6 ms·

> I'm not seeing that in the comments I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of: "I'm not an Assange supporter

by demarq 6y ago

> I'm not seeing that in the comments I'm seeing it everytime someone prefaces their comment with something along the lines of: "I'm not an Assange supporter But ..." in fact you're comment is really no different: > not supporting what Assange did, I didn't Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer?

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact, nobody is arguing against that I think. What's at stake here is whether the crime was justifiable and that it did more good (in exposing the US' war crimes) than bad (sharing state secrets and possibly risking informants). Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  In the US, up until this point, publishing government secrets has not been a crime. It is a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  >They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact. Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    I fully agree with your assessment, especially after seeing the Hamilton 68 "Russian backed media" dashboard that included a lot of progressive and alternative media, directed by a mix of DNC elite and Neo-cons, which was created by the orwellian sounding "Alliance for Securing Democracy". It's obvious that the RussiaGate campaign is really a smear campaign used to take down enemies left and right if you pay close attention, e.g. used against Bernie Sanders who is obviously not a Russian shill, but I wish someone would put together a sourced timeline detailing the nature of the campaign, as I've got so many smart friends who fell for it and can't be convinced otherwise in a two minute discussion over cocktails.
    - arminiusreturns 6y ago
      What are some of the better tools for generating timeline data from text (I hate all the gui tools). I have often found creating just basic timelines (just org files with dates as headings) has really helped me understand and find novel insights into issues of a convtroversial nature, so I think you are on to something.
      - colordrops 6y ago
        https://visjs.github.io/vis-timeline/examples/timeline/ https://visjs.github.io/vis-timeline/examples/timeline/ This will generate from textual data I believe.
pmachinery 6y ago
Maybe people can be critical of the way Assange is being treated and/or the way the US/UK regimes are behaving, while not necessarily supporting what he did or liking the guy. Edit: In fact prefacing with "I'm not an Assange supporter but..." sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument in support of him/against the US/UK governments more weight, ie, even people who aren't the usual suspect fans of his are disturbed by what's going on.
- asplake 6y ago
  Exactly this. Thank you.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  > sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument more weight People do this all the time on any subject, it's a weak rhetorical device. "I'm not one to support Javascript but", "I don't normally disagree with @pmachinery but". We should just try to make our point without trying to artificially weigh it with rhetoric.
  - zepto 6y ago
    It may be a weak rhetorical device, but it’s also informational. I have complex views of Assange. 1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial. 2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies. 3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal. It seems like he has taken an anti-American stance and acted intentionally to undermine the US, presumably because he sees the US as the most hypocritical geopolitical actor. He may be accurate in his assessment, but the adversaries of the US who will exploit the power vacuum are Russia and China, who are either worse or at least as bad as the US when it comes to secrets and lies, and so it’s not at all obvious that his tactics support his goal. I’d like to hope that they ultimately do cause some kind of positive realignment, but that is not a foregone conclusion. Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting. Again, it’s not clear that this is a helpful move, but maybe it is. I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities. Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist. Assange is not a journalist, nor is he a reporter. Bear with me - this is a ‘pro Assange’ point. He is a publisher with an intelligence gathering network. Recognizing this doesn’t mean it’s right that he should be prosecuted. In fact it sheds light on something more sinister - actual journalists don’t report the things that Assange published, because their publishers don’t want them to. Publishers in general are self-censoring in order to stay on good terms with governments and other powerful interests. Organizations calling Assange a ‘journalist’, especially any mainstream publishers, are actually colluding to deflect attention from this fact, and co-opting support for Assange, when in fact they are collaborating with governments and are the very reason Wikileaks was necessary in the first place. Reducing what’s going on to ‘Assange as martyr’, ‘look at this kangaroo court’, ‘This is about silencing journalists’, does nothing to advance Assange’s actual goal.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Assange is an extra controversial figure in the US due to events in the 2016 election unrelated to this case. Before that happened I rarely saw such disclaimers.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  I agree with this. It sure appears that he took sides in the US election in 2016. It makes sense to see a 50/50 split in support, likely correlated roughly with political partisanship.
  - megous 6y ago
    Easy to see someone who published secrets related to american imperialism, would publish secrets about the candidate that was viewed as imperialist at the time.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      A charitable interpretation of his choices in 2016 would be that he thought he was bloodying the nose of the next US president, that he assumed like the rest of us that obviously Clinton was going to win. But it remains a fact that he chose to spill damaging information about one side and not the other, even though he had information on both. Unfortunately for him, the side he helped turns out to be just as eager for his head on a pike as the other would have been.
      - thefucnjosh 6y ago
        Just as eager? more eager. If Clinton was doing this I have no doubt Fox News would defend Assange.
      - ChrisKnott 6y ago
        IMO the tweets from Wikileaks immediately after Trump won support this interpretation. He hated Clinton since the diplomatic cable leak, and wanted to damage her, but never thought Trump would win.
pueblito 6y ago
>Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer? I can't speak for anybody else, but I consider it a valid worry
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  This. Ok perhaps not FBI breaking down your door at 3am, but for sure "earn your place" on a list, in some three-letter-dept, and your name will stay there forever. And one day, on your way back from vacation to country XYZ that is not the favorite of the sitting (at the time) president you may be greeted by people in uniforms wanting to scan you laptop, phone, etc. It has happened before, so yes it is a valid worry.
thefucnjosh 6y ago
>Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer? Are you crazy? Why WOULDN'T you be worried about that?
- demarq 6y ago
  because it's the FBI, not the gestapo

