4 ms·

You've chosen to see the world through a binary lens: Either you're with us or against us. The answer to every extreme is to race as fast as possible to the o

by tmuir 10y ago

You've chosen to see the world through a binary lens: Either you're with us or against us. The answer to every extreme is to race as fast as possible to the opposite extreme. Shades of gray are illusions. Balance is an illusion. Compromise is an illusion. Either articles support my beliefs or they are false. Any two analogous subjects in the entire universe can be demonstrated to be similar, as well as demonstrated to be different. That is the inherent nature of similarity and analogy. If two analogous subjects were in fact identical in every way, they would cease to be two distinct entities, as they would be identical. In which jurisdiction of The United States of America is it "clearly lawful" to grab women by their genitalia without their consent? What evidence lead you to conclude that I did not read the article? How have you arrived at the unequivocal primacy of your own ideas?

elmerfud 10y ago
"Because they let you" That is consent. Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks. If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle blowers.
- tmuir 10y ago
  And Tina Turner head-butted Ike's fist, right?
  - elmerfud 10y ago
    Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things. I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You've not pointed it out. Saying that all things are equatable is just silly. Sure you can do it, just like you can mix metaphors, but it makes no sense to do so. Trying to defend the equation of unlawful government abuses and lawful behavior with your bizarre statements is just a prime example of twisted, frothing, hate, with no regard for reasonable discourse.
    - tmuir 10y ago
      That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago. You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.
  - tmuir 10y ago
    "because they let you" is the assaulter's excuse, not his absolution.
  - elmerfud 10y ago
    I guess you must have stole from the store. They let you pay and walk out but that wasn't consent. You're thief who just hasn't been charged or arrested yet.
    - tmuir 10y ago
      You can find a kernel of truth in anything and extrapolate it to your favored conclusion. After all, Bernie Madoff was the chairman of Nasdaq at one point. His marks were so convinced he was on the up and up, because their returns were so good. He was 4x as successful as Donald Trump. His investors had no problem seeing up as down, and black as white, because they were making good money. Their consent was trivially simple to manufacture. Madoff was eventually found to be a charlatan, but it's only obvious in hindsight. What if there's another charlatan who is a master negotiator, and simply needs to read enough single issue voters. Then he could just promise them all of their single issues will be solved. It might help to take credit or claim to have a simple solution for general trends that have existed for decades, like sensationalism in the media, or violence in places we've bombed for 50 years. Also, if you have no reputation to ruin, and are a billionaire, you have no incentive to act civilized, so just the simple act of the media predicting your political demise allows you to point out their inaccuracy as proof that theyre out to get you. You'd probably find it trivially easy to manufacture a whole bunch of consent. But that would never happen, right?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- tmuir 10y ago
  Your top post shows that you can't see shades of gray. Every list of examples is proof that the examples are all equal. You follow it up with equating a smear campaign based on sensationalism and spearheaded by a charlatan, with journalism demonstrating the value of whistleblowing. Just like our president, you are allergic to blame, even when it's spelled out in plain English. I have no illusions that you will deny the wetness of water, if it stands between you and being "right".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by tmuir 10y ago

elmerfud 10y ago

"Because they let you" That is consent. Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks. If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle blowers.

tmuir 10y ago
And Tina Turner head-butted Ike's fist, right?
- elmerfud 10y ago
  Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things. I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You've not pointed it out. Saying that all things are equatable is just silly. Sure you can do it, just like you can mix metaphors, but it makes no sense to do so. Trying to defend the equation of unlawful government abuses and lawful behavior with your bizarre statements is just a prime example of twisted, frothing, hate, with no regard for reasonable discourse.
  - tmuir 10y ago
    That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago. You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.
- tmuir 10y ago
  "because they let you" is the assaulter's excuse, not his absolution.
- elmerfud 10y ago
  I guess you must have stole from the store. They let you pay and walk out but that wasn't consent. You're thief who just hasn't been charged or arrested yet.
  - tmuir 10y ago
    You can find a kernel of truth in anything and extrapolate it to your favored conclusion. After all, Bernie Madoff was the chairman of Nasdaq at one point. His marks were so convinced he was on the up and up, because their returns were so good. He was 4x as successful as Donald Trump. His investors had no problem seeing up as down, and black as white, because they were making good money. Their consent was trivially simple to manufacture. Madoff was eventually found to be a charlatan, but it's only obvious in hindsight. What if there's another charlatan who is a master negotiator, and simply needs to read enough single issue voters. Then he could just promise them all of their single issues will be solved. It might help to take credit or claim to have a simple solution for general trends that have existed for decades, like sensationalism in the media, or violence in places we've bombed for 50 years. Also, if you have no reputation to ruin, and are a billionaire, you have no incentive to act civilized, so just the simple act of the media predicting your political demise allows you to point out their inaccuracy as proof that theyre out to get you. You'd probably find it trivially easy to manufacture a whole bunch of consent. But that would never happen, right?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
tmuir 10y ago
Your top post shows that you can't see shades of gray. Every list of examples is proof that the examples are all equal. You follow it up with equating a smear campaign based on sensationalism and spearheaded by a charlatan, with journalism demonstrating the value of whistleblowing. Just like our president, you are allergic to blame, even when it's spelled out in plain English. I have no illusions that you will deny the wetness of water, if it stands between you and being "right".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]