3 ms·

You should be upset with the DNC members whose behavior was exposed by the emails. Those DNC members destabilized the election with their behavior, not Assange.

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

You should be upset with the DNC members whose behavior was exposed by the emails. Those DNC members destabilized the election with their behavior, not Assange. Assange reported it. You seem to have the blame completely reversed. Assange did not perpetrate behavior that destabilized an election or facilitated a Trump win, not one bit. Democrat party leaders did that and have only themselves to blame. Assange reported it.

hackinthebochs 6y ago
There was no behavior uncovered by the emails that were unfair or destabilizing. However, reporting of the emails frame them as such. It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing. But this was the intent from the start. It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.
- throwawaythekey 6y ago
  Without going into murkier territories like bias Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-leak-regret-236184 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary... Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    It’s a shame to see tribalistic downvoting on this. It’s just stating facts that render the parent comment fundamentally inaccurate. There’s nothing to downvote, there’s no possible angle of interpretation or disagreement. Downvoting this is equivalent to saying “Assange is bad no matter what the facts or evidence shows.”
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    >Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time. Brazile on leaking debate questions[1]: >My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. Tad Devine, senior aid to Bernie's campaign on the debate questions leak[2]: >She would get in touch all the time for guidance, so I can verify her recollection on this issue So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established. The fact that Bernie never responded critically of the leak suggests Brazile's actions weren't unusual for either side. But this just underscores the fact that a lack of context and selective leaking allows one to present a false narrative. >Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate. Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant. [1] https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton/ https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton... [2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide-updates-former-senior-aide-to-bernie-sanders-1476297181-htmlstory.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide...
    - throwawaythekey 6y ago
      > So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established Even if the questions were being leaked to ALL candidates (no solid proof exists) it is deceiving the public who believe the the candidates to have no forward knowledge of the questions. Or alternatively, it's unfair to the republicans who don't have advance knowledge of questions in their own debates and are unable to appear as clever on their feet as their counterparts. Or it's a disadvantage to candidates that are able to better think on their feet, and don't need to prepare, although you could argue that they were already unfairly advantaged. > Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant. I'm not sure what the OP meant by destabilizing, but it's clear that Trump triumphing did have destabilizing effects on US politics. If you mean destabilizing in terms of intra-party politics, then I would be happy to take your word for it but argue that you're being overly narrow. Full disclosure - I'm probable biased in being from outside the US, not having any skin in the election outcome, and just enjoying the transparency provided. From the outside, at least to me, it looks like a win for democracy. Hopefully future candidates play above board more often because they realize they have higher chances of being exposed in the modern world.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  > “ There was no behavior uncovered by the emails that were unfair or destabilizing.“ Yes there was. > “ It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing.“ No it was not. > “ But this was the intent from the start.” No it was not. > “ It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.” This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails.
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    Of course misrepresentation was the intent, since Russia hacked the DNC emails and leaked them for political gain. >This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails. Utter nonsense. Perhaps you can do better than assertions?
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      Assange did not reveal a source for the leaked emails, and in fact claims the source is not Russian, https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-assange-russian-government-not-source-of-leaked-dnc-and-podesta-emails-wikileaks-editor-contradicts-cia-claims-in-new-interview-35300175.html https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-as... Whether hackers intended to disrupt an election or not, the behavior described in the emails is still the fault of those DNC members who perpetrated those actions. You’re acting like if they had kept the manipulation of the Democratic primary a secret, we’d be better off, and that by revealing it (as opposed to perpetrating it in the first place) publishers like Assange caused harm - which is ridiculous. The behavior itself - the content of what was published - caused harm because it was dishonest, manipulative, harmful behavior. The publisher did not cause harm by describing someone else’s harmful behavior. “Russian hackers” did not cause harm by taking possession of documents that proved the harmful behavior of others. It’s like if a sitting president referred to dead service men and women as “losers” and “suckers” you somehow think a newspaper causes harm by publishing that truth, because it might whip up the electorate, and you are blind to the fact that it’s not the newspaper’s choice to publish that is doing anything or causing anything. The blame lies squarely with the person who actually perpetrated the published behaviors - like the president calling fallen soldiers losers and suckers. Your moral compass on this is completely haywire.
joshuamorton 6y ago
Refusing to leak information about the republican campaign is unfair. Working with Trump campaign is destabilizing. Both of those are true, factual statements. Wikileaks did both.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Wikileaks did neither.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    That's contrary to the findings of the special council, who found that wikileaks did communicate and possibly coordinate with the Trump campaign.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      It is not contrary. There are allegations of coordinating with the Trump campaign, but there was no proof and ultimately no charges.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Ultimately no charges yes, but not because there was no proof of wikileaks working with the Trump campaign. Your can argue that the acts weekend criminal or they were not charged for political reasons, but either way they did happen, and were coordination with the campaign.

