|
PhazonLink posted:isnt Wikileaks also another thing that non regressives used to love but they stopped loving it when it became too hard to ignore that its face, Assange is actually either or both a russian tool and a sexpest guy literally had a documentary made on him that started with the director being a super fan of him, to literally hating him and turning the movie from a fluff piece to one highly critical of him and more pro for the people he hosed over for fame. He also legitementaly raped two woman then holed up in an embassy where he then proceeded to be a loving hermit instead of facing his charges (regardless of the potential for extradition to the us he goddamn hid till statue of limitations hit) and took every bit of goodwill he had and lit it on fire. Including having the embassy turning off his internet and openly hating him because they had ample suspicions he was snooping on their secure channels and many times got them in hot water for openly leaking Russian propaganda. All of this doesn't even get in to how much the people that helped him build up wikileaks got hosed over, including the whistleblowers that he offered no protection to. synopsis posted:The film's original premise was to address the life of Julian Assange, documenting scenes showing "motives and contradictions of Assange and his inner circle",[7] focusing on the risks taken by persons involved in the well-known Wikileaks website, including Assange. The documentary begins in 2010, addressing the judicial measures he came to face on the part of the Swedish authorities, which sought his extradition from the U.K. in 2012. Assange alleges that any such Swedish extradition would have culminated in an eventual extradition to the United States.[8] The opening scene shows Assange (with Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison) calling the U.S. State Department, asking them to step-up security procedures.[9] This segues into a presentation of Assange's angst about the fate of Chelsea Manning and Assange's plans to avoid U.S. capture. The film then presents documentation of Assange's asylum claim, and the disguising of himself to sneak into the Embassy of Ecuador in London for refuge.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:isnt Wikileaks also another thing that non regressives used to love but they stopped loving it when it became too hard to ignore that its face, Assange is actually either or both a russian tool and a sexpest That's all on top of Assange himself being quite a shitbag. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:13
|
|
|
i personally don't think assange should be tortured to death in prison for exposing the crimes of the american empire even if he is credibly accused of being a big ole creep
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i personally don't think assange should be tortured to death in prison for exposing the crimes of the american empire even if he is credibly accused of being a big ole creep I don't think anyone should be tortured to death in prison, but if you do a double rape you should definitely be in there no matter what other things you might have done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:23
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i personally don't think assange should be tortured to death in prison for exposing the crimes of the american empire even if he is credibly accused of being a big ole creep A ton of his condition right now is directly related to his self imposed exile in a room for most of a decade. he legitimately needed way more of things that he was unable to receive there, then was basically persona non grata which is the psychological stuff (not including the well deserved paranoia that he developed mind you) The long term ramifications of no sunlight and no access to regular foods and resources is something that definetly he has. his haggard looks when he was removed compared to even a few years ago was his body basically not getting regular medical treatments or care, then not having any exposure to sunlight for god knows how long. Dude likely has bones equivalent to a 90 year old woman as an example. We also don't really know his diet while he was in there, or if he has had any major tests while in the embassy that are preventative for older men hitting their late 40s. However I don't believe that the brits would willingly just not treat him in prison (mind you I am not British and have no idea about the prison he is in so I DO NOT want to assume). American prisons are goddamn awful and most care gets ignored till its to late then they go to hospital systems that do try their best. In all honesty we don't know his actual medical condition, just letters from outside groups, if possible him releasing his medical records would be a good thing (if it was even allowed again uk differences) to show it was serious and not a ploy which is honestly what many would believe after his track record. Again though his haggard look when he was arrested states otherwise he definitely has had major declines health wise in the last 3 years. There is a ton involved with what is actually going on physically with him, and tons that may be all due to his time exiled in the embassy without proper care, issue is unless records are released its hard as hell to do more then speculate. And no torture is never ok, should he be investigated impartially yes. but at this point the waters so muddy who the gently caress knows what is going on in the justice department. Specially when trump and Pompeo went double down in 17 after the cia leak. Edit: I do realize this is a greenwald temp thread, but a thread about dirtbags that used some level of fame to be just horrible people or always have been but twitter exposed the hell out of them seems like a somewhat novel idea. Assange in particular was someone that everyone thought was in the right for a long time and had many good actions at first. Then turned out to be a massive narcissist that would blow whistleblower covers and made the whole wikileaks org into a thing about him, then sucked on the teat of russia in order to get more info and try and get protection. UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
