6 ms·

> One of the most unfortunate things in the past 6 years is that support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks became a partisan issue purely because they exposed co

> One of the most unfortunate things in the past 6 years is that support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks became a partisan issue purely because they exposed corruption in your favorite political party. There are many instances of this, and the corporate media does this on both sides of the aisle. Of course, there's one dominant one at the moment. There's a heavy-handed corporate media attempt to squeeze out compliance - from biased stories (that are later proven false) from mainstream outlets as the most serious, to the cover of Vogue as the most silly. What's disturbing is that if you point this out to people, what happens? Ah hah, they discovered someone on the other side of the political aisle. Their enemies. Again, this is true for both parties. Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary, categorical view of issues instead of looking at each issue as something with its own set of properties to explore.

illusivesaint 5y ago
>Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary, categorical view of issues instead of looking at each issue as something with its own set of properties to explore. I would slightly disagree. Americans are typically very moderate and I believe made to not understand the concepts of politics, when there's capitalism and liberalism involved it's just too complex to understand. The biggest and obviously evidence of this is the apathy toward voting, why even be engaged in something that isn't felt to be a democratic system? How many feel marginalized and the kinds of communities that say so. As impacftul Assange's work may be, the shakers and movers of the world are doing a good job at damage control sounds like.
archsurface 5y ago
"Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary" - not just Americans, but that aside, isn't that inevitable when parties compete for power - allegiances form to gain numbers, and mergers take places until there are only two competitors left with no groups left to merge with. The inevitable strategic optimum.
- treeman79 5y ago
  Hard to avoid. Some issues have little to no middle ground. Woman’s rights vs killing unborn children does not leave much moral middle ground.
  - jhayward 5y ago
    Of course there is middle ground. For instance, there are plenty of practical approaches that greatly reduce the number of abortions while still supporting women's rights. But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      I agree, but the other side does the same. Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? Because "access" is their political hammer, and they want to keep using the issue.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? They don't, in general. They do oppose creating “generally-applicable” standards that have the principal effect of preventing access to abortion services, though.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue. Except terminations in the US are at their lowest levels[0] since they became legal in 1973. One side says: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Another side says: Abortion is *literal* murder and women who have them, as well as the doctors who perform them should be imprisoned and/or executed. There is (as I mentioned in another comment on this topic) a significant amount of nuance for most Americans. With a sizable majority supporting safe, legal abortions, but with significant disagreement as to the timing and mechanism(s) of such terminations. Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop. As for the termination of a pregnancy, that should be up to the individual who is pregnant -- likely (but not necessarily) with input from the other potential parent and/or medical professionals. To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. [0] https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-ny-state-wire-abortion-7e45fe6f70cf45f1823a45ef9ad2187c https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-...
nobody9999 5y ago
>Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary, categorical view of issues instead of looking at each issue as something with its own set of properties to explore. Perhaps that's true of some (perhaps many) Americans, but certainly not all. Please don't paint 330 million individuals with the same broad brush. If for no other reason than you're doing exactly what (taking a binary, categorical view of a gigantic group instead of treating individuals as individuals) you're complaining about. For me (as well as many other Americans), I recognize that context and nuance are important when considering most issues. Assuming that tweets or political slogans represent the views of all (or even many) Americans is shallow indeed. The devil (as well as the solutions) is always in the details, whether it be the minimum wage, broadband competition, healthcare or dozens of other issues. Many people (myself included) are ignorant of the details surrounding a variety of issues unless it directly affects them. However, many (if not most) have a nuanced understanding of issues (at all levels of government) that impact them. The nationalization of party politics (helped along quite a bit by the decline and disappearance of much of the local journalism in the US) creates least-common-denominator messaging that ignores any nuance or context whatsoever. As for Assange, it's not a left/right dichotomy at all. In fact, many who generally vote (D) are among Assange's biggest supporters, and many who generally vote (R) are among his biggest detractors. IMNSHO, it has much more to do with whether or not you believe that Assange can get a fair trial in a US Federal court. There are dozens (50 state court systems, many more municipal/county/territorial court systems) of other courts in the US, but the Federal court system is generally among the fairest of US court systems. Especially if there's a lot of publicity surrounding a particular case -- as there is here. And Assange will be tried in Federal court. The man himself doesn't think so, or he wouldn't have cloistered himself in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years. Given that no journalist has ever been convicted under the 1917 Espionage Act[0], under which the really serious charges against Assange was indicted, it seems unlikely in the extreme that he'd be convicted of those charges. The charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[1] do not carry heavy sentences, nor (at least as I understand it) is the evidence of violations of that law very strong. As such, it's quite likely that if Assange hadn't jumped bail and hidden out in the Ecuadorian embassy, all this would have been over and he'd have been banging Swedish girls again for at least a few years. As someone who generally votes (D), I'd like to see Assange acquitted and let him move on. His credibility has suffered mightily, but most of that (IMHO) was a result of his own actions and statements (Seth Rich? Really?). Regardless, you're flat wrong about Americans as mindless morons parroting their particular party line. Sure there are some who do so, but certainly not all (or even most). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act Edit: Added referenced links.

