Pages

Jump to bottom

74 comments

1 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 4:02:20pm

A seriously well thought out response, is a breath of fresh air.
There are multiple "sides" to a story. I appreciate your seeing your thoughts.

2 researchok  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 5:16:30pm

I could care less what 'a hundred million Americans' do in private and as consenting adults.

I do care that there are politicians who give Creationism and ID a phony platform so as to further their political agenda. That particular species are behaving true to form.

I do not care that there are Wiccans, Amish, whack jobs who believe in the premise of Chariots of the Gods or fundamentalists who believe the Second Coming will occur in the next ten minutes. I don't care that there are entire populations who want desperately to believe that attacking sharks are of the Jewish persuasion. People are free to believe in what they want.

Supporting Assange and his agenda is a whole other ball of wax is a matter that does concern me.

It is one thing to support radicalism in the effort to defeat oppressive and repressive regimes. It is quite another matter to support radicals in what the end is nothing less than the undermining of a free society.

Mr Brown, you point out we are an imperfect society, as if this were revelatory. You might be surprised to learn that most of us already know this and even if we didn't, this is in no way makes Assange a hero.

America did not create the murderous and corrupt societies you speak of Mr Brown. That we have to deal with them is a fact of life in the same way we have to deal with bullies and obnoxious neighbors.

If the kind of America Assange, Anonymous and the hard left wants to see as a reality were to come to pass, do you believe gays will no longer be executed in some nations? Do you believe FGM will become a distant memory? Do you believe China will become a bastion of freedom? Do you believe the Arab world will shed the shackles of oppression to become the people of the next Exodus?

I for one am glad to see the US government look down on many of these oppressive regimes, because in fact, they are not our equals. We do not have to defend our freedoms as superior to oppressive regimes.

Defending Assange and Wikileaks matters because we give them a platform. We are saying your efforts are 'equal' and 'different' to our own. Well, those efforts are not equal or simply different than our own.

Wikileaks is about undermining a free society- all free societies, really. It is not a J'Accuse of a particular policy or platform. Wikileaks is about the wholesale tearing down of a society and nations so that new ones, more in line with oppressive regimes (and let's not kid ourselves about that) can emerge.

If Wikileaks were truly about making things better the emphasis would be on rehabilitation and not on destruction.

People who have made real contributions and who have succeeded in life do not behave the way Assange, et al, have.

To create requires real effort and commitment and long and hard work. To build and create is a Herculean effort. When you can't really create or haven't really succeeded at anything, tearing down becomes a clarion call.

Assange and company want only to tear down. They offer us nothing but chaos and anarchy, cloaked in nice words and high minded drivel- and that is why virtually every oppressive regime supports their efforts. It bears remembering that so many regimes who enthusiastically support Assange are the first to throw bloggers and critics of those regimes into prison or worse. It also bears remembering that Assange has been smart enough not to criticize those regimes.

The Emperor Assange wears no clothes.

3 Gus  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 5:53:15pm

Mr. Brown states, "As for the small percentage of Americans that are in favor Wikileaks that Mr. Trouts thinks is important enough to cite in a short essay on the subject, I would merely note that half of Americans consider creationism to be more valid that the theory of evolution."

According to Gallup, 67 percent of American support the repeal of DADT. Does this mean they have come to flawed conclusion simply because they are in the majority? Are we to conclude then that the majority of people who support the repeal of DADT are also creationists?

4 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 6:06:30pm

re: #2 researchok

People who have made real contributions and who have succeeded in life do not behave the way Assange, et al, have.

To create requires real effort and commitment and long and hard work. To build and create is a Herculean effort. When you can't really create or haven't really succeeded at anything, tearing down becomes a clarion call.

Assange and company want only to tear down. They offer us nothing but chaos and anarchy, cloaked in nice words and high minded drivel- and that is why virtually every oppressive regime supports their efforts. It bears remembering that so many regimes who enthusiastically support Assange are the first to throw bloggers and critics of those regimes into prison or worse. It also bears remembering that Assange has been smart enough not to criticize those regimes.

The Emperor Assange wears no clothes.

Assange is like Eric Cartman in the "Dances with Smurfs" episode of South Park, (which was its a parody of Glenn Beck). He'll never offer apositive proposal, because those mean you actually have to go out and accomplish things and that's hard work. Sitting back and sniping is much more fun and easy.

5 Locker  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 6:32:19pm

Thank you for the time and energy it took to make this response in the face of an overwhelmingly negative audience. Regardless of the detractors, serious conversation is required and this exchange overwhelmingly meets my standards.

6 Gus  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 6:34:43pm

re: #5 Locker

Thank you for the time and energy it took to make this response in the face of an overwhelmingly negative audience. Regardless of the detractors, serious conversation is required and this exchange overwhelmingly meets my standards.

So opposition to a POV is considered a form of detraction?

7 Barrett Brown  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 7:32:48pm

re: #3 Gus 802

My point is that I do not depend on the views of Americans before coming to decision. I never claimed or implied that a position is wrong by virtue of a majority of Americans believing that it is correct, and your implication that I have said any such thing is very dishonest.

8 Barrett Brown  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 7:35:36pm

re: #4 Dark_Falcon

You just criticized an organization for criticizing another organization on the grounds that criticizing an organization means not taking positive action. The fact that you have done so and others have considered you to have thus said something very clever is the exact reason anarchism exists.