IMO it's important for channels to exist for whistleblowers to leak contemptible information, those channels are almost always going to be appropriated by countries opposed to the US, I dont particularly give a poo poo about that. Assange is a creepy sexpest who should have ended up in a swedish or australian prison. Everyone, however, knew that the reason those charges were being pursued so vigorously was so they could extradite him to the US to be gulag'd. Well, everyone but the most gullible and the people who lust for whistleblower death (but knew that righteous indignation over the sex crimes was easier to argue in threads). Glenn Greenwald is a contrarian rear end in a top hat. He's done important work up into the modern times, recently signal boosting Ryan Grim's efforts to expose the Massachusetts democratic party for trying to push "CREEPY GAY TEACHER TOUCHING YOUR CHILDREN" tropes to protect an anti-M4A stooge. He is also a 54 year old liberal, which means he has a bunch of lovely opinions. Just as with literally every journalist (and considering the caliber of reporter tweets posted in USPOL, this should already be gospel) and news organization it's important to discern their biases and poo poo beliefs, and ignore them on those subjects. Greenwald on US surveillance? On brazillian fascism? Absolutely worth reading. On trans rights? On immigration? Throw the tweet/article in the trash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I don't think anyone should be tortured to death in prison, but if you do a double rape you should definitely be in there no matter what other things you might have done. no, because 'there' is the torture prison for doing journalism and we don't normally punish people for things unrelated to their actual charge if one finds oneself saying some variant of 'torture is bad BUT' it's a pretty bad sign imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:32
|
|
|
also it does bear noting that assange has not actually been convicted of anything and his stated reason for not wanting to face the charges seems to have been vindicated by subsequent events so ymmv on that point as well
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no, because 'there' is the torture prison for doing journalism and we don't normally punish people for things unrelated to their actual charge tbf the only torture I say should be ok is against child rapists and killers but its a visceral thing for me, especially after time in ems and some of what ive seen in that and dealing with CFS  Do I know torture is wrong? yes, is it a visceral reaction because I loving hate those people? gently caress YES V. Illych L. posted:also it does bear noting that assange has not actually been convicted of anything and his stated reason for not wanting to face the charges seems to have been vindicated by subsequent events so ymmv on that point as well tbf this goes back the muddy water thing to, he hid until the statute of limitations hit, and basically it was all to old to do anything with. The idea that it was all a cia plant to get him and the woman were agents was insane in the first place. Nothing can come from arguing on it though because its been almost a decade since the og charges and accusations and nothing will ever come from it or happen to him on it. UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:36
|
|
|
sure, i agree that the desire to hurt people for being pieces of poo poo is legitimate, but that's part of the reason that bourgeois society has nominally independent courts to deal with this sort of thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:38
|
|
|
As an aside, people seem to express a lot of skepticism over the idea that Greenwald accepts whatever TV appearances he's allowed, and seem to scoff at the idea that United States media would hold biases in a way that would cause them to blacklist Greenwald (or that the blacklist is a moral one resulting from his statements). I would ask those people how Robert Caruso ends up on Reuters, MSNBC, Politico, the Boston Globe, BuzzFeed, Business Insider, the Daily Beast, and a few others to demand we bomb more people, despite having literally no credentials and a history of stalking & abuse. Was it just an oopsie that they didn't vet him in any way/shape/form, or did he provide a convenient voice for their biases? Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 09:56
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Everyone, however, knew that the reason those charges were being pursued so vigorously was so they could extradite him to the US to be gulag'd. Well, everyone but the most gullible and the people who lust for whistleblower death (but knew that righteous indignation over the sex crimes was easier to argue in threads). Can we not treat rape charges as mostly about being political gain? That poo poo doesn't fly with Biden and it shouldn't fly here either. Neurolimal posted:As an aside, people seem to express a lot of skepticism over the idea that Greenwald accepts whatever TV appearances he's allowed, and seem to scoff at the idea that United States media would hold biases in a way that would cause them to blacklist Greenwald (or that the blacklist is a moral one resulting from his statements). I would ask those people how Robert Caruso ends up on Reuters, MSNBC, Politico, the Boston Globe, BuzzFeed, Business Insider, the Daily Beast, and a few others to demand we bomb more people, despite having literally no credentials and a history of stalking & abuse. Are you seriously trying to whatabout people who are complaining about a guy with a decades long history of white supremacy going on the show of known white supremacist Tucker Carlson? What a bad series of posts in this thread, my dude Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 10:13
