4 ms·

What difference does Assange's personality make? If someone revealed Donald Trump's taxes, would you care if that person was a disgruntled, mentally unstable f

What difference does Assange's personality make? If someone revealed Donald Trump's taxes, would you care if that person was a disgruntled, mentally unstable former-employee who had served time in prison for a morally abhorrent offense? Probably not. But for some reason, when discussing Wikileaks, there is an elaborate and imaginative notion of Assange's personality, his strengths and weaknesses, etc. etc. I think we should all realize that Assange has shown us outrageous and deeply disturbing revelations about many governments, the US Government in particular. The scale, deceitfulness, and human toll revealed by this information is many orders of magnitude larger than any minor concerns about Assange's personality or personal conduct. That this isn't obvious to more people is deeply troubling to me. How did we become so compliant, so loyal to a government that would do this? How can we allow this to happen? Must we make the mistake of listening to our leaders as they tell us to vilify another Saddam, another Snowden, another Assange? I think the unfortunate answer is that Americans do not care that brown-skinned people are being murdered all over the world due to US policies, and that hundreds of thousands of children go to bed every night hearing the buzz of drone aircraft, terrified that their home might be targeted. Assange has given American democracy the opportunity to have some teeth and to allow the basic decency of a free society to rise up and correct for some of the wrongs that were revealed, but instead we talk about Assange's personality quirks and use the hashtag resist in support of the most establishment politician since Dick Cheney.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> Must we make the mistake of listening to our leaders as they tell us to vilify another Saddam, another Snowden, another Assange? Saddam was no saint. His atrocities happened years before we entered, and the intel that justified our entrance was bad, but he wasn't a good guy. That's not propaganda.
- grandalf 9y ago
  Since when is spending trillions to attack a nation justified by its leader being an asshole? Saddam was mild compared to many other regimes at the time and was a US ally for years prior. We basically annexed Iraq to support US regional interests and the idea that Saddam's personality had anything to do with it is absurd. The ugly sectarian conflict we supported was effectively a cleansing of many of the nation's fighting age citizens...
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    More ironic is how the declassified documents from when we backed him described him as a "presentable, young man" and other nice things. Later was called "in some ways worse than Hitler" as U.S. and Europe gave him money or "dual-use technology." All political BS.
    - grandalf 9y ago
      Excellent point
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Saddam was mild? He threw people off roofs. I saw the videos. The roofs weren't even high enough to kill them outright. I don't think it was a good idea to go launch a war at him, but it's good he's dead. That was one of the few silver linings in the Iraq debacle. Unfortunately, the suffering greatly increased after Saddam's death, mostly because we tried to occupy the country. If we hadn't done that, things might've turned out differently.
    - qb45 9y ago
      Your parent only claimed that Hussein was mild compared to other regimes. I tried to find the video you mentioned and immediately found articles about Syrian rebels throwing people off roofs and ISIS doing it to gays, so maybe this claim wasn't too far-fetched.
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > Since when is spending trillions to attack a nation justified by its leader being an asshole? He's more than just an asshole, he lead a genocide against the Kurdish people [1] and invaded Kuwait. And, I didn't say any of that justified our entrance circa 2001. > Saddam was mild compared to many other regimes at the time and was a US ally for years prior. He was a killer. That's not mild. I can't say why Reagan would've considered him an ally while he was gassing the Kurds. There are a lot of variables in play in foreign relations. Trump wants to be buddies with Russia while they've essentially admitted to messing with our elections [because we fund pro-democracy NGOs in Russia]. Who knows how Trump envisions the future of American foreign relations. He's certainly doing some unexpected things. > the idea that Saddam's personality had anything to do with it is absurd. You feel personality causes a person to kill thousands of people and invade other countries? Okay. Hitler had a shitty personality too, but that's not a particularly useful descriptor when talking about dictators. Lots of people have lousy personalities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
allenbrunson 9y ago
> What difference does Assange's personality make? quite a lot of difference, actually. if you know someone to be driven by ego, greed, or other negative influences, then you must always question why he chooses to reveal this particular thing, at this particular time, and what other similarly important things he might be choosing not to reveal, because it doesn't suit his agenda.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Exactly. Additionally, one might be forced to take a side in who they support with time or money. Assange and his ego has forced that decision before causing his co-founder to leave his ass with the data (destroyed it). Assange always loved the spotlight, being in control, money, and so on. His recent actions should be thought about with that in back of mind.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    Are you serious? Your comment sounds like someone following a soap opera. Would you care about the personal drama of the leaker of 10 years of Trump tax returns? The story is the leaked information, not the silly drama and rumor nonsense you describe.
    - johnny22 9y ago
      If there was a leaker who leaked one thing, then I'd care less about their personal drama than if they were a continued source of leaks.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      The only drama was what Assange caused which split up Wikileaks team. Would you rather give money to effective, honest people or drama-loving liars if you had the choice? And could you even rely on accuracy of most leaks from someone who would scheme on his people or mislead sources about their safety for his own gain? Sourcd integrity is always relevant. It's why spies and journalists are taught to assess that about potential sources. Half-assed integrity gets corroborated extra before trusted. Low integrity often gets ignored unless an organization wants to benefit from it.
imagination 9y ago
Thank you for shining a light on this! Americans don't even care that brown-skinned people are dying in their own communities. That's why Black Lives Matters was started.
valuearb 9y ago
You can support Wikileaks and it's goals, and still know Assange is a scumbag.
- grandalf 9y ago
  True but you in no sense is Assange's personal drama remotely relevant to the larger issues revealed by WL's publications.

