What if you really think that's the case?
Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
While I disagree with the "anyone" part, I do believe that condemnation of Snowden comes most often from ignorance. The more I learned of the leaks in particular, and Snowden's reasoning on the information, the more I came to view his actions as necessary for a free society.
In any case, I think the article we're commenting upon makes the case better than I could. Opinions to to the contrary (from what I've seen) tout the damage (unquantified and unqualified) that was done to the intelligence community and gloss over the obvious wrongdoing on the part of the government. Further, I have yet to see a single article that both condemns Snowden while directly arguing against his moral case for whistleblowing.
But again, none of this was my point. My point is rather that I see no reason why such an opinion should invalidate or detract from a movie/article/whatever.
I interpreted the parent comment as saying "if you accuse anyone of intellectual laziness, that detracts from your work". I find this view problematic, especially when there's ample evidence of intellectual laziness: condemnation without addressing a well-argued moral case.
Does anyone really still have the time or energy to argue with a birther? Or a Holocaust denier? There's no evidence supporting their point of view, so why is it up to me to have to prove them wrong? Every reasonable person already accepts that what the NSA was doing is wrong. You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps.
I would actually argue that it's not wasting time to insult them, it's wasting time arguing with them. If you try to prove them wrong, they're going to engage you in their nonsense, because their mind is already made up. If you insult them, they're more likely to just leave you alone. But no matter what, you're not going to change their minds.
That's exactly the attitude that brought us Donald Trump. If you mock and delegitimize people for long enough, they'll stop taking the system seriously and just give you the finger in any way they can.
Donald Trump is what happens when you tell someone "yes, it's okay for you to think the president is a Muslim from Kenya" and not challenge that opinion. Unless you seriously think we should continue to pretend that these are actually legitimate opinions to hold? If someone says "vaccines cause autism" and you show them the facts but they come back and say "but those facts were made up by so-called "scientists"!", what then? What's your next move? You've already proven them wrong, they've already ignored you.
Either you continue to listen to them, thereby legitimizing their point of view, or you say they're crazy and move on with your life. Because you can only argue with facts. If you argue with them, you're inherently accepting their opinion as fact. We need to foster the idea that it's not okay to ignore easily provable facts. Ignorance is not an option. We need to shut down Donald Trump and Jenny McCarthy as soon as they start talking, not hear them out like they're part of the conversation.
And they get pissed off at being called crazy, and elect Donald Trump as President. So that didn't work out so well for you.
>We need to shut down Donald Trump and Jenny McCarthy as soon as they start talking, not hear them out like they're part of the conversation.
"Shutting down" people like that legitimizes their persecution narrative, which is a really, really bad move.
There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly, the idea of "legitimizing" an opinion suggests that there is some group of people who have the authority to decide what opinions are okay to hold and what aren't. The problem is, a) there is no dispassionate authority you can refer to when we're talking about political issues; everyone brings their own biases whether consciously or not, and b) people who already disagree will not cooperate with that authority voluntarily, and c) the authority has no actual power in a democratic polity anyway. You can't arrest the other side, you can't put them in camps, you can't fine them. All you can do is yell insults at them, and if they don't care what you think, you are effectively powerless -- and obviously powerless to anyone watching.
Your only option in a democratic society is to have faith in the truth, plainly and calmly and repeatedly and respectfully spoken. When the other side comes at you with illogical nonsense, don't get angry; look at it as an opportunity to educate the onlookers, an opportunity that the other side has generously given you. And take that opportunity as often as they foolishly provide it to you.
And yes, one can be cynical and believe that the truth doesn't always win out. But suppression of lies either ends up in the fascist state you're trying to prevent, or eventually collapses in on itself and creates an even worse reaction. In an open society, the fascists are a couple of losers in basements complaining to themselves while the world moves past them. In an increasingly closed society such as the one we live in now, they become the brave rebels fighting the Establishment. Don't let them be the brave rebels.
Thanks for the opportunity to express these thoughts.
