*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

If you think the life of a whistleblower and bloggist is somehow more profitable than the life of an ambassador, then perhaps I can see where you're coming from.

The life of a spy can be pretty profitable.

[Poopadoop]

That'd be a helluva lotta fakery.

So why does he do it then? And why doesn't he hack other countries outside the West? I've never seen a Russian or Chinese wikileak, have you?

Also, it's not like no-one has ever faked documents before, especially if they can access the originals.

Again, not saying it's true, just saying you can't assume everything that comes from Assange is the gospel truth just 'cause he projects a certain image.

[supa]

That'd be a helluva lotta fakery.



I don't think it's actually been proven false...more like unable to be substantiated. Kinda dif to prove a negative. IMO, it's really sayin something if the clinton news network won't run with it.

I don't think I'm following you. It's pretty much the only thing CNN's been covering for days. Also, it isn't at all difficult to prove a negative. It either happened or it didn't. As far as I know every intelligence agency in america is currently investigating it so until someone comes back as fake I have a hard time considering it so.

[wufwugy]

Two questions,

Has the dossier actually been proven to be false? If so I've missed something.

What do you consider real news?

The Director of National Intelligence said it was not a document that came from the intelligence community. Also BuzzFeedBen, when breaking the "story" also said "there is serious reason to doubt the allegations." Based on everything that has happened so far, the "story" is almost certainly fake, except it hasn't been "proven" fake since that's really hard to do.

Regarding what news source I think isn't fake, none. Every source has a big bias, even the ones that try hard at neutrality. The best I can come up with is consuming sources that disagree with each other and using my brain to the best of my ability. I tend to ignore tabloids like Huffpaint, Certainly Not News, and The Young Communists.

[wufwugy]

Excellent, succinct rundown of the false allegations on Trump:



Buzzfeed owned, CNN owned, the CIA owned, Rick Wilson owned. Owned by whom? The unstoppable tag team of their own bloodlust to de-legitimize Trump at all costs and a 4chan troll.

[wufwugy]

This is some Oedipus Rex level irony. CNN et al. have been hammering on for over a month about all the fake news that originates from places like 4chan, only for 4chan to feed them enough rope that they hang themselves with their own fake news scandal.

[OngBonga]

The life of a spy can be pretty profitable.

Of course, the life of an ambassador is shit in comparison. Travelling the world, all expenses paid, having your kids' private education fees paid for by the govt, juicy pension, not having to worry about jail etc.

I mean I do appreciate your use of the word "spy" here, it didn't go unnoticed. If Murray is a plant, then "spy" is surely the correct word. But if that's what his job is, then he has the problem of fearing for his life or liberty. These are heavy prices to pay. I mean a spy is not a particularly principled person... one who is willing to betray one's nation. If he's that much of a cunt, then why not just keep his job as ambassador and turn a blind eye to the shit the British Govt get up to?

[OngBonga]

I think access is exactly the term in question and from what I understand if it did come from inside the DNC it was done by someone without access. Again, there were two separate "intrusions" implying that someone who was not supposed to be in there was.

Well if this is the case, fair enough on your use of the word "hack". Although, it's still worth noting that there remains a distinction between an internal hack and a foreign hack. And it's not merely a question of where the hack came from... it's who's responsible. If I go to Russia and hack the British govt and release compromising material, well that's different to one of Putin's goons doing it. Unless I'm working for Putin, of course. But let's assume I'm doing it from Russia because I feel safer there, and that it's based purely on morality. In this case, Putin is not repsonsible, and has no onus on him to arrest me.

[OngBonga]

So why does he do it then? And why doesn't he hack other countries outside the West? I've never seen a Russian or Chinese wikileak, have you?

Also, it's not like no-one has ever faked documents before, especially if they can access the originals.

Again, not saying it's true, just saying you can't assume everything that comes from Assange is the gospel truth just 'cause he projects a certain image.

It has bugger all to do with his image, and everything to do with track record. I give Wikileaks a lot more credit today than I did a few years ago.

FYI, there have been leaks relating to China. There are 5000+ govt officials who have bank accounts in Switzerland, with the money being laundered through Hong Kong. There's also something about China being willing to abandon North Korea. I'm not sure about Russia, google results bring up a huge amount of stuff relating to the current climate, and I can't be fucked to trawl through it all.

[OngBonga]

Also, you use the word "hack" here. Wikileaks doesn't hack. Wikileaks accepts leaks. Whether those leaks were from hacks is another issue, but wikileaks aren't the ones doing the hacking.

[Poopadoop]

Of course, the life of an ambassador is shit in comparison. Travelling the world, all expenses paid, having your kids' private education fees paid for by the govt, juicy pension, not having to worry about jail etc.

