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

Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 792 posts

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#741

Post by FredPret »

leto_ii wrote: post #528
FredPret wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is nonsense that opens up the possibility to justify pretty much any kind of abuse or atrocity. Hilarious. Do you think there’s big judge in the sky that determines what’s good and bad? There is only human conscience, and powerful people who decide to enforce their conscience. > If the international order was actually rules-based it would have been safeguarded by international institutions, not by a single cap…

> Hilarious. Do you think there’s big judge in the sky that determines what’s good and bad? Mankind has reached a point where it realized that certain rights (natural rights [1]) are not really arbitrary cultural constructs, but more akin to the laws of nature. We're still not at a point where we fully understand the "moral laws of nature" (e.g. I suspect if we stick around as a species we will end up extending more…

> This is simply insane warmongering. Since you throw such threats around casually I suspect you might be a US citizen.

Take many deep breaths and cool your jets. Think about your biases - it’s not good to go through life hating an entire nation and it says more about you than about them.

I am not American.

If you actually do want to explore this topic, read On The Genealogy Of Morality by Nietzsche.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#742

Post by jessaustin »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #722
jessaustin wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that ruined my day... you're right of course. Putting it that way just confirms my belief that the best course is to dissolve this union. Let's chop it into about a dozen pieces. That would be better for Americans, and also for non-Americans. Raytheon would lose some business...

The smallest US state has a larger economy than some countries. Fixing it doesn't require dissolution of shared citizenship, what we need to do is stop doing so many things at the federal level. Why do we need a huge federal military in peacetime when we have the state national guard? Why do we need federal welfare programs instead of state welfare programs? It's not an argument against having a military or having we…

The thing had already gone off track in 1788. The Constitution is not compatible with democracy.

In a blessed future when we figure out a less totalitarian way to organize ourselves, Americans can still live together and trade with each other. The value of federal spending can be overstated, even for "net winners". Sure it's free money, but it's calibrated to the needs of those who hire lobbyists. No existing entitlement program is as beneficial to the population as just giving directly to individual humans would be.

Several factors that keep some Americans opposed to entitlements would no longer apply in the "laboratories of democracy" situation. No population is actually as hard-ass about deficits as some current representation claims, due to nondemocratic aspects of how such representation is currently elected. Simply redirecting the spigot of "free money" deficit spending away from armaments toward anything beneficial to humans would be a windfall. Spending on children would encourage young families to locate nearby instead of moving to the coasts, so eventually the hollowing-out middle states would see the benefits no matter their "traditional" opposition.

In fact, much of the traditional politics of both the "winners" and "losers" are simply negotiating positions that would disappear without a federal government. "Loser" states sending resources to "winner" states is the way that they "bribe" seemingly opposed representatives into accepting entitlement spending. It has much more to do with politics than with what particular areas "need" or "produce".

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#744

Post by Zigurd »

beeboop wrote: post #545
Zigurd wrote: post #307

Assange knowingly became a front for a Russian disinformation op against the US. he was a factor in helping Putin bring the US to its darkest days politically. He also released a lot of important factual information Americans did not know. Both are true. One does not negate the other.

This is all entirely unsubstantiated. There is no evidence for any of this, and it's very blatantly misinformation and propaganda. It keeps getting repeated so frequently as to look like astroturfing.

It's well documented: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#745

Post by ceejayoz »

kodah wrote: post #734
ceejayoz wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that people who lived in a time of tarring-and-feathering people couldn't anticipate cancel culture is a bit silly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brown_(loyalist) > Brown requested the liberty to hold his own opinions, saying that he could "never enter into an Engagement to take up arms against the Country which gave him being", and finally met their demands with pistol and sword. The crowd seized him…

> Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association Personally, I don't care that it's age old. It's still not okay, and I don't care whether it's better or worse in modern times. I'm not even sure how far outside of propaganda some of this stuff falls, which ironically has the opposite reception from the public.

It's not OK to choose not to hang out with someone because you've heard they did something shitty?

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#746

Post by kodah »

ceejayoz wrote: post #745
kodah wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cancelling someone is also known as freedom of association Personally, I don't care that it's age old. It's still not okay, and I don't care whether it's better or worse in modern times. I'm not even sure how far outside of propaganda some of this stuff falls, which ironically has the opposite reception from the public.

It's not OK to choose not to hang out with someone because you've heard they did something shitty?

You can absolutely make a personal choice. The moment that you start tricking yourself into thinking that narrative manipulation, harassment, trolling, stalking, etc to get others to make that same personal choice are part of some high moral stance is what people get angry at cancel culture about. There is quite a distinction.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#747

Post by tptacek »

kome wrote: post #13

Young people IMHO have no idea what's going on. In one line: Assange in 2010 revealed and gave clear proof of American war crimes in Iraq https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Collateral_Murder,_5_Apr_2010 - now the US wants him dead. That's how imperialism works. Today is a sad day for all freedom and peace lovers. Edit: just to be clear, the perpetrators of those barbarous war crimes, and their superiors, never had to face ju…

Assange revealed no such thing. Reuters had published a transcript of the same video before Assange released it.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#748

Post by ceejayoz »

kodah wrote: post #746
ceejayoz wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not OK to choose not to hang out with someone because you've heard they did something shitty?

You can absolutely make a personal choice. The moment that you start tricking yourself into thinking that narrative manipulation, harassment, trolling, stalking, etc to get others to make that same personal choice are part of some high moral stance is what people get angry at cancel culture about. There is quite a distinction.

I can’t use my free speech to encourage someone to make the same choice?

Trying to conflate “cancel culture” with the already-illegal concepts of stalking and harassment is disingenuous. Trolling and “narrative manipulation” are pretty clear protected free expression.

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#749

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #748
kodah wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely make a personal choice. The moment that you start tricking yourself into thinking that narrative manipulation, harassment, trolling, stalking, etc to get others to make that same personal choice are part of some high moral stance is what people get angry at cancel culture about. There is quite a distinction.

I can’t use my free speech to encourage someone to make the same choice? Trying to conflate “cancel culture” with the already-illegal concepts of stalking and harassment is disingenuous. Trolling and “narrative manipulation” are pretty clear protected free expression.

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules

#750

Post by kodah »

ceejayoz wrote: post #748
kodah wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely make a personal choice. The moment that you start tricking yourself into thinking that narrative manipulation, harassment, trolling, stalking, etc to get others to make that same personal choice are part of some high moral stance is what people get angry at cancel culture about. There is quite a distinction.

I can’t use my free speech to encourage someone to make the same choice? Trying to conflate “cancel culture” with the already-illegal concepts of stalking and harassment is disingenuous. Trolling and “narrative manipulation” are pretty clear protected free expression.

I don't really get your point about free speech. That's a government protection. What I am talking about is the tendency of mobs to act as conduits of misinformation and abuse while projecting some form of morality en masse. It teeters on being more harmful than the thing they're mobbing about, typically.
Post reply on HN