9 Gus  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 7:43:06pm

re: #7 Barrett Brown

My point is that I do not depend on the views of Americans before coming to decision. I never claimed or implied that a position is wrong by virtue of a majority of Americans believing that it is correct, and your implication that I have said any such thing is very dishonest.

Yes. Dishonest. Clearly I'm an overbearing right-wingnut hell bent on distorting the views and detracting all those that see Julian Assange as an honest broker.

Clever use of the creationism theme as an attempt to poison the well. I'll be honest though. I've done that in the past as well.

Irony.

10 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 7:50:10pm

re: #7 Barrett Brown

My point is that I do not depend on the views of Americans before coming to decision. I never claimed or implied that a position is wrong by virtue of a majority of Americans believing that it is correct, and your implication that I have said any such thing is very dishonest.

The statement that Gus quoted:

"As for the small percentage of Americans that are in favor Wikileaks that Mr. Trouts thinks is important enough to cite in a short essay on the subject, I would merely note that half of Americans consider creationism to be more valid that the theory of evolution.

"

was confusing, and I understood it the same way Gus did.

Perhaps you would have been better served stating your point clearly (that you do not depend on the views of Americans before coming to a decision), rather than writing a sentence that's confusing and and then perhaps you'll have no need to accuse people of dishonesty when they've responded, in good faith, to point expressed in such a convoluted way to be incomprehensible.

11 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 7:50:39pm

re: #8 Barrett Brown

GAZE

12 Barrett Brown  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:07:42pm

None of my essay was confusing at the venue in which I first published it after having decided that this venue was populated heavily by people who would upvote any criticism of me and then downvote any defense of my position. As I said, there is a reason why certain people do not want to share any civic partnership with the sort of people who have dusted off their sense of outrage over the past few days.

I'm going to be honest with everyone here. The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation. I'm not saying that in a mean way, even though I am, but rather out of duty. Many who are now opposed to Wikileaks were all gung-ho on Iraq, and if you were, then you can probably forgive us for not being concerned over your own little geopolitical assessment. I know I sound like an asshole and/or douchebag for saying all that, and I am, but at any rate that is how you are viewed by a number of people.

13 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:18:06pm

re: #12 Barrett Brown

None of my essay was confusing at the venue in which I first published it after having decided that this venue was populated heavily by people who would upvote any criticism of me and then downvote any defense of my position. As I said, there is a reason why certain people do not want to share any civic partnership with the sort of people who have dusted off their sense of outrage over the past few days.

I'm going to be honest with everyone here. The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation. I'm not saying that in a mean way, even though I am, but rather out of duty. Many who are now opposed to Wikileaks were all gung-ho on Iraq, and if you were, then you can probably forgive us for not being concerned over your own little geopolitical assessment. I know I sound like an asshole and/or douchebag for saying all that, and I am, but at any rate that is how you are viewed by a number of people.

And those people can take their anti-Americanism and shove it. I've got no use for anarchists; They're fools and their ideas would only leave an area over which they held sway ride for the plucking of some more organized.

14 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:27:57pm

re: #12 Barrett Brown

None of my essay was confusing at the venue in which I first published it after having decided that this venue was populated heavily by people who would upvote any criticism of me and then downvote any defense of my position. As I said, there is a reason why certain people do not want to share any civic partnership with the sort of people who have dusted off their sense of outrage over the past few days.

I'm going to be honest with everyone here. The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation. I'm not saying that in a mean way, even though I am, but rather out of duty. Many who are now opposed to Wikileaks were all gung-ho on Iraq, and if you were, then you can probably forgive us for not being concerned over your own little geopolitical assessment. I know I sound like an asshole and/or douchebag for saying all that, and I am, but at any rate that is how you are viewed by a number of people.

I wasn't all gung-ho about Iraq, but we went and we're there and since we're there, we should, IMO, do whatever we need to do to accomplish whatever it is the experts and gov't decide needs to be accomplished, and that's just the way it is.

I also don't like Wikileaks or what it does or why it does it -

But for the life of me I'm at a complete loss to understand how Iraq and Wikileaks converge in the sense you've described - why any person's assessment on something should be dismissed simply because the person may have another assessment on something else. Weird.

You've judged yourself so I won't. But I'm not understanding exactly why it should bother me that others might view me unfavorably, and why that unfavorable view should have anything to do with anything else. I. Don't. Care.

15 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:28:10pm
The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation.

It's irony-meter busting to think that anarchists have the sense to be able to judge what is dishonest or incompetent. We're talking about a group of people who self-identify with a state of lawless instability, consider it an 'ideology', and are too dumb to realize that anarchy exists only in a state of transience.

Yeah, anarchy is all fun and games until an influential thug gathers enough force to impose a despotic form of tribalism.

16 researchok  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:31:08pm

re: #12 Barrett Brown

None of my essay was confusing at the venue in which I first published it after having decided that this venue was populated heavily by people who would upvote any criticism of me and then downvote any defense of my position. As I said, there is a reason why certain people do not want to share any civic partnership with the sort of people who have dusted off their sense of outrage over the past few days.

I'm going to be honest with everyone here. The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation. I'm not saying that in a mean way, even though I am, but rather out of duty. Many who are now opposed to Wikileaks were all gung-ho on Iraq, and if you were, then you can probably forgive us for not being concerned over your own little geopolitical assessment. I know I sound like an asshole and/or douchebag for saying all that, and I am, but at any rate that is how you are viewed by a number of people.

