|
The Kingfish posted:Who is honestly arguing that we give Wikileaks “our unshakable trust and faith in every context . . .”? 90% or more of the arguments in this subforum come from people disagreeing on something and assuming that disagreement is because the person holds the opposite belief.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again, the question: How do you know they are? And if we're going to bat for Wikileaks, why does Assange's personal and very open biases not color those leaks including refusing to leak certain groups that directly benefit him? Why do Assange's character traits get handwaved in this one case? How do you define 'Snowden level stuff'? Other than literally stuff leaked by Snowden. It seems like in the same post where you admit being wrong upthread you're glossing over a ton of assumptions about what is valid to consider regardless of passing through a "tainted, known biased source" and what isn't valid? Clearly, only Snowden level stuff clears that bar. It seems entirely self justifying to me. I'm not asking this question as any sort of "own", but: do you believe Tara Reade was assaulted by then Senator Biden? If so, why do you find her story credible despite it passing through similarly "tainted, known biased sources"? If not, why does she fall short of the Snowden criteria, as you define it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:How do you define 'Snowden level stuff'? Other than literally stuff leaked by Snowden. It seems like in the same post where you admit being wrong upthread you're glossing over a ton of assumptions about what is valid to consider regardless of passing through a "tainted, known biased source" and what isn't valid? Clearly, only Snowden level stuff clears that bar. It seems entirely self justifying to me. I'm not asking this question as any sort of "own", but: do you believe Tara Reade was assaulted by then Senator Biden? If so, why do you find her story credible despite it passing through similarly "tainted, known biased sources"? If not, why does she fall short of the Snowden criteria, as you define it? I do believe Tara Reade. Do you believe Anna Ardin? Or Miss W? I was wrong about the strength of the evidence, but if we're going to call out Biden's OBVIOUS sexual predatory ways, we don't get to ignore Assange's, let alone the fact that a man who is openly saying "I know what I want to do with leaks I get, because it fulfills my personal goals against people I dislike." is going to be a trustworthy source anyways? Now we have to look at the leaks from the perspective that they are not just freely given, but that the man who handled them had an underlying motive other than "Provide free and accessible transparent information about those in power" It taints the evidence. Let alone that it also came from a source with a known goal of interfering in an election to swing it for their benefit. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I do believe Tara Reade. Do you believe Anna Ardin? Or Miss W? I didn't say anything about Assange, who I am not defending in any way. You didn't answer my question, which is how do you define Snowden level credibility? Reade didn't have video of her claims, like Snowden did. So where's the bar? ram dass in hell fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:I didn't say anything about Assange, who I am not defending in any way. You didn't answer my question, which is how do you define Snowden level credibility? Reade didn't have video of her claims, like Snowden did. No, I think you need to address it, because Assange and Wikileaks are one in the same effectively. If you get to banter on about Biden being a rapist, which he is, tainting everything he's done, you don't get to change the scope with Assange. And again, we're talking about the fact hat Wikileaks, under Assange's leadership, handled the leaks that Assange openly said he hoped would do something in his favor because of his personal, not professional, beef with the Clintons, and then went as far as to accept leaks from a Foreign Intelligence agency also with the known goal of affecting an election in their favor, Clintons poor choice as a candidate not withstanding? How do you deal with a source that is openly saying they are doing this for a very personal reason, not the transparency Wikileaks claims to be doing. Why does Assange being a rapist change nothing here but Biden being a rapist changes everything? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, I think you need to address it, because Assange and Wikileaks are one in the same effectively. If you get to banter on about Biden being a rapist, which he is, tainting everything he's done, you don't get to change the scope with Assange. And again, we're talking about the fact hat Wikileaks, under Assange's leadership, handled the leaks that Assange openly said he hoped would do something in his favor because of his personal, not professional, beef with the Clintons, and then went as far as to accept leaks from a Foreign Intelligence agency also with the known goal of affecting an election in their favor, Clintons poor choice as a candidate not withstanding? I'm not bantering on about Biden being a rapist. I brought up Tara Reade specifically because she was forced to take her story to outlets like RT after being shut out by the more acceptable american press. You believe her claims despite them passing through biased and unreliable filters. You still haven't defined the Snowden criteria in any way other than your personal feelings of what is and isn't