4 ms·

You're not the only one talking about him, and that very much contradicts 'not achieving anything'. In any case, your individual perspective being contrary to m

by Retra 8y ago

You're not the only one talking about him, and that very much contradicts 'not achieving anything'. In any case, your individual perspective being contrary to my claim isn't anything meaningful here, because there isn't an impactful person on this planet who hasn't had their accomplishments trivialized by somebody.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
I'm not trivializing his accomplishments. You're the one who's implying he hasn't accomplished anything beyond being an example people bring up in HN comments. Would that be worth ruining your life? I'm asking for your perspective.
- Retra 8y ago
  WTF are you reading? I said that the fact that Snowden can be used as an example is evidence of him accomplishing something. Explicitely to argue against the position that he hasn't accomplished anything. I am in no way arguing that he didn't accomplish anything more. >Would that be worth ruining your life? I'm asking for your perspective. Would what be worth ruining my life for? Obviously one doesn't make such personal sacrifices solely for personal gain, so if I'm going to ruin my life, it will be because I feel that it could very well lead to the betterment of many other lives. There's no 'perspective' there to glean. The fact that you would personally not value my sacrifice doesn't really impact that, because frankly, I don't give a shit what you think. You're just some rando with an opinion.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    > I said that the fact that Snowden can be used as an example is evidence of him accomplishing something. How is it evidence of anything more than his fame? It's very counter-intuitive that being brought up as an example of an unaccomplished person is evidence of accomplishment. I don't see how that works. If you want to argue in favor of Snowden having accomplished something important, point out his accomplishments. Your argument is bad and makes it seem like he has none.
    - Retra 8y ago
      What he accomplished was to spark a dialog. That was basically what he set out to do, and his fame is evidence of it, because it can be used to track that dialog. Your argument is predicated on a category error.
      - daveFNbuck 8y ago
        We're currently discussing him in the context of how whistleblowing is ineffective. If that was the conversation he wanted to spark, this is evidence of his success. I believe he wanted to spark a different conversation. Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that. What argument do you think I'm making and how is it predicated on a category error?
        Retra 8y ago
        He did spark a different conversation. So many of them, in fact, that you know his name as a consequence of people having those very conversations. >Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that. That's funny. Edward Snowden's name doesn't seem to be brought up in random-ass conversations. He seems to always come up when people are talking about security and surveillance. I wonder if that's a spurious correlation, or if it is evidence of something? Perhaps some kind of impact that he's had on conversations about those very subjects? Perhaps you have a better explanation of this correlation?

by Retra 8y ago

daveFNbuck 8y ago

I'm not trivializing his accomplishments. You're the one who's implying he hasn't accomplished anything beyond being an example people bring up in HN comments. Would that be worth ruining your life? I'm asking for your perspective.

Retra 8y ago
WTF are you reading? I said that the fact that Snowden can be used as an example is evidence of him accomplishing something. Explicitely to argue against the position that he hasn't accomplished anything. I am in no way arguing that he didn't accomplish anything more. >Would that be worth ruining your life? I'm asking for your perspective. Would what be worth ruining my life for? Obviously one doesn't make such personal sacrifices solely for personal gain, so if I'm going to ruin my life, it will be because I feel that it could very well lead to the betterment of many other lives. There's no 'perspective' there to glean. The fact that you would personally not value my sacrifice doesn't really impact that, because frankly, I don't give a shit what you think. You're just some rando with an opinion.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  > I said that the fact that Snowden can be used as an example is evidence of him accomplishing something. How is it evidence of anything more than his fame? It's very counter-intuitive that being brought up as an example of an unaccomplished person is evidence of accomplishment. I don't see how that works. If you want to argue in favor of Snowden having accomplished something important, point out his accomplishments. Your argument is bad and makes it seem like he has none.
  - Retra 8y ago
    What he accomplished was to spark a dialog. That was basically what he set out to do, and his fame is evidence of it, because it can be used to track that dialog. Your argument is predicated on a category error.
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      We're currently discussing him in the context of how whistleblowing is ineffective. If that was the conversation he wanted to spark, this is evidence of his success. I believe he wanted to spark a different conversation. Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that. What argument do you think I'm making and how is it predicated on a category error?
      - Retra 8y ago
        He did spark a different conversation. So many of them, in fact, that you know his name as a consequence of people having those very conversations. >Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that. That's funny. Edward Snowden's name doesn't seem to be brought up in random-ass conversations. He seems to always come up when people are talking about security and surveillance. I wonder if that's a spurious correlation, or if it is evidence of something? Perhaps some kind of impact that he's had on conversations about those very subjects? Perhaps you have a better explanation of this correlation?