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

Julian Assange in Limbo

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 177 posts

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#151

Post by dependenttypes »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #150
dependenttypes wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? It is still a break of the terms of the concent, is it not? How about an alternative, "you can have sex with me but only if you are single", and someone who is not single lies about it. During sex said person is not going to be single and thus is breaking the terms of concent while sex is happening.

> And? It is still a break of the terms of the concent, is it not? Assuming I understood your original hypothetical correctly, the sex had already occurred and the violation of the terms of consent did not occur until afterward. The sex at the time was consensual (at least within those facts), the violation of trust occurred later. > How about an alternative, "you can have sex with me but only if you are single", and…

Thank you for elaborating. I do not personally agree with it (as it feels like that you are re-defining the meaning of the word[note1] with one that is undermining what victims of rape went through by mixing it with less serious accusations) but I have to admit that it is consistent[note2].

[note1] Last time that I asked a similar question in HN I was told that even promising not to cheat and then cheating after the act would be considered as rape, meanwhile the people (outside of HN) that I asked and were unfamiliar with the Assange case seemed to think that neither were considered rape. When I checked at the laws of different countries it seemed that the few that considered it a crime classified it under other terms. (rape seems to imply violence or coercement)

[note2] If we ignore the edit that is. Not saying that the edit is not consistent but I will need your elaboration in order to be able to deduce it.

> Edit: this is not just academic. People make judgments not just about whether to have sex but about what kinds of safety considerations are necessary based on this kind of information. If someone is lying to you about having other sexual partners, you are not equipped to evaluate the risk of your own sexual encounter. They are putting your life at risk and eliminating your ability to choose whether that risk is acceptable.

Are you saying that it is fine as long as you are not put in risk? Because the previous example that I posted ("you can have sex with me but only if you are single") does not have any safety implications (someone can be single yet they could also had sex with someone else the previous day).

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#152

Post by didntknowyou »

us0r wrote: post #4

> After long research, his team of 120 counterintelligence officers hadn’t been able to find a single person, among the thousands of American agents and secret sources in Afghanistan and Iraq, who could be shown to have died because of the disclosures. Sounds like the NSA who couldn't point to a single instance of stopping any type of terrorist attack/operation despite collecting anything they could get their hands o…

well failure to find WMDs did not stop a war in Iraq so lack of evidence is hardly an obstacle to people's self interest.

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#153

Post by eyelidlessness »

dependenttypes wrote: post #151
eyelidlessness wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And? It is still a break of the terms of the concent, is it not? Assuming I understood your original hypothetical correctly, the sex had already occurred and the violation of the terms of consent did not occur until afterward. The sex at the time was consensual (at least within those facts), the violation of trust occurred later. > How about an alternative, "you can have sex with me but only if you are single", and…

Thank you for elaborating. I do not personally agree with it (as it feels like that you are re-defining the meaning of the word[note1] with one that is undermining what victims of rape went through by mixing it with less serious accusations) but I have to admit that it is consistent[note2]. [note1] Last time that I asked a similar question in HN I was told that even promising not to cheat and then cheating after the…

> it feels like that you are re-defining the meaning of the word > [...] > rape seems to imply violence or coercement

I think you're redefining the term, whether you intend to or not. Rape is sex without consent. Sex without consent is inherently coercive, but it doesn't have to imply a struggle or resistance, quite a lot of rape isn't physically forced sex. Consent obtained by fraud is not consent, and sex under those conditions is inherently nonconsensual.

> with one that is undermining what victims of rape went through by mixing it with less serious accusations

You may have missed this in another subthread, but I'm a victim of sexual assault. The majority of women in my personal life who I've spoken with about the subject are as well, and several of the men and nonbinary folks as well. Again, whether you intend to or not, I think it's you who is undermining what victims have gone through. Finding out that you've had sex in violation of the terms you agreed to can be extremely traumatizing.

> Are you saying that it is fine as long as you are not put in risk? Because the previous example that I posted ("you can have sex with me but only if you are single") does not have any safety implications (someone can be single yet they could also had sex with someone else the previous day).

No, that is not what I was saying. My edit was to clarify that the answer I gave to your hypothetical wasn't just "is it rape or is it not" in some abstract sense, and to provide an explanation of the kind of harm that can be done by your hypothetical, to hopefully help you understand the severity of violating that consent. The example you posted does have those safety implications, which was what I was trying to explain. I encourage you to go back and re-read it with that in mind.