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Can we not treat rape charges as mostly about being political gain? Me, in the same post posted:Assange is a creepy sexpest who should have ended up in a swedish or australian prison. The sad reality is that sexual abuse and assault is not something that countries extradite famous people for. It's why Roman Polanski, pedophile cretin, for example, has sauntered his way around France and Switzerland without being extradited, despite admitting to what he's done and already being given a fair trial. With that in mind, it was extremely suspect how Sweden & the UK went beyond out of their way to attempt to arrest him, even when the women withdrew their allegations (Which does not mean those allegations were not true). Those suspicions have since ended up justified, seeing as Assange immediately became at risk of being extradited not to Sweden (where he'd be given a fair trial and sent to prison for sexual assault), but to the US (where he has not sexually assaulted anyone, to my knowledge). The comparison is being passively drawn to Tara Reade in your post. The issue here is that I am not saying what anti-Tara Reade posters said ("these charges might be political, therefore Biden should not face reprecussions"). The sexual assault charges in Sweden could be politically motivated for all I care, Assange should still go to Sweden and be tried for sexual assault. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 10:20
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no, because 'there' is the torture prison for doing journalism and we don't normally punish people for things unrelated to their actual charge Good thing I didn't say that, but thanks for intentionally misreading what I did say, which was "If you do two rapes you should be in prison regardless of other factors." Thankfully you were here to remind me that he hasn't been convicted and is therefore still innocent, and explain that his argument that he simply cannot face his accusers because of the threat posed by the US Government is entirely legitimate and "vindicated." Nothing gross about those statements which might want to make someone reconsider dragging another poster for "saying some variant," on something they didn't actually say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 10:22
|
|
|
the latter remark wasn't aimed at you, but at hellmaker, though i understand that this wasn't clear also the focus of the assange case *must* be the case he's undergoing right now, because that's the important thing that we can actually do something about. if the guy's a bad person, that's not actually relevant to the issue at hand, which is that of the british and american governments torturing a guy to death for his role in exposing their crimes. in an ideal world, assange would have a fair trial for the swedish allegations. he fled citing fear that if he was entered into the justice system he would be, effectively, tortured to death for his journalistic activity. now he's in the justice system for skipping bail, and is being tortured to death for his journalistic activity. this, imo, lends credence to his fears that he would not get a fair hearing, even absent the shocking behaviour of the US government in doing stuff like forcing the plane of the head of state of a sovereign government to land and submit to search in a third country in trying to get to him. i make no presumptions about what a swedish court would have found - and nor can anyone else, realistically. i've seen the allegations against assange and they seem credible enough to me to warrant a criminal prosecution. however, saying that the guy the entire western security-political consensus, a force which has wrought immeasurably more damage than any individual could ever hope to, wants you to hate is definitely a rapist based on allegations not actually tested in a court of law is playing the wrong game. if one cannot have a fair trial, then that's the state's problem. it seems reasonable to me to say that assange really was never in a position to have a fair trial given what's transpired since his actual arrest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
Hilariously, Assange is going to end up facing more punishment for revealing torture than the actual torturers will ever face, because the US is a nightmarish shithole of a country. Obama let the Bush torturers off scot free, but Assange will be hounded to the ends of the earth for the dreaded crime of revealing the torturers, who weren't even doing anything that bad according to America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 10:38
