3 ms·
> 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
by 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.