9 ms·

Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest, yes he has had flukes but consider the mental sta

Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest, yes he has had flukes but consider the mental state of someone being prosecuted and hunted by the most powerful and corrupt people in our planet, mostly what Assange has done s good and denying and calling him an asshat is dishonest and shows a clear bias on your part

tpmx 5y ago
Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest Why do you think it wouldn't be dishonest if I were quite "rich and powerful"?
jhayward 5y ago
> mostly what Assange has done s good No, colluding with the GRU to create false documents interfering with the US Presidential election, resulting in the disaster that was Trump's election can not, in any sense, be called 'good'.
- cema 5y ago
  Did he really collaborate?
  - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
    this has never been proven. but it was the final blow to his public image after the rape charges. from then on most intel / infosec people who still remained partial moved on to condemning him. Even if he had collaborated would it matter? what it proves is that you can not do OSINT and be "independant/neutral". bellingcat and all other self-proclaimed citizen journalists know it too. the message here is "if you stand up against the US and hang out in a FVEY country you're dead". collaborating with enemies of US (no matter if DPRK, Iran or whoever) would be justified considering the nature of the material which was exposed. but doing so without thinking about his location and safety is the most "I can fix society because I'm a hacker" thing I've ever seen. it is a small crime though in comparison to the shit the US has gotten away and still does so until today. e.g. Gitmo and black sites are still operating, drones still kill civilians, their war on terror will go unpunished, people are still being brainwashed into believing "US army good", the CIA is still executing people overseas the same way as the FSB, while they shout "terror" or talk a big game about "law and justice" their crimes can't be held accountable in the ICC: pot. kettle. black.
    - Haga 5y ago
      The rape charges were falsified. The alleged victim simply asked the police whether he could be forced to do a Std test
      - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
        this comment was dead so I vouched for it because it's the truth.
- tpmx 5y ago
  For the record: That's not what I wrote about above.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
  More Trump Derangement Syndrome spotted!
- arminiusreturns 5y ago
  >colluding with the GRU to create false documents [Citation Needed]
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Yes, that is very bad. It also never happened. There are only vague claims from the US intelligence services to this effect, which mean less than nothing.
dmix 5y ago
We don't expect public figures to be humans anymore. You're never allowed to make mistakes and some video of you from 2-yrs ago in college can be a reputation killer. This is a very irrational mindset and we'd have no great minds of history because they were immature at a young age. People constantly grow, learn, and improve themselves. They also make mistakes or act emotionally. I feel like we've entered a social media era where only the flawless and speaking within socially acceptable Overton window are given a chance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window This is the death of radical aka experimental thought.
- KMag 5y ago
  In the near future, only pseudonyms and fools will challenge the thoughts of the day.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > I feel like we've entered a social media era where only the flawless and speaking within socially acceptable Overton window are given a chance. It has nothing to do with flawless. Nobody is flawless. Even if they were, half the things people are now being condemned for aren't even rooted in fact. You can't attack someone like Assange for revealing official misconduct. That's against the rules, and unsympathetic. But you can attack him for <something else>. The something else is irrelevant. It's only the proffered reason for the attack, not the real one.
CRConrad 5y ago
Your defense seems to boil down to asshattery being understandable when one is persecuted by national security organisations. That would be a valid defense of Assange -- if the asshattery had come after the persecution. But from all I've read about him, it was the other way around. He has always been a humongous asshat.

tpmx 5y ago

Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest Why do you think it wouldn't be dishonest if I were quite "rich and powerful"?

jhayward 5y ago

> mostly what Assange has done s good No, colluding with the GRU to create false documents interfering with the US Presidential election, resulting in the disaster that was Trump's election can not, in any sense, be called 'good'.

cema 5y ago
Did he really collaborate?
- DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  this has never been proven. but it was the final blow to his public image after the rape charges. from then on most intel / infosec people who still remained partial moved on to condemning him. Even if he had collaborated would it matter? what it proves is that you can not do OSINT and be "independant/neutral". bellingcat and all other self-proclaimed citizen journalists know it too. the message here is "if you stand up against the US and hang out in a FVEY country you're dead". collaborating with enemies of US (no matter if DPRK, Iran or whoever) would be justified considering the nature of the material which was exposed. but doing so without thinking about his location and safety is the most "I can fix society because I'm a hacker" thing I've ever seen. it is a small crime though in comparison to the shit the US has gotten away and still does so until today. e.g. Gitmo and black sites are still operating, drones still kill civilians, their war on terror will go unpunished, people are still being brainwashed into believing "US army good", the CIA is still executing people overseas the same way as the FSB, while they shout "terror" or talk a big game about "law and justice" their crimes can't be held accountable in the ICC: pot. kettle. black.
  - Haga 5y ago
    The rape charges were falsified. The alleged victim simply asked the police whether he could be forced to do a Std test
    - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
      this comment was dead so I vouched for it because it's the truth.
tpmx 5y ago
For the record: That's not what I wrote about above.
CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
More Trump Derangement Syndrome spotted!
arminiusreturns 5y ago
>colluding with the GRU to create false documents [Citation Needed]
tsimionescu 5y ago
Yes, that is very bad. It also never happened. There are only vague claims from the US intelligence services to this effect, which mean less than nothing.

dmix 5y ago

We don't expect public figures to be humans anymore. You're never allowed to make mistakes and some video of you from 2-yrs ago in college can be a reputation killer. This is a very irrational mindset and we'd have no great minds of history because they were immature at a young age. People constantly grow, learn, and improve themselves. They also make mistakes or act emotionally. I feel like we've entered a social media era where only the flawless and speaking within socially acceptable Overton window are given a chance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window This is the death of radical aka experimental thought.

KMag 5y ago
In the near future, only pseudonyms and fools will challenge the thoughts of the day.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> I feel like we've entered a social media era where only the flawless and speaking within socially acceptable Overton window are given a chance. It has nothing to do with flawless. Nobody is flawless. Even if they were, half the things people are now being condemned for aren't even rooted in fact. You can't attack someone like Assange for revealing official misconduct. That's against the rules, and unsympathetic. But you can attack him for <something else>. The something else is irrelevant. It's only the proffered reason for the attack, not the real one.

CRConrad 5y ago

Your defense seems to boil down to asshattery being understandable when one is persecuted by national security organisations. That would be a valid defense of Assange -- if the asshattery had come after the persecution. But from all I've read about him, it was the other way around. He has always been a humongous asshat.