4 ms·
they can't break there law and get away with it. what gives them the right to decide what's secret or not? the state is not wholly good, nor are people. but tha
by dosy 7y ago
they can't break there law and get away with it. what gives them the right to decide what's secret or not? the state is not wholly good, nor are people. but that's okay, a lot of good still gets done. attacking such a system is wrong. attacking it under delusion of moral righteousness, then continuing to live in the shadow of the freedom it provides, is morally bankrupt. it's also stupid. I totally have the authoritarian mindset you refer to, and it's a good thing.
now we just have to get Snowden and Kim dot com.
isn't supporting these idiots the same as supporting me to break into your house, install a monitoring product, go through how you act in your relationships with your spouse and kids, what you do in private, then decide which of that I personally am offended by or think is wrong or you would be embarrassed by, and publishing it?
it seems so obvious to me that idiots like this are driven by ego and arrogance, and the hunger for power they hope to achieve by holding the powerful hostage. it's also obvious to me that they will fail.
finally it seems highly likely to me that these useful idiots were used as pawns by factions within the intelligence community to be the mouthpiece for deliberate leaks. The funny thing is these people thought they were revealing secrets about casualties in wars, but in the end they are just casualties in a political turf warf that made fools of them.
they're not heroes they're idiots.
- loudtieblahblah 7y agoAre you honestly comparing exposing war crimesdone on tax payer dollar to someone spying on my private life? I just want to reply here just so you can't delete this crap comment.
- dosy 7y agohaha. "war crimes" why would I want to delete my awesome comment? yes, I'm doing more than comparing, they're analogous. spying and publishing, mind. if you're so huffy about war crimes, why do you pay your taxes? because doesn't that make you complicit? oh no but you're morally righteous. let me get you a badge for that. also, language.
- msiyer 7y ago>> if you're so huffy about war crimes, why do you pay your taxes? because doesn't that make you complicit? No, because I do not have a choice. If I refuse, the system will use violence against me.
- dosy 7y agopretending you don't have a choice and you're not responsible for your actions is morally bankrupt and a fake justifier of violence and abuse
- msiyer 7y agoYou sound like an agent of the system. The authoritarian mindset is the reason why the whole system is so violent and morally bankrupt.
- dosy 7y agowould you rather be an agent with agency or a subject flopping around helplessly complaining? authority doesn't have to be bad. you're projecting
- AnaniasAnanas 7y ago"agents with agency" are people like Snowden. > or a subject flopping around helplessly complaining? Good thing, people like Stallman, Assange, DJB, Washington, Jefferson, etc did not flop around helplessly complain, they actually acted. Without DJB specifically it would still be unlawful for you to publish your dosycrypt library for example.
- dosy 7y agoSnowden was definitely an agent. Agency? Jury's out. There's a difference between being effective, GW, TJ, and stupidly ineffective, JA, RS. Or just plain stupid, ES. Interesting about DJB, I did not know that story.
- AnaniasAnanas 7y agoHow was Snowden "plain stupid" exactly? "stupidly ineffective" - well, one has to start from somewhere. Plus stallman's work was far from ineffective. As for assange's work, the publication of the war crimes might have saved thousands of civilian lives.
- dosy 7y agoSnowden was a pawn, taken in by savior complex. Stallman made zero impact. Assange had no effect on war policy. He was also a pawn entrapped by savior complex.