4 ms·

> - Julian Assange might be an egotistical narcissist. "might be"? Anyone "might" be! Do you have substantial reasons for suspecting that Assange is one? > -

by lake99 13y ago

> - Julian Assange might be an egotistical narcissist. "might be"? Anyone "might" be! Do you have substantial reasons for suspecting that Assange is one? > - The work and results of Wikileaks may have contributed to harm as well as good. No one denies that Wikileaks has done harm. Not even Assange himself. Wikileaks has harmed the US image quite badly. For example, before Wikileaks, I had no idea the US military is run by the kind of people who would gun down innocents from a helicopter, so casually.

snowwrestler 13y ago
> Do you have substantial reasons for suspecting that Assange is one? Some people have asserted as much, including people who have known him personally. Others have said that those assertions are false. Since I don't have evidence either way, it "might" be true. Might. Might! I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying I can't prove it's not true. I'm also saying, if that upsets you, think about why that might be. Is it because you know Mr. Assange personally and know it to be a false allegation? Or is it because you like Wikileaks and interpret any attack on Assange as an attack on Wikileaks? "L'etat, c'est moi"? I don't believe that's true. I think we should be wary of cults of personality. Even if we don't think the "personality" is themselves creating it.
- lake99 13y ago
  I know that you never said it's true. The problem with all these mights is that they can add to character assassination, without bringing anything substantial to the discussion. Obamacare? Obama might be an egotistical narcissist. Non-violence? Gandhi might have been an egotistical narcissist¹. See what I mean? And no, it's not because I'm fond of Assange. I welcome information from everywhere. ¹ I hear many people in India say something to that effect these days.
- james3 13y ago
  I think personal characterizations have no place in the discussion of public characters, as these can only ever be opinions that are unable to be proven true or false. They only serve to derail a discussion when the argument turns away from one's favor, and is a very dishonest thing to do. Shame on you snowwrestler.

by lake99 13y ago

snowwrestler 13y ago

> Do you have substantial reasons for suspecting that Assange is one? Some people have asserted as much, including people who have known him personally. Others have said that those assertions are false. Since I don't have evidence either way, it "might" be true. Might. Might! I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying I can't prove it's not true. I'm also saying, if that upsets you, think about why that might be. Is it because you know Mr. Assange personally and know it to be a false allegation? Or is it because you like Wikileaks and interpret any attack on Assange as an attack on Wikileaks? "L'etat, c'est moi"? I don't believe that's true. I think we should be wary of cults of personality. Even if we don't think the "personality" is themselves creating it.

lake99 13y ago
I know that you never said it's true. The problem with all these mights is that they can add to character assassination, without bringing anything substantial to the discussion. Obamacare? Obama might be an egotistical narcissist. Non-violence? Gandhi might have been an egotistical narcissist¹. See what I mean? And no, it's not because I'm fond of Assange. I welcome information from everywhere. ¹ I hear many people in India say something to that effect these days.
james3 13y ago
I think personal characterizations have no place in the discussion of public characters, as these can only ever be opinions that are unable to be proven true or false. They only serve to derail a discussion when the argument turns away from one's favor, and is a very dishonest thing to do. Shame on you snowwrestler.