5 ms·

Mind giving the source where Assange said that?

by bberrry 10y ago

confounded 10y ago
See: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  Look, you either believe people like Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden are honest people, or you don't. I do not, to say the least. The three of them strike me as some of the most fundamentally dishonest people in the public sphere.
  - smcl 10y ago
    I'm kinda fascinated - why do you think they're fundamentally dishonest? I could maybe understand you thinking this about Assange/Greenwald (I personally don't) since they're essentially reporters - so we have to rely on them accurately reporting what they have been informed by sources, and being able to judge whether the source is credible, and to elect to report on anything regardless of whether it conflicts with their viewpoints etc. But to apply the same criticism to Edward Snowden is a whole different thing altogether. He has produced reams of evidence on the practices of the US intelligence agencies, for him to be "fundamentally dishonest" would involve fabricating large chunks of that, and if I believed that then I wouldn't stop at "dishonest" I'd go with "crazy" or worse.
    - redthrowaway 10y ago
      They all lie constantly, and have been proven to lie constantly. Snowden lied about pretty much every part of his story. He didn't have the access he claimed, he didn't have the knowledge he claimed, he lied about the timeline of his defection, he lied about reading or screening the documents he stole, he lied about the actual behaviours he exposed, he lied about the safeguards in place... the list goes on. Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald are all of the same mould: they're anti-American western leftists who believe the United States' foreign policy is the biggest source of evil in the world, and that any lie told in service of taking it down is therefore justifiable.
      - smcl 10y ago
        I didn't downvote you, but I think you're being downvoted because you're being a little vague. If Snowden is lying constantly (particularly as you say about the behaviours he exposed) I'd expect the criticism to be more specific than what you said. Also the "they want to take down the United States" thing is pretty extreme and a bit "InfoWars" sounding, and if you listen to him and his justifications for what he did then it's pretty apparent that this is not something he stands for.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        redthrowaway 10y ago
        >I'd expect the criticism to be more specific than what you said. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the-lies-edward-snowden-tells/360893/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/17/either-edward-snowden-is-lying-or-his-former-boss-is.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/17/either-edwa... http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fable-of-edward-snowden-1483143143 http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fable-of-edward-snowden-1483... https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens-story-isnt-115500971.html?ref=gs https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens... https://ca.news.yahoo.com/snowden-lied-and-acted-out-of-pique-house-report-charges-232035140.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/snowden-lied-and-acted-out-of-piqu... >hey want to take down the United States" thing is pretty extreme and a bit "InfoWars" sounding USG, not US. There's a very specific sort of western libertarian/leftist that believes the US' foreign policy is evil, that the military-intelligence wing is a tool of evil, and that opposing it in any way possible is an unalloyed good. I put all three of them in that camp. You could add the likes of Chomsky to that mix. That doesn't mean they don't like their conception of what America is or could be, but they see America's actions in the world as evil and in need of opposing.
        smcl 10y ago
        edit: Again I'm not the one downvoting you, disagreeing with someone is not a reason to downvote IMO I was kinda hoping for something a bit more substantial - those aren't particularly convincing and smell slightly of hit-pieces attempting to smear Snowden while conveniently diverting from the main issue (that the US Government applies an insane level of surveillance on the US people). First story is about an interview with Putin and why he didn't go in harder on him. The second is that his NSA boss denies he had the sweeping access he had (of course he did, the official line is still that these programs don't exist isn't it?). The WSJ one I couldn't read in its entirety but it opened by calling him a liar and a thief, so I'm not sure how impartial we can consider it to be. Both yahoo articles boil down to "we don't think he could earn and do what he said he did". None really discredit what he leaked, they all seem to be geared towards stoking the flames around this idea that he's an untrustworthy, shady liar who has questionable motivations. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, which is fine - neither of us are in a position to change anything around the situation. But your final line - "they see America's actions in the world as evil and in need of opposing" - man it's really hard to argue that this isn't true. Even if we just look at the Middle East, what the US and the UK have been up to over there for the last few decades is pretty appalling.
  - indy 10y ago
    Glenn Greenwald is known for taking quotes out of context in order to deliberately misrepresent people such as Sam Harris.
    - nikcub 10y ago
      I'd be interested in an example of this if you have one, because I read all the source materials in this story and found his arguments compelling (after initially buying into the narrative)
      - indy 10y ago
        Here are some links describing incidents where Glenn Greenwald has taken quotes out of context: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2 http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2 http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defam... https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248 https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248 Edit: And just to add in this particular case I'm in agreement with you, his arguments do seem compelling.
        confounded 10y ago
        I've only read the first two stories, but I'm struggling to see how they reflect badly on Greenwald. The context does not change the meaning in either context.
        FabHK 10y ago
        This is not the right place for this discussion, but in both cases the accusations in the pieces retweeted by Greenwald (Harris as 1. a bigoted "scientific racist", 2. a "genocidal fascist maniac") are not supported when Harris' quotes are seen in context. Greenwald's condemnation of The Guardian's summary of Assange's interview seems accurate. But Greenwald's assessment of Harris, and his tweets in that matter, seem very biased.
  - JoachimS 10y ago
    I don't think its fair to bundle them together. What Assange is doing and acting is way differnt from Snowden, Greenwald. Or Poitras, Manning for that matter. Each of these people should be looked at based on their own actions.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Mind giving the source where Assange said that?

by bberrry 10y ago

Mind giving the source where Assange said that?

