3 ms·

No, AFAIK. To the contrary, Snowden is an object lesson in what happens when you actually take your oaths to protect democracy and freedom seriously. Taking t

by K0balt 2y ago

No, AFAIK. To the contrary, Snowden is an object lesson in what happens when you actually take your oaths to protect democracy and freedom seriously. Taking those oaths seriously is almost always punished with the full coercive force of the state. They are supposed to be interpreted as being loyal to one’s superiors, not as actual commitments to any abstract set of principles or ideals. Living unmolested in hierarchical societies is mostly an exercise in the effective interpretation of doublespeak and toeing the line.

Brian_K_White 2y ago
I agree with all of this, but I just mean to show that his outlandish and outrageous claims have so far never been hyperbole, but plain unembellished documentation of outlandish and outrageous acts.
joemi 2y ago
"Protect democracy and freedom" contrasts starkly with seeking refuge in Russia and becoming a Russian citizen. In many ways, he's the _perfect_ mouthpiece for anti-US propaganda. I'm not sure what that doesn't give more people pause.
reducesuffering 2y ago
Yes, he has cried wolf, in support of Putin’s misinformation to invade Ukraine https://x.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016 https://x.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  No he never cried wolf. That tweet makes no false claims. All he did there was fail to believe that Putin would actually do something quite that extremely terrible. (Not my assumption. Later tweets supplied that.) He was accusing Biden and the media of probably crying wolf. He expressed a perfectly valid and supported-by-evidense opinion that the media stokes fires and the US manipulates the people via the media, and therefor you shouldn't just accept everything without question. The media and the US government do in fact both do those things. You in fact should not just accept everything without question. That is all true and was true on that day too, because it's true at all times every day. Merely in that case, that specific claim by Biden and the media was not false. And because he got that wrong, he stopped tweeting at all because he considered his opinions and advice of low value on that subject. What lack of integrity! Try again.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    "he considered his opinions and advice of low value on that subject." "perfectly valid and supported-by-evidense opinion" He was clearly holding an invalid, incorrect opinion and supported the Putin state position that allowed a better chance of a surprise coup on Kyiv. Educated geopol and intel circles already knew about the impending invasion months before, a very major "how the world works" event. That he was so crassly wrong, months after it was obvious, should be a stark lesson to you that Snowden does not in fact know "how the world works." and you should appropriately downgrade his opinion on such matters. If you did not know about this invasion in 2021, your intel sources and analysis are also garbage like Snowdens. But it sounds like you'll twist anything to support your preconceived notions, even when confronted with the obvious contradictions. Try again
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      Those were two different opinions about two different things, and the valid one was and still is valid. It is a simple fact of the world, directly observable everywhere at all times and so not actually an opinion at all. I don't think you are in a great position from which to to remark about anyone else's twisting and preconceived notions and contradictions.
      - reducesuffering 2y ago
        "There is nothing more grotesque than a media pushing for war." -Snowden Clearly implicating that US-adjacent media is the prime culprit for wanting war, not the 100k Russian troops already stationed on the border, with plans from months before to assault Ukraine and kill thousands. Rather than the media simply announcing, months late, the impending invasion. "if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM" Clearly implicating Biden as being the one wanting the invasion to happen, instead of accurately warning the world what is going to transpire, and that nothing is going to happen anyway (wrong). "your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns" The journalism wasn't uncredible! It wasn't disinformation! It was accurately reporting the impending invasion. Nothing here is ambiguous at all with decent reading comprehension. Snowden himself says "If there's an invasion tomorrow, dunk on me because I have been spectacularly wrong." You are clearly the one with the "twisting and preconceived notions and contradictions." because you're denying Snowden was wrong when he literally admits it.

by K0balt 2y ago

Brian_K_White 2y ago

I agree with all of this, but I just mean to show that his outlandish and outrageous claims have so far never been hyperbole, but plain unembellished documentation of outlandish and outrageous acts.

joemi 2y ago

"Protect democracy and freedom" contrasts starkly with seeking refuge in Russia and becoming a Russian citizen. In many ways, he's the _perfect_ mouthpiece for anti-US propaganda. I'm not sure what that doesn't give more people pause.

reducesuffering 2y ago

Yes, he has cried wolf, in support of Putin’s misinformation to invade Ukraine https://x.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016 https://x.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016

Brian_K_White 2y ago
No he never cried wolf. That tweet makes no false claims. All he did there was fail to believe that Putin would actually do something quite that extremely terrible. (Not my assumption. Later tweets supplied that.) He was accusing Biden and the media of probably crying wolf. He expressed a perfectly valid and supported-by-evidense opinion that the media stokes fires and the US manipulates the people via the media, and therefor you shouldn't just accept everything without question. The media and the US government do in fact both do those things. You in fact should not just accept everything without question. That is all true and was true on that day too, because it's true at all times every day. Merely in that case, that specific claim by Biden and the media was not false. And because he got that wrong, he stopped tweeting at all because he considered his opinions and advice of low value on that subject. What lack of integrity! Try again.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  "he considered his opinions and advice of low value on that subject." "perfectly valid and supported-by-evidense opinion" He was clearly holding an invalid, incorrect opinion and supported the Putin state position that allowed a better chance of a surprise coup on Kyiv. Educated geopol and intel circles already knew about the impending invasion months before, a very major "how the world works" event. That he was so crassly wrong, months after it was obvious, should be a stark lesson to you that Snowden does not in fact know "how the world works." and you should appropriately downgrade his opinion on such matters. If you did not know about this invasion in 2021, your intel sources and analysis are also garbage like Snowdens. But it sounds like you'll twist anything to support your preconceived notions, even when confronted with the obvious contradictions. Try again
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    Those were two different opinions about two different things, and the valid one was and still is valid. It is a simple fact of the world, directly observable everywhere at all times and so not actually an opinion at all. I don't think you are in a great position from which to to remark about anyone else's twisting and preconceived notions and contradictions.
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      "There is nothing more grotesque than a media pushing for war." -Snowden Clearly implicating that US-adjacent media is the prime culprit for wanting war, not the 100k Russian troops already stationed on the border, with plans from months before to assault Ukraine and kill thousands. Rather than the media simply announcing, months late, the impending invasion. "if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM" Clearly implicating Biden as being the one wanting the invasion to happen, instead of accurately warning the world what is going to transpire, and that nothing is going to happen anyway (wrong). "your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns" The journalism wasn't uncredible! It wasn't disinformation! It was accurately reporting the impending invasion. Nothing here is ambiguous at all with decent reading comprehension. Snowden himself says "If there's an invasion tomorrow, dunk on me because I have been spectacularly wrong." You are clearly the one with the "twisting and preconceived notions and contradictions." because you're denying Snowden was wrong when he literally admits it.