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The sad reality is that sexual abuse and assault is not something that countries extradite famous people for. It's why Roman Polanski, pedophile cretin, for example, has sauntered his way around France and Switzerland without being extradited, despite admitting to what he's done and already being given a fair trial. You went out of your way to accuse people who were rightfully upset about a rape of being performatively righteous for purely political reasons, which is exactly the thing that people have done in other threads to those defending Tara Reade. That's gross. Don't do that. He's a rapist, just like Biden. You don't need to use rape to fight forum battles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 10:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's gross. Don't do that. He's a rapist, just like Biden. You don't need to use rape to fight forum battles. Do you propose that he be extradited to the US? People absolutely do latch on to rape and sexual abuse allegations for political reasons. This does not discredit the rape and sexual abuse allegations. I have even reliably said as much in the Tara Reade thread: Neurolimal posted:It's basically impossible to prevent one side from single-boosting harassment/assault cases for partisan reasons. It's a juicy bit of oppo that any sane person would be an idiot not to take advantage of. All you can really do is appreciate the added help. And just as with republicans & democrats boosting rape cases, people who fetishize US military & intelligence power signal boosting Assange's sexual assault case does not discredit the women who he sexually assaulted. If the people who wanted to see Assange behind bars for exposing US secrets had advocated for him to be sent to Sweden with a promise not to be extradited to the US, so that they could get their rocks off seeing Assange behind bars in Sweden, then I would have absolutely no qualms with them, as per my Tara Reade thread post. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 10:49
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Do you propose that he be extradited to the US? I would like him to see justice for his crimes of rape. I don't think the US justice system is something anybody should be subjected to and I'm fine with Sweden promising to not extradite him. That's also not relevant to whether I'm mad about him being a rapist and my motivations for being mad about his sex crimes. Please stop deleting the part where I say what you're doing wrong. quote:You went out of your way to accuse people who were rightfully upset about a rape of being performatively righteous for purely political reasons, which is exactly the thing that people have done in other threads to those defending Tara Reade. You are now going back in time to decide that their anger at rape is being performative but yours is pure and good. That's gross and I'm not going to reply to this further because the topic of this thread is not noted rapist Julian Assange, but rather noted white supremacist Glenn Gleenwald. Who you also implied just happened to take any booking necessary, just a little ooopsy-daisy of a guy who defends white supremacists and holds white supremacist views accidentally belly flopping onto a regualar guest spot on the biggest white supremacist show on TV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Please stop deleting the part where I say what you're doing wrong. It doesn't matter if they did it because they lust for whistleblower death or are saintly angels who just happened to argue for pages on end in ways that would make Fishmech blush that nothing was suspicious. Their personal motives don't change whether they were right or wrong (they were wrong, as we have now seen). If they were right, then their bloodlust would not matter, just as the political affiliation of the people who give rape cases more attention does not matter. It's just additional snark. quote:You are now going back in time to decide that their anger at rape is being performative but yours is pure and good. On the contrary, I don't believe anyone is capable of objectivity. My biases against Biden, and against the kind of people who say, rail against the quantum lives Chelsea Manning endangered, absolutely color my perception. I would like to think that I try to focus on what is factual when it matters, but I'm not narcissistic enough to believe that I succeed (see: snark about attitudes towards whistleblowers). quote:That's gross and I'm not going to reply to this further because the topic of this thread is not noted rapist Julian Assange, but rather noted white supremacist Glenn Gleenwald. Who you also implied just happened to take any booking necessary, just a little ooopsy-daisy of a guy who defends white supremacists and holds white supremacist views accidentally belly flopping onto a regualar guest spot on the biggest white supremacist show on TV. I believe it's both. Greenwald has been blacklisted from major stations and would prefer to reach more people on more stations. He also has a friendship with Tucker Carlson that encourages him to go on when he gets the chance. My point about Robert Caruso isn't whataboutism, it's pointing out that there is no morality behind preventing him & other less objectionable Intercept writers (genuine question because I dont watch much television: how often has Ryan Grim been on MSNBC or CNN? He's broken several major stories and he has no Fox News ties) from appearing on mainstream channels. Because they will evidently platform a crazy unemployed man who spends his spare time alternating between demanding we bomb more countries, stalking & abusing his exes, and threatening the Bruenig family on Twitter, when he is saying things convenient for their biases. He was also on Fox News, in case one believes that was Greenwald's Achilles Heel. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 11:32
|
|
|
Assange is a natural pairing to a Greenwald conversation, I guess. Their most pent up overlap in terms of keeping their respective constituency of defenders was probably russia election interference denialism, which did a lot to get you a fan club ... for a while, at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
