fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/17/greg-gutfeld-guilt...

Gutfeld is something of a dollar-store Jon Stewart wannabe, but I'm pleased he has the guts (pun intended) to call out his own network's fleeting romance with the Assange machine.

Fox News wrote:
The guilty sins of WikiLeaks and our wicked approval

Before I unload on WikiLeaks, let me make myself clear:

I don't care much for Hillary Clinton.

I can't stand many of her ardent supporters, who frankly, can't stand me either.

As a buddy of mine said about the election: "I don't like Trump much, but I know Hillary hates me more."

That's how I feel, and think, too. Why support someone who despises me, my beliefs, and my contributions to society?

But it still does not make WikiLeaks -- which is currently targeting Hillary's campaign -- okay.

"Hacking" is jargon for theft.

We conservatives pride ourselves on calling something as it is. We harass President Obama daily for his inability to say "radical Islam." We openly mock the gender monsoon of pronouns offered to students; we deride politicians who call taxes "revenue."

And yet, we're A-OK with calling theft of personal information, a "hack."

No kids, it's "theft." And, if it were happening to someone you like, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs.

Lucky us, it's only happening to Democrats!

Thus we see the consequence of team sport politics. We hate goons on the other side, but we love our goons nonetheless. For now, WikiLeaks is our goon.

For now. Until that goon comes for you.

It's the crocodile that eats you last.


Now there are some lightweight thinkers who simplistically recite this common ruse: "if you have nothing to hide, then hacking should not bother you."

That is hardly the point.

First of all, if you have nothing to hide, then you're a hopeless bore. Every interesting person has stuff in their heads and in their pasts that make them perversely human.

Second, it is not up to you to decide whether their personal communications are YOUR property.

Emails are as private as private can get: it's when people talk about their lives, their loves, their hatreds, their petty opinions, their desperate pleas for forgiveness, their wild drunken boasts, their racy poems, their intimate grief, their sullen sign offs and boozy flirtations.

As to the argument that WikiLeaks is performing a service that our mainstream media has abdicated -- does that mean you'd prefer the mainstream media to steal people's emails, too?

What's offensive is not what's in those emails, but that one would be "offended" by private info you happen to be picking through as if it's a bargain bin at a record store. If you're upset about some stranger's feelings expressed in an email about religion, then that's on you for invading that person’s privacy. You aren't God. You aren't supposed to see everything.

And ... how dare anyone comment on the "tone" of an email? So, are we now all supposed to adjust our private thoughts and feelings based on how someone else perceives our "tone?" It's none of anyone's business, and it's frankly creepy that anyone would care about tone in something that ain't your business.

Fact: if you're remotely interesting, this invasion WILL happen to you. Trust me.

As for the argument that we have a right to invade the personal sock drawers of public servants as an issue of transparency, then that means we can apply that to all arenas of work.

Take media. You could say that, "because we get our information from these servants of media, we should know what they really think behind closed doors." So, "hack them."

Take health care. We trust doctors and nurses with our lives, so "we have every right to see what they think behind closed doors." So "hack them."

Take gas, electric, auto, or oil company employees. The left might see them as causes of climate change, so "we have every right to see what they think behind closed doors."

You're in the military? If you're supporting the war industry, then I have a right, etc.

You can apply this logic to anyone, and everyone.

Ben & Jerry's products cause obesity -- which leads to premature death. -- I wonder if they ever discuss that in their private emails!

The Catholic Church claims their pope is infallible -- well, I want to see HIS emails!!

And, if you happily announce, for lack of a coherent argument -- that "who cares -- this is a new era! Privacy is dead!" -- you do so under a cloud of ignorance.

And, even more important: you are banking on your own failures as a human.

For if you think you're safe from the prying eyes of the media, political groups, spies and thieves -- it's only because you think your life is worthless. You somehow believe that no one would want anything from you: you're boring, insignificant, a piece of nothing floating in the atmosphere.

Yep, you conclude, people only "hack" important people.

The fact that you don't care about these violations is a reveal of how little you care about yourself.

And that's a big mistake. For if you communicate with others, about things, about life, about whatever -- someone will find value in it -- either on purpose or accidentally.

Look at Ken Bone, that seemingly decent nobody who happened to ask a question at the last town hall-style presidential debate. Catapulted to fame -- all 15 minutes of it-- he ends up being exposed as a guy who leaves comments on porn threads. Turns out he likes to talk about porn, and his vasectomy. And that's now a story that he must deal with because America suddenly took an interest in him, and therefore a prurient interest in him, too. It was as if Gawker never left us.

So, if you applaud WikiLeaks now for their decision to publicize the contents of stolen emails handed over to them, in all probability from Russian actors, pretend for a moment that those emails belonged to you, or your dad, or your mom.

If you state you have nothing to hide, then either you're lying or the least interesting person on earth.

