3 ms·

> I am still a citizen and so was he. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

firesteelrain 5d ago
I get it I didn’t leak national security information but it doesn’t change the fact that he wasn’t stateless. That’s the part I was referring to
- BLKNSLVR 5d ago
  That just feels like a slightly different false equivalence - and having said that, I may be making yet another version of it by saying this: If a person has a 'state', but that state would immediately jail the person for treason upon their return, is that materially different to stateless? That feels like the reason that many countries allow 'political asylum'.
  - firesteelrain 5d ago
    He wasn’t stateless. Stateless means no country recognizes you as a citizen. He just faced arrest if he returned. Same as any other fugitive. People seeking asylum still have a country and citizenship. Also he wasn’t facing treason charges. He was charged under the Espionage Act and with theft of government property. There were others in similar situations that faced up to 45 months in prison and Eric Holder was willing to make a deal in 2015. He basically is on self imposed exile in Russia.
    - BLKNSLVR 5d ago
      > He just faced arrest if he returned You seem to continue to minimise the seriousness of the situation.
      - firesteelrain 5d ago
        Oh it was very serious what he did. But it was odd he went to Hong Kong then to Russia on his was to Ecuador. It wasn’t well thought out
        pydry 5d ago
        It wasn't odd at all the list of places he could flee to was very limited because of his job. It's more odd that some people don't give him the same benefit of the doubt they would a whistleblower from Russia or China.
        firesteelrain 5d ago
        He didn’t have to flee at all
        kelnos 5d ago
        What a weird argument. Sure, he didn't "have" to, but I don't blame him for not wanting to spend years (decades? life?) in prison for doing something he believed was morally right.
        deleted 5d ago
        [deleted]
        pydry 5d ago
        Just as some Chinese people want Ai Weiwei to rot in prison, some Russians wanted Navalny to rot in prison and some Americans wanted or still want Snowden and Assange to rot in prison.
  - iamnothere 5d ago
    I see what you’re saying, but true stateless people often have a different problem on their hands, because most countries won’t allow them entry at all unless they can get refugee status, and they will often be denied basic rights. Some people actually voluntarily seek statelessness, but they’re either crazy or have enough resources to fly under the radar somewhere. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness Snowden’s status is more of a political exile. Theoretically he could return legally and safely if there was a complete regime change where the new regime was aligned with his beliefs and actions, although the chances of this happening are approximately zero.
    - BLKNSLVR 5d ago
      Yeah, Snowden was lucky he wasn't, by definition, stateless, otherwise Russia may not have offered him asylum. They got to piss off the US by doing so.
      - ShinyLeftPad 5d ago
        Russia offers asylum to stateless people. The only problem with getting asylum anywhere while being stateless is proving who you are. And it wasn't a problem for him.
  - viccis 5d ago
    It's not a "false equivalence". Multiple people are trying to explain to you what "stateless" actually means and how's it's materially different than being a fugitive, but you are refusing to listen.
    - BLKNSLVR 5d ago
      My point is that the definition doesn't matter when faced with Snowden's situation. Not being stateless offered no respite, therefore it's materially no different - to Snowden, in his situation. No, it won't hold up in court, because definitions exist and the law is an ass, as they say. But you'll never understand human behaviour if that's the only lens you look through. Does that make my thread of explanations any more clear? (inb4: No, you're wrong, he wasn't stateless.)
      - pepperoni_pizza 5d ago
        Words mean things. If you decide your words mean something else to the common usage, people will react to that.

firesteelrain 5d ago

I get it I didn’t leak national security information but it doesn’t change the fact that he wasn’t stateless. That’s the part I was referring to

BLKNSLVR 5d ago
That just feels like a slightly different false equivalence - and having said that, I may be making yet another version of it by saying this: If a person has a 'state', but that state would immediately jail the person for treason upon their return, is that materially different to stateless? That feels like the reason that many countries allow 'political asylum'.
- firesteelrain 5d ago
  He wasn’t stateless. Stateless means no country recognizes you as a citizen. He just faced arrest if he returned. Same as any other fugitive. People seeking asylum still have a country and citizenship. Also he wasn’t facing treason charges. He was charged under the Espionage Act and with theft of government property. There were others in similar situations that faced up to 45 months in prison and Eric Holder was willing to make a deal in 2015. He basically is on self imposed exile in Russia.
  - BLKNSLVR 5d ago
    > He just faced arrest if he returned You seem to continue to minimise the seriousness of the situation.
    - firesteelrain 5d ago
      Oh it was very serious what he did. But it was odd he went to Hong Kong then to Russia on his was to Ecuador. It wasn’t well thought out
      - pydry 5d ago
        It wasn't odd at all the list of places he could flee to was very limited because of his job. It's more odd that some people don't give him the same benefit of the doubt they would a whistleblower from Russia or China.
        firesteelrain 5d ago
        He didn’t have to flee at all
        kelnos 5d ago
        What a weird argument. Sure, he didn't "have" to, but I don't blame him for not wanting to spend years (decades? life?) in prison for doing something he believed was morally right.
        deleted 5d ago
        [deleted]
        pydry 5d ago
        Just as some Chinese people want Ai Weiwei to rot in prison, some Russians wanted Navalny to rot in prison and some Americans wanted or still want Snowden and Assange to rot in prison.
- iamnothere 5d ago
  I see what you’re saying, but true stateless people often have a different problem on their hands, because most countries won’t allow them entry at all unless they can get refugee status, and they will often be denied basic rights. Some people actually voluntarily seek statelessness, but they’re either crazy or have enough resources to fly under the radar somewhere. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness Snowden’s status is more of a political exile. Theoretically he could return legally and safely if there was a complete regime change where the new regime was aligned with his beliefs and actions, although the chances of this happening are approximately zero.
  - BLKNSLVR 5d ago
    Yeah, Snowden was lucky he wasn't, by definition, stateless, otherwise Russia may not have offered him asylum. They got to piss off the US by doing so.
    - ShinyLeftPad 5d ago
      Russia offers asylum to stateless people. The only problem with getting asylum anywhere while being stateless is proving who you are. And it wasn't a problem for him.
- viccis 5d ago
  It's not a "false equivalence". Multiple people are trying to explain to you what "stateless" actually means and how's it's materially different than being a fugitive, but you are refusing to listen.
  - BLKNSLVR 5d ago
    My point is that the definition doesn't matter when faced with Snowden's situation. Not being stateless offered no respite, therefore it's materially no different - to Snowden, in his situation. No, it won't hold up in court, because definitions exist and the law is an ass, as they say. But you'll never understand human behaviour if that's the only lens you look through. Does that make my thread of explanations any more clear? (inb4: No, you're wrong, he wasn't stateless.)
    - pepperoni_pizza 5d ago
      Words mean things. If you decide your words mean something else to the common usage, people will react to that.