In this case, your assessment is fair - user is harsh, name-calls, and does talk down to the person they were responding to/the reader. I got lost in the chain.
Regardless, accusations of purity testing come up more than enough online for my liking and it isn’t always in response to righteous condescension, as you aptly described the user’s behavior in this example.
deleted by creator
It should be able to be wiped clean, and not ever be published to the internet without safeguards to prevent AI-scraping/people search websites/etc. from picking it up. These websites (and other sources of the information) should block anybody without a legitimate and reasonable need to know that information about the person arrested (and access should be logged) - it’s also not newsworthy to systematically report on arrests that are e.g. victimless and not tied to a notable event (as newspapers tend to do).
If one wants their arrest record to be completely public, that should be a right upon arrest.
As it stands, permanent and public arrest records prevent one from restoring their reputation and absolutely impairs their ability to function in our discriminatory society - where arrest records and criminal history are heavily weighted against applicants.
I’d argue that organizations chasing money can very closely mirror a “quasi state-sponsored news agency […] pretending to be the very core institution of respectable journalism” as you loosely put it.
I’m not specifically calling out any organization in particular, but I have come to be very cynical of almost all news sources and journalism over the last couple decades. Journalism is a hollow shell of what it once was, omission of relevant and factual context is normalized, propaganda is factualized, and people are scared to report the truth unabashedly.
There is too much incentive to spin propaganda, even with the best intentions and organizational structuring.
Foregoing sharing personal information with the wrong crowd is likely imperative, but it’s probably best to find ways out of unstructured servile relationships i.e. workplaces with any hint of drama, disorganization, or lack of focus.
If you don’t feel welcomed and supported, if the hierarchy is oppressive, if your peers are seemingly jealous or readily find fault in you, if you are insulted - start looking for another job. Or never stop looking for jobs until you’re sure you’re safe… or just work remote.
I’ve had my fair share of similarly unbelievable circumstances - and what I’ve learned is to not mess around with anything with a hint of instability and also to avoid being in close proximity to potentially volatile individuals - unless I’m absolutely sure I’m safe and that the individuals are harmless.
It really doesn’t matter if you talk or don’t talk - if people see you as condescending, if they dislike you intensely for no apparent reason, if they are on drugs or are experiencing psychosis, if somebody misinforms them about you, etc. it’s within the realm of possibility that something undesirable happens.
…but don’t be afraid to engage with people you feel you can trust - give it time if you have to, but past undesirable circumstances shouldn’t take away from your life and range of experience. And worrying that the worst possible scenario will unfold all the time is also very paralyzing and limiting in my experience - there has to be a better and bolder way forward, that also does not delve into naivety.
I look forward to hearing recordings or reading the transcripts if they surface. Hopefully something does, this is relevant to pretty much anybody on earth right now. /s
I wonder how many times he’ll mention Greta Thunberg, the presumptive Antichrist?
[Hakeem Jeffries] also, as the Blue Rose memo suggested is effective, cast the federal takeover as a “distraction” from Trump’s unpopular policies.
The future of our country is at stake…and this is our leadership?
Did you put Fetterman on the grill like this? Or did you blindly listen to establishment voices telling you how progressive he is, while ignoring his actions as mayor?
I was warned for reporting (what I view as) legitimate violations of subreddit rules and calls to violence by reddit themselves. I was conditioned to not report abuse.
Add in reddit actioning accounts for upvoting certain content, and it’s easy to see that healthy participation on the website is severely chilled, in addition to the website generally being hostile to discourse.
Aaron Swartz is rolling in his grave, reddit is nothing like what it was founded on.
Just as “libertarian” as Peter Thiel.
Companies that use child slavery and modern slavery in their batteries holding people hostage to their decisions on how your personal devices should operate…sounds about right.
When will companies pay reparations to the affected populations for enabling their obscene profit?
EDIT: And if phones are melting, Google replacing or fixing affected devices or providing refunds is appropriate, I feel.
I am not doubting that Wikileaks or Julian specifically contacted Trump Jr. Doesn’t make him pro-Trump, or pro-Russia, just anti-Clinton. Julian has not been kind to the Russian government to the best of my knowledge.
