3 ms·
> Whether or not you think they're doing public good probably depends on your perception of Hillary Clinton This implies that one builds a perception, then eva
by sqeaky 10y ago
> Whether or not you think they're doing public good probably depends on your perception of Hillary Clinton
This implies that one builds a perception, then evaluates information in that context. Many people do this and it is sad.
We should be using information to evaluate, and not our preconceived notions.
The only way Assange has "damaging" information for either candidate is if those candidate did something wrong and covered it up. Shouldn't we the information (once vetted) to evaluate our next president?
- sushisource 10y agoOh, ok, so if we just pretend that all humans are perfectly objective then it's not an issue? Ridiculous.
- wfo 10y agoAll humans have perceptions of the way things are -- based on facts, anecdotes, culture, emotions, personal experience, intellectual discussion, reading. When a human being hears something, of course it's colored by their pre-prepared understanding. To a human without a pre-built perception and context with which to evaluate it, their evaluation of information about Clinton would be "Who is Clinton? What is information? How am I speaking even though I don't understand language?" And yes information is usually damning because of bad things that were done (ignoring the frequent instances where this is not the case, like someone who votes against the "stop child porn [and also eradicate half the bill of rights] act") but Wikileaks has an opportunity to leak this information when there is time to research, discuss, fully understand the data (months ago) or at the last possible second where it will have the most sensational impact with the sole purpose of turning the election instead of informing anyone, with minimal time to vet, discuss, understand, make sense of the results. That is now.