10 ms·
Activist Publishes 11,000 Private DMs Between Wikileaks and Its Supporters
- mhkool 8y agoDoes saying "he is jewish" make you a rascist ?
- dogma1138 8y agoThe use of the ((()))) brackets kinda does.
- conception 8y agoMore than kinda - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses
- metalliqaz 8y agoActivist and former white supremacist Christian Picciolini claims that "globalist" was an intentional renaming of "Jewish" in order to make their message more palatable to mainstream conservatives.
- api 8y ago"Globalist" is a very old antisemitic slur -- see "The International Jew" by Henry Ford.
- cat199 8y agosooo.. If one is anti-globalist, one is inherently anti-semitic? What then does it mean to be a globalist? And further, if defending being a 'globalist' automatically implies 'defending jews' what does this implicitly imply 'all jews' actually believe geopolitically? the faulty logic runs deep in this line of thinking; the allegedly racist term then becomes 'the reality', which should then be protected..
- api 8y agoYou can be against neoliberalism, unfair trade, or international political entities overriding national sovereignty without being antisemitic. Picking a dog whistle term that happens to sound like a reasonable position is a standard political tactic. Another example: "family values" which is a euphemism for theocracy. Who would actually oppose "the family"?
- ramblerouser 8y agoHow do you describe "international political entities overriding national sovereignty" without using the word "globalist" or "internationalist"? (Both of which are antisemitic apparently)
- api 8y agoThat's exactly why white supremacists picked those terms.
- ramblerouser 8y agoIm asking you what term you think is appropriate. It seems like you dont think ANY word is appropriate, and that is 1984 newspeak. If your opponent isnt allowed to have a word to describe your position, they cant effectively argue against it. edit: Lol. Thank you for validating my theory.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 8y agoBreitbart is a repeated and notable example: https://twitter.com/obsoletedogma/status/897925242122887169?lang=en https://twitter.com/obsoletedogma/status/897925242122887169?...
- DoctorOetker 8y agoPeople seldom look up the etymology of words, symbols, etc... instead they typically deduce meaning from either A) usage or B) fitting with domain knowledge. For an example of A) most people think the word "perverse" means something like "sexually sick" i.e. they think a "perverse depiction" literally means a "sexually sick depiction". This is because we learn the word at a young age, and that is how most people use it, and we didn't bother to use dictionaries the first time you started using the word on the playground. In fact perverse comes from per- (away) and vertere (to turn), i.e. to turn away, or to turn a blind eye. For example a policeman approving of a crowd attacking a minority without intervening would be a true act of perversion as he "turns away" from the matter, similar with "perverse incentives" etc This however is a clear example of B) in my view: notice how the tweet is NOT some triple parentheses, if you count carefully you will see 7 parentheses in total. The author of the tweet probably encountered the symbol before in the context of Judaism and thought through his prior domain knowledge that it signified a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple) which is a Jewish candelabra holding 7 candles. So while the triple parenteses meme could perfectly have an alt-right origin, the author obviously associated no racist or discriminatory connotation (btw religion is not a race). IMHO he simply refers to some unspecified "jewish issue"
- untog 8y ago> The author of the tweet probably encountered the symbol before in the context of Judaism and thought through his prior domain knowledge that it signified a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple) which is a Jewish candelabra holding 7 candles. That is an absolutely massive stretch. Come on. We may all use the word "perverse" incorrectly, but it's a word we all hear. Not everyone hears/sees the ((())) denotation for Jewish people - in fact, it's almost exclusively used in alt-right circles. So if you're aware of it at all it is highly suggestive of the kind of company you keep.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoI never frequent alt-right nonsense, and I don't have a twitter facebook snapchat-roulette account. I had never seen before neither the triple parentheses nor the 7 parentheses. Its the first time I see empty nested parentheses. As I read the tweet, the first thing that entered my mind was the Menorah, (actually I thought it was called a candelabra, but after looking that up, I saw a 3-pronged candelabra on wikipedia, then somewhere in the page the Menorah was mentioned and I realized I was visualizing a Menorah...). Then I clicked the link to see how the triple parentheses could offend anyone, and I am now up to date to avoid using them (I never did, never even saw them anywhere else than the mentioned wikipedia page). Since my experience was one of recognizing the Menorah, I considered it entirely plausible that the author made the same association whenever he first encountered triple parentheses. So if my first reaction was seeing an ASCII Menorah, then to me no that is not "an absolute massive stretch" at all!! Once I saw the confusion I checked back on the number of parentheses and behold, unbalanced, exactly 7...
