5 ms·

I don't think "cowardly" is the right way to put it. The level of harassment you put up with is obscene, and that you continue to stick to your guns in the face

I don't think "cowardly" is the right way to put it. The level of harassment you put up with is obscene, and that you continue to stick to your guns in the face of it is admirable. That said, it's not something that most people want in their lives. Many people just want to pursue their interests, develop their career, and raise a family. Dealing with the level of harassment you face imperils all of those goals. Unless someone is dedicated to a cause and willing to sacrifice a lot to serve it, it's unreasonable to ask them to invite that kind of drama into their lives. I respect what you do, but I think it's unfair and myopic to label as "cowards" anyone who doesn't share your commitment. On an unrelated note, does this mean the FBI will be serving pg with a warrant for our info?

ioerror 16y ago
I partially agree with you. The level of harassment I deal with is obscene and the never ending nature is very stressful. However, I use the word cowardly because the results you outlined are not certain. It's not even likely. When fear rules you and limits otherwise desirable actions, you're acting as a coward without a doubt.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  I'm not convinced. It may not be a popular sentiment, but I don't think that there is a moral imperative to risk life and liberty to extinguish injustice. We can certainly applaud those who do, without condemning those who don't. Not everyone has the moral fortitude and strength of character to be an Oskar Schindler. We could wish the world were otherwise, but I don't think recognizing the virtue of those such as Schindler necessitates condemning his neighbour who only wanted to protect and provide for his family.
  - ioerror 16y ago
    I think sage_jock said it best here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567
    - fjarlq 16y ago
      I agree. Sorry that you're being harrassed like this. We have got to stick together and stand up to this. Need any help?
- jedsmith 16y ago
  I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself. However, the folks that distance themselves from you undoubtedly have things to lose, and can't afford to share your fight. You could certainly label those folks as cowards, but I think it's a bit disingenuous. As you are finding out, the government can take a lot from you when you piss them off. In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management to protect your loved ones from similar treatment, particularly if you're raising a family. Not many employers will stick with you if you get this kind of harassment in your personal life, because it will eventually affect them too; that cuts right into feeding your family, which is high on my list of things I will not sacrifice. Putting my family above an ideal is not cowardice, particularly when my family isn't even aware of the reason for an ideal and definitely doesn't share it. It's also dangerous to assume that a given outcome is unlikely for any set of circumstances. Continuously, we read about things that blow our mind when governments abuse power, and there are probably far more things that we are not lucky enough to read about; if they really wanted you gone, you'd be gone tomorrow and none of us would ever know. It stands to reason that you haven't disappeared yet because they want Assange. Planning for the best from your adversary is a dangerous path, I think, but I know that you're far more familiar with your own circumstances than Mr. Internet Commenter here is.
  - ioerror 16y ago
    Your first premise is flawed: I have not determined that I have nothing else to lose.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - jedsmith 16y ago
      Fair enough. Perhaps I'd rephrase as: you've weighed the risks against what you have to lose, and determined that it's a risk that you're willing to take in light of the consequences. Others can't make that call, but it isn't out of fear, it's about minimizing risk.
  - 16y ago
sage_joch 16y ago
It is cowardly, though. By refusing to associate with someone simply because they've been bullied, you have given your consent to the bullying and even (to a small degree) participated in it. By the way, no one was labeled a coward for failing to share his commitment; that part of your comment is a straw man. People were labeled as cowards for refusing to associate with him.
- ioerror 16y ago
  Bingo.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  As I said, the refusal to risk the harassment he endures comes not from cowardice, but from having other, competing goals that are more personally important. If I, as a 20-something man saw a woman getting raped, I would feel compelled to intervene, at non-zero risk to myself. Would I take the same risk if I had a wife at home with our newborn child? Likely not. The willingness to expose oneself to the kind of harassment Applebaum endures is derived from one's commitment to the cause. I can certainly applaud those who risk being ostracized by associating with someone being bullied, without condemning those who don't. The bullying is morally wrong, but the reaction of others is neutral.
  - erikpukinskis 16y ago
    I don't have a partner or a child, so what I think I'd do isn't worth much. I'm not even sure I'd have the courage to intervene as a single person. But I hope I would. And I don't think having a partner and child would change that. Because I don't want my children to grow up in a world where someone would walk by them getting raped and ignore it. I would rather they grow up in a world where their father died to help someone. The same applies to Applebaum. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where it's considered good and decent for them to be ostracized by people like you for making choices like Jacob's. I wouldn't want them to grow up with a father who supported that.
    - dhume 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
kragen 16y ago
> On an unrelated note, does this mean the FBI will be serving pg with a warrant for our info? If they already had, would you even know? Twitter has fought the subpoena and gag order in court, which is the only reason we've heard about it. Presumably Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Hotmail, and other service providers have also had information requested from them, but we haven't heard anything from them, presumably because they cooperated instead of fighting.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  I am under the impression that public libraries in the US will often place signs in their windows saying something to the effect of "The FBI have NOT yet visited us". When they get served with a warrant and a gag order, they simply remove the sign (but are unable to actually mention anything).
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - biafra 16y ago
    That sounds interesting. Do you have a(n online) source for this? Although I think removing that sign would be considered violating the gag order.
    - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
      rsync.net famously does (did?) the same thing, publishing weekly messages of "as of april 11, 2011 we have not been served". There was some debate about whether they could stop publishing these messages without violating the gag order.
pieceofpeace 16y ago
> I don't think "cowardly" is the right way to put it. Oh, is "apathetic" a more comfortable label ? > The level of harassment you put up with is obscene, and that you continue to stick to your guns in the face of it is admirable. That said, it's not something that most people want in their lives. That guy is getting harassed a lot because he is alone. I don't think the overloads up there have the courage to harass tens of thousands - do they ? Wide ranging support means less heroism will be required to get what people want. He is not fighting a personal battle, right ? It is better to fight smaller battles now and avoid the possibility of all out wars that we are seeing in Africa and the Middle-East. > Dealing with the level of harassment you face imperils all of those goals. Unless someone is dedicated to a cause and willing to sacrifice a lot to serve it, it's unreasonable to ask them to invite that kind of drama into their lives. So, that person won't even "want to meet or correspond with" them. Do they realize the stark contrast between Jake's priorities and theirs.
AretNCarlsen 16y ago
First they came for the avid Wikileaks supporters, and I didn't speak out because I was not an avid Wikileaks supporter.

