2 ms·

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 dialo

• 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?