Mr Brown, I had more respect for you before you posted this drivel.

Why on earth would I care about what an anarchist thinks of me? Do you consider anarchy a credible form of political expression?

My opinion of Wikileaks has nothing to do with how I feel about Iraq, Afghanistan or Belize. Further, I don't give a rats ass about what anarchists think about those things either.

Maybe you're a fan of Ward Churchill. You might be a Nader devotee. Frankly, I could care less. Nor am I concerned about your 'little geopolitical assessment'.

Wikileaks is a lot less political than it is moral and ethical and there is nothing you can say or do to change that. I understand why you might want it to be about politics, but when all is said and done, it is about morals and ethics.

Be assured that you are not looked upon favorably by many, either.

17 Decatur Deb  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:35:41pm

It is good and useful to have passionate partisan arguments over real-world events. It's not useful to reduce them to personalities. When that happens, we eventually lose interesting posters, and have to fall back on boob-pun threads. Lighten up, y'all.

18 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:44:17pm

re: #17 Decatur Deb

It is good and useful to have passionate partisan arguments over real-world events. It's not useful to reduce them to personalities. When that happens, we eventually lose interesting posters, and have to fall back on boob-pun threads. Lighten up, y'all.

The man saw fit to identify with those who oppose many things I hold most dear. Someone like that can expect no respect from me.

19 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:44:39pm

re: #16 researchok

Why on earth would I care about what an anarchist thinks of me? Do you consider anarchy a credible form of political expression?

I find myself doubting that Barrett does, but anarchists do, which is why an anarchist's judgment and ability to reason goes far beyond being merely suspect and runs smack dab into ridiculously naive.

20 laZardo  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:48:33pm

re: #17 Decatur Deb

It is good and useful to have passionate partisan arguments over real-world events. It's not useful to reduce them to personalities. When that happens, we eventually lose interesting posters, and have to fall back on boob-pun threads. Lighten up, y'all.

I agree. Too much ego makes these threads top-heavy.

21 researchok  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:50:18pm

re: #19 Slumbering Behemoth

I find myself doubting that Barrett does, but anarchists do, which is why an anarchist's judgment and ability to reason goes far beyond being merely suspect and runs smack dab into ridiculously naive.

Mt Brown said

The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation...

BB seems to think he is enlightening us with that particular insight and that we might find that revelation cause to rethink our beliefs.

Interesting.

22 Decatur Deb  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:51:11pm

re: #18 Dark_Falcon

The man saw fit to identify with those who oppose many things I hold most dear. Someone like that can expect no respect from me.

It's become kind of tangled, to the point that I don't quite know if you're referring to BB or Assange. My scorecard says that Manning is a confused little shit who threw his life away, Assange is probably dedicated to a different set of values than I, and BB is just trying to undo the simplicity of some of the arguments.

23 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:52:49pm

re: #22 Decatur Deb

It's become kind of tangled, to the point that I don't quite know if you're referring to BB or Assange. My scorecard says that Manning is a confused little shit who threw his life away, Assange is probably dedicated to a different set of values than I, and BB is just trying to undo the simplicity of some of the arguments.

I'm talking about both of them.

24 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 8:54:00pm

re: #18 Dark_Falcon

A little respect in disagreement can be a good thing. I think one can show another a certain amount of respect without accepting or respecting their ideas, possibly.

I, for one, do not want to chase BB off or discourage him from posting certain things, but that does not mean I shall recuse myself from debate or criticism.

25 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Dec 12, 2010 11:58:51pm

Just want to say that I am a little disturbed that a lot of the anti-WikiLeaks rhetoric I read on LGF for a while now sounds exactly like Beck's latest "perfect storm" ramblings. Bring on the downdings…

26 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:33:57am

re: #23 Dark_Falcon

But there's three people.

27 boxhead  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 3:13:48am

Thank you Mr. Brown for your thoughtful post on this subject. I too was/am surprised at the binary response to wikileaks. I always held that wikileaks was a tool that could be used to post information that might not have any other outlet. And certainly much of what they hosted prior to the recent debacle could be considered a positive action illuminating issues that needed to be known. To take a unattached view, in order to act unbiased, wikileaks needed to post information as it came in without editorial oversight. In theory it sounds good, and, IMHO, is something that should still be possible, to a degree.

But..... Upon receiving the vast cache of sensitive documents, wikileaks MUST ask the question, why was this information considered sensitive, secret, etc. Releasing documents that can result in innocents suffering is akin to yelling fire in a very, very large and crowded theater. Just because one can, does not mean they should. Following that is one of the things that should be considered a trait of a positive person. I think I learned that in kindergarten.

To me, Julian Assange is not wikileaks. He is just a person. wikileaks is an idea/tool that can be a force for good or evil, much like the tool Nmap, or Tor and Onion routing.

As far as the DDOS attacks, they are just idiotic. Those that participate in that action probably did not get enough love from their mom or some other issue Freud would have loved to discuss with them. We are a silly species. Unlike just about all others on this planet, portions of us will always engage in destructive behavior. It is amazing we survived this long.

