dealers have ever poisoned entire towns or ecosystems. The facade of regulated safety must be more important.

So prosecute them for those other things, no? Instead of helping criminals grow their business by banning non-harmful stuff and giving them monetary growth opprotunities.

I still don't understand what that has to do with encryption. Are these two separate policy proposals, one for GPS tracking and one for encryption, that this person is supporting?

Hmmm, in context he was(?) tracking a public ministers car.

I'm Australian and I'm all for peeling back and making transparent all the comings and goings of public officials (within reason) - they deserve a good return, a hefty return even, for dedicated public service .. and they deserve to know that there's a hammer waiting for any betrayal of public trust, shady financial dealings (while in office), etc.

As a "known in advance covenant" that's not altogether unreasonable, raises the bar for would be Trumpesque grifters, and allows for privacy for those not seeking access to public offices, trust, and cookie jars.

Lol that's bullshit. There is a difference between "accessible to law enforcement in a official criminal investigation overseen by a judge" and "public to everyone".

What these weirdo hacktivists don't understand is that the voting public wants to live in a society.

They're probably not being sarcastic. Wrong, and ppssibly evil, but not sarcastic. There are some weirdly big Palantir fans on HN. No clue what drives them, but I'm guessing they're not keen students of history.

Why? Seems stupid. Just let people weed.

People who dont pretend it has zero negative consequences as well. I understand the medicinal uses, most people arent even doing that, but we are overlooking so many things. I think someone should fund serious studies that look at all the benefits and negatives, sadly we dont live in a perfect world.

Stalk their children? What policy are you referring to?