Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 797 posts

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#411

Post by adrienne »

grzm wrote: post #410
adrienne wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an "opinion" about which people can reasonably be on different pages in 2017. It's transphobic and disgusting. And of course i'm getting downvoted for speaking out about it, because this is, after all, Hacker News.

Please note I never claimed it was. I believe as you do that language is important. That includes choosing language I think will accomplish my goals, which is to encourage people to reflect and think about the issue. I don't think using language like "fucking disgusting" and "transphobic" are likely to convince the people you hope to reach to do anything other than get defensive and dig in. Do you? And Hacker News wi…

If i cared about convincing techbros i would probably use different language, yes. As it is, i think this community has a whole lot of really horrible people in it who think they are Very Rational And Smart and can't be taught. And i'm a woman, so they're doubly not going to listen to me. So i don't bother wasting my energy, mostly.

Like, i genuinely don't believe most of the people here are actually educable. I think they will continue to be sexist and transphobic forever and that trying to convince them to be otherwise is a bottomless sink of time and energy.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#412

Post by kjbflsudfb »

adrienne wrote: post #404
grzm wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an issue you (along with many others) are very passionate about. An earlier comment you made I think describes this particularly eloquently and civilly. She was always a woman; she just presented as a man for many years. The NYT presented the information quite well when they said, "Ms. Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009." https://news.ycombinator.co…

It's not an "opinion" about which people can reasonably be on different pages in 2017. It's transphobic and disgusting. And of course i'm getting downvoted for speaking out about it, because this is, after all, Hacker News.

I ask this seriously and not cynically: What are you trying to achieve with these comments? Are you hoping to educate people? Are you trying to scold people for not knowing better? The content of the article isn't about Manning's gender association, but your comments are only about that. I would suspect any downvotes are simply because it is off-topic..?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#413

Post by etjossem »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #385
etjossem wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. > Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the post-hoc fallacy. If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." You'll find it covers anyone who acts as an informant to reveal something illicit within an organization. For someone like y…

> post-hoc fallacy. You're just misquoting me. >If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." If you rely on dictionaries written at a third grade reading level as your source of meaning, you're doing it wrong.

When it comes to prescriptive definitions for words in the English language, I trust the concurrence of Merriam-Webster and Collins a bit more than I'm willing to trust your word. You won't convince me otherwise. If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count," you are welcome to take that point of view up with the publishers. Have a great day!

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#414

Post by manarth »

pvg wrote: post #398
manarth wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As to the page, the page about the incident. For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident" ?

You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.

I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to.

You've posted:

  The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was
  no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself.
You've then stated:

  you can just read the wikipedia page
You've gone on to say:

  As to the page, the page about the incident.
You've then stated:

  You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself
At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources.

It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#415

Post by peteretep »

rosser wrote: post #192
clashmoore wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book, "The Spy Who Couldn't Spell: A Dyslexic Traitor, an Unbreakable Code, and the FBI's Hunt for America's Stolen Secrets" by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee tells the story of an American intelligence worker who tried to pass off information to other governments just prior to Sept. 11th. His motivation was money (selling his secrets for millions of dollars) and when he was caught, he was hoping to have his sentence red…

Different circumstances. Spying for money should be treated radically differently than spying for conscience.

Wasn't she spying mostly out of pique?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#416

Post by vkou »

hendersoon wrote: post #313
vkou wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the rest was basically just normal communications. Which may have had wide-reaching consequences, with respect to the Arab Spring.

"May"? We're way past "may". The Arab Spring was catastrophic.

What part of it can be attributed to Manning..? And what part of it can be contributed to food insecurity, economic downturns, the despots running those countries tightening the screws, the CIA's involvement, a civil war in Iraq, the Department of State jumping on the opportunity to stick it to Putin by destabilizing Assad?

Are any other architects of these disasters serving 35 years?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#417

Post by adrienne »

kjbflsudfb wrote: post #412
adrienne wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an "opinion" about which people can reasonably be on different pages in 2017. It's transphobic and disgusting. And of course i'm getting downvoted for speaking out about it, because this is, after all, Hacker News.

I ask this seriously and not cynically: What are you trying to achieve with these comments? Are you hoping to educate people? Are you trying to scold people for not knowing better? The content of the article isn't about Manning's gender association, but your comments are only about that. I would suspect any downvotes are simply because it is off-topic..?

Even if you assume my comments are pointless pedantry - since when has pointless pedantry been uncommon or unwelcome on Hacker News?

It is wrong to misgender people. It is unacceptable. Why is it somehow more terrible to point that out than it is to do it in the first place?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#418

Post by grzm »

adrienne wrote: post #411
grzm wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please note I never claimed it was. I believe as you do that language is important. That includes choosing language I think will accomplish my goals, which is to encourage people to reflect and think about the issue. I don't think using language like "fucking disgusting" and "transphobic" are likely to convince the people you hope to reach to do anything other than get defensive and dig in. Do you? And Hacker News wi…

If i cared about convincing techbros i would probably use different language, yes. As it is, i think this community has a whole lot of really horrible people in it who think they are Very Rational And Smart and can't be taught. And i'm a woman, so they're doubly not going to listen to me. So i don't bother wasting my energy, mostly. Like, i genuinely don't believe most of the people here are actually educable. I thin…

Yet you continue to post. In all honesty, why do so? This is not meant in any way as a criticism. You've expressed this opinion of the HN community many times, so I'm genuinely interested why you continue to do so.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#419

Post by peteretep »

3pt14159 wrote: post #381
afterburner wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the Hillary e-mails are actually very chilling when you start reading through them" What chilled you, specifically?

Yeah, I read them and I came away liking her more.

Irritating that this is getting downvoted. I too felt the same way -- the "revelation" that she's a pragmatist acting in good faith did nothing to make me dislike her.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#420

Post by [deleted] »

ishields wrote: post #220
bmuon wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, non-native speaker here. But wouldn't "they" apply when you don't know when the gender of the person? In this case you do know.

"They" is the only option when you don't know the gender of the person but it is still valid even if you do know the gender, though less commonly used in that situation

[deleted]
Post reply on HN