seppin

> Those police were doing crowd control. If they were not deployed there would have been no on-duty injuries.

"The Bank security guard would have never been hurt if they just let people steal the money and take hostages."

> Maybe you don’t know that the police officer who died, died as a result of a blood clot.

This is beyond bad faith, this is insulting. And i'm not going to participate anymore. I just hope people like you die out before this country is irrevocably harmed, and your children don't carry your sickness to a new generation.

Calls to violence were not, and are not, protected speech. It is a false argument to say they should be now.

> You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous.

This is beyond bad faith, this is an open "fuck you" to anyone that dares participate in this discussion. To shut it down, to make any sort of dialogue impossible.

And you say the left wants to censor, what a laugh.

Maybe you don't know that 60 Capital Police were seriously injured, 15 remain in the hospital, and one is confirmed dead from the attack.

Maybe you don't know that of the 4 rioters that died, one had a heart attack (unconfirmed), one was shot and the others were trampled (by the mob).

Maybe you didn't know that congresspeople from both sides of the isle hid in closets and under desks, terrified and afraid for their lives.

Maybe you just didn't know these things, and got them wrong. But when confronted with them, you aren't going to say "oh sorry I was mistaken." You will respond with whataboutism and other deflection, to preserve your worldview that this wasn't a mob and Trump didn't do anything wrong, etc.

Which was OP's point. This isn't a good faith discussion. You are either ignorant of the truth (and will respond poorly when confronted with it), or you know the truth and are cynically lying about reality to win a rhetorical game.

This is the nature of all bad faith political discussion, which is why I (try to) avoid it all together.

> I am attacking your idea directly, not you.

This is why I don't talk politics, ever. You simply cannot attack a person's idea in politics, because their ideas are their identity. They will respond with the ferocity in which they would if someone were to physically attack them. While noble of you to try, it will fail. Every time.

Such further isolation and radicalization was inevitable, large companies weren't going to host the process on their servers.

As they have every right not to do.

I don't value Facebook at $2 a month, I bet most people don't either.

Tell that to FB and Linkedin's valuations.

Being an online bank is largely unprofitable. You still have to operate the backend of a normal bank (which is costly) and you don't have the physical locations to enable the trust you need to get enough customers.

I'm sorry are you implying the headline "Jack Ma is Missing" is cute?

I agree as well, but with all respect this is dangerously close to "she is such a nice girl what she even doing at that club?"

Perhaps he knew the risks and chose to speak out anyways, which is an entirely different conversation.

fair enough. still "play ball or we disappear you" shouldn't ever be open to victim blaming.

Perhaps a rising superpower that both sells you every plastic trinket you own and operates concentration camps is story people want to read about.

It's BS. Jeffrey Epstein was rich. John McAfee too.

"China is the best place in the world to start a company"

Here is what happens if you succeed to the highest level.

If it was that easy to displace the dollar, someone would have done it already. What advantage does a Chinese cryptocurrency have over a traditional one?

It's exactly my point. Outside of Apple, all the biggest tech firms are 100% reliant on a form of income that is, at best, partially fraudulent. More realistically, almost entirely so.

> Even Google has other revenue streams.

How long do they survive in their current form relying solely on them?

> First, that his show aired on RT

I'm done with this bad faith nonsense, i've addressed the multiple people trying to shift the conversation away from what I said towards RT.

Assange, the guy that promised us all he would "open governments" takes his orders from a murderous KGB thug.

And he has no end of people still willing to make excuses for him (that's you).

This is no industry with as much snake oil BS as adtech.

It also happens to be the sole form of revenue all of the largest tech firms enjoy.

No wonder there hasn't been a real audit.

Also, all those marketing execs buying all the ads would be out of a job too, so they aren't speak up either.

> Do you feel the same towards writers being used by the CIA to spread their stories?

As per the previous question, it appears you don't understand what journalism is. Journalists report stories as objectively as possible, they don't play an active and knowing role in foreign intelligence operations. Surely the NYT and WaPo have played roles in furthering propaganda before (Iraq War), but they weren't co-conspirators. And it wasn't a foreign spy agency feeding them stolen materials to leak for destructive purposes. Big difference(s).

IF Wikileaks actually were journalists, they'd have a hell of a story to write about how their bipolar manic founder had been coopted by an autocratic intelligence agency to do their bidding, throwing away years of good work to actually expose the bad behavior of criminal governments.

I'd read that story.

> As things stand, Snowden would not receive a fair trial, as Assange is not.

Yeah that's not what he said. He said Snowden would face the full wrath of the US Gov (true) but that he's been able to protect others (in the last year even) that had the same pressures. The idea that Snowden "had no choice" is a ridiculous myth believed only by those who see him as a hero first (as part of their general world view), then figure out the facts of the matter later on.