by demarq 6y ago

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact, nobody is arguing against that I think. What's at stake here is whether the crime was justifiable and that it did more good (in exposing the US' war crimes) than bad (sharing state secrets and possibly risking informants). Disclaimer: superficial layman's take on matters.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
In the US, up until this point, publishing government secrets has not been a crime. It is a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The only people that the government has historically been able to prosecute are government employees who leak documents, but publishers have been inviolate. That's why the prosecution of Assange is such a big deal: the US government is trying to establish a precedent that it can go after publishers, not just leakers.
arminiusreturns 6y ago
>They're signaling that publishing secrets is a crime; that's an objective fact Stating things are facts don't make them facts; thats an objective fact. Anyway, I used to read Assange when he was more of a crypto/phreak, and he is, for lack of a better term, a bit of a fucking asshole. That said though, and I'm going to make a controversial statement here, but one I think is truthful, but the biggest problem now with the Assange case is the Russia-gate propaganda added him to the list, so now a large swath of people who would normally support him now still off the cuff beleive he "helped Trump" by "working with the Russians" (or some variation thereof), and because the Russiagate narrative is now so entrenched in the left, it causes a huge cognitive dissonance where they are more likely to choose the mob/tribe over principle. It's worth noting that this can also be considered a survival technique in this cancel culture world, so I try not to judge too harshly, it just gets tiring hearing the disinfo about Assange repeated ad nauseum.
- colordrops 6y ago
  I fully agree with your assessment, especially after seeing the Hamilton 68 "Russian backed media" dashboard that included a lot of progressive and alternative media, directed by a mix of DNC elite and Neo-cons, which was created by the orwellian sounding "Alliance for Securing Democracy". It's obvious that the RussiaGate campaign is really a smear campaign used to take down enemies left and right if you pay close attention, e.g. used against Bernie Sanders who is obviously not a Russian shill, but I wish someone would put together a sourced timeline detailing the nature of the campaign, as I've got so many smart friends who fell for it and can't be convinced otherwise in a two minute discussion over cocktails.
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    What are some of the better tools for generating timeline data from text (I hate all the gui tools). I have often found creating just basic timelines (just org files with dates as headings) has really helped me understand and find novel insights into issues of a convtroversial nature, so I think you are on to something.
    - colordrops 6y ago
      https://visjs.github.io/vis-timeline/examples/timeline/ https://visjs.github.io/vis-timeline/examples/timeline/ This will generate from textual data I believe.

pmachinery 6y ago

Maybe people can be critical of the way Assange is being treated and/or the way the US/UK regimes are behaving, while not necessarily supporting what he did or liking the guy. Edit: In fact prefacing with "I'm not an Assange supporter but..." sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument in support of him/against the US/UK governments more weight, ie, even people who aren't the usual suspect fans of his are disturbed by what's going on.