- posting2fast 8y agoThe full sentence is "But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue." -- without further context, this says nothing, and those brackets weren't "used" anymore than you or I just did. That is, unless you're referring to something else, but with accusations as serious as this, and antisemitism being as sadly pervasive and serious as it is, I would like to see a source. If you actually are referring to the DM's on that page, just no, and wtf, since it's only time "(((" appears in all of it, the only other time Jewishness is mentioned seems not to be by Wikileaks. So, where's the meat?
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoand those brackets weren't "used" anymore than you or I just did. Well... now you've done it! You've made hackernews and all of us altright extremists! According to some of the "logic" here.
- posting2fast 8y agoI've also "made" people downvote without explaining themselves, apparently. Maybe they don't know the difference between "function_name" and function_name();
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoI thought you were making a quip about the evils of unbalanced parantheses, but TIL punctuation can be considered racist.
- mywittyname 8y agoIt's pretty much a hashtag, but instead of meaning, "this phrase is searchable on social media," it means, "this person is Jewish." It's not necessary racist in and of itself. But the only reason to use it is to trigger anti-Semites. Normally people don't general care about a person's religion unless it's contextually relevant.
- tomtimtall 8y agoHow does using the brackets to communicate someone engaging with it suddenly become racist? That’s like saying a news reporter is antisemetic if he says: “And now a report on Tom who is a veteran who fought Nazies during ww2”. Omg, he said Nazi?! That makes him a Hitler sympathizer.
- untog 8y agoIt's fine to be ignorant of the ((())) denotation used by the alt-right to describe Jewish people - it's not something everyone is going to have seen. But your reaction shouldn't be to dismiss it just because you've never heard of it yourself.
- ComputerGuru 8y agoI never knew about them, I thought they were using it as a placeholder for something they didn’t want in text for CYA reasons until I saw the link to the Wikipedia article on the echo. Disgusting stuff.
- Bromskloss 8y agoHang on! I thought "engaged with the ((())) issue" meant "engaged with some issue related to people using triple parentheses to point out Jews". Are you saying that it meant "engaged with the Jewish cause"?
- travmatt 8y agoDo people who aren’t racist focus on your ethnicity when they’re looking to criticize your professional work? Do you believe pointing out someone’s ethnicity/religion is a valid rebuttal of their arguments?
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoI think the context there is "But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue" which isn't looking to criticize him for being Jewish or his work - but rather some other aspect we can't make a decision about. Or..... Just jump to pitchforks! More of that exchange if you do want context instead of pitchforks... [2016-08-23 01:21:32] <WISE Up Action> Satter is desperately trying to make smoke. [2016-08-23 03:01:11] <M> Interesting to look through his past tweets re WL. He covered Saudi Cables when they came out, but I didn’t see any mention of personal info concerns (however, I only skimmed his tweets). He seemed to turn against WL after AKP, DNC and has attacked them since. [2016-08-23 03:11:41] <M> Also note that he is trying to make this a new, recent story (“in the past year”) but Saudi Cables where 95% of claims stem from are over a year old. [2016-08-23 04:46:09] <WikiLeaks> He’s always ben a rat. [2016-08-23 04:46:27] <WikiLeaks> But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue. [2016-08-23 05:28:35] <WikiLeaks> http://Govwaste.co.uk* http://Govwaste.co.uk* [2016-08-23 05:35:50] <Emmy B> surprising I don’t see any archived links from there, I thought I had archived some pages* [2016-08-23 06:04:49] <Emmy B> Last wayback machine capture: https://web.archive.org/web/20160811212406/http://govwaste.co.uk/* https://web.archive.org/web/20160811212406/http://govwaste.c... [2016-08-23 07:23:25] <M> Looking into it* [2016-08-23 09:15:15] <WISE Up Action> Satter is keeping going in general and wide-ranging attacks on WL /JA [2016-08-23 12:58:54] <WikiLeaks> Bog him down. Get him to show statements of his bias. [2016-08-23 13:03:28] <WikiLeaks> He’s the son of David Satter, who is mentioned in our cables. DS is a senior member of the Hudson institute and a well known Russia basher and NSA apologist. He was expelled from Russia in 2008 and 2014. Rafael grew up in Washington DC So... is WL being racist? No, it doesn't seem it. Is WL using ((())) in any sort of racist way? No, not at all. What is wrong with some of you? Please leave your nonsense at Reddit.
