5 ms·

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying it's a lie. I'm saying you can speculate that the person matches whatever archetype you want, and you might even be

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying it's a lie. I'm saying you can speculate that the person matches whatever archetype you want, and you might even be right. The question is: is that important for anything other than feeling satisfied that one of the bad guys is gonna face justice? It just seems like a distraction.

giantg2 4y ago
This discussion was about the idea that people who have some minor level of distrust of the government would likely make better laws because they would build in protections and not assume the people in power would be benign. Another commenter posted that the individual in this article would likely not fit that model as their comments indicate there are specific groups they would oppress if given the power. These points are important to investigate what kinds of people should be working in various capacities of government to prevent leaks, abuses of power, etc - which is related to the article.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  That is one thing that this thread seems to be about, and I agree with your first point in the thread. My point is that this is all premature. The foundations of the discussion are just some speculation about the leakers character, so it's a lot of wasted words until more is known conclusively. Which by the way, whether the leaker turns out to be a monster or a saint, the coverage of him was never going to be anything other than negative. You don't embarass power and then get a puff piece for it. Why else would the headline include that he's a gun enthusiast? You're not meant to like this guy. Which is not to say that he's going to end up being a sympathetic character. Whether he is a villain or not, he's going to be painted as one.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "The foundations of the discussion are just some speculation about the leakers character, so it's a lot of wasted words until more is known conclusively." It's not really speculation when you're taking their own statements found on video. And either way is at least a theoretical example to answer the original question.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      We have a brief description of a video that we haven't seen (right? I haven't seen it anyway). Even if you had the actual video, it could be easily edited to tell a specific story, or just be out of context. The guy absolutely could turn out to be a racist. There is nothing but hearsay so far though, and the kind you should absolutely expect in this scenario to make you dislike the leaker. > Distrusts the government, but also works for it? I'd call that a mole. The decades-long infiltration of the military by openly racist, anti-democratic, and even anti-government "people's militia" types needs to be stopped. As to the original question, this is the part I'm reacting to: that the guy is openly racist and anti democratic is very thinly substantiated so far, but people are very ready to believe it.

giantg2 4y ago

This discussion was about the idea that people who have some minor level of distrust of the government would likely make better laws because they would build in protections and not assume the people in power would be benign. Another commenter posted that the individual in this article would likely not fit that model as their comments indicate there are specific groups they would oppress if given the power. These points are important to investigate what kinds of people should be working in various capacities of government to prevent leaks, abuses of power, etc - which is related to the article.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
That is one thing that this thread seems to be about, and I agree with your first point in the thread. My point is that this is all premature. The foundations of the discussion are just some speculation about the leakers character, so it's a lot of wasted words until more is known conclusively. Which by the way, whether the leaker turns out to be a monster or a saint, the coverage of him was never going to be anything other than negative. You don't embarass power and then get a puff piece for it. Why else would the headline include that he's a gun enthusiast? You're not meant to like this guy. Which is not to say that he's going to end up being a sympathetic character. Whether he is a villain or not, he's going to be painted as one.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "The foundations of the discussion are just some speculation about the leakers character, so it's a lot of wasted words until more is known conclusively." It's not really speculation when you're taking their own statements found on video. And either way is at least a theoretical example to answer the original question.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    We have a brief description of a video that we haven't seen (right? I haven't seen it anyway). Even if you had the actual video, it could be easily edited to tell a specific story, or just be out of context. The guy absolutely could turn out to be a racist. There is nothing but hearsay so far though, and the kind you should absolutely expect in this scenario to make you dislike the leaker. > Distrusts the government, but also works for it? I'd call that a mole. The decades-long infiltration of the military by openly racist, anti-democratic, and even anti-government "people's militia" types needs to be stopped. As to the original question, this is the part I'm reacting to: that the guy is openly racist and anti democratic is very thinly substantiated so far, but people are very ready to believe it.