Wikileaks is just plain pathetic (IV)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Oct 15, 2016.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    Unbiased paragon of journalistic impartiality Wikileaks is now selling perhaps the worst branded apparel in all of Christendom.

    [​IMG]

    To all the defenders of serial rapist Julian Assange, I'll just ask you to mull over this delightful quote:

    Thanks, Julie. There's a special place in hell reserved for people like you.
     
  2. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    Freedom of speech and capitalism combine like peanut butter and jelly.

    But why complain when FOX Broadcasting, FX, Comedy Central, HBO, and others have been far more crude with some of their shows?
     
  3. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #3
    Why ? Because Wikileaks claims to be Impartial.

    This obviously shows they are not.
     
  4. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    That t shirt is a direct play-on from one of the emails that was leaked. It isn't something they just made up.

    There's nothing you won't do or moan about to avoid looking at these emails from her campaign, is there?
     
  5. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #5
    Put this on a t-shirt.

     
  6. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #6
    Wikileaks is experiencing the same evil corrupt treatment Hillarys thugs in the media applied to the FBI. The Clinton Machine can silence anyone and any organization. It's the censorship that paves the way for the sick and twisted HRC.
     
  7. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    When WikiLeaks was releasing material on Bush and the Iraq War they were perfectly impartial. Now that they're leaking information on the Obama administration, you guys think they're horrible.
     
  8. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #8
    They should release info on everyone at the same time. Then they would be credible. Instead they definitely approach this from a partisan far left wing position. They, like many of the far left wingers here, want to lump Hillary in with Bush and call it a day. But the reality of the situation is more complex than that.
     
  9. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #9
    I've noticed this, too. Wiki is doing what it promised years ago; publish the dirt on everyone. Whoever thought a certain individual or group would be made immune to their acts is kidding themselves.



    The is the third sensible post you've made this week... I'm convinced someone's hacked your account.
     
  10. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #10
    The big difference is that the original leaks, provided by Snowden, were incredible and shed a huge spotlight on America's torture and rendition program as well as the massive NSA snooping scam.

    Now, they've taken and published unverified documents provided by Russia - remember the same group "leaked" the Olympic emails, many of which are now proven to be faked. Even so, these emails show nothing bad at all but some people are desperately trying to paint them as significant. The biggest thing they showed is how sensible Hillary and her campaign has been. The bank transcripts show, as I've always said, that no promises were made, nothing unreasonable said and were perfectly legit.
     
  11. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #11
    Snowden? Where were you six to seven years ago?
     
  12. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #12
    From Wired:

    https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-julian-assanges-endgame-told-decade-ago/

    So if you think secrecy is, in any way, useful, be prepared to pay Assange's tax.

    Except the Russians. They get a pass.
     
  13. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #13
    So you think the earlier Iraq war disclosures weren't hugely important?

    As I thought I made clear, the main difference is that some releases were confirmed to be legit and showed huge crimes/issue whereas the latest releases have come from Russia with no vetting and show nothing bad. There's a clear and obvious difference.
     
  14. jkcerda, Oct 15, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2016

    jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    :rolleyes: renz

    _______________

    Okay, let me explain to you the current problem with Wikileaks, and why it isn't "fair". I'll explain this to you in a parable. Well, more like an example. Hell, it's something.

    |DISCLAIMER|​
    I have no problems with either one of the people I'm about to use for my example. I chose to use them because we all know them here, and it's funny.
    |DISCLAIMER|​

    Say we're having an election for the president of Macrumors. Our two candidates are Aaronvan, representing the Nuclear Power NOW DAMN YOU NOW Party, and Citizenzen, representing Aloof Disdain Initiative.

    Both of them are pretty contentious candidates. They've and their parties both done things that make their opposition loathe them. The NPNDYN party has spent a lot of time recently riling up their base for this coming election. Hearts are being worn on sleeves. Hackles are raised. It's gonna be a bloody election this year.

    But Citizenzen and Aaronvan both have a secret no one else knows about. They eat people. They're cannibals. They both know that if their people eating secret were to ever get out, they'd be ruined. Course that doesn't stop them from keeping eating people, and occasionally swapping recipes, because nothing else tastes quite as good as people steaks.

