Hacker News Reader

Comment by mynameishere | Hacker News Reader

Whatever sympathies you want to arouse for Pvt Manning for political purposes, however wordily and clumsily expressed, try to keep in mind that throughout all of history, in all contexts, regardless of rank, Manning would have been summarily hanged as a spy and/or traitor rather than merely imprisoned. Manning got off nice and easy.

That said, it was a total failure of the system to allow someone so mentally unstable to have any kind of clearance. Manning's AFQT score was probably 99 at a time when the army had trouble getting anyone literate to join. And so there wasn't a discharge. Here's an interesting interview about Manning's (near) discharge:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/28/bradley-manning...

View on HN

Most of history is completely irrelevant to how people should be treated today. Through most of history all of us would be illiterate and internetless and not be having this conversation.

The one thing that remains consistent in the world, throughout history and today, is power.

We may have gotten more subtle about it, but there are clearly individuals who have more power than others. Toss in massive income inequality globally and you have the system we have today. It is an unjust system rotten to its core, and it needs to be dismantled, but the way forward is unclear. I'm not sure if a thousand people like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, or Aaron Swartz can make a difference at this point.

Viewed through the lens of power, it makes perfect sense that those who try to oppose the current prevailing status quo are silenced, either through intimidation or outright violence.

Most of history there were slaves too.

Following a similar reasoning, blacks being beaten up by the police "got off easy" too. It would have been a lynching in the past.

> ...at a time when the army had trouble getting anyone literate...

In 2007? Where are you getting that? For the USMC 01-09 were glory years when it came to enlistment quality, so much so that they tightened requirements - and practically banned recruits and reenlistees with visible tattoos... while doubling in size. I'd be surprised to learn that the Army didn't enjoy the same trend.

I enlisted in the USMC in 2007, there were a lot of recruits but the quality was low and they had trouble getting the higher AFQTs joining them as opposed to the Navy or Air Force.

Hmm, that is when I got out - two boot drops, both seemed fine. The infantry is much less likely to draw underachievers though, so we'd be less likely to see the low quality recruits.

The guys going infantry were the best of the platoon by far. With the exception of one or two nobody seemed bad or outright undesirable, just slightly below what I had expected.

It's in the article he linked, sourced from military people quoted.

The guy who was also in the discharge unit, getting kicked out... we'll I guess that is as credible as an internet stranger's personal experience.

I'm guessing with the amount of money that the U.S. invests in each soldier, there's a pretty overriding impetus to not disqualify people from positions that need people to fill them.

The lack of a first name or a single pronoun in your comment has more meaning than anything you actually wrote.

Why?

I guess the point developer2 tried to make is that the parent poster's language is very non-personal.

This is a common thing -- by not seeing the victim as a person/human it's way easier to rationalize whatever ideology etc. you might have.

Sorry, not a native speaker -- can't put it better :p

I disagree. I think when you're talking about someone you don't personally know that's in the public eye, you should use their surname if you're trying to make a clear point. I noticed it when I saw my own nation's male politicians always mentioned in the media by their surname, and the female politicians referred to by first name if the media outlet didn't like them. It was a way of robbing them of respect.

As a tech parallel, Gates and Jobs aren't generally referred to in articles by their first name, even when their identity has been established.

Just refer to everyone in the same way and you level the playing field, I find. If you have a personal connection, sure, bend the rule. But using a first name without having a personal connection usually robs the public figure of a bit of power.

Interestingly, when talking about SpaceX, the CEO is almost always 'Elon' rather than 'Musk', and I'm sure there's some sort of point that could be made about that...

That is rather to the point when we talk about a military person who's acting in his military role: the style of communication tends to be very impersonal.

I learned to know a friend in the army (went through NCO and officer schools with him and was always in the same accommodation rooms because our last names began the same) and later have seen him with family (our kids are grown up by now). It took me a good while to feel natural about referring to him by his first name, because the army way was to use the last name.

Or it could be a way to make sure responses wouldn't derail towards the correct pronoun to use.

I read developer2's response as being very presumptuous and prepossessed, and was wondering why.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com