unityByFreedom 9y ago

> Must we make the mistake of listening to our leaders as they tell us to vilify another Saddam, another Snowden, another Assange? Saddam was no saint. His atrocities happened years before we entered, and the intel that justified our entrance was bad, but he wasn't a good guy. That's not propaganda.

grandalf 9y ago
Since when is spending trillions to attack a nation justified by its leader being an asshole? Saddam was mild compared to many other regimes at the time and was a US ally for years prior. We basically annexed Iraq to support US regional interests and the idea that Saddam's personality had anything to do with it is absurd. The ugly sectarian conflict we supported was effectively a cleansing of many of the nation's fighting age citizens...
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  More ironic is how the declassified documents from when we backed him described him as a "presentable, young man" and other nice things. Later was called "in some ways worse than Hitler" as U.S. and Europe gave him money or "dual-use technology." All political BS.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    Excellent point
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Saddam was mild? He threw people off roofs. I saw the videos. The roofs weren't even high enough to kill them outright. I don't think it was a good idea to go launch a war at him, but it's good he's dead. That was one of the few silver linings in the Iraq debacle. Unfortunately, the suffering greatly increased after Saddam's death, mostly because we tried to occupy the country. If we hadn't done that, things might've turned out differently.
  - qb45 9y ago
    Your parent only claimed that Hussein was mild compared to other regimes. I tried to find the video you mentioned and immediately found articles about Syrian rebels throwing people off roofs and ISIS doing it to gays, so maybe this claim wasn't too far-fetched.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > Since when is spending trillions to attack a nation justified by its leader being an asshole? He's more than just an asshole, he lead a genocide against the Kurdish people [1] and invaded Kuwait. And, I didn't say any of that justified our entrance circa 2001. > Saddam was mild compared to many other regimes at the time and was a US ally for years prior. He was a killer. That's not mild. I can't say why Reagan would've considered him an ally while he was gassing the Kurds. There are a lot of variables in play in foreign relations. Trump wants to be buddies with Russia while they've essentially admitted to messing with our elections [because we fund pro-democracy NGOs in Russia]. Who knows how Trump envisions the future of American foreign relations. He's certainly doing some unexpected things. > the idea that Saddam's personality had anything to do with it is absurd. You feel personality causes a person to kill thousands of people and invade other countries? Okay. Hitler had a shitty personality too, but that's not a particularly useful descriptor when talking about dictators. Lots of people have lousy personalities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

allenbrunson 9y ago

> What difference does Assange's personality make? quite a lot of difference, actually. if you know someone to be driven by ego, greed, or other negative influences, then you must always question why he chooses to reveal this particular thing, at this particular time, and what other similarly important things he might be choosing not to reveal, because it doesn't suit his agenda.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
Exactly. Additionally, one might be forced to take a side in who they support with time or money. Assange and his ego has forced that decision before causing his co-founder to leave his ass with the data (destroyed it). Assange always loved the spotlight, being in control, money, and so on. His recent actions should be thought about with that in back of mind.
- grandalf 9y ago
  Are you serious? Your comment sounds like someone following a soap opera. Would you care about the personal drama of the leaker of 10 years of Trump tax returns? The story is the leaked information, not the silly drama and rumor nonsense you describe.
  - johnny22 9y ago
    If there was a leaker who leaked one thing, then I'd care less about their personal drama than if they were a continued source of leaks.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    The only drama was what Assange caused which split up Wikileaks team. Would you rather give money to effective, honest people or drama-loving liars if you had the choice? And could you even rely on accuracy of most leaks from someone who would scheme on his people or mislead sources about their safety for his own gain? Sourcd integrity is always relevant. It's why spies and journalists are taught to assess that about potential sources. Half-assed integrity gets corroborated extra before trusted. Low integrity often gets ignored unless an organization wants to benefit from it.

imagination 9y ago

Thank you for shining a light on this! Americans don't even care that brown-skinned people are dying in their own communities. That's why Black Lives Matters was started.

valuearb 9y ago

You can support Wikileaks and it's goals, and still know Assange is a scumbag.

grandalf 9y ago
True but you in no sense is Assange's personal drama remotely relevant to the larger issues revealed by WL's publications.