- travmatt 8y agoEdited to respond to the edit: 1) Where is this magical context you keep pointing towards? 2) How is his ethnicity related to the article he wrote? 3) How is this not judging this reporter solely on the basis of his ethnicity? I understand you may have a preference for not calling anyone or anything racist regardless of the circumstances, but I work differently. I’m more than willing to reevaluate the context if given more information, but you seem to be telling me that it’s fine to judge reporters work by their ethnicity, irregardless of whether that ethnicity is related to the subject matter at hand.
- mc32 8y agoDoesn’t that depend on context and intent? Does saying ...”but he’s white” mean someone is racist for bringing up race? I think it depends on context and intent.
- nailer 8y agoIt doesn't, but 'white' isn't a race - a pale person from Britain is very different from a pale person from Spain or a pale person from Bulgaria. Black americans are considered a race because they have shared experiences in the US, and until recently couldn't be traced to a single country of origin. "He's a rat, but he's British and engaged with the ((( ))) issue." "He's a rat, but he's Spanish and engaged with the ((( ))) issue." "He's a rat, but he's Bulgarian and engaged with the ((( ))) issue." "He's a rat, but he's a black American and engaged with the ((( ))) issue." None strikes me as particularly racist, just that someone is disliked, and is now engaged with an issue to do with their origin.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- alliecat 8y agoI wonder how long until Wikileaks denounce this leak as "irresponsible", or whatever?
- belltaco 8y agoWould be appropriate to publish these on a site named wikileaksleaks.org
- iooi 8y agoIt's available! Go for it.
- dleslie 8y agoWho runs the Wikileaks twitter account these days? I don't imagine it could be Assange as I understand that his access to the 'net is tenuous at best.
- thsowers 8y agoIIRC within the past year or two it seemed like the account was being managed by someone else. The tone of the tweets changed, and spelling errors started to arise where there had previously been very few. This could be a result of pressure on Assange, or another party controlling the account all together
- dleslie 8y agoI noticed the same sometime during the 2016 American election; but I'm wondering if there's any hard proof of who runs it, now.
- thsowers 8y agoTheoretically, Twitter would be an entity capable of knowing this information by correlating IP addresses and user-agents, but I agree that would not constitute "hard proof" as that could be spoofed + VPN
- dleslie 8y agoAs likely is that whoever runs it (Assange or other) was always an ass, or they went off the rails, or was at the receiving end of a rubber hose interrogation, or ... Really, at this point, it's hard to say for certain with all the spooks involved and the circumstances of the major players. That said, I maintain that "When Google Met Wikileaks" and "Cypherpunks" are excellent reads.
- pmoriarty 8y agoIt might be more accurate to call it a coup rather than an election.
- arcaster 8y agoSeems wrong to assume that this dump hasn't been tampered with or has implicit biases...
- ceejayoz 8y agoSeems like that'd be fairly easy for Wikileaks to show if it were the case.
- ne0n 8y agoIt's right there in the article. > “When Emma contacted me saying the source sent her the same docs too, I took a hash of my original HTML file and it checked out, so she has a copy of the same file as me,” Lee told Motherboard in a Twitter direct message. A hash is a cryptographic fingerprint of a file; if someone has tampered the file at all, those hashes won’t match. > Lee said his source provided an HTML file of the DMs, and then Lee logged into the Twitter account himself and downloaded the direct messages with an automated tool. > “I confirmed that they were authentic (Twitter itself would have had to doctor them) and that the source didn't modify the content in the copy he gave me,” Lee told Motherboard.
- lawlessone 8y agoOne of the is issues here is Wikileaks taking sides and encouraging things to happen politically, which is beyond just leaking things.
- peterwwillis 8y agoThat's the entire intent of the organization. To leak things to cause political repercussions. They aren't leaking it just for the lulz. But the original idea was that this was supposed to be politically unbiased. It seems, though, that the history of their releases has had a bias. They also seem to have a lengthy controversy section on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Controversy It seems weird that Wikileaks exists in the form it does. I mean, couldn't they just host a giant Pastebin-style site on Tor and let people leak whatever they wanted?