illusivesaint 5y ago

>Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary, categorical view of issues instead of looking at each issue as something with its own set of properties to explore. I would slightly disagree. Americans are typically very moderate and I believe made to not understand the concepts of politics, when there's capitalism and liberalism involved it's just too complex to understand. The biggest and obviously evidence of this is the apathy toward voting, why even be engaged in something that isn't felt to be a democratic system? How many feel marginalized and the kinds of communities that say so. As impacftul Assange's work may be, the shakers and movers of the world are doing a good job at damage control sounds like.

archsurface 5y ago

"Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary" - not just Americans, but that aside, isn't that inevitable when parties compete for power - allegiances form to gain numbers, and mergers take places until there are only two competitors left with no groups left to merge with. The inevitable strategic optimum.

treeman79 5y ago
Hard to avoid. Some issues have little to no middle ground. Woman’s rights vs killing unborn children does not leave much moral middle ground.
- jhayward 5y ago
  Of course there is middle ground. For instance, there are plenty of practical approaches that greatly reduce the number of abortions while still supporting women's rights. But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I agree, but the other side does the same. Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? Because "access" is their political hammer, and they want to keep using the issue.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? They don't, in general. They do oppose creating “generally-applicable” standards that have the principal effect of preventing access to abortion services, though.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue. Except terminations in the US are at their lowest levels[0] since they became legal in 1973. One side says: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Another side says: Abortion is *literal* murder and women who have them, as well as the doctors who perform them should be imprisoned and/or executed. There is (as I mentioned in another comment on this topic) a significant amount of nuance for most Americans. With a sizable majority supporting safe, legal abortions, but with significant disagreement as to the timing and mechanism(s) of such terminations. Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop. As for the termination of a pregnancy, that should be up to the individual who is pregnant -- likely (but not necessarily) with input from the other potential parent and/or medical professionals. To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. [0] https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-ny-state-wire-abortion-7e45fe6f70cf45f1823a45ef9ad2187c https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-...

nobody9999 5y ago

>Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary, categorical view of issues instead of looking at each issue as something with its own set of properties to explore. Perhaps that's true of some (perhaps many) Americans, but certainly not all. Please don't paint 330 million individuals with the same broad brush. If for no other reason than you're doing exactly what (taking a binary, categorical view of a gigantic group instead of treating individuals as individuals) you're complaining about. For me (as well as many other Americans), I recognize that context and nuance are important when considering most issues. Assuming that tweets or political slogans represent the views of all (or even many) Americans is shallow indeed. The devil (as well as the solutions) is always in the details, whether it be the minimum wage, broadband competition, healthcare or dozens of other issues. Many people (myself included) are ignorant of the details surrounding a variety of issues unless it directly affects them. However, many (if not most) have a nuanced understanding of issues (at all levels of government) that impact them. The nationalization of party politics (helped along quite a bit by the decline and disappearance of much of the local journalism in the US) creates least-common-denominator messaging that ignores any nuance or context whatsoever. As for Assange, it's not a left/right dichotomy at all. In fact, many who generally vote (D) are among Assange's biggest supporters, and many who generally vote (R) are among his biggest detractors. IMNSHO, it has much more to do with whether or not you believe that Assange can get a fair trial in a US Federal court. There are dozens (50 state court systems, many more municipal/county/territorial court systems) of other courts in the US, but the Federal court system is generally among the fairest of US court systems. Especially if there's a lot of publicity surrounding a particular case -- as there is here. And Assange will be tried in Federal court. The man himself doesn't think so, or he wouldn't have cloistered himself in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years. Given that no journalist has ever been convicted under the 1917 Espionage Act[0], under which the really serious charges against Assange was indicted, it seems unlikely in the extreme that he'd be convicted of those charges. The charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[1] do not carry heavy sentences, nor (at least as I understand it) is the evidence of violations of that law very strong. As such, it's quite likely that if Assange hadn't jumped bail and hidden out in the Ecuadorian embassy, all this would have been over and he'd have been banging Swedish girls again for at least a few years. As someone who generally votes (D), I'd like to see Assange acquitted and let him move on. His credibility has suffered mightily, but most of that (IMHO) was a result of his own actions and statements (Seth Rich? Really?). Regardless, you're flat wrong about Americans as mindless morons parroting their particular party line. Sure there are some who do so, but certainly not all (or even most). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act Edit: Added referenced links.