ioerror 16y ago

I partially agree with you. The level of harassment I deal with is obscene and the never ending nature is very stressful. However, I use the word cowardly because the results you outlined are not certain. It's not even likely. When fear rules you and limits otherwise desirable actions, you're acting as a coward without a doubt.

redthrowaway 16y ago
I'm not convinced. It may not be a popular sentiment, but I don't think that there is a moral imperative to risk life and liberty to extinguish injustice. We can certainly applaud those who do, without condemning those who don't. Not everyone has the moral fortitude and strength of character to be an Oskar Schindler. We could wish the world were otherwise, but I don't think recognizing the virtue of those such as Schindler necessitates condemning his neighbour who only wanted to protect and provide for his family.
- ioerror 16y ago
  I think sage_jock said it best here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430567
  - fjarlq 16y ago
    I agree. Sorry that you're being harrassed like this. We have got to stick together and stand up to this. Need any help?
jedsmith 16y ago
I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself. However, the folks that distance themselves from you undoubtedly have things to lose, and can't afford to share your fight. You could certainly label those folks as cowards, but I think it's a bit disingenuous. As you are finding out, the government can take a lot from you when you piss them off. In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management to protect your loved ones from similar treatment, particularly if you're raising a family. Not many employers will stick with you if you get this kind of harassment in your personal life, because it will eventually affect them too; that cuts right into feeding your family, which is high on my list of things I will not sacrifice. Putting my family above an ideal is not cowardice, particularly when my family isn't even aware of the reason for an ideal and definitely doesn't share it. It's also dangerous to assume that a given outcome is unlikely for any set of circumstances. Continuously, we read about things that blow our mind when governments abuse power, and there are probably far more things that we are not lucky enough to read about; if they really wanted you gone, you'd be gone tomorrow and none of us would ever know. It stands to reason that you haven't disappeared yet because they want Assange. Planning for the best from your adversary is a dangerous path, I think, but I know that you're far more familiar with your own circumstances than Mr. Internet Commenter here is.
- ioerror 16y ago
  Your first premise is flawed: I have not determined that I have nothing else to lose.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    Fair enough. Perhaps I'd rephrase as: you've weighed the risks against what you have to lose, and determined that it's a risk that you're willing to take in light of the consequences. Others can't make that call, but it isn't out of fear, it's about minimizing risk.
- 16y ago