See: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...

redthrowaway 10y ago
Look, you either believe people like Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden are honest people, or you don't. I do not, to say the least. The three of them strike me as some of the most fundamentally dishonest people in the public sphere.
- smcl 10y ago
  I'm kinda fascinated - why do you think they're fundamentally dishonest? I could maybe understand you thinking this about Assange/Greenwald (I personally don't) since they're essentially reporters - so we have to rely on them accurately reporting what they have been informed by sources, and being able to judge whether the source is credible, and to elect to report on anything regardless of whether it conflicts with their viewpoints etc. But to apply the same criticism to Edward Snowden is a whole different thing altogether. He has produced reams of evidence on the practices of the US intelligence agencies, for him to be "fundamentally dishonest" would involve fabricating large chunks of that, and if I believed that then I wouldn't stop at "dishonest" I'd go with "crazy" or worse.
  - redthrowaway 10y ago
    They all lie constantly, and have been proven to lie constantly. Snowden lied about pretty much every part of his story. He didn't have the access he claimed, he didn't have the knowledge he claimed, he lied about the timeline of his defection, he lied about reading or screening the documents he stole, he lied about the actual behaviours he exposed, he lied about the safeguards in place... the list goes on. Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald are all of the same mould: they're anti-American western leftists who believe the United States' foreign policy is the biggest source of evil in the world, and that any lie told in service of taking it down is therefore justifiable.
    - smcl 10y ago
      I didn't downvote you, but I think you're being downvoted because you're being a little vague. If Snowden is lying constantly (particularly as you say about the behaviours he exposed) I'd expect the criticism to be more specific than what you said. Also the "they want to take down the United States" thing is pretty extreme and a bit "InfoWars" sounding, and if you listen to him and his justifications for what he did then it's pretty apparent that this is not something he stands for.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - redthrowaway 10y ago
        >I'd expect the criticism to be more specific than what you said. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the-lies-edward-snowden-tells/360893/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/17/either-edward-snowden-is-lying-or-his-former-boss-is.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/17/either-edwa... http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fable-of-edward-snowden-1483143143 http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fable-of-edward-snowden-1483... https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens-story-isnt-115500971.html?ref=gs https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens... https://ca.news.yahoo.com/snowden-lied-and-acted-out-of-pique-house-report-charges-232035140.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/snowden-lied-and-acted-out-of-piqu... >hey want to take down the United States" thing is pretty extreme and a bit "InfoWars" sounding USG, not US. There's a very specific sort of western libertarian/leftist that believes the US' foreign policy is evil, that the military-intelligence wing is a tool of evil, and that opposing it in any way possible is an unalloyed good. I put all three of them in that camp. You could add the likes of Chomsky to that mix. That doesn't mean they don't like their conception of what America is or could be, but they see America's actions in the world as evil and in need of opposing.
        smcl 10y ago
        edit: Again I'm not the one downvoting you, disagreeing with someone is not a reason to downvote IMO I was kinda hoping for something a bit more substantial - those aren't particularly convincing and smell slightly of hit-pieces attempting to smear Snowden while conveniently diverting from the main issue (that the US Government applies an insane level of surveillance on the US people). First story is about an interview with Putin and why he didn't go in harder on him. The second is that his NSA boss denies he had the sweeping access he had (of course he did, the official line is still that these programs don't exist isn't it?). The WSJ one I couldn't read in its entirety but it opened by calling him a liar and a thief, so I'm not sure how impartial we can consider it to be. Both yahoo articles boil down to "we don't think he could earn and do what he said he did". None really discredit what he leaked, they all seem to be geared towards stoking the flames around this idea that he's an untrustworthy, shady liar who has questionable motivations. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, which is fine - neither of us are in a position to change anything around the situation. But your final line - "they see America's actions in the world as evil and in need of opposing" - man it's really hard to argue that this isn't true. Even if we just look at the Middle East, what the US and the UK have been up to over there for the last few decades is pretty appalling.
- indy 10y ago
  Glenn Greenwald is known for taking quotes out of context in order to deliberately misrepresent people such as Sam Harris.
  - nikcub 10y ago
    I'd be interested in an example of this if you have one, because I read all the source materials in this story and found his arguments compelling (after initially buying into the narrative)
    - indy 10y ago
      Here are some links describing incidents where Glenn Greenwald has taken quotes out of context: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2 http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2 http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defam... https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248 https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/803464221786677248 Edit: And just to add in this particular case I'm in agreement with you, his arguments do seem compelling.
      - confounded 10y ago
        I've only read the first two stories, but I'm struggling to see how they reflect badly on Greenwald. The context does not change the meaning in either context.
        FabHK 10y ago
        This is not the right place for this discussion, but in both cases the accusations in the pieces retweeted by Greenwald (Harris as 1. a bigoted "scientific racist", 2. a "genocidal fascist maniac") are not supported when Harris' quotes are seen in context. Greenwald's condemnation of The Guardian's summary of Assange's interview seems accurate. But Greenwald's assessment of Harris, and his tweets in that matter, seem very biased.
- JoachimS 10y ago
  I don't think its fair to bundle them together. What Assange is doing and acting is way differnt from Snowden, Greenwald. Or Poitras, Manning for that matter. Each of these people should be looked at based on their own actions.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]