    So one day, Maxsix, who's head of an anti-secrecy organization, finds proof of Zen and Van's people eating tendencies. "Oh, this is juicy stuff (figuratively speaking)", he thinks. "I'm gonna release it to the world, because the not-eaten people have the right to know who they're voting for!"

    But there's a problem: Max doesn't like Citizenzen. Can't stand the guy. Because of this, he decides to focus all his effort on exposing Citizenzen solely. The documents are released, the pictures published, and, as expected, people turned against Zen. No one likes a cannibal, after all.

    The people rant, rave, and riot in the streets. Those corrupt Aloofers, knowingly running a terrible cannibal as their candidate? What were they thinking? I bet they eat people too! Of course, support shifts suddenly to Van's NPNDYN party, who publicly denounce those degenerate Aloofers, while doublechecking their own security, and making damn sure Van hides his cooking cauldron, and triple deadbolts his basement.

    Van wins in a landslide. The Aloofer party suffers a loss they're never quite able to recover from. He goes on, and becomes an alright president of Macrumors.

    ...but here's the thing. He's a cannibal too. He won simply because the Max chose instead to focus solely on exposing the dirty secrets of one party. The people who voted him in weren't entirely informed of all the facts in play. By being so selective, he made a saint of an equal sinner. Van won simply because he was spared the expose. In the end, Max's grunge against Zen gave him cause to corrupt the ideals behind his once noble cause, allowing it to become nothing more than an underhanded propaganda source of the equally corrupt NPNDYN party party.

    So could you say that, by Max being so selective with the truth he chose to tell, the people who voted him in could make a truly informed decision? No. They only had a loaded half of a much more universally damning whole story. Any decision they made would still be based in skewed ignorance.

    This is why Wikileaks focusing solely on the democrats isn't a good thing, no matter how anyone tries to twist it around to justify it.

    _____________
     
  15. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #15
    Snowden's disclosures focused around the intelligence community. You're thinking the of the dump Manning devised of the Iraq and Afghan invasion and subsequent wars. That was in late 2009 early 2010. Snowden came later on and had little to do with those wars. His info was about the intelligence community as a whole, not just our NSA. The argument of it being supposedly not vetted is the same argument I heard all those years ago about Manning's release from the Republican party. It was then weeks later it was determined to be legitimate.

    Even when Snowden came out with his news, many people were skeptical. It sounded too good to be true. An NSA contractor pulling more than $100,000 through BAH, living in Hawaii, attractive partner, and he seems pretty normal? The graphics releases from the NSA echoed skepticism as well. It looked like a fifth grade project done on Powerpoint. For the first few days, people were convinced Hollywood was doing some amazing marketing for a new thriller film. While I can understand why you're pissed with Wikileaks leaking DNC material and whatnot via the Russian's hand, it's not like our networks are any secure. Need we remind ourselves of the NSA hack this past summer, not to mention a specialist leaving their web tools on a compromised server. Have little faith in the hot smoke Washington is blowing right now.

    Wiki also said they were going to publish a nestegg against Clinton to salivate hardcore Trump supports. The day came and it was a hoax perpetrated by Wikileaks. A Trump supporter they are not.
     
  16. SLC Flyfishing, Oct 16, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016

    SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    Biggest thing with this little story is it requires the assumption that there's republican dirt that Wikileaks has or knows of that's of equal importance; and that they are merely choosing not to release it.

    Why on earth would they do that?

    And someone is going to say "because Russia" and to that I ask: Why would Russia have a problem with Hillary and not with Trump. It seems implausible to me. I think Russia would love nothing more than to ruin both candidates and put the us voting public into chaos over what to do.

    I don't believe for a moment that Russia is behind this. No, the democrat party is particularly corrupt (I knew this before any of this happened). How anyone can get behind a political party that doesn't even trust it's own constituents is beyond me. It takes a special breed of lemming to jump over that cliff IMO.


    Sucks for them that they couldn't keep stuff under wraps, but like the form of sex-ed they hate so much, there's one way to avoid getting exposed for corruption: Don't participate in corruption in the first place.

