awepittance Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 that moment when he said that admiting that other people are better qualified to make desicions than you are is an anti-democratic notion that you should reject it made me cringe. seems like a very naive and arrogant line of thought. i can see how you would find it arrogant, with huge balls sometimes come passionate opinions (i was going to say big egos, but i wouldn't describe appelbaum that way). however wold you mind explaining why you think that line of belief is naive? Do you think the reporters who sat on the collateral murder video were 'better qualified' to decide not to show it to the american public? In what instance with the last 4 leaks Wikileaks has made would you find that they have leaked something that should have remained 'private', i put private in quotes because thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people had access to these, they are being kept secret from the american public not a a private matter of an individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 I think it is naive because sometimes reality is counter intuitive and unqualified people will surely make the wrong desicion. about the reporters, i don't know, i don't think it was a matter of being qualified, but as applebaum described they didn't do it because it suited THEM better (not losing special access). I can't cite examples because as far as i know they don't exist, but i'm also not one that could judge it anyway. but what bothers me is that they outright reject the notion. even in that recent Q&A with assange he was asked if he could be held responsible if the next internatiional crisis can't be resolved because diplomacy can't function, he didin't even attemp to answer the question or entertain the thought that the persona asking it had a valid point, which imo he does. But I do like the idea of cutting the whole world open and see what's inside, i've always felt that the way the world works makes no sense and we should stop bulshitting so much and basing our actions and thought about the bulshitt said about the bullshit said about the ... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazen Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 that moment when he said that admiting that other people are better qualified to make desicions than you are is an anti-democratic notion that you should reject it made me cringe. seems like a very naive and arrogant line of thought. Actually I agree, that did seem naive. I agree and support what they're doing but parts of his presentation were a bit too politically simplistic, kinda like this: Him: this principle is right and there's no possible argument about it or qualification needed... (asks the audience) is there? Audience: (pauses, realises they've being prompted) .... no! Him: Right, thats settled then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 My 2 big take-aways were: 1) this is a really good argument for why so-called brilliant people shouldn't run the world and 2) I wonder if everyone should be suspicious of the wisdom and psychological stability of any unmarried male over the age of 35 (this includes me btw lol) Not having read or heard Julian Assange, I cannot comment on his brilliance, but I would think that you, out of all people on this board, living in the country that you do, would understand the importance of having an educated, experienced (read older) group of people as leaders. A little hint as to what happens when you let the uneducated youth try and run things: Cultural Revolution. you missed my point (which was intended to be tongue in cheek, anyway) - it was the *unmarried* part. I have no prob with older dudes running things, it just doesn't surprise me that the guy behind wikileaks is unmarried and still seems to enjoy globe-trotting and sticking his dick in various women. I imagine marriage and/or having kids mellows out most guys with his brand of extreme-idealism-that-can-slip-so-easily-into-vanity. So you've gotta wonder about unmarried (or not in ltr) guys at the 40 mark or over, (myself included), why they haven't "settled" yet. If they're not ugly or socially inept, it's probably because they've got some core of stubbornness or craziness, heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 What's wrong with globe-trotting and fucking various women? Surely that doesn't preclude one from making rational decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 What's wrong with globe-trotting and fucking various women? Surely that doesn't preclude one from making rational decisions. in fact it is the MOST rational decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 i've always felt that the way the world works makes no sense and we should stop bulshitting so much white lies and sad pleasantries never made sense to my mind. And apparently they can lead one on a slippery slope, and help morally justify much deeper deceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 us state dept. warns graduating/recent graduates of international relations at columbia university to avoid wikileaks as reading leaked cables 'would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government' - http://www.arabist.net/blog/2010/12/2/state-dept-warning-prospective-recruits-to-steer-clear-of-wi.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 fucking lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tontonz1 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 classified documents that are open to the public might as well start editing old news article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 classified documents that are open to the public might as well start editing old news article to be fair, it's not without precedent. ages back, large portions of the windows source code leaked. people who have seen this aren't supposed to contribute to the linux kernel or other GPL projects, because of the possibility that code/algorithms they've seen could pollute the projects with intellectual property belonged to microsoft, even inadvertently. (what's very amusing about this is that microsoft 'borrowed' large portions of their TCP/IP stack from the FreeBSD project, and only gave credit after a large amount of pressure was applied from the open-source community). this sort of mentality is pretty much standard practice in coding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I think it is naive because sometimes reality is counter intuitive and unqualified people will surely make the wrong desicion. about the reporters, i don't know, i don't think it was a matter of being qualified, but as applebaum described they didn't do it because it suited THEM better (not losing special access). I can't cite examples because as far as i know they don't exist, but i'm also not one that could judge it anyway. but what bothers me is that they outright reject the notion. i think the idea of 'access' and a reporter feeling he or she is qualified to deliver the best information to the public is directly intertwined and cannot be separated. Reporters feel that since they have special exclusive access to information the public does not have (a classified document shown to them, an anonymous insider government official) that they are the best and most qualified to deliver this information to the public. A good example is this recent Anwar al-Awlaki case, the US has ordered his assassination. He is an american citizen and has not been brought any actual criminal charges. NPR and other media organizations wrote stories implying that Anwar al-Awlaki is a terrorist mastermind who commanded the underwear bomber as well as the Fort Hood shooter. The problem was that in any of the stories no actual government officials gave their name, all of the 'facts' in the story were presented by 'anonymous whitehouse sources'. Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for Salon.com pointed this out while speaking on a public panel. The NPR reporter happened to be there to challenge Glenn's assertion. Her argument basically amounted to 'well glenn, how could you say that you know it isn't true if you havent been shown the same things i've been shown' his response 'well can i see those documents" her answer 'no they are classified'. sorry if i didn't make a clear point there haha but it's almost as if reporters have surrendered their reason and instead put their resources in trust . and in my strong opinion trusting your government official to tell you the truth(with no demands for proof) actually makes you LESS qualified to deliver the information even in that recent Q&A with assange he was asked if he could be held responsible if the next internatiional crisis can't be resolved because diplomacy can't function, he didin't even attemp to answer the question or entertain the thought that the persona asking it had a valid point, which imo he does. i didn't see that Q&A, i agree if he was asked that he should have given a serious answer. However i can see how this question is along the same lines of 'why did you do this if you knew it could potentially hurt our troops'. The notion that him leaking information can actually ruin an important diplomatic agreement i think is more of a 'what if' unlikely scenario (at least with the leaks seen so fa). And let's say for example it did ruin 'agreements' between the United States and Spain, i think that's positive. One of the diplomatic cables leaked that's being heavily circulated in Spain right now has to do with the US putting extreme pressure on Spain to not investigate the death (or muder depending how you look at it) of 2 spanish journalists in Iraq. If this causes the people of Spain to put pressure on their government to stop being the USA's bitch, that could be seen as a fracturing of a diplomatic tie that is beneficial for people who seek justice. Wikileaks/spain story - http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53753 But I do like the idea of cutting the whole world open and see what's inside, i've always felt that the way the world works makes no sense and we should stop bulshitting so much and basing our actions and thought about the bulshitt said about the bullshit said about the ... . we can agree on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 i didn't see that Q&A, i agree if he was asked that he should have given a serious answer. it's linked earlier in the thread, but http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 with the reporters thing i just feel that it was not a case of them feeling qualified or not to deliver the information, it was a case of them being selfish. but i get your point, saying that "my source is a classified document" is nonsense, a journalist should protect their source because they feel they may lose it (either they not cooperating anymore or get killed or whatever), but a document isn't a source. if you can't publish a document because it's classified then that means the gov't fed it to you and you shouldn't be taken seriously, investigative journalism is all about publishing secret documents :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o00o Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601101206,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Yeah what the fuck at diplomacy needing secrecy. You make better decisions the more information you have. Common sense. Diplomacy needs to be about facilitating trade, and you don't need secrecy to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 spotted assange in the Regency Cafe, Westminster, wearing a cheap-looking hat with a couple of burly, nervous minders this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary C Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 yep. best chips in westminster if you haven't been, but not as good as Pellicci's in bethnal green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o00o Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 pics or it didn't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Z_B_Z Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 PayPal's blog: PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We've notified the account holder of this action. jesus christ what bullshit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ranky Redlof Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 lolol flat on their belly, all of them. Rigged world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I'm thinking about selling my wikileaks insurance file to the government. Think they'll bite? E-bay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaini Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 here's that time cover story: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034276,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 PayPal's blog: PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We've notified the account holder of this action. jesus christ what bullshit.. So have you closed your paypal account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.