I get that often from a whole slew of people I wouldn't expect to be cowardly.
It's really awkward to date when the n-th date involves a discussion of possible harassing police raids in the middle of the night.
It's really awkward to date when the n-th date involves a discussion of possible harassing police raids in the middle of the night.
I respect what you do, but I think it's unfair and myopic to label as "cowards" anyone who doesn't share your commitment.
On an unrelated note, does this mean the FBI will be serving pg with a warrant for our info?
However, I use the word cowardly because the results you outlined are not certain. It's not even likely.
When fear rules you and limits otherwise desirable actions, you're acting as a coward without a doubt.
Need any help?
As you are finding out, the government can take a lot from you when you piss them off. In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management to protect your loved ones from similar treatment, particularly if you're raising a family. Not many employers will stick with you if you get this kind of harassment in your personal life, because it will eventually affect them too; that cuts right into feeding your family, which is high on my list of things I will not sacrifice. Putting my family above an ideal is not cowardice, particularly when my family isn't even aware of the reason for an ideal and definitely doesn't share it.
It's also dangerous to assume that a given outcome is unlikely for any set of circumstances. Continuously, we read about things that blow our mind when governments abuse power, and there are probably far more things that we are not lucky enough to read about; if they really wanted you gone, you'd be gone tomorrow and none of us would ever know. It stands to reason that you haven't disappeared yet because they want Assange. Planning for the best from your adversary is a dangerous path, I think, but I know that you're far more familiar with your own circumstances than Mr. Internet Commenter here is.
What? That sounds insane. In what sense does he have nothing to lose?
Bowing to bullies is cowardice, no matter how rational it is. The reason "cowardice" is a perjorative word is that usually seeking your own rational self-interest by accommodating thugs ends up hurting other people, and I believe that's true in this case, as well. If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.
Based upon my quick reading, it sounds like he has nobody that depends on him. All of us have to consider that if we were to suddenly disappear from the face of the planet, who would suffer as a direct result?
> If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.
Yeah, I detained him at the border. Good one.
You give the government a lot of credit for being extraordinarily clever. I have serious, serious doubts that people distancing themselves from inviting similar harassment (which means aiding Jacob, not necessarily knowing him -- I never committed on that point) is something that the government would consider a win. "We have succeeded by limiting new acquaintances!" That's hysterical.
This is the government we're talking about here, the world's legendary bureaucracy, the same government that can't even find bin Laden after how many years. They want Julian Assange, and they'll procedurally harass anybody they can to get to him until they get him. Assuming there's a shadowy evil plot to decrease Jacob's LinkedIn connection count is patently silly, and accusing me of furthering the government's attack because I don't want to risk my family for a cause is a pile of disrespectful and stupid.
I don't think it takes extraordinary cleverness to try to attack people by ostracizing them and indirectly threatening others who associate or collaborate with them. That sounds as straightforward as it gets. I guess I don't see what seems silly about it.
At any rate, I've said my piece, and I'm circling close to offending you -- which isn't my goal -- so don't take anything I say as intentionally offensive. It seems silly to argue about your life, anyway, from the perspective of someone not in your life.
I don't think "simple risk management" and "cowardice" are mutually exclusive, and I am deeply offended that you are accusing me and Jake and others of dishonesty for expressing that opinion. I understand the desire to defend yourself (however cowardly you may be) but I do not believe that desire justifies launching personal attacks on the integrity of those who disagree with you.
Indeed, it's rather ironic to hear someone justifying cowardice setting themself up as a judge of the integrity of others.
HN certainly gets more and more hostile as days go by, and I think it'd do us all a favor to assume the best in our conversational counterparts. Judge of integrity, indeed.
If a person is aware of a couple of explanations for something and has judgments about how much sense they make, those judgments represent their degree of belief in those explanations. If they claim to believe the one they actually believe in less, then they are being dishonest.
The willingness to expose oneself to the kind of harassment Applebaum endures is derived from one's commitment to the cause. I can certainly applaud those who risk being ostracized by associating with someone being bullied, without condemning those who don't. The bullying is morally wrong, but the reaction of others is neutral.
And I don't think having a partner and child would change that. Because I don't want my children to grow up in a world where someone would walk by them getting raped and ignore it. I would rather they grow up in a world where their father died to help someone.
The same applies to Applebaum. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where it's considered good and decent for them to be ostracized by people like you for making choices like Jacob's. I wouldn't want them to grow up with a father who supported that.
Keep in mind when making this decision that it will still be a world where a rape victim can get ignored.
Indeed. Nor would I want to live with a soul that knows it had ignored someone in such distress.
There is no doubt that a cowardly action might be safer under certain circumstances. But who wants to live like that?
Back in the days I used to live in quite a politically volatile area in a developing nation while trying to get myself an education. It is the kind of place where it is not uncommon to be knifed/hacked/soundly beaten in a public place in broad daylight for being on the wrong end of the political spectrum or even just for being bothersome.
It was eye opening for the young and somewhat naive me that very very few people were willing to interfere in this. Even to the point of not calling the police or an ambulance while someone slowly bleeds down.
I have had discussions with people on this topic. Every time the response was exactly the same as yours. Also everyone believed that nothing could be done about it. It was socially accepted that this sort of thing happen and all you can do is to keep your head down and go about your own business. People survived by holding the magical belief that whatever was happening to their fellow citizens won't happen to them .. Somehow ..
Irrespective of what we were always told (i.e. That the incredible apathy was the result of a lack of education and an issue endemic to poor third world nations), it appears that the attitude is not as uncommon as it was made out to be.
I don't advocate doing nothing in the face of injustice, but neither do I condemn those who are unwilling to risk their families and careers over causes they aren't wed to. Morality isn't binary, and so we can applaud those with the courage and conviction to suffer for a cause, without condemning those who lack such dedication.