valid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:I'm not bantering on about Biden being a rapist. I brought up Tara Reade specifically because she was forced to take her story to outlets like RT after being shut out by the more acceptable american press. You believe her claims despite them passing through biased and unreliable filters. You still haven't defined the Snowden criteria in any way other than your personal feelings of what is and isn't valid. Her claims are easier to believe than "I got these leaks from the FSB and I'm just giving them to you, by the way I hate the Clintons and want Trump to win" is tainting in a different way than a public court of opinion. Snowden's criteria was that he openly leaked documents with the intention of exposing some very dangerous trends in Federal Surveillance programs. It was self-sacrificial, he didn't really say he had any biases against the Obama admin when he did it, it was just "These programs suck and nobody is listening internally, so I gotta let the public know." Assange is "I hate the Clintons and want to do anything in my power to ensure they lose a major election, including both taking leaks from a Foreign Power AND then protecting said foreign power from other leaks about them in a tit-for-tat arrangement". And this is not me calling you out or anything this is me going "This is incredibly fishy and we should be concerned about Assange's personal biases both to the information he's sharing and the sources he's getting them from". But also he's a rapist and has been largely documented as a sexpest for a while. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But also [Assange] is a rapist and has been largely documented as a sexpest for a while. Not only that, he openly joked about it and went so far as to suggest (jokingly, of course) that his accusers just wanted publicity. It was, notably, the point where Laura Poitras, who was originally sympathetic to his cause and was interviewing him for a documentary series, realized what an unrepentant monster he was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again, the question: How do you know they are? And if we're going to bat for Wikileaks, why does Assange's personal and very open biases not color those leaks including refusing to leak certain groups that directly benefit him? Why do Assange's character traits get handwaved in this one case? This is a hypothetical question, no? Are there specific Wikileaks documents that have been disputed as false? If so, I’m not aware of them (though I don’t claim to be an expert on these documents). If not, then why this push to cast doubt on the veracity of Wikileaks? In the absence of some claim that Wikileaks is publishing false documents , why should it matter to me if Assange is a nasty little freak?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This is a hypothetical question, no? Are there specific Wikileaks documents that have been disputed as false? If so, I’m not aware of them (though I don’t claim to be an expert on these documents). If not, then why this push to cast doubt on the veracity of Wikileaks? In the absence of some claim that Wikileaks is publishing false documents , why should it matter to me if Assange is a nasty little freak? As someone already shared previously, Wikileaks itself is becoming a reflection of what Assange is, and others in this thread have linked to some very sketchy Twitter posts that wikileaks made. Is that a reliable source? If the guy running Wikileaks is a toxic sexpest semi-techbro, we cannot take his leaks at face value. Yes, a lot of the leaks are probably legit, but now we have to comb through and confirm rather than assume Wikileaks is being an unbiased source of transparent leaked data. Wikileaks is not just something Assange stood up then let fly free, its his product and he shapes what it is. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
I think you're all getting too granular about the WikiLeaks situation in general. The point of the leaks was to do things: 1) Flame fans of distrust about the Clinton and implicate her in the death of a staffer. Even if the leaks weren't about that, the point was that she was covering SOMETHING up. So while the emails were relatively benign, the point was tank Clinton. 2) Push negative media about Donald Trump out of the media cycle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Which rapist are you referring to here? Biden? Trump? Putin? Help me out. Considering you are in this thread demanding definitive proof of wrongdoing by an unrepentant rapist's platform while also being a person that peddles 9/11 conspiracies you might need help that I don't have professional qualifications to give
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I think you're all getting too granular about the WikiLeaks situation in general. The point of the leaks was to do things: And it really knocked those out of the park. That much didn't really require the content of the leaks to be sinister, whether falsified or not, or complete or not. People who chose to use them as reasons why Hillary had to be stopped or excuses to avoid discussing Trump seldom talked much about actual leak content without filtering it through multiple layers of editorializing by Wikileaks and third parties until there was some sensationalist headline with little backing by the leaks themselves. We saw the same thing with the whole email server scandal. Remember how the showpiece examples of "classified information found on Hillary's private email server!" were things like....a private citizen who knew Clinton personally sent her an excerpt of a New York Times article, and the content of the article was still classified despite being national news in public media? But that wasn't important to the narrative that she couldn't be trusted not to leak secrets to our enemies or that anyone else in her position would have been jailed for years rather than getting some stern HR sessions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I do believe Tara Reade. Do you believe Anna Ardin? Or Miss W? Sounds like he’s being transparent in his biases, which is what all media sources ought to do. Assange is a shithead rapist but focusing on that instead of the leaks seems like an “ad hominem” attack
