4 ms·
Your characterization of Julian Assange as a "two-bit twerp" is weird. You are aware he is an extraordinarily high profile figure on the world stage, yes?
by jpxxx 14y ago
Your characterization of Julian Assange as a "two-bit twerp" is weird. You are aware he is an extraordinarily high profile figure on the world stage, yes?
- gadders 14y agoSo is Kim Kardashian. Assange is hardly Nelson Mandela.
- jpxxx 14y agoAh, you view him as a celebrity gadfly and this event of no real world consequence. OK.
- gadders 14y agoI'd be more than happy to have Kim Kardashian spent the rest of her life in the Ecuadorian embassy. My point is that although Assange is well known, he is not a prisoner of conscience like Mandela, Ai WeiWei, Ghandi etc etc. He is not being pursued for bravely standing up to an oppressive regime. He is being pursued for taking sexual advantage of two women.
- jpxxx 14y ago"He is not being pursued for bravely standing up to an oppressive regime. He is being pursued for taking sexual advantage of two women." Ah, there's where we have to part ways. I believe that's willful ignorance of the situation.
- greiskul 14y agoKim Kardashian is not really that famous globally, I only know who she is because of the internet. My parents and all my friends have no idea who she is. Assange on the other hand has made the newspaper here many times.
- slurgfest 14y agoHe is 'two-bit' as in 'not worth a major international incident, neither superhero nor supervillain'. His high publicity only reinforces his relative lack of actual importance against the cost of making a REAL international incident which isn't just talk. For Ecuador's government he is worth a little more - as a way of proving that they are anti-colonialist and not afraid of Uncle Sam. Other than that, Wikileaks doesn't require Assange to function, which means both that protecting Assange is incidental to protecting Wikileaks and also that attacking Assange is not an effective way of suppressing Wikileaks.
- jpxxx 14y agoYes to all of that. But the central question this story is going to answer is "What happens to people who embarrass the U.S. Government in the 21st century?" The answer to that question answers the fate of Wikileaks, which is ultimately just a collection of people. And it's going to inform the behavior of anyone else down the line who might embarrass the U.S. Government.