I hope, for your sake, you're lying.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I will admit that I am the least interesting person in the world. However, I will also admit that Gutfield is absolutely, positively correct.

Sure, there's lots and lots of shit said in Hillary's emails, the juicy details of which many people will want to point to as a reason not to elect her as president. I guarantee there's lots and lots of shit in Donald's as well, and my previous sentence would bear exactly the same meaning if I substituted "Trump" for "Hillary". Of course, I could substitute just about every other politician, and it too would be a true statement. But as someone on these boards once suggested, force the politicians to wear body cams if you want to know what they do "behind closed doors" - don't make their emails available to the general public through theft.

It's not okay to record a conversation without someone's permission - it shouldn't be okay to steal their emails either.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
And it might be different if the contents of these email dumps were mentioned in passing as part of a larger story, but the problem isn't just that Fox News are the first media outlet to blare out the latest email dump (are we up to ten email dumps now? I've lost count) but they are in such desperation to find something, anything that will "stick" that they have reduced themselves to parsing peoples' private emails in the hopes that Hillary's tone comes off as negative. Think about that: Conservatives, the people who routinely declare the supposed apocalypse of "political correctness" reduced to rooting through private emails for "tone" violations.

It smacks of petty, partisan desperation of the lowest order.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Gutfield surprised me with this, but I guess the man does have integrity. I disagree with him on one issue: government e-mails between government officials concerning government business should be available to the public via FOIA requests.

Beyond that -- well children, you're made your beds. Life is going to be (A) totally accessible to everyone, and (B) the vast majority of feedback you receive from your public life will be hateful, disparaging, even threatening. You folks want to walk around staring at your hands living a "viral life," well, here ya go.*

*--Which is why I'm not on Facebook, Twitter, Instragram, Skype, etc. Shit, I've ordered exactly ONE item online in my life -- my wife's favorite perfume.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I also agree that how they are being used is really low. But... the precedent was set years ago. Back when the subject of WikiLeaks was different, Assange was a hero. And since his target was one who you vilified, then there was nothing wrong with what he was doing, leaking emails and communication.

WikiLeaks is doing nothing different now than what they were doing before. The only difference now is the target and how people are using what is being leaked. People aren't dealing in broad strokes, they are getting granular. And yes, the reason they are doing so is petty, but the info is out there and people can do with it what they will. It was hunky-dorry before, but now that it's not, the genie is out of the bottle.

Eric Snowden: hero. Julian Assange: bit of a dirtbag. But unlike most of you who are just getting on board that train now that Hillary is the target of the leaks, I've always felt that way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
GameCrossing wrote:
I also agree that how they are being used is really low. But... the precedent was set years ago. Back when the subject of WikiLeaks was different, Assange was a hero. And since his target was one who you vilified, then there was nothing wrong with what he was doing, leaking emails and communication.

WikiLeaks is doing nothing different now than what they were doing before. The only difference now is the target and how people are using what is being leaked. People aren't dealing in broad strokes, they are getting granular. And yes, the reason they are doing so is petty, but the info is out there and people can do with it what they will. It was hunky-dorry before, but now that it's not, the genie is out of the bottle.

Eric Snowden: hero. Julian Assange: bit of a dirtbag. But unlike most of you who are just getting on board that train now that Hillary is the target of the leaks, I've always felt that way.
First off: It's Edward Snowden, not Eric.
Second, WikiLeaks helped Chelsea Manning reveal alleged warcrimes videos to the world. Which is a far cry from these low-level persistent data-dumps of private everyday communications between bureacrats and politicians.
So you are peddling a false equivalence here. (In addition to mixing up your Snowdens and your Mannings.)

But I will award 10 smug points for that last self-righteous bit of "I've always felt that way."
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
I also agree that how they are being used is really low. But... the precedent was set years ago. Back when the subject of WikiLeaks was different, Assange was a hero. And since his target was one who you vilified, then there was nothing wrong with what he was doing, leaking emails and communication.

WikiLeaks is doing nothing different now than what they were doing before. The only difference now is the target and how people are using what is being leaked. People aren't dealing in broad strokes, they are getting granular. And yes, the reason they are doing so is petty, but the info is out there and people can do with it what they will. It was hunky-dorry before, but now that it's not, the genie is out of the bottle.

Eric Snowden: hero. Julian Assange: bit of a dirtbag. But unlike most of you who are just getting on board that train now that Hillary is the target of the leaks, I've always felt that way.
First off: It's Edward Snowden, not Eric.
Second, WikiLeaks helped Chelsea Manning reveal alleged warcrimes videos to the world. Which is a far cry from these low-level persistent data-dumps of private everyday communications between bureacrats and politicians.
So you are peddling a false equivalence here. (In addition to mixing up your Snowdens and your Mannings.)

