3 ms·

"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, i

"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.
  - K0balt 2y ago
    It strikes me as more than a little possible that he was coerced into that viewpoint or at least that statement. Given his circumstances, one would be wise to consider (his?) statements regarding strategic considerations of the RF vulnerable to compromise, while his criticisms of western companies and policy would tend to be unmoderated, in order to conserve his value as a pulpit speaker. When interpreting public content, it is generally useful to carefully consider the perverse and straightforward incentives and value propositions of the parties involved. Most public speech (and most “news”) is fundamentally characterisable as some flavor of PR exercise.

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.
- K0balt 2y ago
  It strikes me as more than a little possible that he was coerced into that viewpoint or at least that statement. Given his circumstances, one would be wise to consider (his?) statements regarding strategic considerations of the RF vulnerable to compromise, while his criticisms of western companies and policy would tend to be unmoderated, in order to conserve his value as a pulpit speaker. When interpreting public content, it is generally useful to carefully consider the perverse and straightforward incentives and value propositions of the parties involved. Most public speech (and most “news”) is fundamentally characterisable as some flavor of PR exercise.