Thanks for the conversation, I do see your point and I agree. It's a no-win (or at least a only-partial-win) situation, but stating the facts and moving on is probably the most effective route, with the hope that the truth wins in the end.
They're just so damn annoying though!
Have a cordial interaction with someone who sees things differently
Learn from this person about one of the things they are an expert on
Understand more deeply the pseudo-logic of their mindset and where it comes from
All of those goals are realistically achievable which should make them less frustrating than trying to win. And as a side benefit if you succeed at any of the above, you should be in a better position to bring them around should you go back to trying to do that.
>You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps.
Sure I can. Snowden could have leaked one single document that would blow open the illegal meta data case--the FISA subpoena. Instead he leaked thousands upon thousands of pages about stuff that had nothing to do with illegal wiretapping. He leaked stuff that is the unambiguously legal.
A huge percent of what snowden leaked was stuff he just didn't personally agree with. And sorry, that's not good enough for me. The USA isn't run by Edward Snowden.
I don't think he's a traitor, but he is a leaker.
And yeah, it's fine to believe that Snowden went too far while also believing the NSA went too far. But you specifically are not arguing against what I said. I said "you can't believe Snowden is a traitor...", you said "yes I can", and then went on to say "but I don't think he's a traitor". So... anyway.
"I base my opinion on X on the fact that my religion says X is right/wrong, I base that religion on faith" doesn't mean the opinion is based on fact. You've got me on that one.
Very few of the principles that basically everyone relies on to make value judgements are based on actual research. Most people who purport to base their opinions solely on scientific research are saying that because they have some small number of sample opinions that contradict commonly held opinions and which are based on facts. They then generalize to "all my beliefs are based on facts" even though basically none of these people actually audit their beliefs in any systematic way. The subjective experience of being an outspoken proponent of a factual analysis leads to the false generalization of that story into all aspects of their life.
But in fact we make thousands of judgements every day, the vast majority of which are based on a few casual observations, or our internal model of the universe, which, while based on facts, is not a reliable witness, nor is it a scientifically valid source of data.
Fact doesn't have to be based on research or science, all it means is "the truth". It is a fact that I have a dog sitting on my couch. I don't need actual research to back that up, it's just a fact. It is not a fact that my friend, who died a few years ago, is also sitting on the couch beside me. That's just a belief, based on faith. There has been zero scientific research into either of these claims, but one is undeniable fact and the other is not. It doesn't matter if you don't believe that I have a dog. Your lack of belief doesn't make it less true.
I honestly don't even remember what we're actually talking about, and at this point I'm pretty sure I don't care anymore. Sorry.
That's not a rational conclusion. Why make a baseless comparative judgement like "it's the best" when you can make a qualitative judgement, like "it's good" or "my wife likes it".
That's my point. You think you're scientifically minded, but you have opinions like "Old Spice is the best" that aren't based on facts at all.
> It is a fact that I have a dog sitting on my couch.
This falls into the category of "mundane historical events" I mentioned above.
> I honestly don't even remember what we're actually talking about, and at this point I'm pretty sure I don't care anymore. Sorry.
My guess is you don't have any rational disagreement with what I said, so you just started saying random things about hypothetical situations and you bored yourself.
If the opposite view is truly held by the weak-minded, then there is way more value in further ostracizing them than providing a case to and trying to reason with them.
One person may not have the whole picture or understand everything they need to know to weigh the costs. IMO, Snowden didn't know everything he needed to prove what he was doing was the right course at the time. He just got help from the fact that the government is too secret for its own good and that we are in a relatively peaceful time and don't have many existential threats.
/s
Snowden has a well-argued moral case for what he did. He demonstrably tried to minimize harm and maximize the positive impact of his disclosures.
You give literally no reason for your condemnation (though in all fairness, your comment is likely to be rhetorical).
More to the point, you will likely argue that he broke laws and cite some unspecified damage to the intelligence community that can neither be qualified nor quantified. Importantly, you will likely do this -- as every condemning voice has -- without offering a cogent rebuttal to Snowden's case. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity.
