Fifth Estate, Third Rail

[SexyGarfield]

The real Assange, as of this writing still holed-up in a London embassy avoiding sexual misconduct charges a thinly veiled attempt at extradition to the USA [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum], has denounced the film as falsehood and propaganda, charges Cumberbatch cheekily recites at the film's climax

Fixed that for you

 

[Daymo]

The real Assange, as of this writing still holed-up in a London embassy avoiding sexual misconduct charges a thinly veiled attempt at extradition to the USA [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum], has denounced the film as falsehood and propaganda, charges Cumberbatch cheekily recites at the film's climax

Fixed that for you

Clearly you haven't read article 3 of the USA's extradition treaty with Switzerland.

 

[SexyGarfield]

The real Assange, as of this writing still holed-up in a London embassy avoiding sexual misconduct charges a thinly veiled attempt at extradition to the USA [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum], has denounced the film as falsehood and propaganda, charges Cumberbatch cheekily recites at the film's climax

Fixed that for you

Clearly you haven't read article 3 of the USA's extradition treaty with Switzerland.

You site article 3 but the only thing I see in there other than a minimum time frame for revocation of liberties (aka incarceration) of the extradited is that the crime must be one of the ones listed in article 2. However in later articles it sites that extradition may (implying that article two is not a a complete list of crimes for which one can be extradited for) be refused if stipulations in article 2 are not met. If you are referring to something else in article 3 please quote the relevant text and your reasoning.

 

[SexyGarfield]

Furthermore since any offense the USA gov could charge him with would have been committed outside of USA's territorial jurisdiction according to article 1 articles 2 and 3 do not apply, only article 4.

*Edit* Clearly you haven't read anything on Julian Assange's legal woes as it is Sweden not Switzerland that is charging him with sexual misconduct. Nice diversion though, can't believe I didn't notice sooner.

 

[maxben]

Because psychologically, conservatism is meant to represent putting things in boxes of good and evil while progressives are meant to be more grey-area folk.
This is obviously not true when you look at certain groups on either side (live and let live libertarians versus hardcore socialists fighting evil), but that's one of the findings in psychological research on political affiliation.

Seems to be a trait that is way too vague and lacking in relevancy to ascribe to either side of politics. It's almost like saying "brown hair is a liberal value" if statistically more liberals have brown hair - it's so unrelated to actual policy and politics as to be meaningless.

In any case, you said the opposite of the person I was replying to, who described 'consistency' as a progressive value, and you are describing it as a conservative trait. When we can't agree on the nature of such descriptors, it might be an indication they should be removed from the discourse as irrelevant.

Oh, and a postscript to "why is there more political discussion about games these days" comment I partially addressed up-thread: the biggest reason why, outweighing every other reason by a wide margin: the internet. There's more discussion about everything due to it. It has become so ubiquitous, that we almost forget it's there.

There has always been political discussion on games (remember the big scare over Dungeons and Dragons back in the 1980s?) It's just that the internet has made it much more accessible to everybody. This obviously doesn't mean a higher standard of discussion - just a lot more of it is visible.

Actually, what he said is that refusing to accept consistency is the progressive value, go reread what he said. That is what the grey area is, an area where judgements are fluid. I disagree strongly with your reference to brown hair. Political beliefs come about from our moral beliefs, which themselves come about from the way that we see the world. To reject this cause and effect seems weird. And yes, such research is based on correlation and statistics, there is nothing wrong with that regardless what "purer" sciences will have you believe. Political psychology is its own field and if you are interested more in this topic you ought to look into it.

I absolutely agree with you about the Internet, but games are also more "controversial" today. D&D was controversial to those who believe in demons. GTA 3 was controversial to those who believe that beating up hookers is a bad thing, and no one thought that pong was controversial.

 

[maninahat]

I am not sure why so many critics have recently addressed the issue of politics in media, but since he put it a lot better than me, I will leave this here:

I'm glad too see, that I'm not the only one on this site who watches Errant Signal.

