3 ms·

Assange has also stated that he had documents related to the Trump campaign that he wouldn't publish because they were no "more controversial... than what comes

by slg 5y ago

Assange has also stated that he had documents related to the Trump campaign that he wouldn't publish because they were no "more controversial... than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day"[1]. Meanwhile they posted thousands of totally mundane emails from Democrats that included things like office lunch orders and automatic out of office replies that were not controversial and served no public good. Wikileaks clearly had a different standard for publishing documents that hurt Democrats and documents that hurt Republicans. [1] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934...

the_optimist 5y ago
We saw this same idea earlier as though it merits analysis. It doesn't. You being right or not has no bearing on the story at hand.
- slg 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you consider "the story at hand", but this conversation was kicked off with "One of the most unfortunate things in the past 6 years is that support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks became a partisan issue". The explanation for why support of Assange became partisan is because Assange's actions started having partisan bias. That is extremely relevant to the conversation at hand in my book.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    This meme you keep trying to make happen is a logical fallacy called “begging the question.” petitio principii. It is not explanatory. Why don’t you just outright say, “I think they are partisan because I suspect there are things they could have published that they chose not to because of partisanship.” Instead you’re trying this dance about evidence that you cannot see and reasoning on others’ behalf that you cannot know.
    - slg 5y ago
      >“I think they are partisan because I suspect there are things they could have published that they chose not to because of partisanship.” I don't "suspect" their are things they could have published. I know there are things they could have published because Assange has said exactly that. Either Wikileaks works for complete transparency or they don't. They either have editorial control over what they publish or they don't. Once they admit that some documents aren't worth putting on their site, they need to justify why the documents they do have on their site are worth being there. What documents about the Trump campaign could Assange be referring to which would be worth mentioning but would also be less worthy of publishing than these[1]? What reason can exist for that disparity besides bias? [1] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&count=200 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&c...
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Documents about Trump were and are irrelevant because we have ironclad proof, in volume, that no amount of what would for others be damning information has any effect on Trump support. The only way we have discovered to counter him is to get more of the people not committed to him to come to the polls, or to vote by mail. Thus, we see efforts in numerous states to curb access to polls. Successful efforts.
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        1) Assange did not say that. You misinterpret what he said. 2) Your contrived absolutism about publishing everything is a strawman. Wikileaks never committed to publishing everything, couldn’t, not even a sensible or practical idea. 3) Literally any reason at all invalidates this claim. Not enough time. Someone asked not to. Boring. Hard to contextualize. Literally anything. The Free Press is about the ability to publish, not a requirement to publish. “We are free press activists. It’s not about saving the whales. It’s about giving people the information they need to support whaling or not support whaling. Why? That is the raw ingredients necessary to make adjustments to society and without that we’re just sailing in the dark.”
        5y ago

by slg 5y ago

the_optimist 5y ago

We saw this same idea earlier as though it merits analysis. It doesn't. You being right or not has no bearing on the story at hand.

slg 5y ago
I'm not sure what you consider "the story at hand", but this conversation was kicked off with "One of the most unfortunate things in the past 6 years is that support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks became a partisan issue". The explanation for why support of Assange became partisan is because Assange's actions started having partisan bias. That is extremely relevant to the conversation at hand in my book.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  This meme you keep trying to make happen is a logical fallacy called “begging the question.” petitio principii. It is not explanatory. Why don’t you just outright say, “I think they are partisan because I suspect there are things they could have published that they chose not to because of partisanship.” Instead you’re trying this dance about evidence that you cannot see and reasoning on others’ behalf that you cannot know.
  - slg 5y ago
    >“I think they are partisan because I suspect there are things they could have published that they chose not to because of partisanship.” I don't "suspect" their are things they could have published. I know there are things they could have published because Assange has said exactly that. Either Wikileaks works for complete transparency or they don't. They either have editorial control over what they publish or they don't. Once they admit that some documents aren't worth putting on their site, they need to justify why the documents they do have on their site are worth being there. What documents about the Trump campaign could Assange be referring to which would be worth mentioning but would also be less worthy of publishing than these[1]? What reason can exist for that disparity besides bias? [1] - https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&count=200 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=&title=automatic+reply&c...
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Documents about Trump were and are irrelevant because we have ironclad proof, in volume, that no amount of what would for others be damning information has any effect on Trump support. The only way we have discovered to counter him is to get more of the people not committed to him to come to the polls, or to vote by mail. Thus, we see efforts in numerous states to curb access to polls. Successful efforts.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      1) Assange did not say that. You misinterpret what he said. 2) Your contrived absolutism about publishing everything is a strawman. Wikileaks never committed to publishing everything, couldn’t, not even a sensible or practical idea. 3) Literally any reason at all invalidates this claim. Not enough time. Someone asked not to. Boring. Hard to contextualize. Literally anything. The Free Press is about the ability to publish, not a requirement to publish. “We are free press activists. It’s not about saving the whales. It’s about giving people the information they need to support whaling or not support whaling. Why? That is the raw ingredients necessary to make adjustments to society and without that we’re just sailing in the dark.”
      - 5y ago