If that's not intellectual laziness, then I honestly don't know what is.
If that's not going to be your line of argumentation, then congratulations! You are literally the first person I have encountered who condemns Snowden without being intellectually lazy or dishonest. I'll believe it when I see it.
(I feel compelled to mention, once more, that I mean no disrespect. I think your comment is rhetorical in nature, so I beg of you not to take anything personally.)
Dragnet surveillance that is being abused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
"Most incidents are self-reported", which says to me that they do not have effective monitoring - there are doubtless abuses that have gone undetected.
But the unproven collateral damage of Snowden's leaks, which had the giant upside of revealing democracy-chilling surveillance techniques, leads to mass reaction from the government. So, undeniable upside/debatable downside = Enemy of the State, threats to nations that offer him asylum.
How does this arithmetic work out for anyone?
But they are wide awake and outraged when Snowden's ostensible act of espionage has caused an enormous amount of public good and technological innovation.
It's not really the American's fault. We hear few of their real voices. It's the media that speaks the loudest.
I've only ever heard official policy statements condemning him. I am not even really sure those stating such policy agree with what they are saying (at a personal level).
[0] This is a non-partisan view. I hear it from Democrats, Republicans, and some Libertarians (who hold more to the fiscal sense of modern libertarianism than the civil liberties sense, which is a shame). There's a large group of people in the US who seem to believe that security for-its-own-sake cannot be evil, in an ends-justify-the-means version of morality.
Edward Snowden isn't an elected official. It wasn't his job to decide which US policies he agrees with. Government can't function if low level employees take it upon themselves to rule.
Seriously, there are very few traits that I can think of which really represent all Americans; we're much too diverse for that, and we're growing farther and farther apart. The lifestyles and attitudes in rural areas are extremely different from those in urban centers, and it's becoming more and more divergent (for instance, Millennials are abandoning car ownership).
So any time you see someone say something like "Americans think..." you have to take it with a grain of salt, and at best realize that they're talking about some sizeable demographic, which probably is not an absolute majority, but is large enough to make it a valid statement, unless you want to quibble about what qualifies such a statement, as if you demand that it apply to a clear majority (say, over 60%), then no such statement will probably ever be true of Americans, except things that are also true of people in many other places (for instance: "Americans like smartphones" -- not at all unique to Americans).
Pro-authoritarian boards do indeed represent a sizeable swath of Americans, like it or not. Just look at how popular the alt-right is these days.
This is an enormously basic fallacy. I was born and raised in the US and have spent a quarter century of life here, so I think it's fair to say "I know quite a few" Americans. But I would think it beyond insane to claim that my sample is useful for statements like "I know a lot of Americans and none feel this way. Who are they?". I also don't know any Trump supporters, any single parents, any heroin addicts, any cardiosurgeons, any farmers...is it really that difficult to believe that your sample of Americans isn't typical (despite its impressive size of "quite a few")?
(The comment I was replying to said that Americans are ok with one thing but not ok with another. It was implying that all Americans think the same way and I disagree)
Whether the government is actually doing that (and whether---even if it were---that's sufficient for completely extrajudicial killing that would be called "waging warfare" in any other context) may not be things an average American is asking before going to sleep at night.
No, 90% of the drone deaths weren't known indented targets. If you bomb a Taliban camp to kill a known Taliban leader, you are going to kill a lot of people, but they aren't going to be mostly civilians.
Sure some of them are civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that's legal under international law and essentially unavoidable in war.
You could argue that maybe America is aiming at targets without any regard for who surrounds them, but that you can't use that 90% figure to do it. And I also believe that you'd be wrong.
In counter point, if we start allowing anyone who feels like they can leak this stuff on their own authority, and it starts costing lives of Americans, how many would you consider "worth it"? At what point does it move from whistle-blowing so it's okay to treason?
You haven't even bothered to provide an argument to justify your condemnation. Case closed.