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#154

Post by colejohnson66 »

jerkstate wrote: post #111
netsharc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly Snowden is in a position where Putin can use him for a trade. One possible scenario I thought is Trump getting desperate and asking Putin for Snowden to be extradited so Trump can rah rah about being the man that got "the traitor". Meanwhile Putin would get whatever it is Putin wants from this trade, because as we know Trump is an unparalleled genius in deals...

Come on. Trump's base thinks Snowden is a patriot. Do you even know Roger Stone?

That is most decidedly not true. If it was, his base would be clamoring for restrictions on the NSA’s spying. The truth is: no one in the public cares.

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#155

Post by eyelidlessness »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #65
sneak wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was never charged with rape, and neither of the women who were involved in those cases ever accused him of rape. I encourage you to read their own words.

I'm a victim of sexual assault, I know how to read the words and how to read charges.

Dear HN: I don’t care about the downvotes, but it’s showing some really ugly biases that are going to have real harm to other victims. Someone on here asked questions and it was a lot more productive than just dismissing victims in anonymous downvotes. You can learn from this.

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#156

Post by jerkstate »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #154
jerkstate wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on. Trump's base thinks Snowden is a patriot. Do you even know Roger Stone?

That is most decidedly not true. If it was, his base would be clamoring for restrictions on the NSA’s spying. The truth is: no one in the public cares.

What's your source for your claim that Trump's base does not care about warrantless spying? You can see an example of priorities in coverage and reaction to the recent defeat/delay of the FISA re-authorization in the House.

Here's a recent article from a right-wing outlet, PJ Media, which I feel is at least somewhat representative of Trump's base: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/05/28/...

If this wouldn't draw readers, why would they write the article?

Here's a counterpoint article from the left-wing outlet Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/28/pelosi-pulls-fisa-b...

To get a flavor of what his base thinks, you can look through replies to some of his tweets on the matter: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12660175121620377...

Not sure how you came to your conclusions, please elucidate me.

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#157

Post by jerkstate »

fit2rule wrote: post #141
jerkstate wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I say something that can vaguely be construed as not correctly hating Trump or his supporters on this forum I get responses like this, using insulting emotional phrases like “cult doll games.” I was merely pointing out what I see as a misconception in his likely motivations. I still think the scenario GP presented is extremely unlikely and alarmist, why would you call my post agitprop and not that one?

Just so its clear, I'm not aligned with the collective view that Trump is a Putin agent - I think this is an excuse used to ignore America's true, real crimes, against humanity which occurred way before Trump came to power, and is a deflection from the real issue - which is that America has been getting away with the murder of innocent people for decades in its illegal wars. From my point of view, it'd actually be GR…

Well, I mostly agree with you, not sure how much I can add to this without getting way into the weeds besides saying that I hope that the sacrifices of people like Snowden were not in vain and the USA does eventually get their intelligence agencies under control.

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#158

Post by ephemeralism »

fsflover wrote: post #128
ephemeralism wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could this not be achieved in some other way that doesn't hurt the readability? Or at least a choice to turn it off or down in settings. Squinting your eyes, highlighting the text or going to a separate page really breaks the flow of reading.

I actually like this feature. If I want to read a downvoted comment, I just highlight its text with a mouse.

That's easy to do on a desktop, but can be cumbersome on mobile. I guess the problem is biggest on mobile, because of this and issues with glare etectera from sunlight, or low screen intensity at night.

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#159

Post by chinesempire »

kdtsh wrote: post #123
asjw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> flight to asylum in Russia. Ironically Snowden tweets about freedom of information from Russia, where Putin literally kills journalists

He knows what he’s doing. If he’s quiet about Russia’s crimes against freedom of expression, it’s because he’ll be in serious danger if he says anything about them - and Snowden going under for saying something true doesn’t do him or anyone else any favours, considering if he did drag Russia through the mud we probably wouldn’t learn anything new. Never forget that he unveiled a domestic and international surveillanc…

> unveiled a domestic and international surveillance and spying program which is unparalleled in all of history

China

Re: Julian Assange in Limbo

#160

Post by chinesempire »

mindslight wrote: post #144
asjw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> flight to asylum in Russia. Ironically Snowden tweets about freedom of information from Russia, where Putin literally kills journalists

It's not ironic, but rather straightforwardly pragmatic. A free press is an ideal to strive towards because it's something that local thugs generally attempt to shut down. Distance helps prevent coercion, and the adversary of your adversary is an ally. Analogously, the US is ideally hosting as many Russian-community-focused independent speakers as possible. The question you should be focused on is why did this whistl…

Isn't it ironic to post about freedom of press from the country where press is not free and journalists are killed?

Iceland and Switzerland are free countries as well and refuse extradition to US

Post reply on HN