• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    I also take umbrage with any attempts to make him out to be a good person or in any way virtuous, which is what the comment I responded to did.

    Did we read the same comment? They literally called him a scumbag. 🙄

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      “A bit of a scumbag” dilutes the fact that he failed at the very mission people praise him for. I am happy to admit that I am was somewhat off in my initial reading of their comment. I do not want to get bogged down in that.

      The point is that Assange was a useful tool for a certain brand of politics and certain parties. We all need to recognize that. “He’s a bit of a scum bag” isn’t even close to the reality of how nefarious his actions were.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Do we need to recognize that while he’s fighting for his freedom? Maybe that can wait?

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Unfortunately, what we actually learned is that WikiLeaks existed for him to help those he politically agrees with. There is a reason every self-respecting journalist who worked with WikiLeaks has since walked away and no, it is not because of the US government going after him. It’s because WikiLeaks wasn’t engaging in transparency and quality journalism.

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                Interesting assertion. Also irrelevant, because journalism doesn’t have to be neutral. Plenty of journalists have an agenda, in fact I’d argue most of them do and the idea of impartial journalism is something some journalists made up to promote their own agendas.

                • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  I didn’t say journalists had to be neutral. I never used the word neutral. Objectivity is a myth and impossible to obtain.

                  I’m saying these journalists didn’t want to work for a flagrantly partisan organization
                  that lied about its commitment to transparency.

                  If you want to be a mouthpiece for Putin and conservative talking points, then you need to not pretend you’re evenhanded and egalitarian with your leaks and publication.

                  • queermunist she/her
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    The only people who don’t pretend to be evenhanded and egalitarian are, like, indie communist zines. This is just a problem with the industry as a whole - everyone pretends to be neutral, even though literally no one is. That’s not something unique to Assange, so kinda irrelevant imo