3 ms·

Anyone still following along here may be interested in Marcy Wheeler’s close examination of the article under discussion, and how it relates to the Assange indi

Anyone still following along here may be interested in Marcy Wheeler’s close examination of the article under discussion, and how it relates to the Assange indictment: https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/27/wikileaks-and-edward-snowden-champion-sociopathic-liars-and-sloppy-thinking/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/27/wikileaks-and-edward-s...

chmod775 5y ago
That is a very poor analysis and it reads like someone is trying to fire cheap shots at strawmen. > This is what Assange’s boosters are now staking his defense on: convincing you to accept the words of liars as truth. The people this article calls "Assange boosters" aren't rallying behind this person or claiming that he's not lying now, they're saying: "This man is a pathological liar either way, can't be trusted, and thus is useless as a witness. This man's words carry precisely zero weight at this point, whatever he claims." That blog entry goes on to address a bunch of other strawmen that resemble no argument made in this HN thread. I don't know why you would link it.
the_optimist 5y ago
Marcy Wheeler holds a PhD in comparative literature. Long blogging about Russiagate and addicted to close reading of legal documents without the least connection to law, Marcy has developed a steady following to which she misinterprets information and presents it as factual. You can see how stoopid this is right off the bat, couched in thousands of words: A guy provided evidence, and then he said he lied, so he was telling the truth the first time. Thanks Marcy. I do encourage you all to open the link and note how she writes in what is effectively a context-free grammar, presupposing conclusions, discussing casually about how they're correct, and linking back to more incorrect interpretations. The only way to even try to parse such nonsense is to click on endless links, which will eventually get you back to absolutely nothing. Like Lord of the Rings, except backwards and the characters travel in circles. If you like this, Seth Abramson is similar, slightly more legal authority, equal intellectual weight.

chmod775 5y ago

That is a very poor analysis and it reads like someone is trying to fire cheap shots at strawmen. > This is what Assange’s boosters are now staking his defense on: convincing you to accept the words of liars as truth. The people this article calls "Assange boosters" aren't rallying behind this person or claiming that he's not lying now, they're saying: "This man is a pathological liar either way, can't be trusted, and thus is useless as a witness. This man's words carry precisely zero weight at this point, whatever he claims." That blog entry goes on to address a bunch of other strawmen that resemble no argument made in this HN thread. I don't know why you would link it.

the_optimist 5y ago

Marcy Wheeler holds a PhD in comparative literature. Long blogging about Russiagate and addicted to close reading of legal documents without the least connection to law, Marcy has developed a steady following to which she misinterprets information and presents it as factual. You can see how stoopid this is right off the bat, couched in thousands of words: A guy provided evidence, and then he said he lied, so he was telling the truth the first time. Thanks Marcy. I do encourage you all to open the link and note how she writes in what is effectively a context-free grammar, presupposing conclusions, discussing casually about how they're correct, and linking back to more incorrect interpretations. The only way to even try to parse such nonsense is to click on endless links, which will eventually get you back to absolutely nothing. Like Lord of the Rings, except backwards and the characters travel in circles. If you like this, Seth Abramson is similar, slightly more legal authority, equal intellectual weight.