Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.
Renegade:
Then there's this alternative:
http://gawker.com/naomi-wolf-is-a-snowden-truther-513470303
"Specifically, Wolf wishes to convey her "creeping concern" that Snowden "is not who he purports to be." Who is he, then? Signs point to his being one of them. You know: THEM.
...
""He is super-organized, for a whistleblower"—so organized, his methods resemble those of "high-level political surrogates."
"He conveys his message "without struggling for words." Again, like a political surrogate. "
"...Julian Assange is careful to keep lots of lawyers around him, unlike Snowden, who is suspiciously well organized and composed, except for his failure to get a lawyer. Because Julian Assange is the genuine article, not like Snowden, and whistleblowers who are the genuine article "don’t tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice," which is a thing that Julian Assange would never dream of doing in a million years. "
-TaoPhoenix (September 29, 2013, 02:40 PM)
--- End quote ---
She could be right. I rather doubt it, but it is possible. Panopticon? They can't look everywhere, so if people think they are, they modify their behaviour? Trauma-based behaviour modification?
While I rather doubt it, there's nothing wrong with entertaining possibilities.
The NSA and its cohorts have done worse. e.g. Charles Taylor was a CIA asset/agent - look what he did in Africa.
Renegade:
So @Renegade, how much cream and sugar do you have in your coffee? I drink coffee by the mug-full and prefer milk, not cream - just a dash, and of the skimmed variety, not full cream.
Sugar, I like maybe a level teaspoon-full in the mornings, and at most a half teaspoon-full in cups of coffee after that. I love coffee. :-*
I didn't know this was going to be a discussion about coffee. How nice!
-IainB (September 29, 2013, 09:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
Hahaha! ;D :Thmbsup:
Milk here too. Once in a while I like steamed/foamed milk in my coffee. But not drip coffee for me. Nosiree! Watered-down espresso. Americano. With a bit of sugar to take the bitterness out. Sometimes malt extract, but then I run out of malt extract and am back to sugar. Never artificial sweetener though. I tried stevia, but prefer malt extract.
Did anyone see the last Dancing with the Stars? There's a new show out now as well, Masters of Sex. Haven't seen that one yet...
TaoPhoenix:
Then there's this alternative:
http://gawker.com/naomi-wolf-is-a-snowden-truther-513470303
"Specifically, Wolf wishes to convey her "creeping concern" that Snowden "is not who he purports to be." Who is he, then? Signs point to his being one of them. You know: THEM.
...
""He is super-organized, for a whistleblower"—so organized, his methods resemble those of "high-level political surrogates."
"He conveys his message "without struggling for words." Again, like a political surrogate. "
"...Julian Assange is careful to keep lots of lawyers around him, unlike Snowden, who is suspiciously well organized and composed, except for his failure to get a lawyer. Because Julian Assange is the genuine article, not like Snowden, and whistleblowers who are the genuine article "don’t tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice," which is a thing that Julian Assange would never dream of doing in a million years. "
-TaoPhoenix (September 29, 2013, 02:40 PM)
--- End quote ---
She could be right. I rather doubt it, but it is possible. Panopticon? They can't look everywhere, so if people think they are, they modify their behaviour? Trauma-based behaviour modification?
While I rather doubt it, there's nothing wrong with entertaining possibilities.
The NSA and its cohorts have done worse. e.g. Charles Taylor was a CIA asset/agent - look what he did in Africa.
-Renegade (September 29, 2013, 09:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
When you are faced with total confusion, it's not all bad to entertain Black Sheep theories. I am struck by the changes in tone vs two other people I feel did almost the same "work", Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Except it's like The System ran dry shutting those stories down old school style, and finally the deep social threads are in place where Snowden is ... doing something. And not in jail.
And that colossal cognitive dissonance is kinda eating me. I'm slightly to (which?) side of you politically/rhetorically, but we're sorta kindred in our general distrust of pablum. So I have this long running sense from a table gaming perspective (both Magic the Gathering and Chess and a little bit of card Solitaire theory in the mix!) that there's X missing fragments of info that aren't making correct sense of the "tableau".
And whether by systemic flaws or design the Media isn't (easily findable?) pointing those out (often enough?).
Renegade:
When you are faced with total confusion, it's not all bad to entertain Black Sheep theories. I am struck by the changes in tone vs two other people I feel did almost the same "work", Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. Except it's like The System ran dry shutting those stories down old school style, and finally the deep social threads are in place where Snowden is ... doing something. And not in jail.
And that colossal cognitive dissonance is kinda eating me. I'm slightly to (which?) side of you politically/rhetorically, but we're sorta kindred in our general distrust of pablum. So I have this long running sense from a table gaming perspective (both Magic the Gathering and Chess and a little bit of card Solitaire theory in the mix!) that there's X missing fragments of info that aren't making correct sense of the "tableau".
-TaoPhoenix (September 30, 2013, 07:01 PM)
--- End quote ---
+1
I have one rant/argument about strong atheism that in the abstract applies broadly to other areas, including "conspiracy theories". I'll frame it as such here.
These are 2 very different beliefs:
A) I do NOT believe that Edward Snowden is acting as an intelligence agent for the sake of destabilizing the government.
B) I believe that Edward Snowden is NOT acting as an intelligence agent for the sake of destabilizing the government.
A is a weak belief.
B is a strong belief.
Strong negative beliefs don't really make much sense most of the time. Unless there is evidence that is existentially incompatible with it, they're simply nonsense.
For example, I am sitting at my desk. Sitting and standing are mutually exclusive. So, the following strong belief makes sense:
I believe that I am not standing.
Still, it's rather stupid as it would make more sense to say:
I believe that I am sitting.
Positive statements are better than negative statements.
For that particular theory about Snowden, while we may not believe it, it doesn't make much sense to have a strong belief unless there is clear evidence that is existentially incompatible with it (evidence that is mutually exclusive from it), which we do not have.
And whether by systemic flaws or design the Media isn't (easily findable?) pointing those out (often enough?).
-TaoPhoenix (September 30, 2013, 07:01 PM)
--- End quote ---
Probably a bit of both - systemic flaws and by design. There are decent alternative media outlets, though it can be difficult to find them, and sometimes you have to sort some chaff.
wraith808:
A CEO who resisted NSA spying is out of prison. And he feels ‘vindicated’ by Snowden leaks.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version