Dread Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 The problem lies, in part, in the idea that the most effective way to stand up to a tyranny is to stand and voice your opposition. Then, if you aren't being listened to, you fight against oppression. No one should know that more than the American people. What we are facing here is essentially a technocracy. How does one fight something like that? I think that it is counterproductive in a way to engage in assault, but it's also the only thing that works. But that's only the case when all is said and done and a victory can be declared. Which pretty much came and went. I fear we're too far gone. They've already got us divided. It is the main form of our communication, and once they control that, we're all fucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted December 9, 2010 Report Share Posted December 9, 2010 That's a good point. I don't think it's quite at the point where virtual assaults are necessary, and starting virtual guerrilla attacks isn't the best way to go about this. All it's going to do is make those on the other side think that the internet is a lawless, dangerous form of media that needs to be controlled. I say go with the Martin Luther King approach, not the Malcolm X approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 The best wikileak yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 I'm pissed about the release of classified information, but I'm more pissed about the release of the names of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who have worked with US troops. That's the part that negates any freedom of speech or freedom of the press argument because there is strong legal precedence that they do not extend to circumstances in which they put people's lives in danger. Even if you generally have no problem with whistle blowers, with the mindset that it helps keep our governments honest, what wikileaks did was hugely irresponsible, and people are going to die or be harmed because of it. But hey, as long as it makes mean old United States look bad, who cares right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 I thought they redacted all the names? I know I've seen some with the names removed, and I heard that's what takes them so long releasing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted December 15, 2010 Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxPower Posted December 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 Haha, that's gold. What does everyone think of the online dating profile thing? At first I thought, no supporter of Wikileaks could complain without it being hypocritical. But if it was just the person who runs the site releasing it, isn't he ignoring his sites privacy T&C? Of course you could argue that Wikileaks is after 100% transparency, and that a reporter writing a story could find this info, which is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.