But I will award 10 smug points for that last self-righteous bit of "I've always felt that way."


I would also add that Wikileaks' motive is different this time around. They are deliberately trying to influence an election by intentionally timing when documents are released and specifically targeting one party. That Russia is probably the source behind the hacked emails is also disturbing.

I can only imagine how conservatives in this forum would scream if China hacked RNC emails, and leaked them, in an effort to influence our election. Maybe someday we'll find out. Until then most conservatives here appear to be "ends justify the means" sort of people that don't care if foreign governments hack emails in an effort to influence our Republic.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"Don't be humble... you're not that great."
Avatar
mbmbmb
Well, come on. I mean, Democrats have been riding the train from the outcome of private leaked conversations of Trump. I think we would all be a little hypocritical if we complained about privacy and Wikileaks while still being OK with that.

My only concern, if is the so called "leaked" emails are even real. If the information is real, then I say roll with the punches. If they are fake, well, that is bad.
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
I also agree that how they are being used is really low. But... the precedent was set years ago. Back when the subject of WikiLeaks was different, Assange was a hero. And since his target was one who you vilified, then there was nothing wrong with what he was doing, leaking emails and communication.

WikiLeaks is doing nothing different now than what they were doing before. The only difference now is the target and how people are using what is being leaked. People aren't dealing in broad strokes, they are getting granular. And yes, the reason they are doing so is petty, but the info is out there and people can do with it what they will. It was hunky-dorry before, but now that it's not, the genie is out of the bottle.

Eric Snowden: hero. Julian Assange: bit of a dirtbag. But unlike most of you who are just getting on board that train now that Hillary is the target of the leaks, I've always felt that way.
First off: It's Edward Snowden, not Eric.
Second, WikiLeaks helped Chelsea Manning reveal alleged warcrimes videos to the world. Which is a far cry from these low-level persistent data-dumps of private everyday communications between bureacrats and politicians.
So you are peddling a false equivalence here. (In addition to mixing up your Snowdens and your Mannings.)

But I will award 10 smug points for that last self-righteous bit of "I've always felt that way."


So just to make sure where we're at, could you please spell out how Assange went from being a disseminator of truth to an right-wing shill in the pocket of Trump and Putin? Does he have gambling debts he has to pay off or something?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it's more of a "stopped clock is still right twice a day" thing.

Wikileaks publishes stuff other news outlets won't, can't or don't publish. Sometimes it's stuff which IMO is in the public interest to have out in the world, like the Manning stuff.

Sometimes its evidence that people speak differently in their private emails than they do in public, which IMO is maybe not so much in the public interest and when it one-sidedly targets a single political party during the critical moments of an election, starts to feel very politically motivated.

He may always have been an alt-right shill, but he did some good stuff. He may not be an alt-right shill now, but he is doing some alt-right shill stuff now.

I don't know the man personally, but I do know that even though I liked the fact that he got some info out there that needed to be out there, even if he was a bad guy back then, and I don't like the fact that he's participating in this anti-Hillary hack / October surprise / Russian attempt to throw the election to Trump even if in his heart he's still a good guy. I don't know the guy or care that much about his motivations, I just don't like what he's currently doing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I would also add that Wikileaks' motive is different this time around. They are deliberately trying to influence an election by intentionally timing when documents are released and specifically targeting one party. That Russia is probably the source behind the hacked emails is also disturbing.

I can only imagine how conservatives in this forum would scream if China hacked RNC emails, and leaked them, in an effort to influence our election. Maybe someday we'll find out. Until then most conservatives here appear to be "ends justify the means" sort of people that don't care if foreign governments hack emails in an effort to influence our Republic.


So you're saying that Wikileaks is bad because they're acting like NBC but against Hillary instead of Trump?


While that may be a little funny (I started to laugh, but then caught myself), it's also a poor, poor analogy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I would also add that Wikileaks' motive is different this time around. They are deliberately trying to influence an election by intentionally timing when documents are released and specifically targeting one party. That Russia is probably the source behind the hacked emails is also disturbing.

I can only imagine how conservatives in this forum would scream if China hacked RNC emails, and leaked them, in an effort to influence our election. Maybe someday we'll find out. Until then most conservatives here appear to be "ends justify the means" sort of people that don't care if foreign governments hack emails in an effort to influence our Republic.


So you're saying that Wikileaks is bad because they're acting like NBC but against Hillary instead of Trump?


Nailed it.

It's been fun watching Assange move from "Hail, O Great Truth-teller!" to "Total Tool of the Russians!" now that he's leaking stuff that harms Democrats.


The stuff Wikileaks leaked years ago also hurt Democrats, but didn't bother me like their latest effort. Why try to deliberately influence an election with hacked emails from another nation state? That's not Wikileaks' mission. Or at least it didn't used to be.