Also, you're speaking in VERY broad terms when you say "By refusing to associate with someone simply because they've been bullied, you have given your consent to the bullying and even (to a small degree) participated in it." Do you think this is equally true of ALL bullies? That is to say, do you see ZERO difference between (say) a wayward grade-school thug who picks on the most promising target, and armed federal agents who have clearly been given specific orders to harass, intimidate, and coerce a very specific individual for a very specific reason?
If they already had, would you even know? Twitter has fought the subpoena and gag order in court, which is the only reason we've heard about it. Presumably Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Hotmail, and other service providers have also had information requested from them, but we haven't heard anything from them, presumably because they cooperated instead of fighting.
Although I think removing that sign would be considered violating the gag order.
Oh, is "apathetic" a more comfortable label ?
> The level of harassment you put up with is obscene, and that you continue to stick to your guns in the face of it is admirable. That said, it's not something that most people want in their lives.
That guy is getting harassed a lot because he is alone. I don't think the overloads up there have the courage to harass tens of thousands - do they ? Wide ranging support means less heroism will be required to get what people want. He is not fighting a personal battle, right ? It is better to fight smaller battles now and avoid the possibility of all out wars that we are seeing in Africa and the Middle-East.
> Dealing with the level of harassment you face imperils all of those goals. Unless someone is dedicated to a cause and willing to sacrifice a lot to serve it, it's unreasonable to ask them to invite that kind of drama into their lives.
So, that person won't even "want to meet or correspond with" them. Do they realize the stark contrast between Jake's priorities and theirs.
You know you can stay at my house any time. It's far too late for me to be cowardly. I'm not aware of any repercussions Beatrice or I have suffered so far for our association with you.
> It's really awkward to date when the n-th date involves a discussion of possible harassing police raids in the middle of the night.
Seems like that's something to discuss before the 0th date. You well know there are zillions of girls and guys who find outlaws sexy, especially outlaws for a real cause (as opposed to just crooks.)
As an aside, but nevertheless siginificant to point out, these trips of Appelbaum's are AFAIK business trips, not recreational trips. Appelbaum is traveling because his employer asked him to. So why isn't Appelbaum's employer Tor, or the University of Washington for that matter, taking the necessary steps to assist a traveling researcher/proselytizer? If Appelbaum's employer demands that he travel, isn't it Appelbaum's employer own responsibility to make sure an employee can travel, assisting him with a lawyer or a co-traveling escort? And why would an employer put up with all this, when the employer can just as well hire another proselytizer, one who is not associated with Wikileaks and who can cross borders with a lot less hassle?
Sorry folks, it's just not adding up for me. (But your donations are certainly adding up for Tor!)
In any case, it doesn't cost anyone but me (in time, stress, etc) anything extra.
I just wanted to throw in there... I feel for you with the issues dating.. but in my experience it's not worth dating someone long-term who doesn't have the highest degree of respect for who you are. And for someone who really respects you, that conversation would only deepen their connection to you.
They may be few and far between, but anyone else isn't worth your time.
It says that (presumably in Newark?) you were handed over to a US Army official. Are you certain the individual worked for the Army?
Wikileaks and the Federal Government's response to it is fascinating to me. I'd love to hear more details than what little teaser of an article offers.
I don't know anything about the site that the article is on, but it corresponds pretty closely to what I've read elsewhere.
I suppose a lot of folks probably do consider this type of extralegal harassment to be a political left/right issue. Personally I don't understand that type of thinking and suspect it's probably not useful to attempt to reason about that degree of madness.
I do believe that a lot of politicians and prominent officials are earning their place in the history books...right next to Sen Joe McCarthy in the article on 'Un-American Douchebags'.
If noone called him out, he'd have just been another politician making hay out of fear and "the other".
But McCarthy & co. did more than simple fear-mongering and "making political hay". They were using the considerable power of the US Federal Govt against individuals for their politics and for not-justifiably-illegal actions. They were destroying livelihoods and putting people in jail.
It's easy to see in retrospect that the US was not at risk of the Red Tide because the economic fundamentals were absurdly better than what was needed for the leftist revolution.
McCarthy & co. degraded America and damaged our principles out of stupid hysteria and demagoguery. This only went on as long as it did because there weren't enough level-headed people who were willing to pay the price of questioning it openly.
Wikileaks/Manning/ioerror are not an existential threat to America, but this path of systematically abandoning principles of protecting individuals from the abuses of government power absolutely is.
http://www.infowars.com/ventura-strikes-back-with-lawsuit-ag...
Appelbaum wants you to think that the kind of treatment he is undergoing at airports is exceptional. It is not. It is almost identical to the treatment the likes of Ventura and Alex Jones and his staff are subjected to. Ventura is certainly suing, so why isn't Appelbaum? Something is not adding up here.
It's nowhere near as easy as pointing the finger at people with less means than yourself and calling them "cowards" for not having the financial means to pursue their rights. Using the law is expesive, but this particular person is not poor. He deliberately chooses to not use the law.
"I make more than the amount you quote, but I don't have enough money to go around suing the government."
Well, I'd have to ask, why don't you? Maybe that's the problem: all you people who really do have the means to sue the government aren't doing so. Instead, you're just pointing the finger at the "sheeple" who make a lot less than you do, saying: "Look at those cowards over there, they're doing anything to resist,the country is going down the drain because of them, bla bla bla".
Listen, we are all on leash, and those of you with the longer leash should be doing more to resist than those of us with the shorter leash. Instead, you point the finger and call those with the shorter leash "cowards" and "collaborators". That's "lifestyle activism" for ya.