hackinthebochs 6y ago

There was no behavior uncovered by the emails that were unfair or destabilizing. However, reporting of the emails frame them as such. It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing. But this was the intent from the start. It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.

throwawaythekey 6y ago
Without going into murkier territories like bias Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-leak-regret-236184 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary... Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  It’s a shame to see tribalistic downvoting on this. It’s just stating facts that render the parent comment fundamentally inaccurate. There’s nothing to downvote, there’s no possible angle of interpretation or disagreement. Downvoting this is equivalent to saying “Assange is bad no matter what the facts or evidence shows.”
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  >Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time. Brazile on leaking debate questions[1]: >My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. Tad Devine, senior aid to Bernie's campaign on the debate questions leak[2]: >She would get in touch all the time for guidance, so I can verify her recollection on this issue So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established. The fact that Bernie never responded critically of the leak suggests Brazile's actions weren't unusual for either side. But this just underscores the fact that a lack of context and selective leaking allows one to present a false narrative. >Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate. Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant. [1] https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton/ https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton... [2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide-updates-former-senior-aide-to-bernie-sanders-1476297181-htmlstory.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide...
  - throwawaythekey 6y ago
    > So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established Even if the questions were being leaked to ALL candidates (no solid proof exists) it is deceiving the public who believe the the candidates to have no forward knowledge of the questions. Or alternatively, it's unfair to the republicans who don't have advance knowledge of questions in their own debates and are unable to appear as clever on their feet as their counterparts. Or it's a disadvantage to candidates that are able to better think on their feet, and don't need to prepare, although you could argue that they were already unfairly advantaged. > Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant. I'm not sure what the OP meant by destabilizing, but it's clear that Trump triumphing did have destabilizing effects on US politics. If you mean destabilizing in terms of intra-party politics, then I would be happy to take your word for it but argue that you're being overly narrow. Full disclosure - I'm probable biased in being from outside the US, not having any skin in the election outcome, and just enjoying the transparency provided. From the outside, at least to me, it looks like a win for democracy. Hopefully future candidates play above board more often because they realize they have higher chances of being exposed in the modern world.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
> “ There was no behavior uncovered by the emails that were unfair or destabilizing.“ Yes there was. > “ It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing.“ No it was not. > “ But this was the intent from the start.” No it was not. > “ It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.” This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  Of course misrepresentation was the intent, since Russia hacked the DNC emails and leaked them for political gain. >This statement has no relationship with the leaked DNC emails. Utter nonsense. Perhaps you can do better than assertions?
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    Assange did not reveal a source for the leaked emails, and in fact claims the source is not Russian, https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-assange-russian-government-not-source-of-leaked-dnc-and-podesta-emails-wikileaks-editor-contradicts-cia-claims-in-new-interview-35300175.html https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-as... Whether hackers intended to disrupt an election or not, the behavior described in the emails is still the fault of those DNC members who perpetrated those actions. You’re acting like if they had kept the manipulation of the Democratic primary a secret, we’d be better off, and that by revealing it (as opposed to perpetrating it in the first place) publishers like Assange caused harm - which is ridiculous. The behavior itself - the content of what was published - caused harm because it was dishonest, manipulative, harmful behavior. The publisher did not cause harm by describing someone else’s harmful behavior. “Russian hackers” did not cause harm by taking possession of documents that proved the harmful behavior of others. It’s like if a sitting president referred to dead service men and women as “losers” and “suckers” you somehow think a newspaper causes harm by publishing that truth, because it might whip up the electorate, and you are blind to the fact that it’s not the newspaper’s choice to publish that is doing anything or causing anything. The blame lies squarely with the person who actually perpetrated the published behaviors - like the president calling fallen soldiers losers and suckers. Your moral compass on this is completely haywire.

joshuamorton 6y ago

Refusing to leak information about the republican campaign is unfair. Working with Trump campaign is destabilizing. Both of those are true, factual statements. Wikileaks did both.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Wikileaks did neither.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  That's contrary to the findings of the special council, who found that wikileaks did communicate and possibly coordinate with the Trump campaign.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    It is not contrary. There are allegations of coordinating with the Trump campaign, but there was no proof and ultimately no charges.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Ultimately no charges yes, but not because there was no proof of wikileaks working with the Trump campaign. Your can argue that the acts weekend criminal or they were not charged for political reasons, but either way they did happen, and were coordination with the campaign.