7 ms·

>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I thin

>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.

watwatwatwat 10y ago
I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaymaroon 10y ago
  ...this is an intellectually lazy approach?
- jacalata 10y ago
  Well, you didn't bother to give any reasoning....
  - hood_syntax 10y ago
    Obviously it's just low-hanging fruit /s
    - Practicality 10y ago
      Perhaps HN has cultured the evolution of a different type of troll.
- omginternets 10y ago
  >Prove that I'm intellectually lazy. Snowden has a well-argued moral case for what he did. He demonstrably tried to minimize harm and maximize the positive impact of his disclosures. You give literally no reason for your condemnation (though in all fairness, your comment is likely to be rhetorical). More to the point, you will likely argue that he broke laws and cite some unspecified damage to the intelligence community that can neither be qualified nor quantified. Importantly, you will likely do this -- as every condemning voice has -- without offering a cogent rebuttal to Snowden's case. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity. If that's not intellectual laziness, then I honestly don't know what is. If that's not going to be your line of argumentation, then congratulations! You are literally the first person I have encountered who condemns Snowden without being intellectually lazy or dishonest. I'll believe it when I see it. (I feel compelled to mention, once more, that I mean no disrespect. I think your comment is rhetorical in nature, so I beg of you not to take anything personally.)
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity. Dragnet surveillance that is being abused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT "Most incidents are self-reported", which says to me that they do not have effective monitoring - there are doubtless abuses that have gone undetected.
  - tzs 10y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/edward_snowden_why_barack_obama_should_grant_me_a/d7kv7z7 https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/edward_sno...
    - omginternets 10y ago
      Interesting. I'll mull this over. Thank you.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  How come proven collateral damage such as innocent deaths caused by US military interventionism is widely considered reasonable and acceptable. So, tenuous upside/blatant downside = no outrage. But the unproven collateral damage of Snowden's leaks, which had the giant upside of revealing democracy-chilling surveillance techniques, leads to mass reaction from the government. So, undeniable upside/debatable downside = Enemy of the State, threats to nations that offer him asylum. How does this arithmetic work out for anyone?
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    Yeah, Americans sleep when they hear 90% of drone attack deaths are civilians: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp... But they are wide awake and outraged when Snowden's ostensible act of espionage has caused an enormous amount of public good and technological innovation. It's not really the American's fault. We hear few of their real voices. It's the media that speaks the loudest.
    - fixermark 10y ago
      Don't sell Americans short on their ability to withold empathy for non-Americans though. They know that the men who stole control of four planes on 9/11 were civilians too, and they still generally trust that their government is ID'ing threats to national security correctly. Whether the government is actually doing that (and whether---even if it were---that's sufficient for completely extrajudicial killing that would be called "waging warfare" in any other context) may not be things an average American is asking before going to sleep at night.
    - Practicality 10y ago
      Who are these generic Americans that think that Snowden should be condemned? Everyone American I know is very grateful for what he did. And I know quite a few. I've only ever heard official policy statements condemning him. I am not even really sure those stating such policy agree with what they are saying (at a personal level).
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy. You haven't even bothered to provide an argument to justify your condemnation. Case closed.
- Practicality 10y ago
  You didn't bother with an actual argument and instead tried to force others to do the cognitive work to prove you wrong. This is intellectually lazy.
Sneakos 10y ago
You could waste time insulting them, or you could provide a case as to why you are right. What purpose does it serve to call them lazy?
- omginternets 10y ago
  That wasn't really my point, though I can see how I may have been unclear/provocative. In any case, I think the article we're commenting upon makes the case better than I could. Opinions to to the contrary (from what I've seen) tout the damage (unquantified and unqualified) that was done to the intelligence community and gloss over the obvious wrongdoing on the part of the government. Further, I have yet to see a single article that both condemns Snowden while directly arguing against his moral case for whistleblowing. But again, none of this was my point. My point is rather that I see no reason why such an opinion should invalidate or detract from a movie/article/whatever. I interpreted the parent comment as saying "if you accuse anyone of intellectual laziness, that detracts from your work". I find this view problematic, especially when there's ample evidence of intellectual laziness: condemnation without addressing a well-argued moral case.
- freehunter 10y ago
  There are some things it's not worth arguing because the facts have already been well presented and at this point anyone arguing to the contrary has deliberately chosen to ignore those facts. Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Climate change is not real. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. JFK was killed by a magic bullet. The Holocaust never happened. Snowden is a terrorist and a treasonous traitor. Does anyone really still have the time or energy to argue with a birther? Or a Holocaust denier? There's no evidence supporting their point of view, so why is it up to me to have to prove them wrong? Every reasonable person already accepts that what the NSA was doing is wrong. You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps. I would actually argue that it's not wasting time to insult them, it's wasting time arguing with them. If you try to prove them wrong, they're going to engage you in their nonsense, because their mind is already made up. If you insult them, they're more likely to just leave you alone. But no matter what, you're not going to change their minds.
slowmovintarget 10y ago
There's a difference in saying you have that opinion, and asserting that opinion is objectively true as in the article. While I disagree with the "anyone" part, I do believe that condemnation of Snowden comes most often from ignorance. The more I learned of the leaks in particular, and Snowden's reasoning on the information, the more I came to view his actions as necessary for a free society.
- omginternets 10y ago
  Indeed, the "anyone" was hyperbolic and misguided on my part. It should read "I have yet to see a condemnation of Snowden that was not intellectually lazy or misinformed".
JohnStrange 10y ago
Nah, some people just think that the crimes Snowden committed, like violation of NDAs etc., outweigh his moral duty to publish the misdeeds of various NSA programs. I'm not one of them but that's still a logical and consistent point of view anyone can have. Some people also value honor higher than not lying, and vice versa, or keeping a promise given to a friend higher than life&death. Values are tricky and there are no easy solutions.
rhino369 10y ago
I think anyone who is unable to understand the arguments of his opponents is probably the intellectually lazy one.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
I think there's a big leap between saying Snowden should get a pass and saying he should get a medal. WTH kind of message does this send to other "would be Snowdens" who turn out to leak data that is important to national security and cause people, both civilians and US soldiers, to get killed. One person may not have the whole picture or understand everything they need to know to weigh the costs. IMO, Snowden didn't know everything he needed to prove what he was doing was the right course at the time. He just got help from the fact that the government is too secret for its own good and that we are in a relatively peaceful time and don't have many existential threats.

