RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Nothing to hide

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Quick Question[edit]

Seems like something that could be merged with poisoning the well. It presupposes the person is doing something wrong if they don't let people dig through their personal life which the person usually feels they must defend themselves from. As in to "pre-provide any information that could produce a biased opinion of the reasoning" (from link). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's more relevant to our privacy article but I don't see enough content here for a merge. Just delete it. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Examples needed[edit]

Article could use examples spotted in the wild. MaillardFillmore (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to steal borrow some from Wikipedia.Wikipedia ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh[edit]

People apparently want their articles bland and full of tiny subsections. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is extremely short, so it can do with expansion if you have a problem with the subsections. LEFTYGREENMARIO 22:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I already expanded it and now people are making it shorter. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like that. It just looks like they're organizing the information into relevant sections. Not sure why splitting "Moral concerns" into small subsections is necessary at this point, though. Government overreach is too small and less coherent, so I'm going to merge it again. LEFTYGREENMARIO 22:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
B/C proprivacy =/= prolibertarian. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 23:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
We're not making the assumption that supporting privacy means you support libertarian views. The paragraph encompasses a variety of arguments used against "nothing to hide". There's no need to split it into sections to showcase it. LEFTYGREENMARIO 23:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Why mix separate args? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Why construe being mentioned in sequence in one paragraph as 'mixing separate args'? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Shorter. And blander. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
We're not mixing, we're just using a general section, where paragraphs and transitional wording are enough to separate different ideas. As I said, no need for subsections until the paragraphs and subjects themselves become too big to remain as one section. LEFTYGREENMARIO 23:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly, I believe AgingHippie's revision you pointed out as "shorter and blander" is much clearer to me, but I tried adding in some unsubtle snarkiness. LEFTYGREENMARIO 23:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The argument is commonly made in an explicitly or implicitly accusatory fashion towards a person or group referred to by the second person. I dunno why the argument can't have any second person in it, beyond AgingHippie's personal dislike of the word "you" being used in articles. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The response[edit]

'So you will not object if I arrange for surveillance of #you# - including your bedroom and bathroom activities.' 109.147.90.115 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)