28 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 4:35:49am

Israel President Claims Soldiers Did "Nothing" to Dead Passengers

Peres and other hawks may argue that the Israeli army's conduct was justifiable if they are willing to stick to the demonstrable facts in trying to make such a case. That Peres can stand in front of an Israeli crowd and characterize the soldiers who killed and injured a great number of people in the process of commandeering a ship filled with humanitarian aide as having done "nothing" in response to being "shot at" (which they were not) ought to indicate to any honest person that the Israeli "investigation" of the incident will be absolutely worthless, and that neither the American and Israeli governments can be trusted in this or any other matter. -- Barrett Brown

29 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 4:42:45am

re: #27 boxhead

I always held that wikileaks was a tool that could be used to post information that might not have any other outlet. And certainly much of what they hosted prior to the recent debacle could be considered a positive action illuminating issues that needed to be known.

After doing some reading on Wikileaks, I've come to understand it as 2 things:

1. A place to dump raw, unfiltered data that anyone can use to create reportage or understand the background of reporting already published.

2. An loosely based collective which, under the guidance of Assange, filters the data and uses it as a propaganda tool.

30 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 5:45:32am

re: #28 Gus 802

In Barrett's defense, he doesn't seem to trust any govt :)

31 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 5:57:50am

re: #12 Barrett Brown

None of my essay was confusing at the venue in which I first published it after having decided that this venue was populated heavily by people who would upvote any criticism of me and then downvote any defense of my position. As I said, there is a reason why certain people do not want to share any civic partnership with the sort of people who have dusted off their sense of outrage over the past few days.

I'm going to be honest with everyone here. The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation. I'm not saying that in a mean way, even though I am, but rather out of duty. Many who are now opposed to Wikileaks were all gung-ho on Iraq, and if you were, then you can probably forgive us for not being concerned over your own little geopolitical assessment. I know I sound like an asshole and/or douchebag for saying all that, and I am, but at any rate that is how you are viewed by a number of people.

Your only an ass because you presume to speak for everyone with anarchist sympathies, and maybe you do for the global collectivists, but there are a great number of local folks who don't give s shit about the philosophical underpinnings of Wikileaks and Assange and have come to a more settled world view that is able to exist within prevailing social compacts. Your also your an ass because you presume to know the mindset of people you make cursory relationships with on the Internet.

But, frankly, I don't think your a douche. Douchebags are neither consistent in their outlook or genuine in their voice - two things I wouldn't accuse you off. You can be a real asshole sometimes, but that's ok with me.

I'm not sure what you expected when you came to LGF, given it's history, articles and current commentariat. Certainly any reasoned person could read for a couple of weeks and come to the conclusion you would receive a lot of contrarian views and attacks. I'm a bit surprised you find this both surprising and a reason to NOT post on the topic of the day. You seem to be the kind of guy that likes confrontation and, as a polemicist, I would expect you'd find it way to hone your views and the defense of those views. As an agitator, you'd find an audience for agitating. Why the need to retreat to the circular comfort of sympathy?

Anyway, I enjoy your shit. Both on an intellectual level and on an entertainment level. Keep it up!

32 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 6:01:57am

re: #31 Jeff In Ohio

Barrett adds spice. I understand those who are in opposition to his postings on WL. I myself disagree on a rational level with most of what he says on this topic. But diversity is the spice of life... OK, I'm repeating myself.

33 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:12:10am

re: #32 Sergey Romanov

Barrett adds spice. I understand those who are in opposition to his postings on WL. I myself disagree on a rational level with most of what he says on this topic. But diversity is the spice of life... OK, I'm repeating myself.

I have no opposition whatsoever to his posting articles/comments about WL.

I simply disagree with his "take" on the situation.

I hope this disagreement on the WL situation doesn't dissuade him from coming around. But he'll have to understand that not everyone will agree with everything he says.

34 garhighway  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:32:34am

re: #12 Barrett Brown

None of my essay was confusing at the venue in which I first published it after having decided that this venue was populated heavily by people who would upvote any criticism of me and then downvote any defense of my position. As I said, there is a reason why certain people do not want to share any civic partnership with the sort of people who have dusted off their sense of outrage over the past few days.

I'm going to be honest with everyone here. The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation. I'm not saying that in a mean way, even though I am, but rather out of duty. Many who are now opposed to Wikileaks were all gung-ho on Iraq, and if you were, then you can probably forgive us for not being concerned over your own little geopolitical assessment. I know I sound like an asshole and/or douchebag for saying all that, and I am, but at any rate that is how you are viewed by a number of people.

One doesn't have to be pro-Iraq War II to be anti-Wikileaks. Publishing the names of agents and people who cooperate with us gets people killed. That is unequivocally evil, regardless of your views of other big issues of the day.

35 dragonfire1981  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:05:11am

In Somalia they have not had a functioning government in nearly 20 years. That's a true anarchy situation there. No central rule, just chaos all over.

I don't ever see that being the case in America.

Why?

A true anarchy situation situation can only exist when there is no government in place and the citizens are pretty much left to fend for themselves.

There are so many people driven by ego and power in America and elsewhere in the world that if one American government fell, some aspiring power hungry individual would step up and claim leadership, I guarantee you.

The President of the United States is often given an alternate title of "The most powerful man in the free world." Now it may well be that statement is more subjective today than it has been in the past, but the United States is still one of the most powerful, most high profile nations on the planet. You control America, you control a lot of things. That's why anarchy would not last long here. A power vacuum at the center of the U.S. would not be allowed to stand.

In my opinion, it's unfair that someone should expect that every single web post, email, phone call or text message they send could be potentially seen by public eyes and therefore they need to be careful what they say.

It's gotten to the point where nothing that gets put in writing in any kind of electronic form is sacred.