- ramblerouser 8y agoNo. The point of wikileaks is that they verify the authenticity of things they publish, and the veracity of past leaks gives credibility to future ones. Regarding accusations of bias, I have yet to see an example of authentic non-public information wikileaks refused to publish. Do you have one?
- philipodonnell 8y agoThe accusation they are biased in what they published does not require them to have refused to release anything, merely that the original sources of information only made biased information available to Wikileaks to publish, or that they only solicited or acted to confirm information from biased sources.
- ramblerouser 8y agoI don't think the original sources choosing what to leak counts as bias on the part of Wikileaks. As for them only acting to confirm leaks in a biased way, do you have any examples of leaks that were published elsewhere because wikileaks refused due to bias?
- api 8y agoThis just confirms what was obvious from behavior -- namely that Wikileaks is not neutral and has a clear political agenda.
- geezerjay 8y ago> This just confirms Is the leaked material real? Until that's asserted I don't believe it confirms anything. It's no secret that there are plenty of persons interested in undermining wikileaks who are very capable of fabricating smear campaigns.
- ComputerGuru 8y agoIt’s no less legitimate than all the recent publications out of Wikileaks themselves, at any rate.
- mike-cardwell 8y agoThere's a Glenn Greenwald article on the Intercept from just over a week ago saying Assange is about to be kicked out of the embassy and handed over to the UK: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21/ecuador-will-imminently-withdraw-asylum-for-julian-assange-and-hand-him-over-to-the-uk-what-comes-next/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21/ecuador-will-imminently-... Also, there's been a bunch of stuff about anti-semitism in the UK media recently. Interesting timing and content for this story.
- dogma1138 8y agoYes the great Jewish conspirators are pulling the strings.... Seriously what has HM come to these days.
- mike-cardwell 8y agoIt's "HN", not "HM". Also, it never occurred to me for a second that "Jewish conspirators" are involved. But hey, enjoy whatever you enjoy being angry about.
- dogma1138 8y agoNo, surely it didn't, you just decided to tie completely unrelated events to Corbin's own antisemitism that was brought to a boiling point in the UK.
- mike-cardwell 8y agoIt's "Corbyn", not "Corbin". There are claims that Wikileaks is anti-semitic, at the same time that there are discussions about anti-semitism in the UK media, at the same time as a rumour that the head of Wikileaks is about to be handed over to the UK government. It's an interesting coincidence, and if you wanted to accuse me of being a conspiracy nut, you'd probably claim that I was accusing the UK government of pulling strings in the media. But no, you accused me of claiming that "Jewish conspirators" are pulling strings instead. There is no logic in the connection you made. And even when I told you that you misinterpreted me, you still don't believe it. I mean, what would I gain from making a point, and then denying that very point? There is just no reasoning with some people. Believe what you want.
- Grue3 8y agoThe tendentiousness of Wikileaks "reporting" was apparent to me from the start. Unfortunately "USA suxx" is always a popular sentiment to rally people around so people would overlook the (obvious in retrospect) fact that it was all a Kremlin-funded operation.
- TAForObvReasons 8y agoLooking at previous HN threads on the subject, there seemed to be a strong pro-wikileaks coalition on HN (comments similar to yours have been grayed out in the past)
- equalunique 8y agoCan confirm. It's just not worthwhile trying to convince those who are against it, as their minds are already made up & closed.
- bdhess 8y ago“Reporting” is absolutely right. They have their own agenda in mind, not a reasonably general definition of the public interest. No real journalist would unnecessarily release the private information of innocent bystanders and call it unfortunate collateral damage.
- hedgedoops2 8y agoThe agenda was to promote radical transparency. Check out 'Inside Wikileaks' by Daniel Ellsberg, a WL cofounder who had a falling out with Assange and founded his own radical transparency platform called OpenLeaks. Brigitta Jonsdottir used to work there too, an Icelandic green. Wikileaks stated policy and concept used to be: - Receive, in a way that keeps the leaker anonymous, any and all state secrets that are of public interest - Publish them after checking authenticity This constitutes an attack on secrecy as such, not on any particular country or entity.
- bdhess 8y ago