watwatwatwat 10y ago

I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
throwawaymaroon 10y ago
...this is an intellectually lazy approach?
jacalata 10y ago
Well, you didn't bother to give any reasoning....
- hood_syntax 10y ago
  Obviously it's just low-hanging fruit /s
  - Practicality 10y ago
    Perhaps HN has cultured the evolution of a different type of troll.
omginternets 10y ago
>Prove that I'm intellectually lazy. Snowden has a well-argued moral case for what he did. He demonstrably tried to minimize harm and maximize the positive impact of his disclosures. You give literally no reason for your condemnation (though in all fairness, your comment is likely to be rhetorical). More to the point, you will likely argue that he broke laws and cite some unspecified damage to the intelligence community that can neither be qualified nor quantified. Importantly, you will likely do this -- as every condemning voice has -- without offering a cogent rebuttal to Snowden's case. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity. If that's not intellectual laziness, then I honestly don't know what is. If that's not going to be your line of argumentation, then congratulations! You are literally the first person I have encountered who condemns Snowden without being intellectually lazy or dishonest. I'll believe it when I see it. (I feel compelled to mention, once more, that I mean no disrespect. I think your comment is rhetorical in nature, so I beg of you not to take anything personally.)
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity. Dragnet surveillance that is being abused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT "Most incidents are self-reported", which says to me that they do not have effective monitoring - there are doubtless abuses that have gone undetected.
- tzs 10y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/edward_snowden_why_barack_obama_should_grant_me_a/d7kv7z7 https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/edward_sno...
  - omginternets 10y ago
    Interesting. I'll mull this over. Thank you.
RodericDay 10y ago
How come proven collateral damage such as innocent deaths caused by US military interventionism is widely considered reasonable and acceptable. So, tenuous upside/blatant downside = no outrage. But the unproven collateral damage of Snowden's leaks, which had the giant upside of revealing democracy-chilling surveillance techniques, leads to mass reaction from the government. So, undeniable upside/debatable downside = Enemy of the State, threats to nations that offer him asylum. How does this arithmetic work out for anyone?
- saynsedit 10y ago
  Yeah, Americans sleep when they hear 90% of drone attack deaths are civilians: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-comp... But they are wide awake and outraged when Snowden's ostensible act of espionage has caused an enormous amount of public good and technological innovation. It's not really the American's fault. We hear few of their real voices. It's the media that speaks the loudest.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    Don't sell Americans short on their ability to withold empathy for non-Americans though. They know that the men who stole control of four planes on 9/11 were civilians too, and they still generally trust that their government is ID'ing threats to national security correctly. Whether the government is actually doing that (and whether---even if it were---that's sufficient for completely extrajudicial killing that would be called "waging warfare" in any other context) may not be things an average American is asking before going to sleep at night.
  - Practicality 10y ago
    Who are these generic Americans that think that Snowden should be condemned? Everyone American I know is very grateful for what he did. And I know quite a few. I've only ever heard official policy statements condemning him. I am not even really sure those stating such policy agree with what they are saying (at a personal level).
coldtea 10y ago
>I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy. You haven't even bothered to provide an argument to justify your condemnation. Case closed.
Practicality 10y ago
You didn't bother with an actual argument and instead tried to force others to do the cognitive work to prove you wrong. This is intellectually lazy.

