3 ms·

Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to ma

Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions. All nations (worth a damn) derive their legitimacy from the people, people just like you. If you can't do it, you can't expect anyone else to. That's very general and maybe not very helpful here, but I still wanted to make the point, because I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts". I can accept teachers, so that ideally when they're done with me, I'm an "expert", too. But I don't trust those who would just remain as experts hovering in some vague place above you. From what I learned about life so far, those are all hacks. And if these things are too complicated for regular citizens to understand, then they need to be made less complicated, or we need better citizens. Democracy in an industrialized world is no trivial task. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Yes, of course. But you still use indicators for that, yes? If you visited a new doctor, and you heard loud screams, you would slip out again. If a friend recommends a dentist and you're currently looking for a good one, you'll give the recommended one a try first, that sort of thing. I've seen doctors do shit (to others) that made me not EVER trust one blindly. I am usually lucky with mine, but I do pay attention to them, I do second-guess them, I measure up their character, how peaceful and concentrated they are, versus just loud and constantly on the move, etc. At the end of the day, nobody but my own immune system, family and friends truly care about my well-being, to the point they'd loose sleep over it.

jasonlotito 13y ago
> Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions. I completely agree. And I agree with this as well: > I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts". But I think it's important to understand that whether you think Snowden is a whistleblower or a traitor, you are making that decision in part based on "experts." You are trusting people who haven't proven themselves to be untrustworthy. We don't know everything (or maybe we do, it's difficult to say). Sure, we can say "Hey, he told us these things that were true." But I also don't have any reason to trust him outright. So, on one hand, I have valid reasons to distrust the government, but I also have valid reasons to distrust Snowden. So on one hand, I want to believe he's told the entire story, and is being completely truthful. But on the other hand, on multiple levels he's demonstrated his untrustworthiness.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  For what it's worth, I haven't decided Snowden is "a good guy". (I'm not 100% sure of anything in life other than "something exists", and so far I don't even know what "exists" means) But I consider it likely enough that I wouldn't feel good about anything but a very, public trial, where everybody moves reaaal slow and I can see their hands at all times. [which is silly of me to say, because I'm not even an US citizen, but that's how I think and feel about this, doubly so if I were one :P] All those people, even officials who are already yelling traitor and espionage? Restrain those first, show them their place, before you ask Snowden to come into their reach. Some guy who leaked slides is on the run, while the man with kill lists resides in the White house; there is so much wrong with that picture. Maybe Snowden should get a trial, but not one presided over by a bunch of hardened criminals who just happen to have the law on their side because they can't keep their fingers off it.

jasonlotito 13y ago

> Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions. I completely agree. And I agree with this as well: > I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts". But I think it's important to understand that whether you think Snowden is a whistleblower or a traitor, you are making that decision in part based on "experts." You are trusting people who haven't proven themselves to be untrustworthy. We don't know everything (or maybe we do, it's difficult to say). Sure, we can say "Hey, he told us these things that were true." But I also don't have any reason to trust him outright. So, on one hand, I have valid reasons to distrust the government, but I also have valid reasons to distrust Snowden. So on one hand, I want to believe he's told the entire story, and is being completely truthful. But on the other hand, on multiple levels he's demonstrated his untrustworthiness.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
For what it's worth, I haven't decided Snowden is "a good guy". (I'm not 100% sure of anything in life other than "something exists", and so far I don't even know what "exists" means) But I consider it likely enough that I wouldn't feel good about anything but a very, public trial, where everybody moves reaaal slow and I can see their hands at all times. [which is silly of me to say, because I'm not even an US citizen, but that's how I think and feel about this, doubly so if I were one :P] All those people, even officials who are already yelling traitor and espionage? Restrain those first, show them their place, before you ask Snowden to come into their reach. Some guy who leaked slides is on the run, while the man with kill lists resides in the White house; there is so much wrong with that picture. Maybe Snowden should get a trial, but not one presided over by a bunch of hardened criminals who just happen to have the law on their side because they can't keep their fingers off it.