On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:58 PM Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... > Because seriously folks, I am not going to sit idle and watch you corrupt > the tenets of openness and transparency, with authoritarian methods to > squelch opposition. > > And to pre-empt the response that there are no such thing going on; that's > what all such systems claim when introduced. Always a so called noble > purpose. > Niclas, That is also what people claim when they AREN'T using authoritarian methods to squelch opposition. And frankly, some authoritarian systems claim to be authoritarian systems when they are introduced. Your pre-emptive response can be used to preemptively declare anybody guilty of anything simply because they deny it. Your response is the essence of not assuming good intent. > > Those that sacrifice freedom for security, deserves neither freedom nor > security. What about people who lie about their religion on official documents for social or commercial advantage? Should those same people be assuming bad intentions of others?