When my dad left my mom, I wrote him a rather harsh, intense, emotional email. You think I want that on display for others to read? No, it's none of their damned business, it's a private matter between myself and my father and should stay that way.

Now I realize that the game changes when you are talking about the U.S. government. I'm huge proponent of Government openness and accountability. Having said that though, I also believe there are some things our government does that we should NOT be privy to, mainly when national security could potentially threatened as a result.

I agree with the spirit of what wikileaks is doing, but I feel lately that rather than it being about its supposed mission of freedom of information, it seems to instead be more about one man and his quest to gain notoriety for himself and do whatever he can to harm the U.S.A.

36 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:31:25am

re: #35 dragonfire1981

You need to do a little more reading. Take a look at the Free State of Catalonia during the late 30's or how the Quakers organized during the 17th century or how Zappatista communities operate in southern Mexico.

Any community needs a social compact to operate effectively and justly. There is no social compact in Somalia. That's called chaos.

37 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:32:22am

re: #36 Jeff In Ohio

PIMF - these are examples of communities, towns and states organizing around anarchic principles.

38 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:01:19am

re: #37 Jeff In Ohio

Well... in the Quakers case, it wasn't anarchic principles. It was the principles of their religion, which included an anarchic form of government. The cohesive cultural portion is extremely important. As they are in the other examples you give.

There is really no reason to believe that, above a certain size, anarchy is at all viable.

39 Kronocide  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:18:30am

re: #12 Barrett Brown

You had me up until that post even though I still disagreed with you. There's a couple of implications there that disparage this site or those speaking against Wikileaks that are nothing more than hyperbole.

I'd suggest putting this think back on the rails and focused on Wikileaks and Assange and let the chips fall where they may.

40 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:33:02am

re: #33 reine.de.tout

I have no opposition whatsoever to his posting articles/comments about WL.

I simply disagree with his "take" on the situation.

I hope this disagreement on the WL situation doesn't dissuade him from coming around. But he'll have to understand that not everyone will agree with everything he says.

It's pretty hard to get the Lizards to agree on much.
I LIKE that this is a discussion.

41 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:32:15am

re: #38 Obdicut

Well... in the Quakers case, it wasn't anarchic principles. It was the principles of their religion, which included an anarchic form of government. The cohesive cultural portion is extremely important. As they are in the other examples you give.

There is really no reason to believe that, above a certain size, anarchy is at all viable.

Communities can be examples of anarchic organization with out a stated declaration of anarchy. The point being that yelling anarchism doesn't work can be disproven many times over. Taking a position that it doesn't scale past a certain point (in my case, past The Pie Collective) would be my point also.

However, declaring anarchy is about toppling or undermining the state is not always correct (though it is a stated aim if many globalists). Asserting anarchy is the province of unicorn riders and talking rocks misses the whole of anarchic writing and practice. Declaring lawlessness is anarchy, in a political sense - which is what we're talking about, not a Webster's dictionary sense - which #35 is asserting, doesn't really seem germane.

Writing about anarchy at LGF in my underwear. now that's priceless.

42 Locker  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:40:16am

re: #6 Gus 802

So opposition to a POV is considered a form of detraction?

With regard to serious conversation. I'm sure you know there are quite a few issues that don't get discussion around here because the opposition POV is summarily dismissed without consideration. i.e. shouted down by the monkey hoard.

I know this because I am part of the monkey hoard on a number of issues. Regardless of that fact I do respect serious discussion.

43 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:29:54am

My last message was entirely inappropriate and I apologize for both the tone and content. I absolutely respect the opinions expressed by many of the commenters here, and I don't actually think that if one thought the Iraq war would be successful then one has no credibility. I'm on edge at the moment due to ongoing events and have trouble keeping my temper in check, which is nonetheless not an excuse for insulting a great swath of people simply because I'm involved in a contentious issue.

I still take issue with a couple of individuals here whom I don't think are arguing in good faith. As I said, I pointed out that a majority of Americans don't ascribe to evolution in response to Trout's pointing out that the majority of Americans don't approve of Wikileaks and afterwards clarified what was already a reasonably obvious intent by noting that most Americans don't know enough about Wikileaks to have an educated opinion on it. No one had any trouble misunderstanding my point at The League, not even those who oppose Wikileaks and dislike me. The person here who decided that my point was obtuse has already made several demonstrably false assertions about Wikileaks and thus I considered this "confusion" to be intellectually dishonest. This person has since begun digging through my past work to look for criticism of Israel, so obviously I don't consider our interactions to be productive and I don't think he is interested in an honest discussion about Wikileaks.

Again, though, none of this excuses my last message. I just wanted to clarify that my anger was directed at a particular target even if I phrased it very badly.

44 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:31:47am

re: #43 Barrett Brown

Yeah, but what are you wearing?

45 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:36:48am

re: #44 Jeff In Ohio

Yeah, but what are you wearing?

Black hoodie, red and black armband, big tire chain, gas mask, steel-toed boots, flag of Free State of Catalonia.

46 Alpha Girl  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:38:33am

re: #45 Barrett Brown

me too.

47 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:39:27am

re: #46 Alpha Girl

me too.

Let's fuck then.

48 Alpha Girl  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:40:32am

re: #47 Barrett Brown

Yes, lets.

49 garhighway  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:46:40am

re: #46 Alpha Girl

re: #47 Barrett Brown

re: #48 Alpha Girl

Get a room.