Julian Assange must REALLY hate Hillary Clinton. Apparently that's Wikileaks' new mission.

4 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What's weird to me is why Wikileaks is even involved? Why doesn't the Russian secret service just release the emails itself?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
What's weird to me is why Wikileaks is even involved? Why doesn't the Russian secret service just release the emails itself?


I think there would be some serious diplomatic repercussions if Russia openly admitted to trying to influence our election.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xuzu Horror
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
mrspank wrote:
I would also add that Wikileaks' motive is different this time around. They are deliberately trying to influence an election by intentionally timing when documents are released and specifically targeting one party. That Russia is probably the source behind the hacked emails is also disturbing.

I can only imagine how conservatives in this forum would scream if China hacked RNC emails, and leaked them, in an effort to influence our election. Maybe someday we'll find out. Until then most conservatives here appear to be "ends justify the means" sort of people that don't care if foreign governments hack emails in an effort to influence our Republic.


So you're saying that Wikileaks is bad because they're acting like NBC but against Hillary instead of Trump?


I agree that NBC shouldn't have recorded Trump without his knowledge (if he was unaware of the recording).

This is not 2 wrongs make a right.

We either respect privacy or we don't.

And, while sometimes a whistle blowing leak is necessary when there are no proper outlets or channels to work in the system, it is a quite different thing to be hacking into a system.

Lastly, it's obvious that Wikileaks has a very clear political objective, which just makes it worse.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
GameCrossing wrote:
So just to make sure where we're at, could you please spell out how Assange went from being a disseminator of truth to an right-wing shill in the pocket of Trump and Putin? Does he have gambling debts he has to pay off or something?
Your characterization of Assange as some sort of liberal superhero truth-teller is inaccurate. The liberals I know think Snowden is worthy of pardon, but various documentaries released in the last decade can tell you all you need to know about Assange.

And my criticism is less against Assange/WikiLeaks than it is against Trump's rightwing lap-dogs who sadly attempt to spin garbage into gold while violating their own supposed moral high-ground by sending their legions of unpaid interns scurrying through John Podesta's leaked emails. So until Assange can dig up some worthwhile occurrences instead of gossip best described as "Yes, Hillary has to deal with PR optics" then I have to give it the combination head-shake smiley shake with the yawning smiley snore
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mrspank wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
What's weird to me is why Wikileaks is even involved? Why doesn't the Russian secret service just release the emails itself?


I think there would be some serious diplomatic repercussions if Russia openly admitted to trying to influence our election.



Exactly. Assange is the beard for the Russians to hide behind, to give them some level of plausible deniability.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So I remember when the Manning stuff came out, what gave it its credibility was that it was sourced to Manning. We all think the source of these emails is russian state hackers, but has Wikileaks itself provided any source information that would add credibility to the claim that some or all of these emails are genuine?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The play's the thing ...
Australia
Point Lonsdale
Victoria
flag msg tools
badge
Where they make a desert, they call it peace.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
I also agree that how they are being used is really low. But... the precedent was set years ago. Back when the subject of WikiLeaks was different, Assange was a hero. And since his target was one who you vilified, then there was nothing wrong with what he was doing, leaking emails and communication.

WikiLeaks is doing nothing different now than what they were doing before. The only difference now is the target and how people are using what is being leaked. People aren't dealing in broad strokes, they are getting granular. And yes, the reason they are doing so is petty, but the info is out there and people can do with it what they will. It was hunky-dorry before, but now that it's not, the genie is out of the bottle.

Eric Snowden: hero. Julian Assange: bit of a dirtbag. But unlike most of you who are just getting on board that train now that Hillary is the target of the leaks, I've always felt that way.
First off: It's Edward Snowden, not Eric.
Second, WikiLeaks helped Chelsea Manning reveal alleged warcrimes videos to the world. Which is a far cry from these low-level persistent data-dumps of private everyday communications between bureacrats and politicians.
So you are peddling a false equivalence here. (In addition to mixing up your Snowdens and your Mannings.)

But I will award 10 smug points for that last self-righteous bit of "I've always felt that way."


So just to make sure where we're at, could you please spell out how Assange went from being a disseminator of truth to an right-wing shill in the pocket of Trump and Putin? Does he have gambling debts he has to pay off or something?


What the fuck else is there to do in the Ecuadorean embassy. Man they must be getting sick of their little house guest. I love how Assange tried to get elected to the Australian Senate but the people of Western Australia torpedoed that brainwave.
And while Wikileaks 'helped' Chelsea Manning it didn't do much for her once her trial started and Assange went with the freedom of speech is great when it applies to anyone else but me approach.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
When Wikileaks went against the Bush administration and revealed all of its controversies, you hailed them as champions of transparency.

Now that they are exposing the corruption of the Democrats, they are anathema.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.