4 ms·

Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the co

Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the corruption itself? Ponder that for a moment, please.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
> Please just stop. That reminded me of John Stewart on Crossfire.. you're as correct now as he was then. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html STEWART: No, no, no, please. CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials. (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Please. Please stop. CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire." STEWART: Please stop.
- myrion 10y ago
  Wow, that was really hard on the Crossfire guys! They couldn't engage with him at all due to, I suspect, either a lack of self-reflection or because doing so would be admitting that they are harmful to public discourse. Thanks for the link!
IIAOPSW 10y ago
That's not what I'm doing at all. I wouldn't mind if Assanage had simply gotten a leak and released it in a timely manner like he usually does. My opinion changed when he blatantly started timing his leaks to meddle in the election (AKA October surprise). He's not even meddling in favor of someone who is pro-civil liberties. His "October surprise" stunt isn't advancing the mission statement of wikileaks in any way. If his stunt does change the course of the election it will do absolutely nothing to help accountability or journalistic freedom. If anything a Trump presidency may actively hurt these freedoms. So let me beg the question. WTF is Assanage trying to accomplish here?
byuu 10y ago
While I am certain there are some troubling revelations in there, I fail to see how Neera Tanden shit-talking about Lawrence Lessig is in any way relevant to the public interest. It's simply an unethical violation of privacy. Had he filtered it to just the important stuff and released it right away, journalists and the public could be having real conversations about said material right now instead. Of course, being fair, they didn't do that great a job with the release of cables in the past either. Being fair, my political bias probably swayed me into overlooking that back then more than I should have. Transparency should be where it matters. People should have a right to privacy for personal comments such as this. I think Julian being trapped in a room for the past several years has not been kind to his health. It's been a shame to see him reduced to a shill for one political party.
- IIAOPSW 10y ago
  I'll go ahead and defend wikileaks on this count (despite my statements about Julian in the parent comment). The entire point of wikileaks is that they publish information as is under the belief that the public is smart enough to reach their own conclusions without editorializing. This means publishing everything they got with its full mundane nature on display (if for no other reason than as proof that they are not hiding things). The policy of wikileaks is that they will black out only information which could put people's lives at risk. Merely being embarrassing is not sufficient criteria to get blacked out. Agree or disagree with their philosophy, at least they have been consistent about it. Releasing the Tanden-Lessig e-mail is totally in line with what I'd expect from them.
  - byuu 10y ago
    I understand that, I just don't agree with it. How many of us would want to have everything we've ever said or done in private aired out in public, under the guise that "the public is smart enough to not editorialize anything"? I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours? That said, when it comes to something affecting the public interest (eg government corruption), then yes, I am all for airing such matters. Transparent government is good. Transparent "what kind of porn does Joe Public watch at home?" is not.
    - IIAOPSW 10y ago
      I agree in principal but in practice how do you decide what to include and what not to include. I respect that wikileaks has a rigorous criteria despite having the flaws you point out. If you can think of a well defined way to incorporate the common sense concept of respecting Joe Public's personal space I'd be all for it.
      - DasIch 10y ago
        Journalists do this all the time.
      - 10y ago
ubernostrum 10y ago
Awfully weird how many green usernames keep showing up in these threads to make this kind of point. Did Palmer Luckey go on another spending spree?
gregpardo 10y ago
But Trump bad! Clinton good. Get us some leaks too.

PavlovsCat 10y ago

> Please just stop. That reminded me of John Stewart on Crossfire.. you're as correct now as he was then. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html STEWART: No, no, no, please. CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials. (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Please. Please stop. CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire." STEWART: Please stop.

myrion 10y ago
Wow, that was really hard on the Crossfire guys! They couldn't engage with him at all due to, I suspect, either a lack of self-reflection or because doing so would be admitting that they are harmful to public discourse. Thanks for the link!

IIAOPSW 10y ago

That's not what I'm doing at all. I wouldn't mind if Assanage had simply gotten a leak and released it in a timely manner like he usually does. My opinion changed when he blatantly started timing his leaks to meddle in the election (AKA October surprise). He's not even meddling in favor of someone who is pro-civil liberties. His "October surprise" stunt isn't advancing the mission statement of wikileaks in any way. If his stunt does change the course of the election it will do absolutely nothing to help accountability or journalistic freedom. If anything a Trump presidency may actively hurt these freedoms. So let me beg the question. WTF is Assanage trying to accomplish here?

byuu 10y ago

While I am certain there are some troubling revelations in there, I fail to see how Neera Tanden shit-talking about Lawrence Lessig is in any way relevant to the public interest. It's simply an unethical violation of privacy. Had he filtered it to just the important stuff and released it right away, journalists and the public could be having real conversations about said material right now instead. Of course, being fair, they didn't do that great a job with the release of cables in the past either. Being fair, my political bias probably swayed me into overlooking that back then more than I should have. Transparency should be where it matters. People should have a right to privacy for personal comments such as this. I think Julian being trapped in a room for the past several years has not been kind to his health. It's been a shame to see him reduced to a shill for one political party.

IIAOPSW 10y ago
I'll go ahead and defend wikileaks on this count (despite my statements about Julian in the parent comment). The entire point of wikileaks is that they publish information as is under the belief that the public is smart enough to reach their own conclusions without editorializing. This means publishing everything they got with its full mundane nature on display (if for no other reason than as proof that they are not hiding things). The policy of wikileaks is that they will black out only information which could put people's lives at risk. Merely being embarrassing is not sufficient criteria to get blacked out. Agree or disagree with their philosophy, at least they have been consistent about it. Releasing the Tanden-Lessig e-mail is totally in line with what I'd expect from them.
- byuu 10y ago
  I understand that, I just don't agree with it. How many of us would want to have everything we've ever said or done in private aired out in public, under the guise that "the public is smart enough to not editorialize anything"? I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours? That said, when it comes to something affecting the public interest (eg government corruption), then yes, I am all for airing such matters. Transparent government is good. Transparent "what kind of porn does Joe Public watch at home?" is not.
  - IIAOPSW 10y ago
    I agree in principal but in practice how do you decide what to include and what not to include. I respect that wikileaks has a rigorous criteria despite having the flaws you point out. If you can think of a well defined way to incorporate the common sense concept of respecting Joe Public's personal space I'd be all for it.
    - DasIch 10y ago
      Journalists do this all the time.
    - 10y ago

ubernostrum 10y ago

Awfully weird how many green usernames keep showing up in these threads to make this kind of point. Did Palmer Luckey go on another spending spree?

gregpardo 10y ago

But Trump bad! Clinton good. Get us some leaks too.