3 ms·

How does whistleblower imply neutrality? Neutrality on what? Does a lack of neutrality about an unrelated issue exclude one from being a whistleblower on all

How does whistleblower imply neutrality? Neutrality on what? Does a lack of neutrality about an unrelated issue exclude one from being a whistleblower on all things? If my new boss is an asshole, and he also orders me to lie to the government, am I not a whistleblower if my reasons for reporting the company are mostly to get revenge on my asshole boss? Shouldn't it be what is reported that we care about, not what failings we can accuse the whistleblower of having (and as a human being, they will certainly have)? Personally I've noticed with Snowden is that nobody really attacks what he said, they attack his perceived motivations, like that somehow matters worth a damn given the accuracy of his information.

vezycash 7y ago
>Personally I've noticed with Snowden is that nobody really attacks what he said, they attack his perceived motivations Character assassination. They pull a, "He's a rapist, child molester" and everything the whistle blower says flies out the window.
tomatocracy 7y ago
Plenty of people have criticized Wikileaks and Assange for not following a 'responsible' style of disclosure of leaked materials (usually thought of as aiming to minimize collateral damage such as spies operating in the field having their cover blown). Contrast their behaviour to how the Snowden stories were broken for example. Of course it's more nuanced than that but I don't think it's right to say the criticism is all just shooting the messenger or character assassination.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Nowadays, sure. What he said has been consumed, digested, and recycled. Google encrypted the attack vector Five Eyes used to harvest user traffic. The why is the only thing left to talk about.
goodluckchuck 7y ago
This is how: To "blow the whistle" is an idiom meaning to expose wrongdoing, usually from a position of privileged access to the information. See: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/blow+the+whistle https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/blow+the+whistle This requires that the thing being reported is in fact wrongdoing. If you expose something that is innocent and innocuous, then you are - by definition - not a whistle-blower. So when a person is called "a whistle-blower" the person using that term is expressing the opinion that the subject of the exposure is in fact 1) did occur, and 2) an act of wrongdoing.
Chris2048 7y ago
> am I not a whistleblower if my reasons for reporting the company are mostly to get revenge on my asshole boss You are a whistleblower, because he is your boss. It doesn't seem Trump is this persons boss; In fact, this persons boss may be someone opposed to Trump and quite happy about the accusations. The "neutrailty" comes from the percieved risk in taking on someone who has power over you. > Shouldn't it be what is reported that we care about Then the word "accuser" fits just as well.
- pkilgore 7y ago
  > Then the word "accuser" fits just as well. I don't believe I disputed this? But yes, by definition, every whistle-blower ever has been accusing some person or entity of wrongdoing. > You are a whistleblower, because he is your boss. It doesn't seem Trump is this persons boss; In fact, this persons boss may be someone opposed to Trump and quite happy about the accusations. So a doctor who is asked to defraud Medicare by a CEO of a hospital is not a whistle-blower because his supervising physician thinks the CEO is an asshole? > The "neutrailty" comes from the percieved risk in taking on someone who has power over you. Who's perception is relevant here? Yours? This whistle-blowers? Is it your opinion that Snowden did not "per[ceive] risk"? The Ukraine whistle-blower? But more importantly, how is perceived risk indicative of neutrality? And for that matter, again, neutrality about what? Neutral is an adjective, what noun do you intend for it to describe?
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    > So a doctor who.. depends on the balance of power, I have no idea what that is wrt a hospital CEO and a doctor, nor what governing bodies are. A person who reports a crime (of theft/bribery/fraud) to the police is not normally called a "whistle-blower"; Hence the word has implications when used instead of "accuser" > Who's perception is relevant here an outside observer. > how is perceived risk indicative of neutrality becasue they have nothing to gain from it - they are hence impartial.

vezycash 7y ago

>Personally I've noticed with Snowden is that nobody really attacks what he said, they attack his perceived motivations Character assassination. They pull a, "He's a rapist, child molester" and everything the whistle blower says flies out the window.

tomatocracy 7y ago

Plenty of people have criticized Wikileaks and Assange for not following a 'responsible' style of disclosure of leaked materials (usually thought of as aiming to minimize collateral damage such as spies operating in the field having their cover blown). Contrast their behaviour to how the Snowden stories were broken for example. Of course it's more nuanced than that but I don't think it's right to say the criticism is all just shooting the messenger or character assassination.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Nowadays, sure. What he said has been consumed, digested, and recycled. Google encrypted the attack vector Five Eyes used to harvest user traffic. The why is the only thing left to talk about.

goodluckchuck 7y ago

This is how: To "blow the whistle" is an idiom meaning to expose wrongdoing, usually from a position of privileged access to the information. See: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/blow+the+whistle https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/blow+the+whistle This requires that the thing being reported is in fact wrongdoing. If you expose something that is innocent and innocuous, then you are - by definition - not a whistle-blower. So when a person is called "a whistle-blower" the person using that term is expressing the opinion that the subject of the exposure is in fact 1) did occur, and 2) an act of wrongdoing.

Chris2048 7y ago

> am I not a whistleblower if my reasons for reporting the company are mostly to get revenge on my asshole boss You are a whistleblower, because he is your boss. It doesn't seem Trump is this persons boss; In fact, this persons boss may be someone opposed to Trump and quite happy about the accusations. The "neutrailty" comes from the percieved risk in taking on someone who has power over you. > Shouldn't it be what is reported that we care about Then the word "accuser" fits just as well.

pkilgore 7y ago
> Then the word "accuser" fits just as well. I don't believe I disputed this? But yes, by definition, every whistle-blower ever has been accusing some person or entity of wrongdoing. > You are a whistleblower, because he is your boss. It doesn't seem Trump is this persons boss; In fact, this persons boss may be someone opposed to Trump and quite happy about the accusations. So a doctor who is asked to defraud Medicare by a CEO of a hospital is not a whistle-blower because his supervising physician thinks the CEO is an asshole? > The "neutrailty" comes from the percieved risk in taking on someone who has power over you. Who's perception is relevant here? Yours? This whistle-blowers? Is it your opinion that Snowden did not "per[ceive] risk"? The Ukraine whistle-blower? But more importantly, how is perceived risk indicative of neutrality? And for that matter, again, neutrality about what? Neutral is an adjective, what noun do you intend for it to describe?
- Chris2048 7y ago
  > So a doctor who.. depends on the balance of power, I have no idea what that is wrt a hospital CEO and a doctor, nor what governing bodies are. A person who reports a crime (of theft/bribery/fraud) to the police is not normally called a "whistle-blower"; Hence the word has implications when used instead of "accuser" > Who's perception is relevant here an outside observer. > how is perceived risk indicative of neutrality becasue they have nothing to gain from it - they are hence impartial.