DiabloD3: What's the typical reaction when you share Intercept posts with people?
Most of Greenwald's stuff has the ring of truth to it, but you'd never guess that from the way people react. Not agreement, not disagreement, but more like when someone just politely keeps talking after you've farted audibly.
I don't really read Greenwald. I just share articles on here that I think the SV community on here would find interesting, and certainly do affect them and their ability to do business.
Disclaimer: I do not support any political candidate that is too far off the edges of the map, ie, both Clinton and Trump were bad picks if you're pro-SV... and Trump has already proved that in the scant time he's been in the White House.
> Even if you accept all the authors premises, what does this add up to?
That both sides engage in jingoism?
(The article in New Yorker is a tiring and annoying read. I may not always like Greenwald's rhetoric but in this case, he correctly highlights the lack of evidence. In an age of rumours and unfounded - but indeed plausible - accusations, the referenced piece seemingly lacks sense of irony.)
It's interesting how the same article can support different opinions just because of context. The points which Greenwald - a serious professional, to say the least - makes may look just strange enough to suspect that each one of them is left unfinished, and questions regarding them unanswered - and so the whole impression is - not there. For example, lack of evidence - as soon as you think you have one, you're left to wonder what to do with that piece of evidence, if the proposition of the article relies on the absence of something in which you aren't sure.
#3 is enormously true. Not just Russia, but any other country we can push around.
So many people honestly ask, "Why do they hate us?" If they had any concept of what we have actually done--most of which is still within living memory--that may just be enough to change our foreign policy into something slightly less disastrous.
I think Greenwald is trying, in his way, to build opposition to another Hillary candidacy in 2020. I think he's saying that she's dangerously hawkish and that Russia's apparent hand in her defeat is leading Democrats in general to be too hawkish as well. The last point is, to my mind, the most important: if Dems want to retake the White House in 2020, they're better served by building momentum locally and finding a better candidate than by hand-wringing about Russian interference.
I do a search almost every day for "US", "Trump", "Obama", etc. because I am curious about what Hacker News thinks about the US political situation, yet I know that these discussions will be flagged instantly before I see them on the front page. It's really unfortunate because Hacker News is probably the most intelligent moderately-large online community I've ever found, and I'd like to both learn from others and share my own knowledge on these topics. I appreciate the mods, but I don't like the throw-their-hands-up response that these threads always become uncivil. Some topics are so important that they need to be discussed regardless, and the denizens of Hacker News are not just bystanders to these issues but instead are the highly intelligent and influential builders of these apparatuses that underlie modern society and facilitate the abuses of governments.
14 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 49.9 ms ] threadMost of Greenwald's stuff has the ring of truth to it, but you'd never guess that from the way people react. Not agreement, not disagreement, but more like when someone just politely keeps talking after you've farted audibly.
Do you get the same reaction?
Disclaimer: I do not support any political candidate that is too far off the edges of the map, ie, both Clinton and Trump were bad picks if you're pro-SV... and Trump has already proved that in the scant time he's been in the White House.
1. Obama and Clinton disagreed on Russia, with Clinton being the more hawkish of the two, but maybe they don't anymore.
2. It would be bad if there was another Cold War.
3. It's likely we interfere in their politics too.
4. The authors are unsatisfied with the evidence behind the DNC hack Russia attribution.
5. Russia is a distraction from other problems.
Even if you accept all the authors premises, what does this add up to?
That both sides engage in jingoism?
(The article in New Yorker is a tiring and annoying read. I may not always like Greenwald's rhetoric but in this case, he correctly highlights the lack of evidence. In an age of rumours and unfounded - but indeed plausible - accusations, the referenced piece seemingly lacks sense of irony.)
So many people honestly ask, "Why do they hate us?" If they had any concept of what we have actually done--most of which is still within living memory--that may just be enough to change our foreign policy into something slightly less disastrous.
I'm sorry, what? Am I the only one who thought it was a clear nod to Independence Day?
Pathetic.