12 ms·

I'm sorry but if you think the NSA is the shadiest government agency on the planet, then you live in an information bubble. Do you think the NSA is shadier tha

I'm sorry but if you think the NSA is the shadiest government agency on the planet, then you live in an information bubble. Do you think the NSA is shadier than the KGB? What about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? Or even the CIA? I know people are upset about the Snowden revelations but there are much graver sins that have been committed by other agencies.

leggomylibro 6y ago
KGB doesn't exist anymore - you might mean the FSB or GRU? Anyways, plenty of countries have security agencies whose main job is to violently protect the local kleptocrats these days. China might be a better example to point to for even worse behavior, with their balkanized net and mass surveillance being used to carry out the mass internment and repression of ethnic minorities in regions like Xinjiang.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > KGB doesn't exist anymore - you might mean the FSB or GRU? The Russians have definitely gone back to the old ways, I'm not sure the distinction between the old and new matters much any more (The GRU is the same organization, the FSB still reside in the Lubyanka - "the tallest building in Moscow")
- 0ld 6y ago
  > KGB doesn't exist anymore it actually does [0] - at least in belarus and some of the russian-occupied pseudo-republics [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Committee_of_the_Republic_of_Belarus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Committee_of_th...
number6 6y ago
Whataboutism
- bsamuels 6y ago
  No, it's not whataboutism. His statement is that "the NSA is the shadiest agency". I am arguing that it is not the most shady. If I tried to justify the NSA's behavior _because_ of what the GRU/IRA/CIA does, that is whataboutism. Hope this was a bit helpful.
  - blodorn 6y ago
    I thought this was a really good example. I see the word, whataboutism, thrown around a lot and have a hard time understanding what is/isn't. So, thank you.
- smolder 6y ago
  Not really, a comparison was implied. They didn't say "shady agency", they said "shadiest", which makes a claim and invites dispute about the others' relative shadiness.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    I felt like “shadiest” was hyperbole meant to mean “very shady”. Also while the others mentioned might be bad, the NSA is probably the “best” at being covert and probably the most active of all of them. So they might truly be the “shadiest” by sheer volume of covert things they do.
- whytaka 6y ago
  This is definitely not a case of Whataboutism as it is literally about comparing one with others.
- lwansbrough 6y ago
  Please substantiate your claims. It's not whataboutism if the claim is making a comparison against all other possibilities. "shadiest government agency on the planet" may be an objectively false statement as applied to the NSA. You can compare the NSA to other contenders for "most shady" using any number of metrics and create an ordered list. None of that is whataboutism.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  When did the NSA last assassinate someone in public?
  - ta1771 6y ago
    This is not a response in this "argument", but, please watch "Citizenfour" and/or Hollywood version "Snowden".
leetcrew 6y ago
how would you even know? you can only judge them by what they mess up and get caught doing.
rakoo 6y ago
NSA might not be the shadiest, but it's definitely one of the shadiest. Doesn't change a thing about GP's comment.
ebg13 6y ago
> I'm sorry but if you think the NSA is the shadiest You're right about the detail (probably) and also very wrong to be focusing on that particular detail instead of interpreting it as just barely mild hyperbole. You've gone to "it's not the absolute worst, therefore I dismiss the statement" instead of "it's not the absolute worst, but it's still really fucking bad so I'm going to recognize the premise and move on".
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  I would argue there is a wide gulf between the two.
tehjoker 6y ago
You might be able to point to a regional power and say yes, these guys are pretty shady. What you have to remember though, is that the USA is a global power with global reach, so any shadiness is more scalable. Also, don't forget that the US often does stuff like hand people over to another agency knowing they'll be tortured. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/20/cameroonian-troops-tortured-and-killed-prisoners-at-base-used-for-u-s-drone-surveillance/ https://theintercept.com/2017/07/20/cameroonian-troops-tortu... EDIT: Don't forget that NSA acquires data to create actionable intelligence that can be passed onto another actor. Whatever you think about them, their work is being used in many cases ultimately by another agency or government.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Often?
mrobot 6y ago
What bubble is that? Which sources are you basing this on? Who owns them?