50 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:48:55am

re: #49 garhighway

We're working on it.

51 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:05:15pm

re: #43 Barrett Brown


This person has since begun digging through my past work to look for criticism of Israel, so obviously I don't consider our interactions to be productive and I don't think he is interested in an honest discussion about Wikileaks.

Ah, I see why some might find your views on Israel and Palestinian terrorism of interest.

Israel President Claims Soldiers Did "Nothing" to Dead Passengers

Israeli President Shimon Peres views an incident in which Israeli commandos killed some unknown number of activists in international waters and injured dozens more to constitute a "humane" response to the flotilla's attempts to deliver aid to the civilian population of Gaza.
....
First of all, it is demonstrably untrue that "any other army would have immediately used their guns." Just like the Israelis, other populations are perfectly capable of producing armies that practice decent restraint; for instance, the British did not routinely mow down every Irish boy that threw rocks at their armored vehicles, and when hundreds of Jewish refugees attacked British troops who attempted - wrongly - to deter the voyage of the S.S. Exodus, the British did not immediately use their guns either, and, unlike the Israelis, managed not to kill over a dozen passengers in the process.

Here was LGF coverage of your "peace activists" and "passengers:....
Fauxtography: Reuters Deletes Peace Activists' Weapon

52 garhighway  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:18:00pm

re: #51 Killgore Trout

Isn't the better way to win the argument to actually win the argument, rather than digging up everything the other guy ever said so you can pick a new argument to win the old argument?

53 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:26:27pm

re: #52 garhighway

Isn't the better way to win the argument to actually win the argument, rather than digging up everything the other guy ever said so you can pick a new argument to win the old argument?

What's wrong with learning about somebody's opinions? I stopped entertaining arguments from Wikileaks supporters a while ago.

54 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:28:27pm

re: #51 Killgore Trout

Ah, I see why some might find your views on Israel and Palestinian terrorism of interest.

Israel President Claims Soldiers Did "Nothing" to Dead Passengers

Here was LGF coverage of your "peace activists" and "passengers:...
Fauxtography: Reuters Deletes Peace Activists' Weapon

Not long ago, I read an interview with Julian Assange in which he declared his ostensibly journalistic objective to be that of "ending" the war. Most edifying. The easiest way of ending it would be for one side to cease fighting it. (That almost happened in Iraq before the surge, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida claimed control of a province or two.) I have an intuition that I know which side Assange wishes would capitulate. Call it an instinct if you like. -- Christopher Hitchens

55 garhighway  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:30:23pm

re: #53 Killgore Trout

What's wrong with learning about somebody's opinions? I stopped entertaining arguments from Wikileaks supporters a while ago.

Nothing at all. Learning is good. But it was my impression that you were raising Brown's position on other issues to discredit his stance on this issue. If I misunderstood what you were doing there, I apologize.

One of the fun aspects of LGF is the eclectic nature of people's beliefs here. Attempting to require a form of orthodoxy (if you believe in this, you must also believe in that) is antithetical to the spirit of the place. But I am a relative newcomer, and if I got it wrong I'm sorry.

56 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:35:15pm

re: #53 Killgore Trout

What's wrong with learning about somebody's opinions? I stopped entertaining arguments from Wikileaks supporters a while ago.

It's a shame you didn't stop criticizing me as "unAmerican" and trying to paint me as particularly anti-Israel while elsewhere conflating such a position with anti-Semitism. By your own admission, you are not considering the opinions of the other side in a debate; instead you are just attacking us in a public forum, anonymously. You should be very proud of yourself.

57 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:46:10pm

re: #56 Barrett Brown

By your own admission, you are not considering the opinions of the other side in a debate; instead you are just attacking us in a public forum, anonymously.

Like most adults I don't take arguments from anarchists seriously. I also generally oppose terrorism and don't have much respect for those who consider hostage takers "activists".


You should be very proud of yourself.


Agreed.

58 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:51:06pm

re: #57 Killgore Trout

So it's your contention that I am engaging in terrorism? You realize I've raised money for Wikileaks and am working with a key figure of Anonymous on several projects, correct?

59 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 1:07:12pm

re: #58 Barrett Brown

So it's your contention that I am engaging in terrorism? You realize I've raised money for Wikileaks and am working with a key figure of Anonymous on several projects, correct?

I wouldn't say terrorism. But it does seem you support groups engaged in espionage and internet crimes.

60 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 2:59:14pm

re: #59 Killgore Trout

I wouldn't say terrorism. But it does seem you support groups engaged in espionage and internet crimes.

So, you "wouldn't say terrorism" but you conflate these groups with "Imams who encourage young Muslims to blow themselves up."

If it's Brown's past performance you want to bring up as a reason not to listen to him, I'm not sure I'm interested in that lecture from a man who could understand how a defenseless, pinned, prone woman got stomped on the head and neck, who has no sympathy for the specific victim of such an assault. So instead why don't we try to keep things relevant to this particular discussion instead of shutting down the conversation by trying to paint Brown as some kind of rampant anti-semite.

There's a hell of a lot of lazy thinking going on in this thread and others on the subject, from people on both sides who want to pigeonhole highly diverse groups of people that have a variety of nuanced opinions about Wikileaks.

Wikileaks aren't saints, but they aren't suicide bombers either. Some of what's been released never ever should have been and many of their actions smack of rank criminality. However some of it never should have been classified to begin with because of the extreme moral weight of what taxpayers are being asked to support (i.e. Dyn Corp boy sex parties).

