8 ms·

So many people comment about how Snowden can't say things like this because he is in Russia. I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? He links to Wikipedia.

So many people comment about how Snowden can't say things like this because he is in Russia. I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? He links to Wikipedia. Maybe you don't want to believe Snowden, him being a traitor. Don't you believe Wikipedia? I don't see how Snowdens identity is even relevant to the subject.

1970-01-01 4y ago
>I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? It doesn't. His loyalty is unbounded. His honor, however, is open to interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyalty
spudfkc 4y ago
It's worth pointing out that if you ignore the fact that Snowden is in Russia, then you are ignoring important context. In his situation, it's not like he's free to write and publish anything he wants.
emptyparadise 4y ago
Snowden is stuck in a lose-lose position. Do you choose to go behind bars or do you embrace the hypocrisy in the hope that you can still do some good? This is the interpretation I choose to believe, until I see any proof to the contrary. Ultimately his whistle-blowing was a good thing.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  He would have had whistleblower protection had he gone to Congress with his findings. It could have been win-win
  - LunaSea 4y ago
    You're very naive if you think this would have worked. Look at what happens to other whistleblowers destiny.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      I've worked in defense and I've worked in intelligence collection in the service before that. We might disagree but I don't think I'm naive on this topic. Whistleblower protections are set up in such a way as to protect the whistleblower. This means you don't hear about a majority of whistleblowers. We can agree to disagree since we are ultimately arguing a hypothetical (what would have happened) but I think Snowden should have at least tried to go that route.

1970-01-01 4y ago

>I wonder: how does it invalidate the facts? It doesn't. His loyalty is unbounded. His honor, however, is open to interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_loyalty

spudfkc 4y ago

It's worth pointing out that if you ignore the fact that Snowden is in Russia, then you are ignoring important context. In his situation, it's not like he's free to write and publish anything he wants.

emptyparadise 4y ago

Snowden is stuck in a lose-lose position. Do you choose to go behind bars or do you embrace the hypocrisy in the hope that you can still do some good? This is the interpretation I choose to believe, until I see any proof to the contrary. Ultimately his whistle-blowing was a good thing.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
He would have had whistleblower protection had he gone to Congress with his findings. It could have been win-win
- LunaSea 4y ago
  You're very naive if you think this would have worked. Look at what happens to other whistleblowers destiny.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    I've worked in defense and I've worked in intelligence collection in the service before that. We might disagree but I don't think I'm naive on this topic. Whistleblower protections are set up in such a way as to protect the whistleblower. This means you don't hear about a majority of whistleblowers. We can agree to disagree since we are ultimately arguing a hypothetical (what would have happened) but I think Snowden should have at least tried to go that route.