3 ms·

More like Assange timed the WikiLeaks release to provide more information to the voters, which is good. A well informed voter is a good voter.

krapp 10y ago
And as Assange's only motivation is to make certain the voters are informed, I'm sure the RNC leaks will be coming any time now... any time now...
- current_call 10y ago
  I like to imagine they just have a competent system administrator with great work life balance. When he's not looking through logs, he works on his memoirs, goes on lunch dates with his wife, and proudly looks through the Perl programs his daughter sends him. Perl5 of course. Stan isn't having any of that new age crap.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  Well, hackers did hacked Trump's voicemail and found out that Trump donated a lot of money to charities.
dTal 10y ago
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." More information does not necessarily lead to a better vote (where "better" is defined as the vote that the voter would pick were they in possession of all relevant information). To illustrate, imagine two candidates: candidate A, who looks like a regular politician, and candidate B, who looks like a serial killer. In the absence of any further information, you vote for candidate A. Now imagine you read an entirely truthful pamphlet detailing guy A's trust fund excesses and other misdemeanors, while helpfully mentioning that guy B volunteers in a homeless shelter in his spare time. You switch your vote to guy B. But it transpires that guy B occasionally abducts and murders the odd homeless person. He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and moreover correct for the right reasons, despite being strictly better informed after reading the pamphlet. Trump will certainly have skeletons in his closet too.
- erlehmann_ 10y ago
  I have heard a “Trump probably did something equally bad, but we may not know” argument once when discussing Hillary Clinton's involvement in drone assasinations. I immediately pointed out that it is speculation at best, unless backed up by evidence.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    Trump is pretty open about the bad things he wants to do, though. Although I'm still hoping he's just a loudmouth. P.S: Not a Killary supporter (just making sure I'm not misunderstood ;-)
    - erlehmann_ 10y ago
      Indeed; Trump has said on public TV he would “take out” the families of terrorists. But the current administration has already done that, intentionally: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team... As a German, I find it very weird that so many americans support politicians who boast about assassinating people.
- doc_gunthrop 10y ago
  That's a funny example you give. It started falling apart when you said: "...He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and moreover correct for the right reasons..." How is it correct for the right reasons? If I were to follow this "logic", then what you're saying is I should go with my first instinct, which has been molded and influenced by my own life experiences and by the people/community that I've interacted with. What if that person was a radical xenophobe? will he be correct for the right reasons?
  - dTal 10y ago
    The assumption is that in the hypothetical universe in which my admittedly silly example takes place, "looking like a serial killer" is weakly correlated with actually being a serial killer, and presumably other negative traits as well. Therefore, in the absence of other information, harbouring a negative bias is entirely rational. It doesn't follow that you should simply trust your first impression; definitely seek out more information, if you can. What I'm saying is further information can degrade the accuracy of your opinion as well as enhance it, particularly if it is cherry picked. Incidentally, I'm not sure what else you can base your opinions on, other than some weighted average of your life experiences and the opinions of those around you. Whether a radical xenophobe is correct for the "right reasons" or not depends on whether they came to that perspective by rational observation, and for a functioning democracy we have to assume on good faith that's the case, as distasteful as it may seem. The alternative is declaring their opinions wrong and forbidding them from voting.

krapp 10y ago

And as Assange's only motivation is to make certain the voters are informed, I'm sure the RNC leaks will be coming any time now... any time now...

current_call 10y ago
I like to imagine they just have a competent system administrator with great work life balance. When he's not looking through logs, he works on his memoirs, goes on lunch dates with his wife, and proudly looks through the Perl programs his daughter sends him. Perl5 of course. Stan isn't having any of that new age crap.
DefaultUserHN 10y ago
Well, hackers did hacked Trump's voicemail and found out that Trump donated a lot of money to charities.

dTal 10y ago

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." More information does not necessarily lead to a better vote (where "better" is defined as the vote that the voter would pick were they in possession of all relevant information). To illustrate, imagine two candidates: candidate A, who looks like a regular politician, and candidate B, who looks like a serial killer. In the absence of any further information, you vote for candidate A. Now imagine you read an entirely truthful pamphlet detailing guy A's trust fund excesses and other misdemeanors, while helpfully mentioning that guy B volunteers in a homeless shelter in his spare time. You switch your vote to guy B. But it transpires that guy B occasionally abducts and murders the odd homeless person. He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and moreover correct for the right reasons, despite being strictly better informed after reading the pamphlet. Trump will certainly have skeletons in his closet too.

erlehmann_ 10y ago
I have heard a “Trump probably did something equally bad, but we may not know” argument once when discussing Hillary Clinton's involvement in drone assasinations. I immediately pointed out that it is speculation at best, unless backed up by evidence.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  Trump is pretty open about the bad things he wants to do, though. Although I'm still hoping he's just a loudmouth. P.S: Not a Killary supporter (just making sure I'm not misunderstood ;-)
  - erlehmann_ 10y ago
    Indeed; Trump has said on public TV he would “take out” the families of terrorists. But the current administration has already done that, intentionally: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team... As a German, I find it very weird that so many americans support politicians who boast about assassinating people.
doc_gunthrop 10y ago
That's a funny example you give. It started falling apart when you said: "...He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and moreover correct for the right reasons..." How is it correct for the right reasons? If I were to follow this "logic", then what you're saying is I should go with my first instinct, which has been molded and influenced by my own life experiences and by the people/community that I've interacted with. What if that person was a radical xenophobe? will he be correct for the right reasons?
- dTal 10y ago
  The assumption is that in the hypothetical universe in which my admittedly silly example takes place, "looking like a serial killer" is weakly correlated with actually being a serial killer, and presumably other negative traits as well. Therefore, in the absence of other information, harbouring a negative bias is entirely rational. It doesn't follow that you should simply trust your first impression; definitely seek out more information, if you can. What I'm saying is further information can degrade the accuracy of your opinion as well as enhance it, particularly if it is cherry picked. Incidentally, I'm not sure what else you can base your opinions on, other than some weighted average of your life experiences and the opinions of those around you. Whether a radical xenophobe is correct for the "right reasons" or not depends on whether they came to that perspective by rational observation, and for a functioning democracy we have to assume on good faith that's the case, as distasteful as it may seem. The alternative is declaring their opinions wrong and forbidding them from voting.