I'm not even sure what "selectively attack an enemy" means in this context. What Snowden disclosed was unequivocally bad, who cares what his motives were? We are not comparing soft drinks.

I interpret you as saying the act of disclosing this information was "unequivocally bad". Fair?

If so, no.

From the Apple dictionary, unequivocal means "leaving no doubt; unambiguous".

Please don't take this comment as "for" or "against" Snowden. Rather, please interpret this comment as "for" critical thinking and clear writing.

Students of philosophy and ethics, as well as many thoughtful people, know that weighing right and wrong is hardly simple. There are many schools of thought. Whatever one's views might be, it is clear that different people have different views of the ethics of Snowden's leaks.

For example, a utilitarian style philosophy could easily argue that Snowden's leaks resulted in more benefit than harm.

Your comment is sarcastic and unhelpful to any meaningful conversation.

That is part of the context. It might be one person's entire notion of the context. However, different people, all reasonable, may have different contexts.

Not realizing or recognizing this can contribute to thinking someone else is "off topic". But on what basis can one person claim that someone else is not on topic?

In these comments, myself (and others too) include information (and disinformation) tactics as part of the context here too.

I remember the trend on HN back when the Snowden leaks occurred. It wasn't palatable back then to express your views -- shooting the messenger, casting doubts on his motivations -- and most people were rightly appalled by the spying going on on Americans.

Thinking differently is a dangerous trend against whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are a good thing.

Unequivocally good. Yes, I used that word you dislike.

Yes, shooting the messenger and casting doubts on his motivations were (and are) tactics used when a message reflects poorly on someone or some thing.

For what it is worth, in my comments around here, I'm not using these tactics as a way to deflect criticism away from institutions that Snowden criticizes. There was a huge breach of public trust in the NSA.

At the same time, it is interesting and important to understand Snowden's motivations.

Do you intend this as an insult directed at me?

Yes, I separate out different comments intentionally, because I think they warrant separate points.

Your comments are mean-spirited. This is what you intended, right? To attack me?

It sounds like you are having cognitive dissonance. It seems to me that you have fixated on your definition of the context. In so doing, other perspectives aren't making sense to you. Having more flexibility might help you understand.

I can see it doesn't matter to you about Snowden's motives.

However, many informed and reasonable people care about his motives. Perhaps this can be a motivation to think more and dig deeper.