4 ms·

Or you see things very differently, the difference is that you are defending justy any arseholery as "journalism and hacktivism", while the GP wasn't. Funny ho

Or you see things very differently, the difference is that you are defending justy any arseholery as "journalism and hacktivism", while the GP wasn't. Funny how you seem to think that your view on everything, even on a difference in views, is automatically the authoritative one. I don't feel like interacting any more with you either, so why don't you think to yourself about it why what you think is "so obviously correct."

stale2002 2y ago
The problem with the initial response and why it was basically bad faith is that the definition of the word "whistleblower" can be broad, and it also is fairly unrelated to the central point. So when the other person brought that up, as well as when you are arguing about it, what you are doing is being both wrong on the point and pendant in a way that is irrelevant to the central thesis. Instead of trying to claim that someone was wrong about 1 single word, the good faith way of approaching the argument would be to talk about the thesis, which was that it wasn't really a "conspiracy" when the US government absolutely had strong motivation to go after him. The word "whistleblower" which has multiple meaning is basically irrelevant. And his original justification, of using a Google search definition, is absolutely valid. Or, it is at least valid enough that I don't think you are justified in being upset about a perfectly normal way of using a word. Especially when the use of the word, that is supported by Google, is irrelevant to the thesis statement.