*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

None of this really gets at the question of why Wikileaks does what it does though. What is their actual purpose- just to tattle on everyone? And who's paying for all this? Maybe they're all just super-idealists. Maybe they're up to something shady. I have no way of knowing.

If you look at the effect their work has it seems basically to undermine gov't in principle, and democratic gov't in particular. In that, they seem to share a common theme with Murray. Thus it's not surprising he's a fan.

Granted, they're not pushing narratives like 'Hillary is an alien', but that just shows they're trying to be taken seriously. Doesn't prove anything they do is legit.

[OngBonga]

None of this really gets at the question of why Wikileaks does what it does though. What is their actual purpose- just to tattle on everyone? And who's paying for all this? Maybe they're all just super-idealists. Maybe they're up to something shady. I have no way of knowing.

If you look at the effect their work has it seems basically to undermine gov't in principle, and democratic gov't in particular. In that, they seem to share a common theme with Murray. Thus it's not surprising he's a fan.

Their goal seems to me to undermine corrupt government, to expose their immoral practises. Who's paying for it all? I was under the impression they took donations, and I am confident there would be no shortage in that regard.

You seem more concerned about the reason why Wikileaks do what they do, than you are about the content of the leaks.

If your brother was caught stealing money from someone's bank account by a bank employee who happened to notice an unusual transaction, would you say that the person who caught them is the one who needs to be analysed?

[Poopadoop]

If your brother was caught stealing money from someone's bank account by a bank employee who happened to notice an unusual transaction, would you say that the person who caught them is the one who needs to be analysed?

I wouldn't just accept that he was guilty just because someone said so.

[OngBonga]

I wouldn't just accept that he was guilty just because someone said so.

But if someone showed you the transaction, in black and white, with IP addresses to pinpoint the source of the theft, would you still say the bank employee might merely have an axe to grind?

I'm not suggesting you assume guilt. I'm suggesting you assume the employee was doing what he felt was the right thing to do. Guilt is for the courts to decide. The point of the bank employee tipping off police is to allow the courts to decide if your brother is guilty or not.

The problem we have here is that instead of having people face courts when they are exposed by groups like Wikileaks, people are instead bickering about where the leaks came from and for what motive.

[Poopadoop]

But if someone showed you the transaction, in black and white, with IP addresses to pinpoint the source of the theft, would you still say the bank employee might merely have an axe to grind?

I'm not suggesting you assume guilt. I'm suggesting you assume the employee was doing what he felt was the right thing to do. Guilt is for the courts to decide. The point of the bank employee tipping off police is to allow the courts to decide if your brother is guilty or not.

The problem we have here is that instead of having people face courts when they are exposed by groups like Wikileaks, people are instead bickering about where the leaks came from and for what motive.

The government is not my brother and wikileaks is not a bank employee. Let's just stick to what we know and not try to create false analogies.

[OngBonga]

The government is not my brother and wikileaks is not a bank employee. Let's just stick to what we know and not try to create false analogies.

Nicely dismissed.

The point of that analogy is to point out that what matters is that your brother stole some money (allegedly), not that the bank employee dobbed him in. A crime was committed (allegedly).

Wikileaks are exposing crimes, and people are accusing them of having ulterior motives. Who gives a fuck about their motives if what they are exposing is actually true? Why is that the primary concern?

[Poopadoop]

Wikileaks are exposing crimes, and people are accusing them of having ulterior motives. Who gives a fuck about their motives...

if what they are exposing is actually true?

Do you not see the link between these two questions?

If you say 'I don't care why they're putting out all this information that embarrasses gov'ts, I just accept their motives are pure and the information is accurate', then you're not thinking very hard.

And I'm not accusing you of that. But you're accusing me of being paranoid for questioning those same things. Ok then, I'm paranoid.

[Poopadoop]

Their goal seems to me to undermine corrupt government, to expose their immoral practises. Who's paying for it all? I was under the impression they took donations, and I am confident there would be no shortage in that regard.

Again, to what end? Just so everyone knows their gov'ts are corrupt? What else is new?

You seem more concerned about the reason why Wikileaks do what they do, than you are about the content of the leaks.

No, I'm saying it's not as simple as trusting the information-giver by dint of the fact that they claim to be a whistleblower. There's other ways the scenario could come about.