4 ms·

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

gliiics 2y ago
I agree, and in fact I did not compare them. I asked an entirely different question. You can re-read the first line of my comment if you think I'm putting those two things on the same level, and you will see that I agree with: > He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  What is the point of asking that question if you strictly intended no comparison between the subject of the post you’re replying to and the people you mentioned? It is like posting “You have interesting thoughts about Kim Dotcom. What is better, paragliding or parasailing?”
  - singlow 2y ago
    He was contrasting them. He was pointing out that the logic of the previous post falls apart when applying it to more noble subjects.
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      That is a comparison.
      - stouset 2y ago
        You can believe that the two should be held to different account while still critiquing a specific attempt at doing so.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    The comparison is between the proposed heuristic of "stopping at some point", not between the people.
  - rowanG077 2y ago
    It's not. They were attacking an argument made in the original comment. That argument had no reason to only apply to Kim dotcom. It applies to everyone. The poster attacked the logic behind that argument using a few different people as examples.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 2y ago
  On the internet, questions like your first comment are statistically likely to be smug gotchas. It'd be nice if it was different, but it's not. So if that's not your intention, it's worthwhile to say so in the first place rather than assume people will understand.
  - jfyi 2y ago
    Just to say up front, I think you are the only one that gets it here and am not criticizing you, but the answer in question could also be read that way (of course with the excuse that "the other guy did it first!"). Am I the only one that didn't read either that way? I think a lot of biases are hanging out in this conversation.
pokstad 2y ago
That’s a subjective opinion. You shouldn’t have a legal system built on opinions.
- throwup238 2y ago
  The legal system shouldn't care about motive?
- mulmen 2y ago
  Sure but the legal system is only one branch of government. Many of the rights we enjoy today were earned by what the legal system would classify as criminals.
- mjhay 2y ago
  The written justification that judges give for their rulings is literally called a "judicial opinion." Human understanding of humans and human social structures (which one needs to make just rulings) isn't objective. To claim otherwise is not just subjective, but incoherent. It's an infinite regress. Many people throughout history possessing ideas that we now consider to be stupid were convinced of their objectivity. FWIW, I think this vendetta against Kim Dotcom is way out of line, and wouldn't have happened if he were more important.
calmbonsai 2y ago
Truth. I'll go further. He was a scam artist. Back in the day, I remember using MegaCar.com as an example of all the evils of Flash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9RIkwvFjfw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9RIkwvFjfw Also Data Protect was a fraud masquerading as an information security company. I was living in Germany then and it was a joke in the infosec space.
akoboldfrying 2y ago
"Comparing X to Y feels gross [therefore don't do it]" is a gross argument. This type of argument never yields insight, and only serves to draw attention away from the interesting and relevant question being asked, which in this case is: The top-level poster appears to be proposing a general rule for how people should behave. But how suitable is it really? The way to explore that is to test it out by trying other inputs, as the GP did here.
- jfyi 2y ago
  To be fair, the person you are replying to didn't use the argument you are describing. They stated it felt gross and then went into detail of the actual argument: > He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower. That is noticeably different than stating, "it feels gross so don't do it".
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    What you're calling their "actual argument" is also a bad argument. The original proposed rule (which amounts to "Don't do stuff if someone powerful can likely punish you for it") doesn't distinguish between commercial opportunists and real activists or whistleblowers, so their "actual argument" is spurious. It also seems designed to shut down criticism of the original proposed rule -- or at least that's the only interpretation I can ascribe to it. This is bad because that original proposed rule is bad (in my opinion) and deserves criticism. Ihe best kind of criticism of any rule is "Let's try this other input, and see if you still agree with the conclusion".
    - jfyi 2y ago
      Haha, of course the original comment doesn't distinguish... that was the whole reason for pointing it out. It was done specifically to separate the two sets of actors for comparison. It "being designed to shut down criticism" is a wildly subjective take at best and at worst way more spurious than anything they or I am suggesting. I think your bias is showing and you are doing everything in your power to avoid addressing the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."
ClassyJacket 2y ago
Literally the whole point of comparing things are that they are different. If you could only compare things that were exactly identically equal, the concept of comparing wouldn't make sense.
rustcleaner 2y ago
>Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. Victims are victims. We just overlook victims of the state because of a biological religious adherence to revenge. Righteous violence and all that jazz.
ranger_danger 2y ago
I don't think they were actually comparing Kim to anything else besides using his "resistance to the law" approach in a general sense to ask if "Isn't it wiser to stop at some point" should also apply to whistleblowers.
throw10920 2y ago
> Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower. Publicly available information supports the fact that Snowden was also an opportunist - the vast majority of the material he leaked was unrelated to domestic surveillance, which was his stated purpose for leaking. Numbers don't lie.
lnxg33k1 2y ago
Regardless of the reason, he gave many kids who couldn't afford to pay, a way to access movies and TV shows. I haven't watched a movie or a TV show for the past 20 years because its a waste of time for kids, but when I was young and couldn't afford to pay, I would use mega
evilfred 2y ago
Snowden is a Russian operative, he isn't a real activist either