leggomylibro 6y ago

KGB doesn't exist anymore - you might mean the FSB or GRU? Anyways, plenty of countries have security agencies whose main job is to violently protect the local kleptocrats these days. China might be a better example to point to for even worse behavior, with their balkanized net and mass surveillance being used to carry out the mass internment and repression of ethnic minorities in regions like Xinjiang.

mhh__ 6y ago
> KGB doesn't exist anymore - you might mean the FSB or GRU? The Russians have definitely gone back to the old ways, I'm not sure the distinction between the old and new matters much any more (The GRU is the same organization, the FSB still reside in the Lubyanka - "the tallest building in Moscow")
0ld 6y ago
> KGB doesn't exist anymore it actually does [0] - at least in belarus and some of the russian-occupied pseudo-republics [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Committee_of_the_Republic_of_Belarus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Committee_of_th...

number6 6y ago

Whataboutism

bsamuels 6y ago
No, it's not whataboutism. His statement is that "the NSA is the shadiest agency". I am arguing that it is not the most shady. If I tried to justify the NSA's behavior _because_ of what the GRU/IRA/CIA does, that is whataboutism. Hope this was a bit helpful.
- blodorn 6y ago
  I thought this was a really good example. I see the word, whataboutism, thrown around a lot and have a hard time understanding what is/isn't. So, thank you.
smolder 6y ago
Not really, a comparison was implied. They didn't say "shady agency", they said "shadiest", which makes a claim and invites dispute about the others' relative shadiness.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  I felt like “shadiest” was hyperbole meant to mean “very shady”. Also while the others mentioned might be bad, the NSA is probably the “best” at being covert and probably the most active of all of them. So they might truly be the “shadiest” by sheer volume of covert things they do.
whytaka 6y ago
This is definitely not a case of Whataboutism as it is literally about comparing one with others.
lwansbrough 6y ago
Please substantiate your claims. It's not whataboutism if the claim is making a comparison against all other possibilities. "shadiest government agency on the planet" may be an objectively false statement as applied to the NSA. You can compare the NSA to other contenders for "most shady" using any number of metrics and create an ordered list. None of that is whataboutism.
mhh__ 6y ago
When did the NSA last assassinate someone in public?
- ta1771 6y ago
  This is not a response in this "argument", but, please watch "Citizenfour" and/or Hollywood version "Snowden".

leetcrew 6y ago

how would you even know? you can only judge them by what they mess up and get caught doing.

rakoo 6y ago

NSA might not be the shadiest, but it's definitely one of the shadiest. Doesn't change a thing about GP's comment.

ebg13 6y ago

> I'm sorry but if you think the NSA is the shadiest You're right about the detail (probably) and also very wrong to be focusing on that particular detail instead of interpreting it as just barely mild hyperbole. You've gone to "it's not the absolute worst, therefore I dismiss the statement" instead of "it's not the absolute worst, but it's still really fucking bad so I'm going to recognize the premise and move on".

Hnrobert42 6y ago
I would argue there is a wide gulf between the two.

tehjoker 6y ago

You might be able to point to a regional power and say yes, these guys are pretty shady. What you have to remember though, is that the USA is a global power with global reach, so any shadiness is more scalable. Also, don't forget that the US often does stuff like hand people over to another agency knowing they'll be tortured. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/20/cameroonian-troops-tortured-and-killed-prisoners-at-base-used-for-u-s-drone-surveillance/ https://theintercept.com/2017/07/20/cameroonian-troops-tortu... EDIT: Don't forget that NSA acquires data to create actionable intelligence that can be passed onto another actor. Whatever you think about them, their work is being used in many cases ultimately by another agency or government.

Hnrobert42 6y ago
Often?

mrobot 6y ago

What bubble is that? Which sources are you basing this on? Who owns them?