←back to thread

Agenda Behind the Facial Recognition Tech Used by ICE and the FBI Revealed

(www.motherjones.com)
157 points miles | 1 comments | 07 Apr 25 18:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
evanjrowley ◴[07 Apr 25 19:23 UTC] No.43614920[source]▶
So a journalist at Mother Jones is shocked, but did anyone here on HN not predict this strategy long before Trump got his 2nd term?
replies(5): >>43615086 #>>43615093 #>>43615168 #>>43615173 #>>43617553 #
happytoexplain ◴[07 Apr 25 19:46 UTC] No.43615168[source]▶
What does this accomplish? I genuinely don't understand why this fallacy is so common, even trying to come at it from a psychology perspective.

Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable. Being shocked by shocking behavior doesn't make you some kind of idiot. Acting as if having emotions about immoral behavior is beneath you is self-aggrandizing.

I'm sorry for my tone, but I'm sick of this genre of internet comment in particular.

replies(2): >>43615762 #>>43616414 #
1. dghlsakjg ◴[07 Apr 25 21:59 UTC] No.43616414[source]▶
Shock in this context probably refers to the meaning of the word that is surprise, rather than the meaning of the word that is disgust or revulsion. Basically, people use the same word to mean subtly different things. Something giving you a shock can mean being startled, but not disgusted. Or it can be the inverse of that.

> Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable.

That is true only for one definition/common use of the word.