Wikileaks' actions this year have done nothing but prove to me that Wikileaks is just another arm of the alt-right.
When you add in Julian Assange's antisemitism and lack of respect for women, it all makes sense.
When you add in Julian Assange's antisemitism and lack of respect for women, it all makes sense.
He ran away to the embassy in 2012 because he refused to take responsibility for his sexual assaults. In 2010 he hired Israel Shamir, an extremely outspoken antisemitic blogger, to help run Wikileaks, and a number of photographs show that they had been close friends for some time before Assange hired him. When he was confronted about this by Private Eye in 2011, he began spouting conspiracy theories about how the Jews were out to get him.
Assange is alt-right and has always been.
Assange being alt-right and the fact that he is going out of his way to leak material that improves the chances of the standard-bearer of the alt-right, Donald Trump, becoming head of state of the most powerful country on Earth are absolutely 100% linked together, and those links should be investigated.
Some information should not be public for a reason.
You're assuming that the goal is to expose something - that is, you're starting your argument with the idea that he's got some political agenda to achieve.
But he's stated that his goal is to weaken the powerful by making it so that they can't trust anyone to keep their secrets. In that context, any uncovering of a leader's secrets is work toward his goal.
You can argue that the costs of what he's doing exceed the benefits, but I think your claim doesn't support the argument you're trying to apply it to.
Is there any evidence that he lacks respect for women? I have not yet seen any. He was accused of something which in Sweden is called "rape" but in the US would be called "consensual sex". Is that what you are referring to?
If you have sex with someone and tell them you will use a condom and don't, that isn't consensual.
Sweden is not the only country that considers sex with someone sleeping or otherwise unconscious as rape; a quick look at UK law for instance seems to bring this up in section 75 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42). Even in Mr. Assange's native Australia, failure to withdraw from sexual intercourse after consent is withdrawn appears in itself to be considered "rape" in all districts but Queensland. (https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences...)
There are varying degrees of rape in Sweden, as I understand it Mr. Assange is being accused of the most minor degree of rape due to the circumstances. Still, it seems like what he is accused of is typically labeled "rape" in many places.
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/julian-assange-rape-case...
Saying you are wearing a condom when you aren't is wrongdoing.
Of course it is. Assange disputed the accusation and claimed that there was mutual understanding of the status of the condom. In any case, barring an unwanted VD or pregnancy, it seems peculiar to decide to pursue legal action about this a month after the fact.
While it's possible that Assange acted boorishly and inappropriately, I think rape is not the right word to describe it. Would a woman who lied about having been on birth control reasonably be said to have raped a male partner?
No. But birth control isn't the only aspect to the issue. As you stated, sexually transmitted diseases are an issue. More of an issue arguably.
Also, two women have reported the same behaviour (to my knowledge). Although not enough to be considered a pattern, it's disconcerting.
Yes, it is my understanding that at least one of the women and the new prosecutor involved have expressed that the case should be dismissed.
I don't know what they stand for. But I visit generally progressive-leaning places on the internet and know I'm supposed to hate them.
I still haven't even figured out who the "reactionaries" are or what they believe in. I think what happened is some people used the wrong word when talking about "contrarians" and through a game of telephone turned created a new political boogieman.
Is the conservative side of the (American) political spectrum really going through this much ideological turmoil and restructuring? I haven't heard about it in any of the mainstream news when I glace at it, nor from the conservatives I talk politics with at work. It looks like a way for the left to shill hate.
It's a small group of maybe 10,000, of which 5,000 don't even take the positions seriously, just love to troll millennial college "activist" consumer-types. The Clinton speech about the alt-right will have the same effect as Geraldo Rivera's goofy coverage of Neo-nazi skinheads in the 80s - multiplying their numbers a hundred-fold.
I completely agree that this group exists, that this phenomenon exists. However, it's also apparent from the way many people use the label "alt right", that they are not limiting themselves to describing this group.
Then why the fuck is anyone talking about them? Is the left really so terrified of taking positions or believing in anything at all that they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel like this for something to talk about?
There's a tiny group of terrible people who happen to also be alt right. We are supposed to associate any person who is labelled "alt right" with that tiny group even if they have nothing significant in common with them.
That's an interesting suggestion. It does look like many so called alt righters seem to be contrarians, non-conformists, critics of mainstream ideology or 'normal' right wing ideology. We need more of those people, and we often benefit from listening to them.
Some of them have beliefs I find abhorrent, but they also clearly do not all share the same beliefs.
Narrow minded bloggers and such on the left have cultivated this widespread belief (among some liberals) that we should automatically despise and ignore anyone that gets labelled "alt right"
It's basically used like the 'Bernie Bros' thing was when he was still running for president. A near meaningless buzzword to insult people the user disagreed with.