He's also an antisemite, if that helps. gently caress glenn greenwald forever, he's a pedo groomerr who wants to see every latinx person dead
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 13:39
|
|
|
Referring to Assange as a "creepy sexpest", rather than what he really is (a rapist), is loving gross. He not only raped women, he then had the audacity to claim that the women accused him for publicity, while in the process of being interviewed by a female documentarian who, until that moment, was sympathetic to him. He may have done important work exposing US war crimes in the Middle East, but he lost all credibility once it became known that he had colluded and collaborated with, and became an asset of, proto-Nazis like Steve Bannon and Roger Stone and god knows who else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:He also has a friendship with Tucker Carlson that encourages him to go on when he gets the chance. It's shockingly easy to NOT have a friendship with an open white supremacist. Unless, you know, you ARE a white supremacist. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
its not great when your defense of greenwald is 'well if only he stuck to talking about the things i agree with him about'
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
Aruan posted:its not great when your defense of greenwald is 'well if only he stuck to talking about the things i agree with him about' It's not really a defence; he has trash opinions and he has good opinions, and it's incredibly easy to ignore his trash opinions & contrarianisms, especially with his self-imposed exile to Substack & Twitter. Same way people can post Matthew Yglesias in USPOL while ignoring his book urging america to breed faster to stave off the perfidious chinese. Or defend Jon Ralston's reporting as he's mid-meltdown over leftists winning in Nevada. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Referring to Assange as a "creepy sexpest", rather than what he really is (a rapist) A sexpest is someone who sexually harasses or assaults, and rape qualifies under assault. It's not beating around the bush, it's attempting to avoid semantics with a catchall "this person is awful in a sexual nature". I think if we've reduced down to faux-outrage that someone is using another for "sexual predator", then Assange's role in the thread's discussion is finished. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's not really a defence; he has trash opinions and he has good opinions, and it's incredibly easy to ignore his trash opinions & contrarianisms, especially with his self-imposed exile to Substack & Twitter. Same way people can post Matthew Yglesias in USPOL while ignoring his book urging america to breed faster to stave off the perfidious chinese. Or defend Jon Ralston's reporting as he's mid-meltdown over leftists winning in Nevada. glenn greenwald has a record of vehemently defending nazis for 20 years on top of all the other abhorrent opinions he holds (and has held for over a decade). you're missing the point - he's not a magic eight ball where you're just hoping you get a good opinion when you shake him, he's a bad person who has bad beliefs who despite that will sometimes have a good opinion. but because he is not the only person criticizing US foreign policy, for example, you don't need to give him any airtime. a useful fascist is still a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:A sexpest is someone who sexually harasses or assaults, and rape qualifies under assault. It's not beating around the bush, it's attempting to avoid semantics with a catchall "this person is awful in a sexual nature". https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/media/the-assange-matter/chronology/ ctrl-f has "rape" show up 8 times. Rape was a specific allegation with a definite legal meaning. "Sex pest" is a vague term with no legal meaning that can encompass a wide range of lesser offenses, or even things that are *bad* and *should be crimes* but aren't. "Attempting to avoid semantics" is an interesting way to characterize avoiding calling out the specific, documented allegations in favor of using terminology that's more vague and euphemistic. e: And no I don't thirst for whistleblower death so let's nip that poo poo in the bud right at the jump. I want the guy punished for any actual crimes he committed, not making the CIA feel bad and dumb (which they are.) sean10mm fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
Aruan posted:glenn greenwald has a record of vehemently defending nazis for 20 years on top of all the other abhorrent opinions he holds (and has held for over a decade). you're missing the point - he's not a magic eight ball where you're just hoping you get a good opinion when you shake him, he's a bad person who has bad beliefs who despite that will sometimes have a good opinion. but because he is not the only person criticizing US foreign policy, for example, you don't need to give him any airtime. a useful fascist is still a fascist. And there have been situations where his reporting or his presence has been invaluable. Like I said, if you can avoid the rabid russia-baiting, china-baiting, rape-apologia, transphobia, and leftist-raging from prominent reporters who populate US journalism to instead link when their journalism is useful, I'm not sure why one is unable to do the same with Greenwald. Is it just duration that is the problem? 