I'm aware, OP compared the two

> I do not have any idea what you consider to be journalism

Not being part of an information warfare campaign of an autocratic country's intelligence service, as we have definitive proof Wikileaks was. The fact that you keep saying this is fine and totally par for the course (also weirdly repeating that the DNC's personal correspondence about ordering pizza and shit-talking each other is 'politically relevant') makes me think you are either far too partisan in your admiration of Assange to discuss this objectively or you just don't understand what the journalism industry is. I don't really care which is true at this point.

You are also misrepresenting what Zaid has said, repeatedly. Being a whistleblower is not an easy thing and not without consequences, but Snowden didn't even attempt to become one. Which is why referring to him as such is misleading at best, and cynically misrepresenting what happened for ideological reasons at worst.

> And they are free to coordinate with a political campaign, they have the freedom of assembly as well as of the press.

lol. "None of these things are crimes" is not the solid argument you think it is. To be a useful idiot aiding an autocratic government in their intelligence operations might not be technically illegal, but you give up all pretense of being "journalists" when you do so.

> His discussions about Wikileaks weren't illegal

Again, not what we are talking about. I'll take your constant efforts to move the goal posts from what constitutes journalism to what constitutes a crime as a tacit admission you don't have a leg to stand on.

> Daniel Ellsberg

A famous leaker is pro-leaker, what a shocking revelation. Difference is all of the pentagon papers were relevant to the ongoing crime of the Vietnam War. 95% of what Snowden leaked had nothing to do with domestic surveillance. Funny how that's never mentioned.

Also, maybe listen to people that actually know what they're talking about in 2020. Here's a lawyer that specializes in representing intel officers in whistleblower cases, talking about how Snowden did have options, and it's a lie to say otherwise.

https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/1339383062120062978

He chose to run, he chose to avoid the consequences of his actions. And in more simple terms, a whistleblower is a legal term for something he chose not to be. He leaked, then ran away. Calling him a whistleblower is an insult to the brave people that actually did seek whistleblower protection in serious matters and were willing to testify and face the consequences.

curious, have you had any successes ? (respectfully)

yep, group think is as strong here as anywhere on reddit or facebook

Russia hacked both the DNC and the RNC. They only leaked DNC material (via their cutout Wikileaks so people can claim in bad faith it wasn't really Russia), and did so at the time it was most needed by the Trump campaign. If you consider receiving state-hacked materials and leaking them in perfect coordination with a political campaign (see Roger Stone indictment) journalism, then there's nothing else to discuss. Oh, and it wasn't just any political campaign. It was the campaign actively supported by the state actor that gave you the materials to begin with. All common coincidences in the journalism world I guess, right?

> So based on something he did in 2016

Speculation no one can answer, ignored.

> The need for intelligence agencies to keep their information secret is not more important than the accused's right to a fair trial.

You aren't listening to what i'm saying. If you suspect someone of espionage and they are already sitting in prison of sex crime charges, you have no reason to expose the methods and sources you used to catch said person.

And responding to any claim made exposes you publicly to confirm what you know and how you know it, which further damages your intelligence collection efforts. Which is why "show me the evidence" is not in good faith, especially not someone like Snoweden that knows damn well how intelligence works. He knows he won't get push back publicly, so he has complete ownership of the narrative. "None of my leaks results in anyone dying". The American IC is not going to list their assets that were executed in hostile countries as a result, for the reasons I mentioned.

> accused's right to a fair trial

Funny, both Assange and Snowden fled their respective "fair trails" to hide from justice. Neither had any intention of risking jail for "what they believe in" - yet some people still view them alongside whistleblowers that actually did.

> Publishing reliable information that is politically relevant

Trying desperately to turn emails (that amounted mostly to dirty laundry) stolen by a government into manufactured scandals and conspiracies the day after the worst revelations about Russia's preferred candidate dropped was not, and is not, journalism. How on earth can you get something so basic wrong?

> We already know that all of his communication in the Ecuadorian embassy were tapped for years, what are they protecting?

Nice little straw man there. We are talking about Assange's official relationship with Russian military intelligence years before he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy. The proof of said relationship, if made public, reveals how Russia was monitored/caught and helps them conceal their future efforts at recruiting assets.

Which is why the "if you have proof why not make it public?" argument in relation to espionage is and always will be a bad faith argument. Snowden did it too. He knows damn well everything he says will go unchallenged, and he uses that silence to his rhetorical advantage.

But you knew all that already.

Again, it's proof of a relationship. His actions via Wikileaks is proof he is a Russian asset. King and Ventura didn't participate in a coordinated attack on American democracy, so your comparison remains useless.

> If there was any actual evidence he was a Kremlin agent

"why don't spy agencies burn sources and methods to charge Assange with espionage when he's already in prison for other charges?" That's really not how it works.

Downvote opposing views without response and move on. This website is pathetic.