Also, the defense of argumentum ad populum and deliberately dishonest reframing of clear cut English is pretty astounding. Brown's point about popularity not determining right and wrong could only be missed by those hellbent on missing it.

However it's the incurious support of a go along to get along policy based on nothing but follow the leaders that has to be the most amazing thing said so far:

re: #14 reine.de.tout

I wasn't all gung-ho about Iraq, but we went and we're there and since we're there, we should, IMO, do whatever we need to do to accomplish whatever it is the experts and gov't decide needs to be accomplished, and that's just the way it is.

Yes, we should all just go along for the ride and do whatever the experts and government keep telling us to do. They got us in and they'll get us out. It will all work out in the end, just like Viet Nam. This way we can all go through life without taking any responsibility for the consequences of the policies we support, if we just trust the experts like we're supposed to.

61 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 3:01:03pm

re: #47 Barrett Brown

re: #48 Alpha Girl

LOL. You kids today, always willing to drop your undies at the first sign of a simpatico. What ever happened to getting wasted first?

62 reine.de.tout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 3:09:26pm

re: #60 goddamnedfrank

. . .
Also, the defense of argumentum ad populum and deliberately dishonest reframing of clear cut English is pretty astounding. Brown's point about popularity not determining right and wrong could only be missed by those hellbent on missing it. . .

Or, possibly, missed by those who aren't quite as smart and, well chic perhaps, as you and Mr. Brown's regular readers are, and who therefore misunderstood the statement. And I fully admit I'm in the not-so-smart-and-chic group. As you well know, and love to point out.

I sure hope you calm down before you burst a vein or something.

63 samuraishake  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 3:13:55pm

Am I the weirdest one in here?

I've decided to stay neutral on Wikileaks...for now. If people are killed because the information was released, I'll say it was a bad idea, and will oppose such info dumps in the future. If only good comes of it, I'll say it was a good idea, and be encouraging of such info dumps in the future.

But either way, I promise I won't rub it in anyone's face and say, "I knew it all along!"

64 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 3:14:00pm

re: #60 goddamnedfrank

So, you "wouldn't say terrorism" but you conflate these groups with "Imams who encourage young Muslims to blow themselves up."


Yes, they are exploiting people to do their dirty work for them. I stand by my analogy.

65 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 4:18:14pm

re: #62 reine.de.tout

Or, possibly, missed by those who aren't quite as smart and, well chic perhaps, as you and Mr. Brown's regular readers are, and who therefore misunderstood the statement.

LOL okay, right. It's not like we're talking about one of the best known logical fallacies or anything, you'd have to be one of our chic "regular readers" to get this kind of heady concept. It's the kind of thing only ever discussed by hipsters in coffee shops while plotting the overthrow of western civilization.

66 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 4:22:58pm

re: #64 Killgore Trout

Yes, they are exploiting people to do their dirty work for them. I stand by my analogy.

Like Cheney, Bush, Obama, and every other American leader who sends troops to their deaths without having been willing to go fight and die themselves.

67 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 5:16:32pm

re: #66 Barrett Brown

Oh, apparently I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know, guys!

68 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 5:40:37pm

re: #67 Barrett Brown

Oh, apparently I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know, guys!

Wrong about what, sir?

69 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 5:56:42pm

Wikileaks and the Long Haul

Like a lot of people, I am conflicted about Wikileaks.

...

The key, though, is that democracies have a process for creating such restrictions, and as a citizen it sickens me to see the US trying to take shortcuts. The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us “You went after Wikileaks’ domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don’t like the site. If that’s the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.”

Over the long haul, we will need new checks and balances for newly increased transparency — Wikileaks shouldn’t be able to operate as a law unto itself anymore than the US should be able to. In the short haul, though, Wikileaks is our Amsterdam. Whatever restrictions we eventually end up enacting, we need to keep Wikileaks alive today, while we work through the process democracies always go through to react to change. If it’s OK for a democracy to just decide to run someone off the internet for doing something they wouldn’t prosecute a newspaper for doing, the idea of an internet that further democratizes the public sphere will have taken a mortal blow.

70 wrenchwench  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 6:17:07pm

re: #67 Barrett Brown

Oh, apparently I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know, guys!

The red one means "commenter is wrong"?

Oh no, I'm doing it wrong!

Seriously, I disagree with your characterization of American leaders who have sent people to war without having been to war themselves. You may or may not "give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion [I]'ve come up with".

I have not been digging through your work looking for criticism of Israel. I noticed it when I was following your work at True/Slant. I don't think your opinion is dishonest, but I lean toward "incompetent" when you make this characterization:

...the fanatic and genocidal Likud regime....

Genocidal? Really?

I didn't bring this up earlier, because I recognize my limitations when it comes to defending Israel--it can be a full time job, and I have too much to do already. I bring it up now, because I recognize that what you say about the anarchists not caring about what people like myself think, may apply in some lesser way to what I think when I read your descriptions and defenses of Wikileaks.

When I read that "genocidal" comment, I continued to read your postings in various places, and still found myself interested in what you have to say. But your #12, although somewhat retracted in #43, kinda gave me the go-ahead to judge your "geopolitical assessment" based on everything I've read by you. I disagree with you on many things that have to do with Wikileaks. Over the coming weeks and months, I think we will have lots of time to get into the particulars.

I'll be back tomorrow to read your next Page.