20 years from now, will Yglesias' bizarre merger of quiverfull theory and sinophobia make him unlinkable in SA threads? sean10mm posted:https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/media/the-assange-matter/chronology/ Is this really something you need to waste your time on? Assange is a rapist, he raped women. Are you finally secure that I am not a super secret rape apologist attempting to pull the wool over your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It doesn't matter if they did it because they lust for whistleblower death or are saintly angels who just happened to argue for pages on end in ways that would make Fishmech blush that nothing was suspicious. Their personal motives don't change whether they were right or wrong (they were wrong, as we have now seen). If they were right, then their bloodlust would not matter, just as the political affiliation of the people who give rape cases more attention does not matter. It's just additional snark. Are you trying to discuss things with people in the thread? I can't help but notice that even though you're quoting people and acting as though you're responding to them, your actual arguments are aimed exclusively at responding to a nebulous "they" who absolutely positively do not post here on SA. If you're gonna argue with people, argue with the points they're actually making, not with the points you've seen conservatives make on Twitter. Slanderer posted:He's also an antisemite, if that helps. gently caress glenn greenwald forever, he's a pedo groomerr who wants to see every latinx person dead I'd encourage people to include at least specifics when they're hurling around stuff like this. It's vague enough that no one will understand it except those who already agree with you, and heated enough that someone's gonna ask what you mean anyway, so why not just explain it up front?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Is this really something you need to waste your time on? Assange is a rapist, he raped women. Are you finally secure that I am not a super secret rape apologist attempting to pull the wool over your eyes? It's not really about you being a "super secret rape apologist." People's language patterns tend to reflect their thought patterns, and biases like this tend to creep in without the person noticing, especially on subjects such as someone that the person may otherwise feel sympathetic towards or ideologically aligned with. Us calling you out for using softer and more generic terminology when a more specific and accurate term exists is not meant to be "faux-outrage" or some sort of gotcha. We're just encouraging you to call a spade, a spade. Judging by your post history, "rape" is not a term you've been hesitant to use in the past, so you might as well use it here too, to describe Assange.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Are you trying to discuss things with people in the thread? I can't help but notice that even though you're quoting people and acting as though you're responding to them, your actual arguments are aimed exclusively at responding to a nebulous "they" who absolutely positively do not post here on SA. Jaxyon posted:You went out of your way to accuse people who were rightfully upset about a rape of being performatively righteous for purely political reasons, which is exactly the thing that people have done in other threads to those defending Tara Reade. Jaxyon posted:Can we not treat rape charges as mostly about being political gain? That discussion in particular was about my characterization of people who argued that Assange was in no danger of US extradition. "They" is entirely appropriate in that discussion. I was around for the Assange embassy discussions, 'they' absolutely did post on SA, and probably still do. E: Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Judging by your post history, "rape" is not a term you've been hesitant to use in the past, so you might as well use it here too, to describe Assange. And "sex pest" is also a word I've not shied away from, often when describing rapists. I dont have platinum so I cant search through my SA posts for usages, but if we're going to get into a character study of me & my subconcious motivations then I submit this to the docket: https://imgur.com/a/OpBrByH Is that enough for you, or does this need to continue? Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
I am entirely fine with saying that it's worth calling rapists rapists instead of a catchall term which seems to unintentionally downplay the severity of acts such as rape. Sexpestery can be along the lines of casual workplace sexism and objectification, overly huggy senators, etc. I guess the test of it is if you would call brock turner a sexpest and think this is not beneficial to him in some way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:That discussion in particular was about my characterization of people who argued that Assange was in no danger of US extradition. "They" is entirely appropriate in that discussion. i was one of those people and i was absolutely right assange claimed he needed asylum to avoid being extradited from the UK to sweden to stand trial for his rapes, because he could potentially be extradited from sweden to the united states after trial and sentencing for his rapes the obvious flaw in this claim was, as i pointed out ad nauseum at the time: you know what country assange can also (and more easily) be extradited from? the united kingdom. where he was happily living without needing to be holed up in an embassy, up until the rape charges. as a result it was always incredibly obvious that assange's supposed fear of us extradition was a cover to avoid standing trial, because going from the UK to sweden would only have increased the difficulty for the US to extradite him. that argument never required it being the case that the US would not ever seek to charge him with something. it was always obvious that could happen. but assange only suddenly became concerned about that risk when he needed to hide from rape charges. if he was actually terrified of a US extradition request at the time he wouldn't have been in the UK in the first place. how do we know? because the US did eventually request he be extradited from the UK! just like they always could have! evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:also it does bear noting that assange has not actually been convicted of anything and his stated reason for not wanting to face the charges seems to have been vindicated by subsequent events so ymmv on that point as well subsequent events have unequivocally demonstrated that assange's claim to fear extradition as a reason he could not live in sweden, but could live in the UK, was a lie