The whole Guccifer 2.0 thing is hard for non-intelligence individuals to follow because there are no proper sources or evidence that one can readily find. I was around at the time, and was quite active on social media, and nothing made sense back then, and it continues to make no sense after years of investigations and articles written about it. Roger Stone seemed to be pivotal in legitimizing the role of Guccifer 2.0 in the Wikileaks releases, from my understanding.
Maybe I just suck at reading these articles. I am willing to accept that and I will be looking into this further when I am not sick. Regardless, thanks for engaging - my perspective will likely evolve with your help and direction. I am interested in the truth and I don’t want to take anyone or anything at face-value.
See above sources.
“Assange, despite his claims to scientific journalism, emphasized to me that his mission is to expose injustice, not to provide an even-handed record of events.”
Why did he feel it was so imperative to fight Clinton? It wasn’t simply because he thought she was a demon. It wasn’t specifically because he was pro-Russia or pro-Trump, even if he did collude with the latter (and former if the Guccifer 2.0 source of leaks is to be believed). I want Buzzfeed’s and whatever else’s source for the leaked DMs between Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0, and Roger Stone can fuck off - I don’t believe a word he says.
That’s every intelligence agency in the country saying you’re wrong.
I don’t see the state operating in my interest or anybody else’s, including its own interest. Things have been quite dysfunctional. Intelligence agencies routinely do not properly cite their sources, does that link provide actual sources instead of “trust me bro”?
Okay, good, we can agree that Russia is our enemy. That’s some common ground we can work from.
Russia is hostile to the US, and the US is hostile to Russia. Everybody is in the crossfire of governments than do not represent or serve them.
It was a major relevation from the leaks, which you are free to attribute to Russia if you believe Roger Stone and a source (BuzzFeed) that provides no evidence, but claims that Wikileaks “apparently” contacted Guccifer 2.0.
They consistently concealed evidence against the GOP and Russia, they outright denied claims made against Russia on their official accounts, they repeated Russian propaganda… come on man. It was obvious.
Citation needed, citation needed, citation needed. Convince me.
Be enemies of his enemies.
Why did Assange see Clinton as an enemy?
I’m sorry, are you suggesting Russia is somehow communist? They’re fascist, and they’re spreading fascism throughout the world on the internet, and they need to be stopped. […] Right wing radio and youtube hosts across America were caught taking Russian money.
I’m suggesting that what ensued was hysteria. With or without Russia’s financial support, right-wing influencers and spaces have continued to prop up Trump.
What are you talking about? Countless members of Trump’s staff were arrested and sent to jail for being Russian spies. The NRA had a Russian spy funneling money.
I am talking about online discourse, not the failure of the state to protect itself from compromised individuals in high positions.
July 22: WikiLeaks publishes 20,000 emails from seven key DNC officials. The emails show them disparaging Bernie Sanders and favoring Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential primaries.
Did Russia make them do that too?
I’m arguing that I trust Julian over Stone and anybody else who claims otherwise. You are free to disagree.
Julian was not on anybody’s side in particular, there is no evidence that Julian ever favored Putin or the government there. Go and actually listen to past recordings of the guy to get a handle on his beliefs and principles. What did Russia ever do for him?
I am admitting that some stuff happened, but that nothing truly significant occurred. Hillary won the popular vote by a wide margin. The only thing that occurred was Red Scare 2.0 with ample hysteria - tech company incompetence aside. What ensued was everybody accusing everybody of being a Russian actor, with no proof.
The push for Trump was multi-pronged, see my initial response for the meat of what created Trump.
The email leaks are verified, try again.
The source is a verified, leaked email from Clinton’s campaign and an internal DNC memo, if you cared to read. Who cares about Salon. The Wikileaks releases are the only meat of election interference, which according to Julian, didn’t come from Russia.
Everybody has seen those pages, and reporting on the subject - but the impact was minimal during the 2016 elections and onwards, I’d argue.
Russian operatives maintaining Facebook/Twitter accounts to organize small protests is truly insignificant and Russian-linked actors buying ads (that ultimately didn’t reach many) to manipulate the election is a failure of the companies involved for accepting the money and running the ads.
The onus is on potential progressive or leftist presidential candidates to show up - it’s their decision. It takes a tremendous amount of courage and boldness to enter public consciousness and face scrutiny in every direction.