Count me in as a viewer too. Speaking of which, Movie Bob could do to watch Errant Signal's videos, if only to see the words "ludonarrative dissonance" being used properly.

 

[Daymo]

Furthermore since any offense the USA gov could charge him with would have been committed outside of USA's territorial jurisdiction according to article 1 articles 2 and 3 do not apply, only article 4.

*Edit* Clearly you haven't read anything on Julian Assange's legal woes as it is Sweden not Switzerland that is charging him with sexual misconduct. Nice diversion though, can't believe I didn't notice sooner.

Honestly thought it was Switzerland, my bad, anyway if the USA really wanted to take care of something, the law has never stood in their way before

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I feel like this movie came out too late to be relevant. Everyone I know effectively forgot about WikiLeaks like two years ago. It certainly doesn't help that the biggest lid blown off any political entity since WikiLeaks was created (the NSA surveillance scandal) came just a few months ago and WikiLeaks had jack-diddly to do with it. That's a sure sign of irrelevance to me.

 

[SexyGarfield]

I feel like this movie came out too late to be relevant. Everyone I know effectively forgot about WikiLeaks like two years ago. It certainly doesn't help that the biggest lid blown off any political entity since WikiLeaks was created (the NSA surveillance scandal) came just a few months ago and WikiLeaks had jack-diddly to do with it. That's a sure sign of irrelevance to me.

While they had nothing to do with the distribution/recovery of the data they did assist Snowden in his various attempts to seek asylum. The legal director of Wikileaks accompanied him [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-gchq] on his flight from Hong Kong and if I am not mistaken they have been providing him with counsel throughout this whole ordeal.

 

[Farther than stars]

Also the idea that 'consistency' is a bad thing or at least unrealistic points to a value judgement that places a progressive approach over a conservative one and thereby also denotes certain political sympathies.

What makes 'consistency' more of a progressive value than a conservative one, or vice-versa?

Well, traditionally progressives are the people who like to switch it up in a society and try to change it for the better, whereas conservatives tend to err on the side of caution, especially when things seem to 'be going fine the way they are'. Therefore conservatives value a society which remains more of less consistent; the verb 'conserve' literally encompasses this, meaning: 'to keep the same' or 'to keep from being spoiled', i.e. consistency.
A good example of a contemporary issue where the lines are clearly drawn is gay marriage. On this issue, progressives support gay marriage, because it is seen as equalizing and would thus make society more tolerant towards gay people. Conservatives oppose this issue, because they prefer the traditional view of marriage between a man and a woman. So they want to keep the definition of marriage consistent.
That's basically the political aspect of consistency, progressiveness/conservatism in a nutshell.

 

[ecoho]

Am I the only person who loathes Assange and all his WikiLeaks cronies?

never the only one my friend, and yes I hate them all too

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

 

[likalaruku]

I've been told that it is "highly inaccurate" but what Hollywood drama isn't?

 

[The Random One]

Not sure where you are getting at, Bob. Everything is indeed politics, and often choosing a middle-of-the-road argument is a way to try to be apolitical, which seems to be what this movie is doing, although not out of a desire to please both sides (which it could never be able to do anyway) but out of a desire to piss off both sides, thus generating controversy. Plus, most people don't have strong opinions one way or the other about this issue, so they're just being played to. People vaguely in favour of WikiLeaks will say "well at least the movie isn't badmouthing the movement itself!" while those vaguely against will say "well at least it's clear on how much of an evil person Assange is!" and those who are completely on the fence will say "finally someone will tell me a COMPLETELY UNBIASED version of this story!" Or at least this is what they're getting at. (Chelsea Manning's absence wouldn't be too strange from this perspective, since nowadays even saying her name or referring to her as "her" can be considered a political act.)

Because I'm apparently a conspiracy theorist trapped in the mind of a person with common sense, it's come across my mind that Julian Assange is either hamming up as a cult-leader style big personality, or has been thrown under the bus by his peers, so that all controversy would orbit around him and WikiLeaks himself would continue to work in the event of something like that which happened.

 

[Sarge034]

I believe that people in positions of power should be held accountable for the mistakes they make, just like any other citizen, and the people who operate Wikileaks stand in a unique position to hold said people accountable when they try to cover up their transgressions. As far as that line of reasoning goes, I have respect for the movement's motives.

However, on the other side of the coin, 'accountability' is exactly the problem I have with Wikileaks and Assange himself. He, and they, take it upon themselves to compile information that is extremely sensitive to the national security of several nations charge with the protection of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. It cannot be overstated just how much power an organisation like Wikileaks can hold; and they hold it, actively revelling in the fact that they are beholden to no rule of law or any body that could possibly enforce one. Granted, they wouldn't be able to do what they do if they were, but that doesn't make the situation any less concerning. They can hold others accountable, but they have no accountability themselves.

Who watches the watchmen? Amirite?

In all seriousness I could at least respect what wikileaks was trying to do if they actually shorted through ALL the files, cherry picked the damning cover-ups, and disposed of the rest of the intel. God knows there are enough shady political deals to keep them in business forever. However, some things need to at least come with context. The Routers people who were fired upon, and ultimately killed, were in the middle of a group of armed insurgents who were firing rounds in the air and in the general direction of the gunship. I'm sorry for their loss, but this is a fucking war and they decided to be in the middle of a group of armed combatants of all places? What if we (the US) had found and dropped a bomb on Bin Laden back when he was doing sporadic television interviews and killed a reporter doing an interview? Would that have been the military's fault? And then there is the inevitability of spies infiltrating wikileaks to see all of the classified information coming in before it was sorted.

But as for the real Julian Assange... I can not respect someone, especially someone who believes themselves to be a media entity, who would reveal confidential sources and put people's lives in eminent danger. And for what? Literally nothing is gained by that information other than the deaths of these people, but maybe that's what he wanted... I just don't know. In short, Julian Assange's life is as meaningless to me as those people's lives were to him.

Plus, most people don't have strong opinions one way or the other about this issue...

I don't think you know how wrong you actually are.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

A good example of a contemporary issue where the lines are clearly drawn is gay marriage. On this issue, progressives support gay marriage, because it is seen as equalizing and would thus make society more tolerant towards gay people. Conservatives oppose this issue, because they prefer the traditional view of marriage between a man and a woman. So they want to keep the definition of marriage consistent.
That's basically the political aspect of consistency, progressiveness/conservatism in a nutshell.

Except that this is an inconsistent definition of tradition. The idea that a man could only marry one woman is quite a modern thing, a "progressive" change from the days when men had multiple wives, or the days when the King had the right to sexual intercourse with a bride-to-be.

There is inconsistency throughout the spectrum of politics.

Many "conservatives" supposedly want government out of their lives, except when it comes to marriage, religion, the military and abortion. Many "progressives" want a return to nature and organic, local small-farm foods, but are also technophiles who constantly use high-tech products created by global corporations.

Consistency is neither a liberal or conservative value. The very idea of an entirely consistent ideology without compromise is basically impossible in the modern world, and the labels of "conservative" and "progressive" are pretty much useless.

 

[ecoho]

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Yes, I'm serious, and why is it naïve?

If killing people goes against our social values/morals, then how is killing people a valid punishment?

That's just hypocrisy. Not to mention the problems with people who are killed and then are found to be innocent, after the ultimate punishment has been dealt. You can free somebody from prison if they are later found to be not guilty, you can't undo the death penalty.

How does sentencing somebody to death undo the criminal act and its effects? It's just revenge fantasy at that point.

 

[SexyGarfield]

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

 

[ecoho]

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Yes, I'm serious, and why is it naïve?

If killing people goes against our social values/morals, then how is killing people a valid punishment?

That's just hypocrisy. Not to mention the problems with people who are killed and then are found to be innocent, after the ultimate punishment has been dealt. You can free somebody from prison if they are later found to be not guilty, you can't undo the death penalty.

How does sentencing somebody to death undo the criminal act and its effects? It's just revenge fantasy at that point.

very simple answer a dead person cant kill again, you know like most murders do.

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.