5 ms·

[hypocrisy, double standards, orange revolutions, misdirection, blah blah blah] None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the simple factual matter of how th

[hypocrisy, double standards, orange revolutions, misdirection, blah blah blah] None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the simple factual matter of how the attacks happened, and what parties where responsible.

coldtea 10y ago
>None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the simple factual matter of how the attacks happened, and what parties where responsible. Which I didn't address and I don't care much about. However the attacks happened, and whoever parties were responsible, they were obviously inconsequential to the outcome of the elections. But pointing out the hypocrisy is important, because it brings things to perspective and shows the absurdity of the complaints.
- mturmon 10y ago
  You are raising two points. One is wrong: These attacks were not "obviously inconsequential", and the complaints of Russian hacking of the DNC are not "absurd". Your second point ("the US does it too") is not wrong, but should not stop discussion of this particular attack. The U.S. has meddled in elections, but at the very least, the tactics here were new in their scale and effectiveness.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The U.S. has meddled in elections, but at the very least, the tactics here were new in their scale and effectiveness. Compared e.g. to downright sponsoring and conspiring and successfully establishing a military dictatorship in my country (and tons of others)? Or (for the "new" part) hacking and reading the mails of all world leaders, allies or not? Hardly new and hardly major.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  I didn't address [the facts of what happened] and I don't care much about [them]. Not my way of looking at the world. But hey, whatever works for you, pal.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Facts are meaningless unless put in perspective. I didn't address the specific isolated facts, because in perspective they are insignificant. If someone has e.g. punched 100 people, that someone doesn't get to look astonished and outraged when someone 1/10th their weight merely slaps them. If your way to look at the world is to isolate every fact you see and look at it on its own, without reference frames, and even worse, not to even ask, "why are they showing me only this? Is there a bigger picture I should be aware of", then that's not MY way of looking at the world. But it works for many, to jump from whatever they are shown to the next thing, and never question why and in what context. So, those people can knock themselves out with outrage over the "Russian influence" on the elections or Saddam's WMDs.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      OTOH, continually changing the subject (as is a particularly common tactic these days, in regard to Kremlin shenanigans, actual or alleged) and never addressing the facts at hand is n't exactly very helpful, either. Some of us are perfectly aware of the "big picture", thank you very much, and would just like to sort out the actual facts of what appears to have happened in this particular situation. If someone has e.g. punched 100 people, that someone doesn't get to look astonished and outraged when someone 1/10th their weight merely slaps them. In general, the whole "But Ma, he hit me worse!" line of thinking isn't very useful in understanding history and geopolitics. A better analogy to use would be perhaps the case of a hard-core alcoholic who feels livid and indignant when called on his drunken behavior by the local neighborhood crackhead. Which is of course, to some extent, hypocritical (even though the two drugs and their dependence syndromes are rather different) -- but also, in regard to the alcoholic's own situation, entirely irrelevant. Getting back to the original article: at least there's clear evidence now that Podesta's account subjected to (and fell for) a phishing attack; which makes it more likely that the emails were in fact stolen (and not "leaked from the inside", as some have claimed).

coldtea 10y ago

>None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the simple factual matter of how the attacks happened, and what parties where responsible. Which I didn't address and I don't care much about. However the attacks happened, and whoever parties were responsible, they were obviously inconsequential to the outcome of the elections. But pointing out the hypocrisy is important, because it brings things to perspective and shows the absurdity of the complaints.

mturmon 10y ago
You are raising two points. One is wrong: These attacks were not "obviously inconsequential", and the complaints of Russian hacking of the DNC are not "absurd". Your second point ("the US does it too") is not wrong, but should not stop discussion of this particular attack. The U.S. has meddled in elections, but at the very least, the tactics here were new in their scale and effectiveness.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The U.S. has meddled in elections, but at the very least, the tactics here were new in their scale and effectiveness. Compared e.g. to downright sponsoring and conspiring and successfully establishing a military dictatorship in my country (and tons of others)? Or (for the "new" part) hacking and reading the mails of all world leaders, allies or not? Hardly new and hardly major.
kafkaesq 10y ago
I didn't address [the facts of what happened] and I don't care much about [them]. Not my way of looking at the world. But hey, whatever works for you, pal.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Facts are meaningless unless put in perspective. I didn't address the specific isolated facts, because in perspective they are insignificant. If someone has e.g. punched 100 people, that someone doesn't get to look astonished and outraged when someone 1/10th their weight merely slaps them. If your way to look at the world is to isolate every fact you see and look at it on its own, without reference frames, and even worse, not to even ask, "why are they showing me only this? Is there a bigger picture I should be aware of", then that's not MY way of looking at the world. But it works for many, to jump from whatever they are shown to the next thing, and never question why and in what context. So, those people can knock themselves out with outrage over the "Russian influence" on the elections or Saddam's WMDs.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    OTOH, continually changing the subject (as is a particularly common tactic these days, in regard to Kremlin shenanigans, actual or alleged) and never addressing the facts at hand is n't exactly very helpful, either. Some of us are perfectly aware of the "big picture", thank you very much, and would just like to sort out the actual facts of what appears to have happened in this particular situation. If someone has e.g. punched 100 people, that someone doesn't get to look astonished and outraged when someone 1/10th their weight merely slaps them. In general, the whole "But Ma, he hit me worse!" line of thinking isn't very useful in understanding history and geopolitics. A better analogy to use would be perhaps the case of a hard-core alcoholic who feels livid and indignant when called on his drunken behavior by the local neighborhood crackhead. Which is of course, to some extent, hypocritical (even though the two drugs and their dependence syndromes are rather different) -- but also, in regard to the alcoholic's own situation, entirely irrelevant. Getting back to the original article: at least there's clear evidence now that Podesta's account subjected to (and fell for) a phishing attack; which makes it more likely that the emails were in fact stolen (and not "leaked from the inside", as some have claimed).