6 ms·
One very plausible answer is the government wanted to demonize him so there'd be less of an uproar of support against their actions.
by loceng 13y ago
One very plausible answer is the government wanted to demonize him so there'd be less of an uproar of support against their actions.
- krapp 13y agoAn uproar from whom?
- loceng 13y agoI don't know honestly, though you don't think it's possible the government would try to demonize someone in order to gain public support?
- krapp 13y agoThey certainly would, Martin Luther King Jr. would be one good example. But I think they have public support in this case. Most people would be disgusted to know that Silk Road ever existed and would be happy it's gone. But more relevant, perhaps, I don't believe that public support really matters here either way. DPR isn't a hero to many people, demonizing him isn't likely to affect popular opinion, or have any relevant political merit. Trying to secure a conviction might be another matter, but even then I would think they would be certain that they had a solid case to begin with. I can't imagine they would fabricate evidence without anything concrete to back it up. It's not as if this is all they have, they would be insane to just toss some photoshops in to 'sweeten the pot' as it were.
- mpyne 13y agoSo you have no real strong reason why the government would demonize him in this case, which is sufficient evidence to prop this hypothesis all the way in your mind to "very plausible"? Wonderful.
- loceng 13y agoIt is very reasonable this is something the government would do. There are loads of historical accounts of intelligence/military agencies doing this. It's mainly called propaganda.
- sliverstorm 13y agoThis is a real-life chewbacca defense if I ever heard one.
- loceng 13y agoHa. That made me laugh. The point is if you make someone look extremely evil, more "normal" people are less likely to show any support or sympathy towards them, right? Some who might have been neutral about a black market where you can buy drugs (that the government deems illegal) who would have supported the person who owned/managed it, whereas now I imagine they'd be less likely speak up.
- sliverstorm 13y agoRight, but that's like arguing the government clearly controls the weather, because of how convenient it would be for them if they could. You're just saying, "Well I could see them setting him up" and hoping that counts as evidence.
- loceng 13y agoSo, you're trying to twist my words into saying "this is what is happening and I am claiming it to be true" - however what I'm saying is that it's a reasonable possibility - I am not saying there is proof behind it or that it's a real occurrence.
- sliverstorm 13y agoHow do we know it is a reasonable possibility? We have zero evidence to suggest it is the case.
- loceng 13y agoProbability is based in part on logic using past occurrences as references - and not the present moment or determining conviction.