8 ms·

pretty typical. look at Snowden. The guy ruined his own life and nobody still gives a damn. Was it worth it? i dont think so. He definitely should have kept qui

by readhn 8y ago

pretty typical. look at Snowden. The guy ruined his own life and nobody still gives a damn. Was it worth it? i dont think so. He definitely should have kept quiet even if it was against his own personal beliefs. It sucks but it is what it is. HSBC got slapped on the wrist for laundering cartel money. "If you’re suspected of drug involvement, America takes your house; HSBC admits to laundering cartel billions, loses five weeks’ income and execs have to partially defer bonuses" https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-230696/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/outrageo... happens all the time with corporations.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
arminiusreturns 8y ago
First off I don't think you can make that determination, (was it worth it), only Snowden himself can. Second, while the toll was high for him, those of us who have sworn an oath to the Constitution take that oath very seriously and I applaud him for being one of the rare ones with enough conviction to act on his beliefs instead of just spouting them. Third I am eternally grateful to Snowden because without him all my rants about the coming surveillance dystopia would still be met with incompetent or malicious accusations of being "crackpot conspiracy theory" and generally ridiculed (like many other things the public still hasn't caught up on).
- smush 8y ago
  Any other things the public hasn't caught up on that you care to share?
  - arminiusreturns 8y ago
    I will try to respond when my work day is over.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
whatshisface 8y ago
>He definitely should have kept quiet even if it was against his own personal beliefs. That argument for moral complacency is largely self-fulfilling, because if nobody thinks that one person defecting will change anything, you'll never get more than one defector at once, and nothing will ever change. In that way everyone will march in lockstep to hell and deserve every bit of the torture that's waiting for them. The foremost thing that Snowden achieved was that he quit doing the bad thing. There is some value in not being an active contributor to the suffering in the world. Sure, if you quit littering that won't clean up the parks, but at least you won't be a litterer anymore. The first thing Snowden did to improve the state of the world was reducing the number of NSA employees by one; and he improved himself by switching from NSA employee to unemployed. Too many people overlook this, thinking that all that matters is whether or not the world is good on average, while ignoring whether or not they themselves are good. Secondly, Snowden hasn't been forgotten. It might take a few more to follow in his footsteps before the lesson sinks in to the public, but the things he revealed are still out there. Finally, there actually have been some changes because of his actions (I saved the most concrete point for last). Nobody on HN discounts the reality of malicious state attackers anymore - it used to be that nobody expected to be on the receiving end of a state level attack (and we never secured appropriately), but now it's common knowledge that Public Enemy Number One is actually the public itself. Snowden definitely helped push forward HTTPS rollouts, for example.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  You can stop littering without being fucked over by it very easily.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    If you stop littering you'll have to carry trash around for longer, which is a personal cost. Littering is a miniature analogy, with and smaller table stakes. The hedonistic difference between making a good salary selling out your countrymen and hiding from your government in Russia is pretty big, a lot bigger than carrying a chip bag around, but the moral difference scales in proportion. A common fallacy is thinking that you only have to be a good person for matters less than $100. I can't explain it or present an argument in its favor but it is a very common sentiment.
Retra 8y ago
>look at Snowden. The guy ruined his own life and nobody still gives a damn. Was it worth it? i dont think so. If it wasn't worth it, you wouldn't know his name, and you wouldn't be talking about it today. Does that count for nothing to you?
- magduf 8y ago
  Whether it's "worth it" is completely subjective, and differs from person to person based on their values. You seem to value having your name remembered; i.e., you value fame, and you're projecting that onto Snowden. I don't know what Snowden values, but assuming he values fame as you do (or that the person you're responding to does) makes no sense. If the person you responded to values only financial security and a peaceful life, then he's absolutely right to say he doesn't think Snowden's actions were worth it, because to him, Snowden sacrificed all that and got nothing in return but exile in Russia. (I guess it could be worse... there's worse places to live on the planet, but Russia is a pretty lousy place to live in my book.)
  - Retra 8y ago
    >You seem to value having your name remembered; i.e., you value fame, and you're projecting that onto Snowden. Total bullshit. Nothing I said implies any of this. What I value is that we can have a discussion premised on facts. Snowden is a real person who exists, and we can discuss what he did and what the consequences are. The alternative is that we discuss a hypothetical whistleblower and have all our reasoning dismissed as fear-mongering or paranoia. That is what I value. >Whether it's "worth it" is completely subjective, and differs from person to person based on their values. To be clear, it is worth it to me to have Snowden be a whistleblower because I had to pay nothing for the privilege. There are not many people who would say it is not worth it for someone else to be a whistleblower unless they think whistleblowing is inherently objectionable.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  Would you ruin your life if it guaranteed I'd know your name and mention you 6 years later as an example of someone who ruined their life without achieving anything?

