6 ms·

>he was influenced by Russia This argument is completely nonsensical, this idea that who revealed the crime matters more than the actual crime. What does it m

>he was influenced by Russia This argument is completely nonsensical, this idea that who revealed the crime matters more than the actual crime. What does it matter who "influenced" him, if the information was legit? And is it your opinion that none of this information should be released unless it covers all countries equally? Do you honestly think he should have thought, I can't reveal this crime until I find an equal Russian crime, for equality. What a wonderful, open world that would be! Utterly ridiculous. This is the same stupidity as "Hunter's laptop". It allows the Idiocracy to dismiss anything because "the Russians!".

lisper 2y ago
> What does it matter who "influenced" him Because they may have influenced the timing and content of the leaks to further their own ends. Revealing sensitive information is not a neutral act. It has consequences far beyond the exposure of bad actors.
- gorlilla 2y ago
  Again, the fundamental argument is that the bad actors still had time, chance and opportunity to own and be accountable for the misdeeds but chose to hide them instead. Any ability to influence the timing of the release is still a direct consequence of their underlying malfeasance.
  - lisper 2y ago
    I don't dispute that. But just because it is good to expose bad actors does not mean that any mode of exposing bad actors is an unalloyed good. The exposure of bad actors can (and usually does) have ancillary effects, and those ancillary effects can be bad. They can in some cases be bad enough that they are arguably worse than the original malfeasance of the exposed bad actors. Assange's release of Clinton's emails, for example, may well have swung the 2016 election in Trump's favor, but it would be a stretch to claim that the emails contained evidence of bad acts that merited this outcome.
    - rubytubido 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - Jerrrrry 2y ago
      [dead]
- phone8675309 2y ago
  Because the US has never used the timing or content of leaks to further their own ends. Grow up.
- causi 2y ago
  Then maybe you shouldn't commit atrocities that can then be used against you. I already know the government of Russia is evil. They're not accountable to me. The American government, ostensibly, is. I want every single evil act they ever willingly partake in exposed with the maximum possible impact, because that's my tax dollars being used to murder people.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    This “my tax dollars” argument is so facile. Does this mean then that your employer gets to control your actions because it’s their dollars funding your actions? The money changed hands - it’s the governments. The underlying principle is the rule of law and the Constitution codifies the powers of the government with legislation codifying more details. That’s why the government is accountable to you, not because of your tax dollars. If you are a citizen who doesn’t need to pay any taxes, the government should be as equally accountable to you as to the very wealthy because of the rule of law and everyone being equal to it.
    - causi 2y ago
      Does this mean then that your employer gets to control your actions because it’s their dollars funding your actions? ...yes. That's what a job is. There are also off-duty codes of conduct employees must adhere to. That’s why the government is accountable to you, not because of your tax dollars. I didn't say my taxes are why they're accountable. I said my taxes are why I want any and all evil actions taken by them exposed.
      - vlovich123 2y ago
        You should want transparency as a matter of the rule of law - you can’t know what laws are broken or what changes to the law need to be made if there isn’t transparency. Again, we’re aligned on that. But the “ma taxes” argument is facile because for nearly 100 years there wasn’t even income tax so it was secondary taxes through purchases or tariffs. As for off duty codes, there usually aren’t any meaningful ones and they generally are very constrained by the legal system (eg they can’t punish you for political activity). It’s the same reason someone standing up to a politician and screaming “my taxes fund your salary” is blatantly incorrect. The economy is a circular dependent system. For example, government tax dollars pay corporations which then pay your salary which you then get taxed on. You’re over privileging your personal role in the economic system when you make this argument and then the next follow up argument is “well I pay more taxes than you so I should get more of a say than you in how government is run”. It’s a flawed premise that leads to all sorts of directly harmful lines of reasoning. Just argue that we’re a country based on the rule of law and no one is above that. That’s literally the founding principle of the country.
rubytubido 2y ago
[flagged]

lisper 2y ago

> What does it matter who "influenced" him Because they may have influenced the timing and content of the leaks to further their own ends. Revealing sensitive information is not a neutral act. It has consequences far beyond the exposure of bad actors.

gorlilla 2y ago
Again, the fundamental argument is that the bad actors still had time, chance and opportunity to own and be accountable for the misdeeds but chose to hide them instead. Any ability to influence the timing of the release is still a direct consequence of their underlying malfeasance.
- lisper 2y ago
  I don't dispute that. But just because it is good to expose bad actors does not mean that any mode of exposing bad actors is an unalloyed good. The exposure of bad actors can (and usually does) have ancillary effects, and those ancillary effects can be bad. They can in some cases be bad enough that they are arguably worse than the original malfeasance of the exposed bad actors. Assange's release of Clinton's emails, for example, may well have swung the 2016 election in Trump's favor, but it would be a stretch to claim that the emails contained evidence of bad acts that merited this outcome.
  - rubytubido 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - Jerrrrry 2y ago
    [dead]
phone8675309 2y ago
Because the US has never used the timing or content of leaks to further their own ends. Grow up.
causi 2y ago
Then maybe you shouldn't commit atrocities that can then be used against you. I already know the government of Russia is evil. They're not accountable to me. The American government, ostensibly, is. I want every single evil act they ever willingly partake in exposed with the maximum possible impact, because that's my tax dollars being used to murder people.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  This “my tax dollars” argument is so facile. Does this mean then that your employer gets to control your actions because it’s their dollars funding your actions? The money changed hands - it’s the governments. The underlying principle is the rule of law and the Constitution codifies the powers of the government with legislation codifying more details. That’s why the government is accountable to you, not because of your tax dollars. If you are a citizen who doesn’t need to pay any taxes, the government should be as equally accountable to you as to the very wealthy because of the rule of law and everyone being equal to it.
  - causi 2y ago
    Does this mean then that your employer gets to control your actions because it’s their dollars funding your actions? ...yes. That's what a job is. There are also off-duty codes of conduct employees must adhere to. That’s why the government is accountable to you, not because of your tax dollars. I didn't say my taxes are why they're accountable. I said my taxes are why I want any and all evil actions taken by them exposed.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      You should want transparency as a matter of the rule of law - you can’t know what laws are broken or what changes to the law need to be made if there isn’t transparency. Again, we’re aligned on that. But the “ma taxes” argument is facile because for nearly 100 years there wasn’t even income tax so it was secondary taxes through purchases or tariffs. As for off duty codes, there usually aren’t any meaningful ones and they generally are very constrained by the legal system (eg they can’t punish you for political activity). It’s the same reason someone standing up to a politician and screaming “my taxes fund your salary” is blatantly incorrect. The economy is a circular dependent system. For example, government tax dollars pay corporations which then pay your salary which you then get taxed on. You’re over privileging your personal role in the economic system when you make this argument and then the next follow up argument is “well I pay more taxes than you so I should get more of a say than you in how government is run”. It’s a flawed premise that leads to all sorts of directly harmful lines of reasoning. Just argue that we’re a country based on the rule of law and no one is above that. That’s literally the founding principle of the country.

rubytubido 2y ago

[flagged]