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
lil poopendorfer posted:Sounds like he’s being transparent in his biases, which is what all media sources ought to do. That's not transparency. That's motivation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 03:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's not transparency. That's motivation. His dislike for Hillary was the motivation, him disclosing that as the reason for providing the leaks is transparency
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
lil poopendorfer posted:His dislike for Hillary was the motivation, him disclosing that as the reason for providing the leaks is transparency If I recall correctly, and I could be wrong, that didn't come out till later. He was very much dressing up the leaks as some legitimate thing rather than his personal vendetta helped by a foreign power's intelligence service. But at the end of the day: The leaks didn't tell us much other than people say lovely stuff on private emails. What they did do was help spread fudd about Clinton at a critical time in a planned way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If I recall correctly, and I could be wrong, that didn't come out till later. He was very much dressing up the leaks as some legitimate thing rather than his personal vendetta helped by a foreign power's intelligence service. The DNC emails conspiring to stop Bernie was a huge revelation, to me at least. But I’ll accept that to be a matter of opinion and leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 03:31
|
|
|
Thanks for coming around, CommieGIR. Please consider there may be other adjacent topics that you may benefit from reconfirming.CommieGIR posted:Yes, a lot of the leaks are probably legit, but now we have to comb through and confirm rather than assume Wikileaks is being an unbiased source of transparent leaked data. Why would anyone do this with any source for critical subject matter (appliance manuals, etc., aside)? (E: that is, why wouldn't you confirm anything alleged that is of import) Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 08:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If I recall correctly, and I could be wrong, that didn't come out till later. He was very much dressing up the leaks as some legitimate thing rather than his personal vendetta helped by a foreign power's intelligence service. Ok, but how does it being a personal vendetta helped by a foreign power's intelligence service impact the veracity of the actual information? Why is intent relevant here? Of course the goal was to make Clinton look bad, but also the leaks really did make Clinton look bad. If she and the DNC had simply been less lovely then it would have been significantly harder to make the look lovely. You're not mad the DNC was overtly taking sides in what was billed as a fair political process (and, at the time, many scoffed that it wasn't even a bad thing, because Bernie Sanders IS NOT EVEN A DEMOCRAT), you're mad they got caught doing it by someone you personally dislike. Alternatively, if the intent behind the decision to reveal information is what matters, then probe this guy for maliciously leaking my posts Somaen posted:Considering you are in this thread demanding definitive proof of wrongdoing by an unrepentant rapist's platform while also being a person that peddles 9/11 conspiracies you might need help that I don't have professional qualifications to give
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Ok, but how does it being a personal vendetta helped by a foreign power's intelligence service impact the veracity of the actual information? Why is intent relevant here? Of course the goal was to make Clinton look bad, but also the leaks really did make Clinton look bad. If she and the DNC had simply been less lovely then it would have been significantly harder to make the look lovely. You're not mad the DNC was overtly taking sides in what was billed as a fair political process (and, at the time, many scoffed that it wasn't even a bad thing, because Bernie Sanders IS NOT EVEN A DEMOCRAT), you're mad they got caught doing it by someone you personally dislike. The veracity of the actual information cannot be verified. It came from the GRU. There is no way to tell which emails are real and which might be doctored or fake, and if any have been omitted. That is reason enough to view it with extreme suspicion. Would you trust a mediator that leaked information about, say, China or Russia, if the information was revealed to have come directly from a hacking operation performed by the CIA? Would you say "well, the CIA is obviously not trustworthy, but the material seems legit, which is all that matters"? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you wouldn't. It's also worth noting that Wikileaks didn't simply release the trove without ceremony or commentary, as one might expect an impartial mediator to do. They were in communication with the Trump campaign about how to maximize its impact. https://theintercept.com/2017/11/15/wikileaks-julian-assange-donald-trump-jr-hillary-clinton/ You might think impartiality doesn't matter, but Wikileaks itself would disagree. The DM they sent to Trump Jr was particularly revealing:  They were desperately trying to improve their perception of impartiality, while cooperating and strategizing with one side behind the scenes, which they then openly lied about. Much like... the DNC, which you seem to be mad at for preferring Clinton over Bernie. It goes even further. Assange didn't simply want to hurt Clinton. He also wanted something in return from Trump for his help:  And we're supposed to trust the accuracy and authenticity of leaks this guy publishes? C'mon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Yeah, you really gotta stop pretending WikiLeaks is some impartial transparent org. They haven't been for before 2016.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, you really gotta stop pretending WikiLeaks is some impartial transparent org. They haven't been for before 2016. No one is saying wikileaks is impartial. At most *some* people are saying their willingness to own their partisan bent makes them more trustworthy than the people who desperately try to lie about their partisan bent (i.e. the democrats).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:No one is saying wikileaks is impartial. At most *some* people are saying their willingness to own their partisan bent makes them more trustworthy than the people who desperately try to lie about their partisan bent (i.e. the democrats). They weren't willing to own their partisan bent, though. They were trying real hard to give the perception of impartiality, because, unlike the "some people" you are referencing, they understood that being openly partisan is a strike against one's credibility when it comes to information mediation. See my post above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:The veracity of the actual information cannot be verified. It came from the GRU. There is no way to tell which emails are real and which might be doctored or fake, and if any have been omitted. That is reason enough to view it with extreme suspicion. The democrats could have easily denied or shown counterfactuals for the leaks, but they chose not to, and the leaks were perfectly in line other scandals like Brazile providing debate questions to Clinton, or the Clinton campaign bailing out the DNC in return for final say on hiring decisions. Having the existing belief that the DNC were a bunch of partisan crooks was the rational, well evidenced position. Also, to turn the question around, if you *do* believe the CIA reports on places like China why do you then disbelieve Wikileaks? E: Afterall, the CIA is hardly impartial. Its definitely a partisan organization with a long history of lying to further its aims. Why is it trustworthy to report on other nations when you distrust Wikileaks because of its partisan associations with a state intelligence agency? At what point do you have to just say 'USA good, Russia bad' as your justification? Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:The democrats could have easily denied or shown counterfactuals for the leaks, but they chose not to, and the leaks were perfectly in line other scandals like Brazile providing debate questions to Clinton, or the Clinton campaign bailing out the DNC in return for final say on hiring decisions. Having the existing belief that the DNC were a bunch of partisan crooks was the rational, well evidenced position. I believe this is called Glomar Response ("We can neither confirm nor deny"), and its incredibly common with leaks, especially in the era of hacking and ransomware. Its often better to just not even address the leaks because then more questions will get asked than you likely have answers to give. Its the advice I give a lot of my clients who get ransomwared. Its easier to address this stuff legally when you are not opening your mouth to insert your own foot. You be transparent about the leaks happening but otherwise let your legal team handle the interactions. Plausible deniability goes a long way. But at the end of the day, the conclusion is: Wikileaks is not an unbiased source, nor is it transparent. As the Tweets Wikileaks made with Don Jr. showed, its incredibly biased and while a lot of their early leaks changed the game for whistleblowing, it quickly got turned into a personal tool of vendetta by Assange. Anything around that time or after needs to be treated as tainted and requires enhance skepticism to approach analytical. Nix Panicus posted:At what point do you have to just say 'USA good, Russia bad' as your justification? Oh c'mon we already addressed this: If the CIA did this, it should ALSO be treated with extreme skepticism. Combined with Assange being a vendetta seeking rapist, there's a lot of baggage you have to deal with. And again: Assange went to bat for Russia later, outright protecting them from whistleblowing leaks because he sought to benefit from the relationship with them. If he had done the flipside and done the same with the CIA, I'd also be calling foul. At this point arguing we are doing this is a whataboutism. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Alternatively, if the intent behind the decision to reveal information is what matters, then probe this guy for maliciously leaking my posts In the thread that I linked you insist that CIA did 9/11 to invade Afghanistan for that sweet heroin money with bizarre evidence-less justification, but defend Wikileaks as impartial despite their history of defending a far-right dictator who they are accused of working for and a history of leaking documents by their secret services that have a history of doing that and inserting fakes in the leaked information as a matter of policy. Why do you peddle conspiracies against the CIA uncritically and are twisting yourself into a pretzel defending a platform run by a rapist that is used as a secret service press service? Help me out here Somaen fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Sure, but given the context we know now, that the DNC wasn't a neutral organization during the primary, why would you not be more disposed to believe the mountain of emails demonstrating that the DNC wasn't a neutral organization? You're acting as though the source of the information matters more than the content of the information
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:The democrats could have easily denied or shown counterfactuals for the leaks, but they chose not to, and the leaks were perfectly in line other scandals like Brazile providing debate questions to Clinton, or the Clinton campaign bailing out the DNC in return for final say on hiring decisions. Having the existing belief that the DNC were a bunch of partisan crooks was the rational, well evidenced position. Can you... think about this for a moment? It would actually have been enormously stupid for the DNC to come out and say "well, these emails here are indeed authentic, but these other ones here have been doctored/fabricated." Not only was the matter under FBI investigation, such point-by-point confirmation/denial would have led to even more questions, and nobody who was receptive to being swayed by a leak like that would have believed the DNC counterfactuals anyway. If your response to the criticism of inability to verify the veracity of hacked information is "well, the victim can just prove that it's fake!" then you're a bit naive. There's also the fact that the release of the leak was timed in such a fashion to make planning a coordinated response difficult, if not impossible, it being so close to the election and all. That's the main reason it was effective: not because they were accurate or confirmed people's existing opinions regarding DNC's partiality, but because it served to change media headlines from whatever Donald scandal was being discussed at the time, and the Trump campaign seized the opportunity to signal-boost it. Nix Panicus posted:Also, to turn the question around, if you *do* believe the CIA reports on places like China why do you then disbelieve Wikileaks? E: Afterall, the CIA is hardly impartial. Its definitely a partisan organization with a long history of lying to further its aims. Why is it trustworthy to report on other nations when you distrust Wikileaks because of its partisan associations with a state intelligence agency? I think it's a bit unfair to "turn the question around" if you don't answer it yourself first. Unless you concede that my guess was correct.  But what I was getting at is that, at least personally speaking, I don't believe "CIA reports" regarding things like the Uyghur genocide, because I don't have access to such reports. If you mean stories and articles in the media that have been traced to the CIA, I'm not aware of any. There have certainly been plenty of such claims and accusations, particularly from tankies, but as far as I know, nobody has demonstrated a direct and credible tie from, say, an Uyghur refugee to the CIA.Nix Panicus posted:At what point do you have to just say 'USA good, Russia bad' as your justification? Well, we're talking about media criticism and literacy, right? Specifically, the issue at hand is the importance of being able to independently verify information we come across in everyday life, and to judge its credibility based on various factors, such as the level of partisanship of the mediator and the reputation of the source. Blatantly partisan mediators deserve more scrutiny, and sources that have a reputation for and experience in propaganda should be viewed with extreme suspicion. The incident we're discussing combines the two. Somaen posted:In the thread that I linked you insist that CIA did 9/11 to invade Afghanistan for that sweet heroin money with bizarre evidence-less justification, but defend Wikileaks as impartial despite their history of defending a far-right dictator who they are accused of working for and a history of leaking documents by their secret services that have a history of doing that and inserting fakes in the leaked information as a matter of policy. Why do you peddle conspiracies against the CIA uncritically and are twisting yourself into a pretzel defending another state's secret services? Help me out here Yeah, this is pretty loving weird. And I don't think it's fair to bring up, since it's a) on topic and b) not even from another subforum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Can you... think about this for a moment? It would actually have been enormously stupid for the DNC to come out and say "well, these emails here are indeed authentic, but these other ones here have been doctored/fabricated." Not only was the matter under FBI investigation, such point-by-point confirmation/denial would have led to even more questions, and nobody who was receptive to being swayed by a leak like that would have believed the DNC counterfactuals anyway. If your response to the criticism of inability to verify the veracity