| |
TrippOdomFirstPaper 3 - 11 May 2018 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
On Confronting the Opposition | | The version of Moglen’s narrative that is needed now is not one which blithely insists that liberty is more important than the perceived benefits of centralization. What is needed is a vision of liberty so forceful that it inspires an active and aggressive desire to sacrifice that other world of safety, progress, and convenience for the possibility of something more. It is for the purpose of developing such an aggressive ideology that thorough and genuine appreciation of opposing arguments is necessary. | |
> > |
I don't think this is in fact about me at all. I'm not sure why
casting the ideas expressed as a criticism of my failure to confront
some objection to my arguments helps. Someone having ideas like
mine could also have the ideas being expressed here, but I don't.
And whether those ideas are compelling on their merits, or for some
other reason, has nothing to do with whether I ought to hold them in
order to respond to an objection.
So I think the best route to improvement of the essay would be to
remove me and my work from it altogether, and express whatever the
idea is here net of the idea that I should have had it. In that
form, I gather it would stand for the advantage of having "an
aesthetically pleasing form of terrorism in the name of digital
liberty," with which to displace a negative, dark and aesthetically
(I don't know what, "displeasing") form of terrorism currently being
used to campaign against digital liberty.
Another route to improvement, I suppose, would be to discuss my
ideas. I think it's less interesting—probably not a
completely idiosyncratic view on my part—and it's harder.
That's because discussing my ideas is not the same as discussing
something I am alleged to have left out. The Snowden lectures were
not about terrorism because Snowden wasn't about terrorism. (Those
are the much longer lectures from which the Guardian pieces were
condensed; the length of the condensation, 10,000 words, was
chosen by my editor, the Guardian's editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger.
Why he wanted to run the pieces so long is a long historical story.)
What I am writing now is not about terrorism, either. It is fine,
so far as I am concerned, for other people to write about terrorism,
and to either use or reject my ideas in connection with whatever
they write about terrorism, but that doesn't mean I must do so too.
To discuss my ideas, then, is to grant them the context in which
they exist, as well as whatever context you might also want to put
them in. It is not sufficient to say that the major fault of my
writing is that it isn't the writing you would have done if you were
writing about my subject.
| | Response - Joe Bruner |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |