Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

Some other politician will be better, who isn't here right now,"

No one here has said this!

for fuck's sake Mordy, stop trying to win ILX

Ok dude -- how do you feel we should get from here to there?

this question 1) doesn't pertain to the discussion, and is a separate disccusion; 2) doesn't preclude or invalidate even one criticism: "don't complain unless you have a solution!" is woeful management-speak; and 3) is a dishonest conversational move. I don't have any solutions at all, I am just a guy eating a pizza. Do you know what my lack of solutions says qualitatively about any criticism I might make? Nothing whatsoever, that's what. You're advancing the "don't criticize the music unless you can make better music yourself" model of politics. It is absurd, in my opinion, in both spheres.

I mean, the real critique is, "Great, you're idealistic. Who the fuck cares?" because the idealism as practiced that way has no impact on the world. It's just screaming into the wind, or to ask what the stakes are of that idealism, it's just to look good on a message board. You're not changing the world by saying how bad the US government is, you're just complaining.

If you have the time to peruse those exhausting 2008 political threads, you'll find few Obama "stans" – most people said he was the best candidate to come along in their lifetimes, with the talent to keep some longstanding promises. That's not at all the same as thinking there's a magical candidate out there. That's how Republicans think: they're always searching for another Reagan.

btw the pizza in my examples is entirely theoretical, there is no pizza where I'm at, much to my dissatisfaction. but maybe I shouldn't complain that there's no pizza here unless I have an idea about how I might go about making one myself.

That's really what I should post whenever one of these discussions come up. "Yep, morally rightitude on ILX! Rock on!" because clearly any attempt to ever engage that idealism into questions about practical practice are always hunted down for being too conservative.

If you have the time to peruse those exhausting 2008 political threads, you'll find few Obama "stans" – most people said he was the best candidate to come along in their lifetimes, with the talent to keep some longstanding promises. That's not at all the same as thinking there's a magical candidate out there.

The problem, actually, with political discourse around here is that other people then flipped that around to say that everyone thinks Obama is infallible and totally the magic n*gger we can believe in, which seriously pisses me off every time I see it.

that's how Republicans think: they're always searching for another Reagan.

― balls and adieu (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:35 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

long may they search! fred thompson '12

Like, when I'm thinking through these issues, I'm not trying to think through them like a man eating a pizza. Maybe that's the big difference. From the pizza-perspective, it's easy to just take the hardline on any given moral issue. "Should we make all information free? Sure, why the fuck not. Information rocks."

I mean, the real critique is, "Great, you're idealistic. Who the fuck cares?" because the idealism as practiced that way has no impact on the world. It's just screaming into the wind, or to ask what the stakes are of that idealism, it's just to look good on a message board. You're not changing the world by saying how bad the US government is, you're just complaining

Yeah but you only use this argument to duck out of defending positions like "it's OK to censor information that might be damaging at some future point to theoretical negotiating interests with unknown parties." It is not "idealism" to call people out on their bullshit; your cries of "idealism," again, are just ad-homs meant to discredit the people making reasonably formed cases against your position.

oy

You're not calling me out on anything tho, Smith. You're just stating that my position doesn't hem to some perfect unconsidered consideration about information. No law will ever be instituted that says, "All information is free." That's not how any of this works. So my trying to figure out what information should be free, shouldn't, why power may require some sorts of information to maintain power, whether that power is good, and to what extent -- that's all thinking through the actual implications. You saying, "the principle is it should be," is reading off the ten commandments.

and let's be clear, Mordy. You are taking the hard line, you just don't want to cop to it. Your hard line is "if there is doubt, we must trust the state." That's as pizzariffic as anything else on this thread.

I didn't say that once.

this entire fucking thread is like a textbook definition of people taking hard-line immutable positions, let's not kid ourselves

for fuck's sake Mordy, stop trying to win ILX

― measuring of the waist (HI DERE), Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:34 PM

Mordy, I am personally really sick of you shitting all over every single ILX politics thread with your crypto-fascist bullshit, please stop.

I didn't say that once.

Mordz I think it's pretty clear that's where your positions lead you.

HI DERE, I disagree. I think that's what the argument has been about from the beginning -- whether you should be taking hard-line immutable positions or not. I think saying WikiLeaks may be good or bad depending on the circumstances is about as mutable as position as can be posited.

No law will ever be instituted that says, "All information is free." That's not how any of this works.

It's becoming true whether there is a law or not. It's the long march of information technology towards more and more transparent systems, from being in the hands of only the Pharaoh's private scribes to where we are now.

this entire fucking thread is like a textbook definition of people taking hard-line immutable positions, let's not kid ourselves

I'm exempt from this charge because of my impeccable sartorial style tho right? that was my understanding of the ground rules going forward

Hey sleeve, you're right, I apologize for cluttering the thread with my crypto-fascist bullshit. I'll stop.

calling obama 'a pharaoh' is sorta racist dude

I suspect the american public would be more inspired to action if they found out about bad stuff in strategic doses rather than a constant bombardment of transparency, which would obviously fatigue anyone, and this sort of dynamic is at least recognized by wikileaks, who chose to release their info accordingly.

There was an interesting article on spycraft where the more information any side got, the less reliably they could determine the truth of anything, to the point where it would have been paradoxically better not to engage in espionage at all, and I feel like we are entering a climate where things constantly being leaked do more to obfuscate than clarify, and one in which the right wing is more adept at maneuvering.

um just to be very clear here, I am not at all opposed to Mordy arguing his political viewpoint; I am opposed to him inventing positions for other posters in an attempt to shame them away from threads

so, like, please do not quote me if you are looking for backup to bolster your calling someone fascist

All this talk of cheeseburgers and pizzas is making me mad-hungry, gents. Shut the fuck up.

guys can't we just all agree that pizza/the Beatles are awesome

I kind of want to create an I Love Politics board and give it the board description "Shut the fuck up."

guys can't we just all agree that pizza/the Beatles are awesome

the beatles suck! ffs shakey. er....

gonna start a political arguments tournament so we can figure out canon politics

Your hard line is "if there is doubt, we must trust the state."

Isn't this kind of implicit in being a law-abiding citizen, btw?

I read "canon politics" as "mushroom pizza."

I suspect the american public would be more inspired to action if they found out about bad stuff in strategic doses rather than a constant bombardment of transparency, which would obviously fatigue anyone, and this sort of dynamic is at least recognized by wikileaks, who chose to release their info accordingly.

ok HI DERE I concede your point about people being optimists

until and unless <50% know what real hunger feels like, the American public will not do anything or demand anything no matter what their leaders do. people are motivated largely by self-interest, and their interests are in remaining fed & clothed & entertained.

Like, if you think the gov't is engaging in shitty activities bankrolled by your tax dollars, yet you continue to pay your taxes, how exactly are you NOT trusting the state?

Isn't this kind of implicit in being a law-abiding citizen, btw?

I don't think so - this is a well-aimed question though and I'd have to think about it. My initial response is that "the state" that governs the legal action of citizens in their daily lives is maybe a different entity from the one which discloses, or seeks not to disclose, information about itself. But this seems like a pretty complicated distinction to make, and since I'm posting from the near future, distinctions are blurring for me

also I think you meant ">50%"

Like, if you think the gov't is engaging in shitty activities bankrolled by your tax dollars, yet you continue to pay your taxes, how exactly are you NOT trusting the state?

well let's be plain about that: one pays taxes because they will punish the shit out of you if you don't. I would love to withhold money from the state until it agrees to provide full health care for all, and to fully fund the arts, besides! but they will freeze your bank account if you try that shit, so you gotta walk the straight and narrow. I don't have the stomach to see what the state will do if I get too principled about money they consider theirs.

no the bracket was pac man trying to eat the fifty percent

If there's one thing that unites Americans of all political stripes it's a reluctance to pay taxes for shit they don't like.

HI DERE, I disagree. I think that's what the argument has been about from the beginning -- whether you should be taking hard-line immutable positions or not. I think saying WikiLeaks may be good or bad depending on the circumstances is about as mutable as position as can be posited.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:42 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

can't keep up, but:

yeah, it is precisely the mutability here that is so aggravating, since i, for one, AM worried about the possible real-world implications. that is, hypothesizing devastating and sensitive information in the hands of an irresponsible blogger is kind of a neat thought experiment, and one that could prove fruitful if you decided to work through all the ethical implications of publish/don't publish, etc. ESP if you were then going to construct a really complex legal framework for addressing the question of what's censorable and what isn't.

it's just that, here, in the US, the nuance of such a legal framework runs up against the first amendment (as it should)---if the operating principle is "freedom of speech," then any special cases are best tackled ~once they arise~. speech/utterance/intel is far too vast to anticipate.

i guess i see it this way: is it better to worry about WL's loose lips sinking ships ~right now~, before any harm has been done, or is that an issue better tackled once WL has actually done something worthy of real, considered opprobrium? my assessment is that the risks of an operation like WL are far and away outstripped by the possible rewards, at this juncture, and that pre-emptive censorship/penalty as prophylaxis against an impossible-to-imagine security breach is shameful and offensive to what i consider to be actual human rights

no the bracket was pac man trying to eat the fifty percent

people will never be motivated to action unless pac-man knows what real hunger feels like

well let's be plain about that: one pays taxes because they will punish the shit out of you if you don't. I would love to withhold money from the state until it agrees to provide full health care for all, and to fully fund the arts, besides! but they will freeze your bank account if you try that shit, so you gotta walk the straight and narrow. I don't have the stomach to see what the state will do if I get too principled about money they consider theirs.

Which leads back to the basic problem; you are fueling the engine you are complaining about and enabling it to continue doing things you disapprove of without any practical consequences because, for almost all of us, personal comfort > principles.

Or, to be more generous in constructing the argument, certain concessions are made on all of our principles because we believe in citizenship, which has the unfortunate side-effect of marginalizing some percentage of legitimate complaint into effective lip service.

I mean, the real critique is, "Great, you're idealistic. Who the fuck cares?" because the idealism as practiced that way has no impact on the world. It's just screaming into the wind, or to ask what the stakes are of that idealism, it's just to look good on a message board. You're not changing the world by saying how bad the US government is, you're just complaining.

― Mordy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:35 PM (6 minutes ago)

fuck you. wanting something more than what we have is not "just complaining" - it's the only way to make things better. your banal fascination with power and the way things work leads you to acquiesce to things that even you probably find appalling, and this acquiescence is what allows it to continue. there's no moral high ground to be gained by concluding that what we've got is the best we can hope for

the risks of an operation like WL are far and away outstripped by the possible rewards, at this juncture, and that pre-emptive censorship/penalty as prophylaxis against an impossible-to-imagine security breach is shameful and offensive to what i consider to be actual human rights

beautifully put

"the American public will not do anything or demand anything no matter what their leaders do."

people are very sensitive to personal cruelty, so leaks of politicians cheating on their cancer-ridden wives could surely prompt action.
If you are smart about leaks, you will tailor the ones you release to hit on a personal level, rather than broad policy violence.
Abu Ghraib seemed very much more about an emotional response to specific acts on specific people in a photograph than a rejection of coercive force.

also btw cryptome has been doing this shit for well over a decade, get WITH IT

http cryptome org/

Which leads back to the basic problem; you are fueling the engine you are complaining about and enabling it to continue doing things you disapprove of without any practical consequences because, for almost all of us, personal comfort > principles.

Or, to be more generous in constructing the argument, certain concessions are made on all of our principles because we believe in citizenship, which has the unfortunate side-effect of marginalizing some percentage of legitimate complaint into effective lip service.

well yeah - I mean - I think you and I are in complete agreement about this - I'm not clear about what you're disagreeing with me about? one accepts that malfeasance of the state in exchange for the comforts provided by it (or by remaining unmolested by it); are you saying that one's complaints have no weight or force, maybe, because one ("I" being that one for arguments sake) isn't going to take any action? I can dig that I'm just not sure where you're coming to that point from

It's fun to argue the merits and demerits of whistle-blowing operations/military leaks, but in the end it's futile. It's going to happen, and it's going to happen more and more. No putting Pandora back in the box.

Abu Ghraib seemed very much more about an emotional response to specific acts on specific people in a photograph than a rejection of coercive force.

Did Abu Ghraib cause the American public to rise up and demand immediate accountability? There's plenty more Abu Ghraibs I'd guess, and what little we know about them we have to piece together. The people who got prosecuted in that case fit nicely into a "bad apple" paradigm, which silences a narrative-driven public.

No one revelation may "cause the American public to rise up and demand immediate accountability", but each revelation adds up.