Sneakos 10y ago

You could waste time insulting them, or you could provide a case as to why you are right. What purpose does it serve to call them lazy?

omginternets 10y ago
That wasn't really my point, though I can see how I may have been unclear/provocative. In any case, I think the article we're commenting upon makes the case better than I could. Opinions to to the contrary (from what I've seen) tout the damage (unquantified and unqualified) that was done to the intelligence community and gloss over the obvious wrongdoing on the part of the government. Further, I have yet to see a single article that both condemns Snowden while directly arguing against his moral case for whistleblowing. But again, none of this was my point. My point is rather that I see no reason why such an opinion should invalidate or detract from a movie/article/whatever. I interpreted the parent comment as saying "if you accuse anyone of intellectual laziness, that detracts from your work". I find this view problematic, especially when there's ample evidence of intellectual laziness: condemnation without addressing a well-argued moral case.
freehunter 10y ago
There are some things it's not worth arguing because the facts have already been well presented and at this point anyone arguing to the contrary has deliberately chosen to ignore those facts. Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Climate change is not real. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. JFK was killed by a magic bullet. The Holocaust never happened. Snowden is a terrorist and a treasonous traitor. Does anyone really still have the time or energy to argue with a birther? Or a Holocaust denier? There's no evidence supporting their point of view, so why is it up to me to have to prove them wrong? Every reasonable person already accepts that what the NSA was doing is wrong. You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps. I would actually argue that it's not wasting time to insult them, it's wasting time arguing with them. If you try to prove them wrong, they're going to engage you in their nonsense, because their mind is already made up. If you insult them, they're more likely to just leave you alone. But no matter what, you're not going to change their minds.

slowmovintarget 10y ago

There's a difference in saying you have that opinion, and asserting that opinion is objectively true as in the article. While I disagree with the "anyone" part, I do believe that condemnation of Snowden comes most often from ignorance. The more I learned of the leaks in particular, and Snowden's reasoning on the information, the more I came to view his actions as necessary for a free society.

omginternets 10y ago
Indeed, the "anyone" was hyperbolic and misguided on my part. It should read "I have yet to see a condemnation of Snowden that was not intellectually lazy or misinformed".

JohnStrange 10y ago

Nah, some people just think that the crimes Snowden committed, like violation of NDAs etc., outweigh his moral duty to publish the misdeeds of various NSA programs. I'm not one of them but that's still a logical and consistent point of view anyone can have. Some people also value honor higher than not lying, and vice versa, or keeping a promise given to a friend higher than life&death. Values are tricky and there are no easy solutions.

rhino369 10y ago

I think anyone who is unable to understand the arguments of his opponents is probably the intellectually lazy one.

nikdaheratik 10y ago

I think there's a big leap between saying Snowden should get a pass and saying he should get a medal. WTH kind of message does this send to other "would be Snowdens" who turn out to leak data that is important to national security and cause people, both civilians and US soldiers, to get killed. One person may not have the whole picture or understand everything they need to know to weigh the costs. IMO, Snowden didn't know everything he needed to prove what he was doing was the right course at the time. He just got help from the fact that the government is too secret for its own good and that we are in a relatively peaceful time and don't have many existential threats.