by readhn 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

arminiusreturns 8y ago

First off I don't think you can make that determination, (was it worth it), only Snowden himself can. Second, while the toll was high for him, those of us who have sworn an oath to the Constitution take that oath very seriously and I applaud him for being one of the rare ones with enough conviction to act on his beliefs instead of just spouting them. Third I am eternally grateful to Snowden because without him all my rants about the coming surveillance dystopia would still be met with incompetent or malicious accusations of being "crackpot conspiracy theory" and generally ridiculed (like many other things the public still hasn't caught up on).

smush 8y ago
Any other things the public hasn't caught up on that you care to share?
- arminiusreturns 8y ago
  I will try to respond when my work day is over.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

whatshisface 8y ago

>He definitely should have kept quiet even if it was against his own personal beliefs. That argument for moral complacency is largely self-fulfilling, because if nobody thinks that one person defecting will change anything, you'll never get more than one defector at once, and nothing will ever change. In that way everyone will march in lockstep to hell and deserve every bit of the torture that's waiting for them. The foremost thing that Snowden achieved was that he quit doing the bad thing. There is some value in not being an active contributor to the suffering in the world. Sure, if you quit littering that won't clean up the parks, but at least you won't be a litterer anymore. The first thing Snowden did to improve the state of the world was reducing the number of NSA employees by one; and he improved himself by switching from NSA employee to unemployed. Too many people overlook this, thinking that all that matters is whether or not the world is good on average, while ignoring whether or not they themselves are good. Secondly, Snowden hasn't been forgotten. It might take a few more to follow in his footsteps before the lesson sinks in to the public, but the things he revealed are still out there. Finally, there actually have been some changes because of his actions (I saved the most concrete point for last). Nobody on HN discounts the reality of malicious state attackers anymore - it used to be that nobody expected to be on the receiving end of a state level attack (and we never secured appropriately), but now it's common knowledge that Public Enemy Number One is actually the public itself. Snowden definitely helped push forward HTTPS rollouts, for example.

Aeolun 8y ago
You can stop littering without being fucked over by it very easily.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  If you stop littering you'll have to carry trash around for longer, which is a personal cost. Littering is a miniature analogy, with and smaller table stakes. The hedonistic difference between making a good salary selling out your countrymen and hiding from your government in Russia is pretty big, a lot bigger than carrying a chip bag around, but the moral difference scales in proportion. A common fallacy is thinking that you only have to be a good person for matters less than $100. I can't explain it or present an argument in its favor but it is a very common sentiment.

Retra 8y ago

>look at Snowden. The guy ruined his own life and nobody still gives a damn. Was it worth it? i dont think so. If it wasn't worth it, you wouldn't know his name, and you wouldn't be talking about it today. Does that count for nothing to you?

magduf 8y ago
Whether it's "worth it" is completely subjective, and differs from person to person based on their values. You seem to value having your name remembered; i.e., you value fame, and you're projecting that onto Snowden. I don't know what Snowden values, but assuming he values fame as you do (or that the person you're responding to does) makes no sense. If the person you responded to values only financial security and a peaceful life, then he's absolutely right to say he doesn't think Snowden's actions were worth it, because to him, Snowden sacrificed all that and got nothing in return but exile in Russia. (I guess it could be worse... there's worse places to live on the planet, but Russia is a pretty lousy place to live in my book.)
- Retra 8y ago
  >You seem to value having your name remembered; i.e., you value fame, and you're projecting that onto Snowden. Total bullshit. Nothing I said implies any of this. What I value is that we can have a discussion premised on facts. Snowden is a real person who exists, and we can discuss what he did and what the consequences are. The alternative is that we discuss a hypothetical whistleblower and have all our reasoning dismissed as fear-mongering or paranoia. That is what I value. >Whether it's "worth it" is completely subjective, and differs from person to person based on their values. To be clear, it is worth it to me to have Snowden be a whistleblower because I had to pay nothing for the privilege. There are not many people who would say it is not worth it for someone else to be a whistleblower unless they think whistleblowing is inherently objectionable.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
Would you ruin your life if it guaranteed I'd know your name and mention you 6 years later as an example of someone who ruined their life without achieving anything?