4 ms·

This type of article amounts to “ad hominem attack”. Whether or not any of this is true does not matter when fairly judging the actions of the same person. In

This type of article amounts to “ad hominem attack”. Whether or not any of this is true does not matter when fairly judging the actions of the same person. In other words, forget what you know about the person and consider only what they did.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
For the sake of an argument, yes. However, Manning has a played very significant role in history and to fully understand that role we must understand the person, and why that person in particular chose to do what so many others in that same place did not. However, if this assessment is correct, then I am surprised Manning even made PFC. Thats the story I would like to hear.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Sorry, but in the long run I manning didn't play an important role in history, besides a few activists and now the media no one really remembers him or the leaks. One can even say that Snowden is irrelevant in the long run, he only pops up once in a while. There was not major political or social fallout following manning. Same goes for Snowden, the NSA is still there with more power than ever, more and more countries developing similar capabilities and no one seem to really care.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    >There was not major political or social fallout following manning. Same goes for Snowden, the NSA is still there with more power than ever, more and more countries developing similar capabilities and no one seem to really care. Just because something extraordinary happens and nothing changes doesn't mean it didn't become history; it's precisely the kind of history of the time we are in. Things dont change because the world has been artifically crafted to be perceived as a stable system. If you haven't seen Adam Curtis' documentaries, I highly recommend them. Particularly HyperNormalization.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      The fact that something is recorded in history doesn't make it a historic event. I can guarantee you that more people know that Kim Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint in London than what Manning did.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        From the article: >Manning altered not only the way we think about information security, authentication and confidentiality, but also about the grave damage posed by the insider threat. So it was a historic event to the military, and we still don't know how the repercussions of this will eventually play out. History isn't what people know about, it's what happens. I doubt you know about how an obscure British psychologist crippled the American psychological profession with doubt which had a major role in ushering in global neoliberalism, but it happened, and it affected nearly everybody. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
nickff 10y ago
This article is about things Manning had done before, and may help someone understand the disclosure to Wikileaks in the context of the individual's other actions. Do you think the leak should be judged in isolation? It seems very difficult to judge any one act in isolation, as one cannot interpret whether the action was motivated by justice, loyalty, attention-seeking, or other motives.
bdcravens 10y ago
Manning has described the experience she had in the military; this article provides a counterpoint. > forget what you know about the person We know very little about Manning. We know about the leaks. Everything else we know is mostly autobiographical. (For instance, the suicide attempts were reported by Chelsea to the media)
Justin_K 10y ago
The article's intent is to address the picture that was painted, for how she was treated. The author is saying that she came in, repeatedly quit and put herself at odds with the team. Being a non conformist has no place in boot camp. According to the author, she was not mistreated or characterized there, rather, she was encouraged to try and to be one of the team.
- bsder 10y ago
  > Being a non conformist has no place in boot camp. That's not necessarily a good thing. The most effective soldiers are actually quite good at figuring out how to counter the system. In addition, soldiers are given quite clear orders about things like the Geneva Convention and they are supposed to disobey orders that contradict them.
  - Hnrobert42 10y ago
    Said as a true non conformist.
    - gremlinsinc 10y ago
      Nothing wrong w/ that to conform is to become in essence just a cog in the machine, there's no value to conformity, it takes away one's humanity... as I work each day to conform to the coding standards of psr2, and that our dev team has -- lol but that's more for aesthetics and organiztion than just the sake of demanding conformity for the sake of control.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    This is how it works, a unit works because you know with as much certainty as one can have how some one would act and react to every situation. Soldiers have to be predictable and interchangeable otherwise the entire structure falls apart, this isn't some hollywood action movie. Yes (predictive) initiative is encouraged and rewarded but what Manning did according to the article and the behaviour shown during boot camp was not intuitive for the lack of a better word manning acted like a brat. Now this isn't a personal attack, not everyone can fit into the military, not everyone can be made to fit through boot camp, but honestly if the first thing you do is effectively stomp your feet on the ground and say nope (the bag thing during initial induction) doesn't really bode well. People like manning used to get a "blanket part", not the prison one where you actually get covered by a blanket and beaten half to death but things like shoe polish in your boots and other stuff was pretty common hazing for anyone who thought they were a special snowflake. Most militaries work on unit cohesion which means if 1 fails everyone fails, sometimes a single infraction is enough for the entire unit, squad or troop to get punished (e.g. mess duty, extra PT, weekend passes revoked etc.). Additionally when a unit is assigned tasks the task is assigned with mind that everyone is not only going to give 100% but effectively 110%, anyone who doesn't effectively makes everyone else work harder to pick up the slack for them because they don't want to get punished for someone else's mistakes. Yes it may suck, but there is no way around it, acting like a brat doesn't work in the military and don't expect your fellow soldiers not to show their "dissatisfaction" in various ways with your behaviour. I think the best question is why wasn't manning booted out in the first place.
bambax 10y ago
That's not how justice works. To name just one example, repeat offenders are always punished more harshly than first-timers, and yet the fact that they did something in the past doesn't change the act for which they are judged in any way; but (rightly or wrongly) the justice system thinks it illustrates who they are. It's always a person who is judged.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