sage_joch 16y ago

It is cowardly, though. By refusing to associate with someone simply because they've been bullied, you have given your consent to the bullying and even (to a small degree) participated in it. By the way, no one was labeled a coward for failing to share his commitment; that part of your comment is a straw man. People were labeled as cowards for refusing to associate with him.

ioerror 16y ago
Bingo.
redthrowaway 16y ago
As I said, the refusal to risk the harassment he endures comes not from cowardice, but from having other, competing goals that are more personally important. If I, as a 20-something man saw a woman getting raped, I would feel compelled to intervene, at non-zero risk to myself. Would I take the same risk if I had a wife at home with our newborn child? Likely not. The willingness to expose oneself to the kind of harassment Applebaum endures is derived from one's commitment to the cause. I can certainly applaud those who risk being ostracized by associating with someone being bullied, without condemning those who don't. The bullying is morally wrong, but the reaction of others is neutral.
- erikpukinskis 16y ago
  I don't have a partner or a child, so what I think I'd do isn't worth much. I'm not even sure I'd have the courage to intervene as a single person. But I hope I would. And I don't think having a partner and child would change that. Because I don't want my children to grow up in a world where someone would walk by them getting raped and ignore it. I would rather they grow up in a world where their father died to help someone. The same applies to Applebaum. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where it's considered good and decent for them to be ostracized by people like you for making choices like Jacob's. I wouldn't want them to grow up with a father who supported that.
  - dhume 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

kragen 16y ago

> On an unrelated note, does this mean the FBI will be serving pg with a warrant for our info? If they already had, would you even know? Twitter has fought the subpoena and gag order in court, which is the only reason we've heard about it. Presumably Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Hotmail, and other service providers have also had information requested from them, but we haven't heard anything from them, presumably because they cooperated instead of fighting.

burgerbrain 16y ago
I am under the impression that public libraries in the US will often place signs in their windows saying something to the effect of "The FBI have NOT yet visited us". When they get served with a warrant and a gag order, they simply remove the sign (but are unable to actually mention anything).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- biafra 16y ago
  That sounds interesting. Do you have a(n online) source for this? Although I think removing that sign would be considered violating the gag order.
  - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
    rsync.net famously does (did?) the same thing, publishing weekly messages of "as of april 11, 2011 we have not been served". There was some debate about whether they could stop publishing these messages without violating the gag order.

pieceofpeace 16y ago

> I don't think "cowardly" is the right way to put it. Oh, is "apathetic" a more comfortable label ? > The level of harassment you put up with is obscene, and that you continue to stick to your guns in the face of it is admirable. That said, it's not something that most people want in their lives. That guy is getting harassed a lot because he is alone. I don't think the overloads up there have the courage to harass tens of thousands - do they ? Wide ranging support means less heroism will be required to get what people want. He is not fighting a personal battle, right ? It is better to fight smaller battles now and avoid the possibility of all out wars that we are seeing in Africa and the Middle-East. > Dealing with the level of harassment you face imperils all of those goals. Unless someone is dedicated to a cause and willing to sacrifice a lot to serve it, it's unreasonable to ask them to invite that kind of drama into their lives. So, that person won't even "want to meet or correspond with" them. Do they realize the stark contrast between Jake's priorities and theirs.

AretNCarlsen 16y ago

First they came for the avid Wikileaks supporters, and I didn't speak out because I was not an avid Wikileaks supporter.