4 ms·

> This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. > Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you

> This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. > Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the post-hoc fallacy. If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." You'll find it covers anyone who acts as an informant to reveal something illicit within an organization. For someone like yourself who seems to be eager to find a reason to dislike Chelsea Manning: yes, there's such a thing as an irresponsible whistleblower.

hackinthebochs 10y ago
> post-hoc fallacy. You're just misquoting me. >If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." If you rely on dictionaries written at a third grade reading level as your source of meaning, you're doing it wrong.
- etjossem 10y ago
  When it comes to prescriptive definitions for words in the English language, I trust the concurrence of Merriam-Webster and Collins a bit more than I'm willing to trust your word. You won't convince me otherwise. If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count," you are welcome to take that point of view up with the publishers. Have a great day!
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    >If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count," Again with the mischaracterizations! You should stop that. I feel someone who had no knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing and no intention to just reveal wrongdoing does not count as a whistleblower. Pretty simple.
    - etjossem 10y ago
      That is a fair way of looking at it (and consistent with prevailing definitions). However, Manning strongly suspected wrongdoing, made herself aware of it, and leaked a video in which it was blindingly obvious. She doesn't fall under your exclusion at all.
      - hackinthebochs 10y ago
        None of that is true as far as I'm aware. Do you have a source that Manning knew of the video ahead of time?
        etjossem 10y ago
        You betcha. From "Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team or AW team video", a statement by Manning to the US Army: The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me. As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007. Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks-statement-full-text https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-mannin...
        10y ago
    - paraxisi 10y ago
      >I feel someone who had no knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing and no intention to just reveal wrongdoing does not count as a whistleblower. Pretty simple. Intelligence analyst, no knowledge or suspicion... uhhhh what?
      - hackinthebochs 10y ago
        Well "wrongdoing" is a little bit too generic. What I meant was breaking the law (or some severely immoral acts). His opinion regarding the diplomatic cable doesn't justify releasing it and claiming he's a whistleblower.

hackinthebochs 10y ago

> post-hoc fallacy. You're just misquoting me. >If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." If you rely on dictionaries written at a third grade reading level as your source of meaning, you're doing it wrong.

etjossem 10y ago
When it comes to prescriptive definitions for words in the English language, I trust the concurrence of Merriam-Webster and Collins a bit more than I'm willing to trust your word. You won't convince me otherwise. If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count," you are welcome to take that point of view up with the publishers. Have a great day!
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  >If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count," Again with the mischaracterizations! You should stop that. I feel someone who had no knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing and no intention to just reveal wrongdoing does not count as a whistleblower. Pretty simple.
  - etjossem 10y ago
    That is a fair way of looking at it (and consistent with prevailing definitions). However, Manning strongly suspected wrongdoing, made herself aware of it, and leaked a video in which it was blindingly obvious. She doesn't fall under your exclusion at all.
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      None of that is true as far as I'm aware. Do you have a source that Manning knew of the video ahead of time?
      - etjossem 10y ago
        You betcha. From "Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team or AW team video", a statement by Manning to the US Army: The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me. As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007. Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks-statement-full-text https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-mannin...
        10y ago
  - paraxisi 10y ago
    >I feel someone who had no knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing and no intention to just reveal wrongdoing does not count as a whistleblower. Pretty simple. Intelligence analyst, no knowledge or suspicion... uhhhh what?
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      Well "wrongdoing" is a little bit too generic. What I meant was breaking the law (or some severely immoral acts). His opinion regarding the diplomatic cable doesn't justify releasing it and claiming he's a whistleblower.