gliiics 2y ago

I agree, and in fact I did not compare them. I asked an entirely different question. You can re-read the first line of my comment if you think I'm putting those two things on the same level, and you will see that I agree with: > He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

jrflowers 2y ago
What is the point of asking that question if you strictly intended no comparison between the subject of the post you’re replying to and the people you mentioned? It is like posting “You have interesting thoughts about Kim Dotcom. What is better, paragliding or parasailing?”
- singlow 2y ago
  He was contrasting them. He was pointing out that the logic of the previous post falls apart when applying it to more noble subjects.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    That is a comparison.
    - stouset 2y ago
      You can believe that the two should be held to different account while still critiquing a specific attempt at doing so.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  The comparison is between the proposed heuristic of "stopping at some point", not between the people.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  It's not. They were attacking an argument made in the original comment. That argument had no reason to only apply to Kim dotcom. It applies to everyone. The poster attacked the logic behind that argument using a few different people as examples.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
PhasmaFelis 2y ago
On the internet, questions like your first comment are statistically likely to be smug gotchas. It'd be nice if it was different, but it's not. So if that's not your intention, it's worthwhile to say so in the first place rather than assume people will understand.
- jfyi 2y ago
  Just to say up front, I think you are the only one that gets it here and am not criticizing you, but the answer in question could also be read that way (of course with the excuse that "the other guy did it first!"). Am I the only one that didn't read either that way? I think a lot of biases are hanging out in this conversation.

pokstad 2y ago

That’s a subjective opinion. You shouldn’t have a legal system built on opinions.

throwup238 2y ago
The legal system shouldn't care about motive?
mulmen 2y ago
Sure but the legal system is only one branch of government. Many of the rights we enjoy today were earned by what the legal system would classify as criminals.
mjhay 2y ago
The written justification that judges give for their rulings is literally called a "judicial opinion." Human understanding of humans and human social structures (which one needs to make just rulings) isn't objective. To claim otherwise is not just subjective, but incoherent. It's an infinite regress. Many people throughout history possessing ideas that we now consider to be stupid were convinced of their objectivity. FWIW, I think this vendetta against Kim Dotcom is way out of line, and wouldn't have happened if he were more important.

calmbonsai 2y ago

Truth. I'll go further. He was a scam artist. Back in the day, I remember using MegaCar.com as an example of all the evils of Flash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9RIkwvFjfw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9RIkwvFjfw Also Data Protect was a fraud masquerading as an information security company. I was living in Germany then and it was a joke in the infosec space.

akoboldfrying 2y ago

"Comparing X to Y feels gross [therefore don't do it]" is a gross argument. This type of argument never yields insight, and only serves to draw attention away from the interesting and relevant question being asked, which in this case is: The top-level poster appears to be proposing a general rule for how people should behave. But how suitable is it really? The way to explore that is to test it out by trying other inputs, as the GP did here.

jfyi 2y ago
To be fair, the person you are replying to didn't use the argument you are describing. They stated it felt gross and then went into detail of the actual argument: > He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower. That is noticeably different than stating, "it feels gross so don't do it".
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  What you're calling their "actual argument" is also a bad argument. The original proposed rule (which amounts to "Don't do stuff if someone powerful can likely punish you for it") doesn't distinguish between commercial opportunists and real activists or whistleblowers, so their "actual argument" is spurious. It also seems designed to shut down criticism of the original proposed rule -- or at least that's the only interpretation I can ascribe to it. This is bad because that original proposed rule is bad (in my opinion) and deserves criticism. Ihe best kind of criticism of any rule is "Let's try this other input, and see if you still agree with the conclusion".
  - jfyi 2y ago
    Haha, of course the original comment doesn't distinguish... that was the whole reason for pointing it out. It was done specifically to separate the two sets of actors for comparison. It "being designed to shut down criticism" is a wildly subjective take at best and at worst way more spurious than anything they or I am suggesting. I think your bias is showing and you are doing everything in your power to avoid addressing the point that "he was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower."

ClassyJacket 2y ago

Literally the whole point of comparing things are that they are different. If you could only compare things that were exactly identically equal, the concept of comparing wouldn't make sense.

rustcleaner 2y ago

>Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. Victims are victims. We just overlook victims of the state because of a biological religious adherence to revenge. Righteous violence and all that jazz.

ranger_danger 2y ago

I don't think they were actually comparing Kim to anything else besides using his "resistance to the law" approach in a general sense to ask if "Isn't it wiser to stop at some point" should also apply to whistleblowers.

throw10920 2y ago

> Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower. Publicly available information supports the fact that Snowden was also an opportunist - the vast majority of the material he leaked was unrelated to domestic surveillance, which was his stated purpose for leaking. Numbers don't lie.

lnxg33k1 2y ago

Regardless of the reason, he gave many kids who couldn't afford to pay, a way to access movies and TV shows. I haven't watched a movie or a TV show for the past 20 years because its a waste of time for kids, but when I was young and couldn't afford to pay, I would use mega

evilfred 2y ago

Snowden is a Russian operative, he isn't a real activist either