of hacked information is "well, the victim can just prove that it's fake!" then you're a bit naive. It would have been enormously beneficial to the DNC if it could have pointed out even a single leaked document as a fake. They didn’t even claim any of the documents were faked. The line has always been that the documents could have been fakes. It was just fast talk to keep gullible Dems from looking into what the party was up to and cause unwarranted skepticism of the leak’s contents. Also, referring to the DNC/Clinton/any of these people a “victim” is disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Given that this was planned in coordination with the opposing political opponent: Yeah, it's warranted to call it an attack at least And also given that it was done for the benefit of a geopolitical rival like Russia, using their intelligence services, if this had been CIA would you be defending this as much?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And also given that it was done for the benefit of a geopolitical rival like Russia, using their intelligence services, if this had been CIA would you be defending this as much? I’d be just as interested in the information if it was credible. In the end, what you learn is much, much more important than who it comes from, as long as who it comes from is included in your analysis. If we’re thinking from an academic perspective Wikileaks had been enormously useful for students of diplomatic and domestic political history; as primary sources go it’s hard to overstate what a treasure trove they’ve provided.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Given that this was planned in coordination with the opposing political opponent: Yeah, it's warranted to call it an attack at least If the CIA leaked internal Russian documents through Bellingcat* and the Russians didn’t claim those documents were inaccurate? I would assume the documents were accurate. *just a hypothetical; not trying to start a derail
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Also, referring to the DNC/Clinton/any of these people a “victim” is disgusting. This is an utterly bizarre piece of criticism. In common vernacular, people who are the targets of successful attacks, such as hacks, are victims. There's no need to put the word in scare quotes. Your usage of the phrase "these people" does quite a lot of work, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Given that this was planned in coordination with the opposing political opponent: Yeah, it's warranted to call it an attack at least Precisely this. It was confirmed that the Russians and Wikileaks were colluding with the Trump campaign. How people can pretend Assange is a journalist is beyond me. This wasn't the Washington Post publishing information that's important for the American people to know - it was a single rogue actor motivated by personal animus working in collusion with a hostile foreign state and a political campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
Fancy Pelosi posted:Precisely this. It was confirmed that the Russians and Wikileaks were colluding with the Trump campaign. How people can pretend Assange is a journalist is beyond me. This wasn't the Washington Post publishing information that's important for the American people to know - it was a single rogue actor motivated by personal animus working in collusion with a hostile foreign state and a political campaign. All that may be true, but it doesn’t speak to the value of the information he published, much of which was so valuable the Washington Post and other outlets republished it. The criticisms of Assange echo the criticism of Ellsberg, a point Ellsberg himself has made. Reactionaries don’t often know they are reactionaries, but you are perfectly plugged into a reactionary defensive pattern that has a long history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
I don’t see what the source has to do with the information—if the claims are true, you have to deal with them regardless of who makes them. It’s not like an issue of framing where a news source massages a meaning into events through analysis and selective focus. Perhaps a person tries to destroy America by telling it something about itself: I don’t see how the ethical response is to ignore that information by saying, “they only want to destroy America, therefore I cannot acknowledge this.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I don’t see what the source has to do with the information—if the claims are true, you have to deal with them regardless of who makes them. It’s not like an issue of framing where a news source massages a meaning into events through analysis and selective focus. Perhaps a person tries to destroy America by telling it something about itself: I don’t see how the ethical response is to ignore that information by saying, “they only want to destroy America, therefore I cannot acknowledge this.” And that reaction is literally baked into the system, thus the admonitions for undergrads who wanted to go into foreign service not to read the cable leaks, despite those leaks being the single greatest archive of their expected work product to be released in the modern era.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
Criticizing Assange does not automatically make you a reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Criticizing Assange does not automatically make you a reactionary. Automatically discounting information because it was tainted by the Red Menace does though
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:11
|
|