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i was one of those people and i was absolutely right Thank you for chipping in to prove that I was in fact referring to actual posters and not strawmen, I appreciate that, and hope it's enough for MP. I don't think it really matters whether or not Assange was using fear of extradition to the US as a cover to avoid extradition to Sweden for rape charges. The people who expressed concern that the US would pop in to request his extradition ultimately were proven correct and his fears well-founded, regardless of if he was abusing them to avoid justice. I suppose it could be useful in a discussion on if he was safer from US extradition in Sweden than the UK, but presumably that would first require turning himself in to UK authorities. Also, by the time he was seeking asylum in Ecuador's embassy, I doubt he had any delusions that he was any safer in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Thank you for chipping in to prove that I was in fact referring to actual posters and not strawmen, I appreciate that, and hope it's enough for MP. again, you are mischaracterizing what happened. everyone who believed assange's nonsense was incredibly gullible and was taken in by a lie that fell apart the moment it was looked at. assange claimed, specifically, that being in sweden would make it easier for him to be extradited to the United States as compared to the UK. not that once the UK police arrested him he would be deported from the UK. that's why he demanded as a condition of standing trial he get a commitment from sweden he would not be extradited (a demand that was carefully drafted to be legally impossible for sweden to agree to). there is no question he would have been safer in sweden from US extradition than in the UK. the US and UK have a very close relationship and very similar legal systems. in fact, the UK's legal regime is far more unfriendly to a journalist who leaks official state secrets than the united states is. in the UK it is a criminal act for a journalist to publish leaked secret government information when they had no role in the leak itself, while in the US that is protected by the 1st amendment. so a defense in the UK that extradition was inappropriate because he had no role in the leak and the US is trying to criminalize something that isn't criminal? not going to get you far - it is literally a crime under UK law. sweden, however, does have a constitution that protects free speech (unlike the UK which has no constitution) and so you would be on much stronger grouds opposing extradition from Sweden to the US on the grounds that the US charges were trumped up to charge something that was not actually a crime. the idea that he thought the UK was a safer location than sweden to avoid extradition to the United States is laughable. when he sought refuge in Ecuador's embassy he was indeed no longer feeling safe in the UK because the UK was going to arrest him and extradite him to Sweden. not the US, to Sweden. this was all obvious at the time. people chose not to believe, for the same reason they chose not to believe greenwald was a shithole. assange cooked up the "oh i can't stand trial for rape because im concerned about extradition" because he didn't want to stand trial for rape. there is zero doubt of this, and anyone who believed it was taken in by an obvious lie that could have been (and was) trivially disproved. people believed it because they wanted to believe. it's inexcusable people still believe this nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:subsequent events have unequivocally demonstrated that assange's claim to fear extradition as a reason he could not live in sweden, but could live in the UK, was a lie well, this is correct given a hyperspecific and completely unreasonable interpretation of the positions involved, so i'm not surprised to see it advanced but assange's case pretty clearly rested on his fear of not having a legitimate chance of a fair trial and presumed extradition once he was in the criminal system, which seems to apply both in the UK and in sweden. though i note that they seem content with killing him off in britain due to the legal hassle
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
honestly i prefer to be wrong on the side of not killing people for journalism and then using unrelated alleged crimes to justify it. weird that this is so controversial (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
You mean the completely unsubstantiated claim on the MDP when they said, talk to an attorney if you are creeped out by this guy. The same guy who admitted to dating students much younger than him but that's ok but you don't understand LGBTQ? And then got the wrong student democratic party and said he had the texts to back it up with weird texts that made no sense? Like what 21 year old says I am setting up Alex Morse to get an internship with Neal? You realize this reeks of if its my side its ok right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:39
|
|
