Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by smsm42 on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:11PM (#12728279)

That depends on what is damaging. Is evidence of collusion and cooperation between DNC, media (including sending articles for approval, leaking supposedly secret interview questions and creating content at the request of the campaign, to be published as independently created) and Clinton campaign to get Clinton elected damaging? It might be if you value free press and honest election process, or it might be OK for you if you agree that getting Clinton elected is the ultimate goal.[1]

Is evidence of financial ties of Clinton and foundation aides to Russian oligarchy damaging? Depends on whether you think being financially tied to Putin and claiming Trump is in Putin's pocket in the same time is something bad to do or a clever game?

Is evidence of pay-for-play arrangements between State Dept., Clinton foundation and foreign investors - including same persons working for both at the same time - damaging or just a successful charity that nobody has to be ashamed of?

Is revelation that the president knew what he claimed to have no knowledge of damaging or just a clever tactic to defeat attacks?

Is revelation that Supreme Court was (successfully) pressured into making certain decisions by threatening to make it a campaign issue otherwise damaging or just a successful management?

Is calling your voters "needy latinos"[2] and Catholics "amazing bastardization of the faith"[3] damaging or just funny banter?

Is telling "we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry"[4] and complaining "compliance is obviously fading rapidly" damaging or accurate assessment of their electoral strategy?

It all depends on your point of view, I guess.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak...

[2] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak...

[3] http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinto...

[4] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by mentalpiracy on Monday October 17, 2016 @05:18PM (#12729877)

Slightly orthogonal to your #5: are you in a current job role where you ever bring up the topic of your customers or your clients in casual discussion? Do you ever refer to either group in less-than-stellar terms?

For my part, I do both. I have bitched and kvetched at times about my clients being cripplingly needy, aggressively brain dead, and the like. I certainly wouldn't say it to their faces, and it doesn't mean I don't rely on their dollars to support my business. Nor either does it mean I am producing lesser-quality work for them.

This is a non-issue. People everywhere bitch about the outsiders they have to deal with in language that would never be used in business proper.

It is a massive chasm of difference between calling a group "needy" and categorizing them as illegals, rapists and murderers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut' by smsm42 on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @01:22PM (#12736700)

I would never ever use such language in work email. You are always one wrong click away from everything being sent to your clients or to the whole wide world. There's a "New York Times principle" applicable to work emails - don't write anything you couldn't deal with if it were on the front page of the New York Times.

Now, if I were talking one on one with peers over beers, that's a different matter. There is much more freedom and it would allow some things said which are not meant to be heard by anybody not in the audience.

> People everywhere bitch about the outsiders they have to deal with in language that would never be used in business proper.

This is not exactly business - those are people that pretend to be champions of those "needy latinos" and represent them. It's a higher bar than just business transaction - I would have no problem doing business with a person I disagree with on everything and who maybe secretly hates me, as long as the business end is fine I'm fine. But I probably prefer to choose somebody else to represent me and speak for me.

[ Parent | on HN ]