4 ms·

The difference in public perception between Snowden and Bradley Manning is interesting. Is it because of the nature of the information leaked? Is it because Sno

• r0h1n 13y ago
  I think it's more because Snowden's disclosures have an implication for average citizens, but not Manning's.
  • patrickk 13y ago
    The rationale I've heard for Manning is that he was military and betrayed his oath.
  • Crito 13y ago
    Snowden revealed wrongdoing by people that the general public does not feel much of any sort of connection or loyalty to. 'The military', rather than 'the NSA' (both DoD, yes, but still rather distinct in the eyes of the public), is something that the American public has become convinced absolutely must be supported no matter their political stance or position on war. Support for the military must be unwavering, even if you support nothing that the military actually does. Anything short of that is un-American, therefore Manning is un-American.
• scott_s 13y ago
  Manning leaked a large swath of information indiscriminately. The material was interesting to read, but perhaps the most notable thing about it was that there were no revelations. Snowden leaked particular information for a clear purpose. That material has changed political discourse and public perception.
• quarterto 13y ago
  Slightly offtopic: Her name is Chelsea Manning.
  • icelancer 13y ago
    Yes, but at the time, her name was Bradley Manning. I generally split references to Pvt. Manning based on time. I don't find it insensitive.
    • fiskkastanj 13y ago
      If I was her I would want to be called the female name, and you should always be a nice person and treat others like you would want to be treated, I for one would think.
      • dreamfactory 13y ago
        It's considered acceptable if you are talking about her pre-transition life.
    • quarterto 13y ago
      > I don't find it insensitive. You don't get to decide that ;)
      • niels_olson 13y ago
        Actually, icelancer does get to decide. We all have to choose our nouns and pronouns, perhaps a relic of English lacking a neutral pronoun, but choose we must. I think you'll find transgenders, et al, having to live the lives they do, have developed a far more nuanced take on public perception than fits with the role most of their self-styled allies have assumed on their behalf. One of my first patients was an HIV positive stripper who presented with shingles. During the history, I noted the off-label estrogen and the B cup and asked "Darren, what pronoun would prefer?" "He is fine, but whatever makes you comfortable" he said.
        • icelancer 13y ago
          I will always use "her" in reference to Pvt. Manning, but for historical accuracy, I try to split it between Bradley/Chelsea since it is usually more clear to the person I am talking to when doing so. I mean no disrespect.
• pessimizer 13y ago
  Manning largely revealed information about what the US was doing to foreigners (to a foreigner, in Assange), and Snowden largely revealed what the US was doing to US citizens. The vocal majority in the US are racist, xenophobic nationalists, and are disgusted by the idea that any conceivable US initiatives would be even slightly compromised for the sake of any number of foreigners, anywhere. The gender-change was a nail in the coffin - because to a lot of the public, that others him into a foreigner too. Snowden is very middle-class professional, dates a (female) model, races to Moscow through Hong Kong like a movie spy, and the President of Bolivia was pulled out of a plane just to find him (unsuccessfully.) (American) people generally understand their world in terms of shallow stereotypes and movie narratives; they hate both subtitles and protagonists that aren't white middle-class heterosexuals. Manning is a lot more of an underdog than Snowden.
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    Manning is much more of an underdog, but watching an underdog succeed (or come close) is what's interesting about underdogs. Watching an underdog get trounced? Boring.