4 ms·
It is wildly irresponsible to wield accusations like that without offering some sort of support for that position. I would say that it is in the US government'
by diyorgasms 11y ago
It is wildly irresponsible to wield accusations like that without offering some sort of support for that position.
I would say that it is in the US government's interest to discredit wikileaks, as their leaks tend to air dirty American laundry. But a lack of similarly embarrassing leaks about Russia dies not Russian propaganda make. It could simply be that Russian whistleblowers are more likely to meet with a fatal exposure to polonium.
- Grue3 11y agoDid US government force Assange (and Snowden) to collaborate with Russia Today? As far as I'm concerned everyone involved with that hive of scum and villainy has irreparably damaged their reputation. Also there is no lack of embarassing leaks about Russian (or Chinese) government. Just because one person was murdered with polonium doesn't mean we don't have any brave people here anymore. Too bad western media cares more about hacks like Assange and Snowden than what happens in Russia.
- dang 11y ago> hive of scum and villainy Please don't conduct political ragewars here. They're tedious and not in the spirit of intellectual curiosity which is supposed to guide this site.
- pvg 11y agoPerhaps it's simply a jovial Star Wars reference.
- Grue3 11y agoAh, but gems like "Russian whistleblowers are more likely to meet with a fatal exposure to polonium" are apparently just fine. What am I supposed to do when people openly insult my country?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dang 11y agoYou are far off-base when you say "apparently just fine". But making the thread still more uncivil is obviously the wrong thing to do. Better things include: (1) make an accurate, respectful reply—though in this case it would have probably blown things further off-topic; (2) flag the comment; (3) email us at hn@ycombinator.com. If you can find the will to do so, the very best thing is to be charitable. In this case that might mean remembering that the commenter has likely only heard one heavily politicized side of the story, and has been conditioned by such one-sided information to reflexively associate one thing with another. Then you might respond in a way that confounds their expectation in a positive, surprising manner, instead of getting angry and defensive, which can only reinforce it. Admittedly that's hard to do and never something one must do. But it is likely the most effective thing to do. When one person responds from a conditioned reflex but another has the presence not to do so, that's how things get unstuck. The demographics of HN are so unevenly distributed that it's impossible for the discourse here to be objective about many topics, but we can and do at least control for basic respect, and if you watch closely you'll notice that we care about that, and act on it, a lot.