4 ms·

Yes. Because Julian Assange is free to come and go as he pleases. And of course Edward Snowden is happily drinking cocktails in Hawaii. And Glenn Greenwald's p

Yes. Because Julian Assange is free to come and go as he pleases. And of course Edward Snowden is happily drinking cocktails in Hawaii. And Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda was never detained at freedom-loving Heathrow airport. Chelsea Manning posts freely and regularly on her blog. See also Jeremy Hammond. Also Aaron Swartz. Also Daniel Elsberg. Also Lavabit. Also... Ok, sorry for the sarcasm. Maybe literally they don't physically attack your house with black helicopters. But they will bring the full force of the legal system on top of you backed up by threat and/or use of physical force. And the tendency you describe is I think more properly denoted "whataboutery"? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery

mikeash 11y ago
David Miranda is alive and free. I won't defend what was done to him, but if that's on your list as among the worst anti-freedom things the government does to its enemies, we're doing great.
- jabgrabdthrow 11y ago
  An honest debater attacks the strongest points, not the weakest ones. All you've done is given the parent comment the experience to make all examples in a list roughly equally bad.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The principle of charity has nothing to do with honesty. I agree that it's generally a good idea, but it is unrelated to being "an honest debater." Maybe you should apply it yourself and respond to my strongest points instead of my weakest ones.
    - pessimizer 11y ago
      1) Not replying exclusively to the weakest example given in a series of examples has a lot more to do with honesty than charity. 2) You only made one point, and that was the only one responded to.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        1) How so? 2) My one point wasn't responded to at all.
ryanlol 11y ago
While I agree with the general sentiment here, I fail to see the relevance of the last three names. Even though I'm infinitely appreciative of his work with RECAP, in the end Swartz was just some guy that killed himself because he was too scared to go to court. Ellsberg had his charges dropped and is a free man. Levinson just broke the law for no apparent reason. (Snowden absolutely expected that email to be compromised)
aaronem 11y ago
You seem to suggest that a government which doesn't behave in accord with your wishes is illegitimate thereby. It's hardly unique these days, but one might hope nonetheless to see you stop short of treating it as something to be proud of.

mikeash 11y ago

David Miranda is alive and free. I won't defend what was done to him, but if that's on your list as among the worst anti-freedom things the government does to its enemies, we're doing great.

jabgrabdthrow 11y ago
An honest debater attacks the strongest points, not the weakest ones. All you've done is given the parent comment the experience to make all examples in a list roughly equally bad.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The principle of charity has nothing to do with honesty. I agree that it's generally a good idea, but it is unrelated to being "an honest debater." Maybe you should apply it yourself and respond to my strongest points instead of my weakest ones.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    1) Not replying exclusively to the weakest example given in a series of examples has a lot more to do with honesty than charity. 2) You only made one point, and that was the only one responded to.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      1) How so? 2) My one point wasn't responded to at all.

ryanlol 11y ago

While I agree with the general sentiment here, I fail to see the relevance of the last three names. Even though I'm infinitely appreciative of his work with RECAP, in the end Swartz was just some guy that killed himself because he was too scared to go to court. Ellsberg had his charges dropped and is a free man. Levinson just broke the law for no apparent reason. (Snowden absolutely expected that email to be compromised)

aaronem 11y ago

You seem to suggest that a government which doesn't behave in accord with your wishes is illegitimate thereby. It's hardly unique these days, but one might hope nonetheless to see you stop short of treating it as something to be proud of.