asplake 6y ago
Exactly this. Thank you.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
> sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument more weight People do this all the time on any subject, it's a weak rhetorical device. "I'm not one to support Javascript but", "I don't normally disagree with @pmachinery but". We should just try to make our point without trying to artificially weigh it with rhetoric.
- zepto 6y ago
  It may be a weak rhetorical device, but it’s also informational. I have complex views of Assange. 1. I think the extradition hearings are bizarre and it’s hard to consider them a fair trial. 2. I support Assanges long term goal of western democracies being open and accountable, rather than being based on secrets and lies. 3. I don’t know whether Assange’s tactics are moving us towards or away from that goal. It seems like he has taken an anti-American stance and acted intentionally to undermine the US, presumably because he sees the US as the most hypocritical geopolitical actor. He may be accurate in his assessment, but the adversaries of the US who will exploit the power vacuum are Russia and China, who are either worse or at least as bad as the US when it comes to secrets and lies, and so it’s not at all obvious that his tactics support his goal. I’d like to hope that they ultimately do cause some kind of positive realignment, but that is not a foregone conclusion. Forcing someone to betray their principles in perceived self defense and then acting surprised is akin to gaslighting. Again, it’s not clear that this is a helpful move, but maybe it is. I think it’s reasonable to say he has drawn attention to insecurities of both the US and the UK, but they seem like predicable and well founded insecurities. Calling Assange a journalist is like calling Rupert Murdoch a journalist. Assange is not a journalist, nor is he a reporter. Bear with me - this is a ‘pro Assange’ point. He is a publisher with an intelligence gathering network. Recognizing this doesn’t mean it’s right that he should be prosecuted. In fact it sheds light on something more sinister - actual journalists don’t report the things that Assange published, because their publishers don’t want them to. Publishers in general are self-censoring in order to stay on good terms with governments and other powerful interests. Organizations calling Assange a ‘journalist’, especially any mainstream publishers, are actually colluding to deflect attention from this fact, and co-opting support for Assange, when in fact they are collaborating with governments and are the very reason Wikileaks was necessary in the first place. Reducing what’s going on to ‘Assange as martyr’, ‘look at this kangaroo court’, ‘This is about silencing journalists’, does nothing to advance Assange’s actual goal.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Assange is an extra controversial figure in the US due to events in the 2016 election unrelated to this case. Before that happened I rarely saw such disclaimers.

rootusrootus 6y ago
I agree with this. It sure appears that he took sides in the US election in 2016. It makes sense to see a 50/50 split in support, likely correlated roughly with political partisanship.
- megous 6y ago
  Easy to see someone who published secrets related to american imperialism, would publish secrets about the candidate that was viewed as imperialist at the time.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    A charitable interpretation of his choices in 2016 would be that he thought he was bloodying the nose of the next US president, that he assumed like the rest of us that obviously Clinton was going to win. But it remains a fact that he chose to spill damaging information about one side and not the other, even though he had information on both. Unfortunately for him, the side he helped turns out to be just as eager for his head on a pike as the other would have been.
    - thefucnjosh 6y ago
      Just as eager? more eager. If Clinton was doing this I have no doubt Fox News would defend Assange.
    - ChrisKnott 6y ago
      IMO the tweets from Wikileaks immediately after Trump won support this interpretation. He hated Clinton since the diplomatic cable leak, and wanted to damage her, but never thought Trump would win.

pueblito 6y ago

>Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer? I can't speak for anybody else, but I consider it a valid worry

HenryBemis 6y ago
This. Ok perhaps not FBI breaking down your door at 3am, but for sure "earn your place" on a list, in some three-letter-dept, and your name will stay there forever. And one day, on your way back from vacation to country XYZ that is not the favorite of the sitting (at the time) president you may be greeted by people in uniforms wanting to scan you laptop, phone, etc. It has happened before, so yes it is a valid worry.

thefucnjosh 6y ago

>Are people worried the FBI will break down their door, if they don't put up the disclaimer? Are you crazy? Why WOULDN'T you be worried about that?

demarq 6y ago
because it's the FBI, not the gestapo