Do you want a moral society? Or a free society? One is the Handmaiden’s Tale, the other is Mogadishu.

The two are not mutually exclusive or opposites on a spectrum. You can have a society which is neither moral nor free. It is possible to have a society which is both more moral and more free than the one we have.

This is a false dichotomy. The very concept of freedom is based on a moral philosophy.

There is a materialist sense of it too

Hey, I'm a little baffled by your mention of Mogadishu...what are you refering?

- for reference, the battle of mogadishu is the Black hawk down incident, and Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia.

I don't think handmaiden’s tale was a moral society. Hanging women on walls and raping them doesn't seem very moral. Oppression through purity propaganda more descriptive. A moral society wouldn't be oppressive and murderous.

It depends on how you define "moral", I guess. The people in power in that story believed themselves to be following the highest moral code of them all. You and I would of course disagree with their morals, but I think that's just evidence that "moral code" is an invented thing, and is something people agree on, not an absolute truth.

I am not a fan of the idea that "oh, the right people are mad, therefore it must have been a Good thing to do!" The same feathers would have been ruffled if Snowden had leaked our nuclear codes. The point is that he exposed wrongdoing, and the public agreed.

There are plenty of people who are punished by the state that the majority does not believe are "speaking an essential truth". For example: domestic terrorists.

> leaked our nuclear codes

You mean 00000000 ?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...

This story is a bit convoluted, mostly true but incomplete as the Ars article tells it.

From what I can gather, the way the system was originally meant to work is that each Minuteman squadron had five Launch Command Centers (LLCs), each with two men in them who would have to simultaneously turn their keys. In order for the missiles to fly normally, at least two of the five LLCs would have to command a launch. The computers in the LLCs contained launch codes which would be sent to the missiles, and these codes were never set to 00000000.

Disconcertingly, there was a 'backup' system that was meant to enable if the LLC lost electrical power, a single-vote timer. The single-vote timer would allow a single LLC (two men) to launch the missiles after a delay of at least one hour (during which time the order could be countermanded by one of the four other LLCs.) Sounds okay, except according to John H. Rubel these timers could be set to zero. So if the main power went out and the LLCs were running on backup power, a single LLC could have commanded the launch, and if the single-vote timer were set to zero, there would be no countermanding it.

To supplement the above systems, McNamara commanded the installation of another system (perhaps erroneously) called PAL, which would be required to arm the missiles but was itself insufficient to launch the missiles. According to Dr. Bruce Blair, it was this 'PAL' system for which the codes were set to 00000000, rendering it effectively moot.

LCC*

Dammit, how did I fuck that up?

Freudian slip exposing the military-industrial complex.

If you hit the right targets, you will get pushback. Not everyone who is shooting at the target has the same intentions. Exposing the state's nature to the populace and maiming the populace aren't the same intentions.

A similarly blunt application of your position is that everyone punished by the state deserves it. Neither of us should rush to such extremes.

> A similarly blunt application of your position is that everyone punished by the state deserves it.

No, it doesn't. My position is that you have to address each on a case-by-case basis and there is no blanket way to say "ah X people are mad, therefore it was Good/Bad".

There's a difference between releasing everything, and only releasing stuff Russia wants you to release, like Assange was doing.

The proof that this argument is not the true reason why he was targeted, is that he was targeted for rape. When there is such a great discrepancy between means and meaning, it’s when motives are dishonest, couldn’t be admitted in public, and wouldn’t pass a common man’s test.

And the fact that three different women brought credible allegations and he avoided extradition on them until time ran out to prosecute him.

He's gross. He's also a journalist and a hacker, not a whistleblower.

You should watch collateral murder and a million other thing released that #1 show atrocities, and what you take is a red scare cry? Nothing to see here because Russia?

your argument is 'nothing to see here (about russia) because US', which is even weaker

That's not true. Wikileaks was releasing all sorts of documents. I think the stuff about western governments just got a lot more attention because it broke through carefully crafted narratives and beliefs that people had about those governments. If some info about Russian corruption was released on Wikileaks, most Russians would be like "I already know most of these government people are corrupt, what is the news?"

I'm talking about Russia being all in on Trump in 2016, not about Russian corruption. Russia hacked the DNC and RNC. Only passed along the DNC to Assange, who released it. https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/12/10/report-russi...

So it's basically Assange working as a political agent of Russia and knowing it.

Snowden actually got a lot of support. I remember that even some high profile corporate executives expressed support... Though a cynical take on that would be that it was just to cover their own asses because they wanted to make themselves (and their companies/platforms) look like victims of government surveillance as opposed to facilitators.

Do you have sources to those executives expressing support?

The support was indirect but it helped to divert attention away from the 'criminal' aspect of Snowden's actions... Which is more than Assange ever got.

For example, I remember Marissa Mayer saying something about it at a critical time after the story broke. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/davos-2014-...

I think that's why a lot of Americans perceive Snowden much more favorably than Assange even though Assange technically never broke any laws.

I don't really think this is true. I view him unfavorably because he avoided extradition on rape, sexual assault, molestation, and sexual coercion charges until time ran out.

I sympathize with him for cracking the admin password to help Manning get documents anonymously, but it doesn't overshadow that he'll never have a day in court for the women who brought credible criminal allegations against him.

I think this is true of other whistleblowers too. The "good" ones that break no laws and do everything by the book... but in the end, no one wants to hire them.