6 ms·
Manning should never even be brought up in the same context as Snowden. It's both discrediting and insulting to compare the two of them.
by mason240 12y ago
Manning should never even be brought up in the same context as Snowden.
It's both discrediting and insulting to compare the two of them.
- llamataboot 12y agoFYI: Manning uses female pronouns to refer to herself now.
- rthomas6 12y agoNeither of the preceding comments used any pronouns to refer to Manning, which makes this comment kind of odd.
- mason240 12y agoI did us the pronoun "him," then I edited my comment.
- igorgue 12y agoDon't need to excuse yourself, obviously the first commenter doesn't know how to hold conversation without being annoying by correcting people with little facts. The person's gender doesn't matter at all in this case.
- cookiecaper 12y agoAnd that doesn't necessarily require everyone else to follow suit. It's probably best to avoid this argument altogether by never using first names or pronouns to refer to Pvt. Manning.
- wodenokoto 12y agoWhy?
- liquidise 12y agoIMO: the snowden documents have shined a spotlight on methodologies, and were released to established journalists. Manning, in contrast, released docs and lists naming names of men and women in the field, a major threat to the wellbeing of an active operative. I am all for transparent dealings and in principle i agree with both of their actions, but snowden was inarguably more meticulous and conscious of his actions.
- Someone1234 12y agoBoth released them to Guardian journalists. In Manning's case those journalists removed the names before publication. Snowden released a lot of sensitive information to the exact same organisation who decided what to publish. It was essentially just an internal Wiki dump. He didn't personally curate it. You'll have to cite cases where Manning published the names of people directly which put them at risk. Last I heard everything went through third parties before publication.
- nitrogen 12y agoThe Pentagon itself said that nobody was put in harm's way as a direct result of the cable leaks.
- astazangasta 12y agoCan you clarify? Both of them took a principled stand and leaked a large amount of sensitive information to journalists they trusted at great personal risk. Both of them had a huge influence on public debate. They are at least comparable.
- theworst 12y agoThe argument that I've commonly heard is twofold. One, Manning was in the Army, so lots of his actions fall under military jurisdiction, where the primary concern is not the rights of the accused. Secondly, Manning dumped a lot of info without knowing what he dumped. Snowden knew what was in the docs he leaked, and he made sure to protect human lives. That's what I've heard, at least. It seems to make sense to me, but I'm open to having my mind changed if you have a different perspective.
- JshWright 12y agoUnrelated transgender protocol question... When referring to events in the past, do you use the gender the party identifies as now, or the gender they (at least publicly) identified as at the point in time the events occurred? I suspect that might vary from person to person, but in most cases, I expect they would prefer the former...
- king_jester 12y agoUsually you use the current gender identity pronouns.
- sp332 12y agoIn this case at least, Manning always felt feminine. It just took a long time to personally work that out. The reason she joined the army in the first place was to make herself more manly, because she already didn't feel like a man at the time.
- d23 12y agoFor the life of me, whenever I hear someone call Manning a whistleblower, I cannot ever get the person to articulate exactly what he was blowing the whistle against. It's my understanding that most of what was released was nothing more than embarrassing personal cables that harmed diplomatic relations. Snowden revealed legitimate privacy concerns that the American people had not yet been privy to.
- Istof 12y agoSnowden himself refered to her as a whistle blower...