For the sake of an argument, yes. However, Manning has a played very significant role in history and to fully understand that role we must understand the person, and why that person in particular chose to do what so many others in that same place did not. However, if this assessment is correct, then I am surprised Manning even made PFC. Thats the story I would like to hear.

dogma1138 10y ago
Sorry, but in the long run I manning didn't play an important role in history, besides a few activists and now the media no one really remembers him or the leaks. One can even say that Snowden is irrelevant in the long run, he only pops up once in a while. There was not major political or social fallout following manning. Same goes for Snowden, the NSA is still there with more power than ever, more and more countries developing similar capabilities and no one seem to really care.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  >There was not major political or social fallout following manning. Same goes for Snowden, the NSA is still there with more power than ever, more and more countries developing similar capabilities and no one seem to really care. Just because something extraordinary happens and nothing changes doesn't mean it didn't become history; it's precisely the kind of history of the time we are in. Things dont change because the world has been artifically crafted to be perceived as a stable system. If you haven't seen Adam Curtis' documentaries, I highly recommend them. Particularly HyperNormalization.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    The fact that something is recorded in history doesn't make it a historic event. I can guarantee you that more people know that Kim Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint in London than what Manning did.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      From the article: >Manning altered not only the way we think about information security, authentication and confidentiality, but also about the grave damage posed by the insider threat. So it was a historic event to the military, and we still don't know how the repercussions of this will eventually play out. History isn't what people know about, it's what happens. I doubt you know about how an obscure British psychologist crippled the American psychological profession with doubt which had a major role in ushering in global neoliberalism, but it happened, and it affected nearly everybody. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

nickff 10y ago

This article is about things Manning had done before, and may help someone understand the disclosure to Wikileaks in the context of the individual's other actions. Do you think the leak should be judged in isolation? It seems very difficult to judge any one act in isolation, as one cannot interpret whether the action was motivated by justice, loyalty, attention-seeking, or other motives.

bdcravens 10y ago

Manning has described the experience she had in the military; this article provides a counterpoint. > forget what you know about the person We know very little about Manning. We know about the leaks. Everything else we know is mostly autobiographical. (For instance, the suicide attempts were reported by Chelsea to the media)

Justin_K 10y ago

The article's intent is to address the picture that was painted, for how she was treated. The author is saying that she came in, repeatedly quit and put herself at odds with the team. Being a non conformist has no place in boot camp. According to the author, she was not mistreated or characterized there, rather, she was encouraged to try and to be one of the team.

bsder 10y ago
> Being a non conformist has no place in boot camp. That's not necessarily a good thing. The most effective soldiers are actually quite good at figuring out how to counter the system. In addition, soldiers are given quite clear orders about things like the Geneva Convention and they are supposed to disobey orders that contradict them.
- Hnrobert42 10y ago
  Said as a true non conformist.
  - gremlinsinc 10y ago
    Nothing wrong w/ that to conform is to become in essence just a cog in the machine, there's no value to conformity, it takes away one's humanity... as I work each day to conform to the coding standards of psr2, and that our dev team has -- lol but that's more for aesthetics and organiztion than just the sake of demanding conformity for the sake of control.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  This is how it works, a unit works because you know with as much certainty as one can have how some one would act and react to every situation. Soldiers have to be predictable and interchangeable otherwise the entire structure falls apart, this isn't some hollywood action movie. Yes (predictive) initiative is encouraged and rewarded but what Manning did according to the article and the behaviour shown during boot camp was not intuitive for the lack of a better word manning acted like a brat. Now this isn't a personal attack, not everyone can fit into the military, not everyone can be made to fit through boot camp, but honestly if the first thing you do is effectively stomp your feet on the ground and say nope (the bag thing during initial induction) doesn't really bode well. People like manning used to get a "blanket part", not the prison one where you actually get covered by a blanket and beaten half to death but things like shoe polish in your boots and other stuff was pretty common hazing for anyone who thought they were a special snowflake. Most militaries work on unit cohesion which means if 1 fails everyone fails, sometimes a single infraction is enough for the entire unit, squad or troop to get punished (e.g. mess duty, extra PT, weekend passes revoked etc.). Additionally when a unit is assigned tasks the task is assigned with mind that everyone is not only going to give 100% but effectively 110%, anyone who doesn't effectively makes everyone else work harder to pick up the slack for them because they don't want to get punished for someone else's mistakes. Yes it may suck, but there is no way around it, acting like a brat doesn't work in the military and don't expect your fellow soldiers not to show their "dissatisfaction" in various ways with your behaviour. I think the best question is why wasn't manning booted out in the first place.

bambax 10y ago

That's not how justice works. To name just one example, repeat offenders are always punished more harshly than first-timers, and yet the fact that they did something in the past doesn't change the act for which they are judged in any way; but (rightly or wrongly) the justice system thinks it illustrates who they are. It's always a person who is judged.