    The democrats never really earned my respect; but if there was ever a year they might have gotten my vote this was the year.

    Unfortunately for them, the candidate the party leadership insisted be put forth is so incredibly repulsive to me that I can't even hold my nose and vote for her just to do my part to prevent Trump. My conscience won't let me do it. I'd likely have voted for Sanders.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Because Russia believes Trump will cause more chaos than Hilary post election.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 16, 2016 ---
    So corrupt that even full transparency can't sink them.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 16, 2016 ---
    If God didn't believe in sex for fun why did he make women able to have multiple orgasms?
     
  18. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18
    Speculation? Or are you a Russian operative? vrDrew did warn us that there were Russian operatives posting on this forum.

    It will happen, the Dems got a gift in Donald Trump. Any other (non psychotic) candidate would have wiped the floor with Hillary this year.

    I used abstinence as a rhetorical device, clearly that flew right over your head.
     
  19. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #19
    It's not a religion. Thus beliefs don't matter. Only evidence does. I suppose we will get to the bottom of it eventually, but in the meantime our election is being targeted in a variety of ways from venders, to one political party, to state election offices. It's unprecedented and something everyone needs to be concerned about. A lot of people on this board strangely haven't been as concerned as I would expect them to be.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Democratic Party could have picked a candidate with less baggage as well.

    I'm pleased you support sensible sex education and not abstinence only education.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 16, 2016 ---
    That would be the advantage ;).
     
  21. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    Deflections to Russia because of democrat actions is pathetic
    --- Post Merged, Oct 16, 2016 ---
    In that case they are innocent till proven guilty right?
     
  22. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #22
    They are credible unless the documents are forged or altered. I don't believe anyone had made that claim. Now, intentions are another thing. Assange is a rabid anti-American who is trying to mess with the U.S. election; however, that doesn't have any bearing on the information contained in the leaked documents.
     
  23. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #23
    Only selecting evidence that supports one side of an argument is inherently dishonest and misleading. If I only published reports of the fifty-eight games the Chicago Cubs lost this year (while ignoring the 103 they won) - an uninformed observer might come to a conclusion that the Cubs were a terrible team, that their manager ought to be fired, and their best players traded. The reports might very well be factually true (the Cubs did indeed lose those games) - but the end result is a lie.

    If the Russian SVR/Wikileaks only publish hacked e-mails showing ill-advised/impolitic Democratic e-mails; while ignoring those of competing parties (which, for all we know could be equally if not more embarassing) - they are lying to anyone who reads them.

    See Selection Bias for a fuller explanation.
     
  24. SLC Flyfishing, Oct 16, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016

    SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #24
    Your Cubs analogy is weak because it implies that any reader of your publications on the losses doesn't have (or can't obtain) awareness of the good aspects of the Cubs season. People who read have the ability and right to determine for themselves if your articles are enough to decide the organization needs an overhaul.

    Much like DWS and her team, you seem to think people can't synthesize info and form their own opinions. You don't trust the ability of people to make their own choices based on the info that's important to them. It's because you're scared they'll choose differently than you will. Well guess what, your opinion on these emails is not more valid than the opinion of anyone else.

    In terms of your idea about the leaks supporting republicans over democrats. Your entire premise there presupposes that there are in fact equal or worse emails/documents on the republican side that are waiting to be exposed. Right from the get-go you want us to make an assumption without any shred of evidence or else ignore the actual evidence that has been presented. You want us to do this because the info that's out there is inconvenient for your partisan sensibilities, and you think you know better than anyone else. You also seem to be an "ends justify the means" type thinker. It doesn't matter to you what the democrats do. As long as their agenda is served, anything it takes to get there is OK. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" etc etc.

    This is about choosing the best leaders; not protecting one side because we don't have similar info about the other. If Hillary and her ilk are shown to be corrupt then she deserves what she gets as a result. She shouldn't have done those things, period.

    The best way for Democrats to avoid all this would have been to avoid corruption in the first place. They didn't, and now will face the criticisms and consequences of those choices.

    This shouldn't be a difficult concept.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    How naive are you?
     

Share This Page