I mean I do appreciate your use of the word "spy" here, it didn't go unnoticed. If Murray is a plant, then "spy" is surely the correct word. But if that's what his job is, then he has the problem of fearing for his life or liberty. These are heavy prices to pay. I mean a spy is not a particularly principled person... one who is willing to betray one's nation. If he's that much of a cunt, then why not just keep his job as ambassador and turn a blind eye to the shit the British Govt get up to?

Ya, I don't really believe he's a spy, I just think whistleblowers should be treated with the same skepticism as other people.

Also, other diplomats have been found guilty of spying. So apparently some thought it was worth it.

And being a whistleblower is arguably as dangerous as being a spy. You're still more-or-less treated like a traitor.

[Poopadoop]

It has bugger all to do with his image, and everything to do with track record. I give Wikileaks a lot more credit today than I did a few years ago.

FYI, there have been leaks relating to China. There are 5000+ govt officials who have bank accounts in Switzerland, with the money being laundered through Hong Kong. There's also something about China being willing to abandon North Korea. I'm not sure about Russia, google results bring up a huge amount of stuff relating to the current climate, and I can't be fucked to trawl through it all.

So publishing a bunch of leaked/hacked stuff makes you incapable of lying? I didn't realise that.

[OngBonga]

And being a whistleblower is arguably as dangerous as being a spy. You're still more-or-less treated like a traitor.

By the state, sure. But not by people like me.

Ya, I don't really believe he's a spy, I just think whistleblowers should be treated with the same skepticism as other people.

I don't. Spies and whistleblowers are not in the same league. Spies aren't doing what they do based on their moral compass. Not all whistleblowers do either, so I understand why there should be some skepticism. But to argue that the same skepticism should be applied to whistleblowers as there is at spies, well this is not something I agree with at all.

Also, other diplomats have been found guilty of spying. So apparently some thought it was worth it.

Sure. Of course, it's worth pointing out at this stage that Murray no longer has access to state secrets, and hasn't for a long time. So while it's not out of the question that he was a spy, it's highly unlikely he would still remain one, simply because he wouldn't be a very good one.

So publishing a bunch of leaked/hacked stuff makes you incapable of lying? I didn't realise that.

I'm sorry, where did I say this? Noone is incapable of lying. But, those who do usually get exposed. When it comes to making allegations of the nature that Wikileaks release, well people tend to get sued when they make false claims on this scale. If Wikileaks have been successfully sued, well please show me when.

[Poopadoop]

I don't. Spies and whistleblowers are not in the same league. Spies aren't doing what they do based on their moral compass. Not all whistleblowers do either, so I understand why there should be some skepticism. But to argue that the same skepticism should be applied to whistleblowers as there is at spies, well this is not something I agree with at all.

Of course, it's worth pointing out at this stage that Murray no longer has access to state secrets, and hasn't for a long time. So while it's not out of the question that he was a spy, it's highly unlikely he would still remain one, simply because he wouldn't be a very good one.

A spy can pretend to be a whistleblower, that's my point. (And by 'spy' obviously I'm broadening the definition outside of simply 'passing information' to include other types of espionage).

I'm sorry, where did I say this? Noone is incapable of lying. But, those who do usually get exposed. When it comes to making allegations of the nature that Wikileaks release, well people tend to get sued when they make false claims on this scale. If Wikileaks have been successfully sued, well please show me when.

I already answered this.

Here's a question: How do wikileaks verify what they're publishing is a legitmate document? Shouldn't that be an important part of a whistleblower's agenda?

[OngBonga]

Here's a question: How do wikileaks verify what they're publishing is a legitmate document? Shouldn't that be an important part of a whistleblower's agenda?

This is actually a very good question, one that obviously I can't answer, and one that I have pondered myself. That said, they appear to do a very good job of it.

A spy can pretend to be a whistleblower, that's my point. (And by 'spy' obviously I'm broadening the definition outside of simply 'passing information' to include other types of espionage).

Well, you're taking the word "spy" outside of the scope I would use that word. Who is the leaked information going to? Why was the information leaked? The answers to these question determine whether we're talking about a spy or a whistleblower, at least in my view.

[OngBonga]

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...curacy-record/

How Wikileaks Keeps Its 100% Accuracy Record

When I resigned as Ambassador to blow the whistle on UK/US complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition, I had a number of official documents I wished to leak to prove my story. They were offered to WikiLeaks through two friends, Andrew and Jonathan. WikiLeaks declined to publish them because they could not 100% verify them.

Their reasons were firstly that they were suspicious of me and whether I was a plant; British ambassadors are not given to resigning on principle. Secondly a few of the copies were my own original drafts of diplomatic communications I had sent, not the document as it printed out at the other end.

That is how scrupulous they are. I can vouch for the fact that their record for 100% accuracy is no fluke, it is safeguarded by extreme caution and careful checking.