71 funky chicken  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:18:33pm

re: #34 garhighway

I'm going to be honest with everyone here. The anarchists don't like you or give a shit about what dishonest or incompetent opinion you've come up with based on a cursory glance of the situation. I'm not saying that in a mean way, even though I am, but rather out of duty. Many who are now opposed to Wikileaks were all gung-ho on Iraq, and if you were, then you can probably forgive us for not being concerned over your own little geopolitical assessment.

just sounds like this year's version of radical chic to me

that's OK, lots of intelligent folks are into that when they're young.

72 Kronocide  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:28:22pm

re: #66 Barrett Brown

Like Cheney, Bush, Obama, and every other American leader who sends troops to their deaths without having been willing to go fight and die themselves.

Damn, I guess FDR was a wuss too. What about Lincoln?

I'm so disappointed you went the chickenhawk route Barrett.

73 Kronocide  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:34:52pm

re: #69 goddamnedfrank

It seems like the author considers WikiLeaks some new burgeoning cyber-democracy validated by moral authority. That barely works if you consider the pretext that the existing omnipotent government is inherently corrupt by secrecy and the up and coming journalistic Robin Hoods of Wikileaks are inherently good.

If that is the core distillation I don't buy it.

74 boxhead  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 12:38:50am

re: #57 Killgore Trout

Like most adults I don't take arguments from anarchists seriously. I also generally oppose terrorism and don't have much respect for those who consider hostage takers "activists".

Agreed.

I have always been intrigued by the anarchist viewpoints. It has a romantic quality. Unfettered freedom and all that. Unfortunately, much like other social systems that would require humans to act with complete respect for others, it fails to understand that humans will never do that as a whole. Our species has done things in the name of justice, honor, righteousness, etc, that has been viewed either evil or good depending on how one was affected. Thus I usually don't discount an opposing view based on a label. I like to analyze and respond. Maybe I can learn and take the good and leave the bad....


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
EVGENY POBOZHIY QUINTET - Stranger Thoughts Evgeny Pobozhiy Quintet - Stranger Thoughts Evgeny Pobozhiy - guitar, compositionAnton Chekurov - saxNikolai Sidorenko - keysSergey Korchagin - bassAlexander Kulkov - drumsRecorded live @ Blues-minus studio, MoscowViktor Farafontov - sound engineerAndrey Galyamin - videoSergey Gasparyan - mixing2019 ...
Thanos
1 day, 4 hours ago
Views: 207 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 191201 It was an ‘easy’ unchallenging weekend. While low key, we got a lot done. We worked on the upper wall, setting and pounding in the 72 bags we dropped in last week. There are now two courses done completely ...
Dangerman (misuser of the sarc tag)
1 day, 14 hours ago
Views: 209 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Marvel Studios’ Black Widow - Official Teaser Trailer Marvel Studios' Black Widow is in theaters May 1, 2020. ► Subscribe to Marvel: bit.ly► See the poster: marvel.com► Learn more: marvel.com Follow Marvel on Twitter: ‪@marvelLike Marvel on Facebook: ‪facebook.com For even more news, stay tuned to:Tumblr: ‪marvelentertainment.tumblr.comInstagram: ...
Thanos
2 days, 10 hours ago
Views: 317 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Commanded to Love Some reflections on the the crucial role emotion can play in keeping us stuck in abuse — and in recovery and immunisation. You can support the channel at: patreon.com--opening quote:‘feel crime’ — the crime of feeling an emotion that ...
Thanos
2 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 1,297 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Sony Overtakes Nikon to Become Number Two Camera Company Behind Canon ony has been aggressively coming after the camera market for several years now, and it seems their efforts are paying off, as they have now overtaken Nikon for the second position behind Canon. Nikkei is reporting that Sony is ...
Thanos
4 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 552 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
The Weeknd - Blinding Lights (Audio) Official audio for The Weeknd "Blinding Lights" - available everywhere now: theweeknd.co ►Subscribe to The Weeknd on YouTube: theweeknd.co ►Follow The Weeknd:@theweekndfacebook.cominstagram.comtheweeknd.comSubscribe to YouTube Music: theweeknd.co ►"Blinding Lights" Lyrics:I been tryna callI’ve been on my own for long enoughMaybe ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 539 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Tuxedo - Get the Money (Feat. CeeLo Green) Official audio of Tuxedo's "Get The Money (Feat. CeeLo Green)" Stream now: tuxedo.lnk.to Subscribe to the official Tuxedo Channel here: smarturl.it Lyrics:Get the moneyAll the timeYeah we want itDollar signs We’ll pile it up to the skyTen miles highNo ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 545 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Stray Dog -Tramp (How It Is)From the album 'Stray Dog'1973
Thanos
5 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 567 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Marcus King - the Well (Official Music Video) Order / stream here "El Dorado:" mk.lnk.toListen to "The Well: mk.lnk.to “The Well” is off the new solo debut album from Marcus King. “El Dorado” out January 17th, 2020. “The Well” was directed by Reid Long Marcus King’s debut ...
Thanos
5 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 547 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
DARPA Seeks Pathogen Detectors That Use CRISPR to Run 1, 00 Tests at Once IEEE Spectrum - IEEE Spectrum The U.S. Department of Defense has put out a call to researchers to develop devices that detect pathogenic threats by performing up to 1,000 diagnostic tests in fewer than 15 minutes. The devices ideally would determine the presence of ...
Thanos
5 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 579 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook