|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
|
According to their own website... Why should that general statement hold more weight than Assange's specific comments on the topic?
“We do have some information about the Republican campaign. I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day."
As far as I can tell, this information on the 2016 Republican campaign was never published. If so, then Assange withheld or redacted information about Trump.
Was it significant information? We don't know - because it wasn't published. Why should we accept Wikileaks lack of transparency?
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27389727 - 07/16/21 01:02 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: As far as I can tell, this information on the 2016 Republican campaign was never published. If so, then Assange withheld or redacted information about Trump.
Was it significant information? We don't know - because it wasn't published. Why should we accept Wikileaks lack of transparency?
Why shouldn't we accept their word? Let's not forget that Assange/Wikileaks have released a ton of information about the corruption of Governments and politicians around the world, regardless of country or political affiliation. As a result, the establishment media are desperately trying to paint Assange as a bad guy. The show trial going on right now shows what we do to whistle blowers. Snowden and Greenwald can't go back to the US, because of the whistle blowing they've done. They should all be rewarded for exposing wrong-doing, not punished. But the establishment media plays the general public to distrust them.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
|
Personally, I don't think 'enemy of the establishment' is a good reason to accept lack of transparency on the part of Wikileaks - in fact, I think it makes transparency even more important in order to ensure Wikileaks isn't compromised by state actors - but hey it's your choice to believe who you want.
At least we now seem to agree that Assange withheld information about Trump. You choose to believe that it wasn't significant information, but I'm not so easily convinced - an atypical publishing decision that aligns with the personal bias of Assange is more than enough to create reasonable doubt here. If Wikileaks was concerned about transparency, publishing the information on the Republican campaign would have been an incredibly simple solution.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 34 minutes, 46 seconds
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27390028 - 07/16/21 09:20 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
What John Podesta was ordering for dinner wasn’t significant info either but Wikileaks demonstrated no discretion when it came to emails stolen from the Clinton side.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: koods]
#27390036 - 07/16/21 09:28 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah I mean even if he thought the DNC leaks were more explosive, or relevant to the current political moment, that in itself is wilileaks choosing to publish one and not the other for purposes other than significance, otherwise we wouldn’t have seen podesta’s dinner plans.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 34 minutes, 46 seconds
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: The Ecstatic]
#27390247 - 07/16/21 12:09 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Here’s Wikileaks telling Don Jr. the password they hacked to an antitrump PAC’s website. Don jr. seems clueless.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 24 minutes, 23 seconds
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27390391 - 07/16/21 01:53 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Kryptos said: Perhaps I should have been more clear: Assange WAS heavily editing his publications to favor Trump. You have not shown that to be false at all.
You made the claim "Assange WAS heavily editing his publications to favor Trump." Burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: “We do have some information about the Republican campaign. I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day."
Here ya go.
I made the claim that Assange was editing what he sent out. You disputed that claim. It has been backed with evidence, which shivas did while I was away. Would you like me to re-quote everything everyone else says, just in case?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27390829 - 07/16/21 10:37 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: At least we now seem to agree that Assange withheld information about Trump. You choose to believe that it wasn't significant information, but I'm not so easily convinced...
Assange said it wasn't significant, and I see no reason not to believe him. As you can see from reading other people's posts above, Assange is damned for releasing Podesta's dinner plans, and now he's also damned for not releasing Trump's. The difference is that Podesta's dinner plans were at least somewhat interesting, as I noted before.
Plus, Assange gets his information from others that choose to give it to him, and if someone gave Wikileaks interesting information and Wikileaks chose not to publish it, that person could simply take that information to someone else and say Wikileaks didn't want to publish it. Then we'd have clear evidence that Wikileaks withholds significant information. I suspect someone just got a hold of a bunch of information and gave it to Wikileaks to look through, and Wikileaks didn't find anything worth publishing. Wikileaks has been begging for dirt on Trump.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: If Wikileaks was concerned about transparency, publishing the information on the Republican campaign would have been an incredibly simple solution.
Again, if it's insignificant information, he's damned if he releases it (as evidenced by the release of Podesta's dinner plans), and he's damned if he doesn't (as evidenced by your post).
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Kryptos]
#27390832 - 07/16/21 10:41 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: You made the claim "Assange WAS heavily editing his publications to favor Trump."
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: “We do have some information about the Republican campaign. I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day."
Here ya go.
I made the claim that Assange was editing what he sent out. You disputed that claim. It has been backed with evidence, which shivas did while I was away. Would you like me to re-quote everything everyone else says, just in case?
Your claim was "Assange WAS heavily editing his publications to favor Trump." Not publishing Trump's dinner plans or other such insignificant information isn't exactly "heavily editing".
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Assange said it wasn't significant, and I see no reason not to believe him. As you can see from reading other people's posts above, Assange is damned for releasing Podesta's dinner plans, and now he's also damned for not releasing Trump's. The difference is that Podesta's dinner plans were at least somewhat interesting, as I noted before.
Is that what they were doing? Or were those posters providing examples where Wikileaks has published insignificant information, in contrast to your claim that Wikileaks wouldn't publish such material? Assange isn't 'dammed if he does or doesn't' - Assange is being dammed for inconsistent publishing decisions that align with his personal bias.
But apparently it's easier for you to believe that Podesta’s brother invited him to go drink semen mixed with breast milk for dinner, than that Julian Assange allowed his personal bias to influence his decisions for Wikileaks. I didn't realize you were a pizzagater.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27391226 - 07/17/21 11:41 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Assange said it wasn't significant, and I see no reason not to believe him. As you can see from reading other people's posts above, Assange is damned for releasing Podesta's dinner plans, and now he's also damned for not releasing Trump's. The difference is that Podesta's dinner plans were at least somewhat interesting, as I noted before.
Is that what they were doing? Or were those posters providing examples where Wikileaks has published insignificant information, in contrast to your claim that Wikileaks wouldn't publish such material?
As I already told you "I never claimed Wikileaks hasn't released sensitive information before."
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Assange isn't 'dammed if he does or doesn't' - Assange is being dammed for inconsistent publishing decisions that align with his personal bias.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Assange only releases information on Government officials he doesn't like, and that he won't release information on Government officials he likes. I still think that is very commendable, as there aren't enough people doing that today, and those that do are badmouthed by the mainstream media and sometimes jailed or exiled. I personally think it's always good to expose any corruption in Government.
Assange is human and he's allowed to have personal biases. Whether or not he withholds information is up to him, but I commend him for what he has exposed, and whether or not he's withheld any significant information is just speculation.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
|
"whether or not he's withheld any significant information is just speculation"
Sure, but the claim that Assange has withheld significant information (regarding the 2016 Republican campaign) isn't speculation. You're content with Wikileaks lack of transparency on the matter - I'm not. I believe, when seeking revolutionary change, that our ends should be reflected in our means. If Wikileaks goal is greater institutional transparency, their methods need to be transparent too.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27391401 - 07/17/21 02:10 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: "whether or not he's withheld any significant information is just speculation" Sure, but the claim that Assange has withheld significant information (regarding the 2016 Republican campaign) isn't speculation.
You struck through the word "significant", and you want to see insignificant things released, for transparency's sake, while koods and The Ecstatic criticized Assange for doing just that. You guys can argue between yourselves what's best, but my point is that you're missing the bigger picture in that we're seeing lots of things the Government doesn't want us to see, and THAT'S what's important, not whether or not he's being exactly fair or what he releases (we don't even know if he's being fair or not anyway, that argument is just speculation).
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: You're content with Wikileaks lack of transparency on the matter - I'm not. I believe, when seeking revolutionary change, that our ends should be reflected in our means. If Wikileaks goal is greater institutional transparency, their methods need to be transparent too.
Again, you can argue that point with koods and The Ecstatic; I think you're missing the bigger picture of the greater good Assange is doing by revealing corruption in the first place. That's why I said it appears you guys are being played by the mainstream media.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
|
"You struck through the word "significant", and you want to see insignificant things released, for transparency's sake"
I struck through the 'significant' qualifier because that's the only speculative part of the claim - whether the information was significant or insignificant. That information was held back isn't speculation.
I'm not saying 'I want to see insignificant things released' - I'm saying 'I want to see the information released so I can decide for myself whether it is significant or not'.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27392027 - 07/18/21 12:04 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I'm not saying 'I want to see insignificant things released' - I'm saying 'I want to see the information released so I can decide for myself whether it is significant or not'.
I'll let you argue with koods and The Ecstatic about whether or not everything Wikileaks gets should be released to the public to determine whether or not it is significant. My position is that debate is highly unimportant compared to the fact that Assange exposes Government wrongdoing.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes
|
|
Needs a little context though, doesn’t it?
The 2004 invasion of Iraq exposed government wrongdoing on the part of Saddam Hussein, doesn’t mean it was good.
I’m not saying one way or another, but I think a debate is necessary for most people to arrive at the conclusion of whether or not it’s a “fact” to begin with. Most Americans can’t even differentiate Wikileaks and ed snowden.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: The Ecstatic]
#27392280 - 07/18/21 08:44 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah history is full of revolutionary leaders who felt that their laudable goal justified questionable means.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: The Ecstatic]
#27392417 - 07/18/21 11:42 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: Needs a little context though, doesn’t it?
The 2004 invasion of Iraq exposed government wrongdoing on the part of Saddam Hussein, doesn’t mean it was good.
I’m not saying one way or another, but I think a debate is necessary for most people to arrive at the conclusion of whether or not it’s a “fact” to begin with. Most Americans can’t even differentiate Wikileaks and ed snowden.
Sorry, you just lost me.
What needs context?
What does "good" have to do with exposing government wrongdoing on the part of Saddam Hussein?
Are you saying it is necessary to have a debate to determine whether Wikileaks is releasing facts? What have they release that turned out untrue?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
|
|
Assange exposes government wrongdoing and, because of this, you consider debate about the methods Assange utilizes to be unimportant in comparison.
The 2004 invasion of Iraq also exposed government wrongdoing. Do you consider debate about the methods used in this instance to also be unimportant in comparison?
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#27392555 - 07/18/21 02:32 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Assange exposes government wrongdoing and, because of this, you consider debate about the methods Assange utilizes to be unimportant in comparison.
The 2004 invasion of Iraq also exposed government wrongdoing. Do you consider debate about the methods used in this instance to also be unimportant in comparison?
I don't know, what methods are you referring to?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|