In the end we launched the documents through mass blogger action on the web, on hundreds of independent sites simultaneously. You can still see them all for example on William Bowles excellent blog, and they are worth a read, even a decade on. I think over that decade I persuaded WikiLeaks I am genuine too!

[Poopadoop]

None of this really gets at the question of why Wikileaks does what it does though. What is their actual purpose- just to tattle on everyone? And who's paying for all this? Maybe they're all just super-idealists. Maybe they're up to something shady. I have no way of knowing.

If you look at the effect their work has it seems basically to undermine gov't in principle, and democratic gov't in particular. In that, they seem to share a common theme with Murray. Thus it's not surprising he's a fan.

Granted, they're not pushing narratives like 'Hillary is an alien', but that just shows they're trying to be taken seriously. Doesn't prove anything they do is legit.

[wufwugy]

Don't mind me, just triggering haters

[wufwugy]

[OngBonga]

None of this really gets at the question of why Wikileaks does what it does though. What is their actual purpose- just to tattle on everyone? And who's paying for all this? Maybe they're all just super-idealists. Maybe they're up to something shady. I have no way of knowing.

If you look at the effect their work has it seems basically to undermine gov't in principle, and democratic gov't in particular. In that, they seem to share a common theme with Murray. Thus it's not surprising he's a fan.

Their goal seems to me to undermine corrupt government, to expose their immoral practises. Who's paying for it all? I was under the impression they took donations, and I am confident there would be no shortage in that regard.

You seem more concerned about the reason why Wikileaks do what they do, than you are about the content of the leaks.

If your brother was caught stealing money from someone's bank account by a bank employee who happened to notice an unusual transaction, would you say that the person who caught them is the one who needs to be analysed?

[wufwugy]

looooooooolllllllllllllllll

[Poopadoop]

If your brother was caught stealing money from someone's bank account by a bank employee who happened to notice an unusual transaction, would you say that the person who caught them is the one who needs to be analysed?

I wouldn't just accept that he was guilty just because someone said so.

[wufwugy]

too true

[Poopadoop]

Their goal seems to me to undermine corrupt government, to expose their immoral practises. Who's paying for it all? I was under the impression they took donations, and I am confident there would be no shortage in that regard.

Again, to what end? Just so everyone knows their gov'ts are corrupt? What else is new?

You seem more concerned about the reason why Wikileaks do what they do, than you are about the content of the leaks.

No, I'm saying it's not as simple as trusting the information-giver by dint of the fact that they claim to be a whistleblower. There's other ways the scenario could come about.

[OngBonga]

No, I'm saying it's not as simple as trusting the information-giver by dint of the fact that they claim to be a whistleblower. There's other ways the scenario could come about.

But it's not just the fact they claim to be a whistleblower. In Wikileaks' case, it's their track record. And in Murray's case, it's the perceived integrity that he has through blowing his career.

Can I be 100% certain of the integrity of either Wikileaks or Murray? Of course not, this isn't maths or physics we're talking about here. But to dismiss them based on paranoia relating to their intentions is to basically say I trust noone at all. That's a very depressing position to be quite honest.

There must be people out there who just want the world to be a better place. If I were in the position to expose government lies, I would do so without any interest in financial reward. Am I a special kind of person? I don't think so at all.

[OngBonga]

I wouldn't just accept that he was guilty just because someone said so.

But if someone showed you the transaction, in black and white, with IP addresses to pinpoint the source of the theft, would you still say the bank employee might merely have an axe to grind?

I'm not suggesting you assume guilt. I'm suggesting you assume the employee was doing what he felt was the right thing to do. Guilt is for the courts to decide. The point of the bank employee tipping off police is to allow the courts to decide if your brother is guilty or not.

The problem we have here is that instead of having people face courts when they are exposed by groups like Wikileaks, people are instead bickering about where the leaks came from and for what motive.

[Poopadoop]

But it's not just the fact they claim to be a whistleblower. In Wikileaks' case, it's their track record. And in Murray's case, it's the perceived integrity that he has through blowing his career.

There's other ways to look at these things is my point. What appears to be true is not always true.

But to dismiss them based on paranoia relating to their intentions is to basically say I trust noone at all. That's a very depressing position to be quite honest.

There's a difference between questioning and dismissing.

There must be people out there who just want the world to be a better place.

Sure there are, I'm one of them. The problem is you can't necessarily know who they are. The good guys don't necessarily wear white hats.

[Poopadoop]

But if someone showed you the transaction, in black and white, with IP addresses to pinpoint the source of the theft, would you still say the bank employee might merely have an axe to grind?

I'm not suggesting you assume guilt. I'm suggesting you assume the employee was doing what he felt was the right thing to do. Guilt is for the courts to decide. The point of the bank employee tipping off police is to allow the courts to decide if your brother is guilty or not.

The problem we have here is that instead of having people face courts when they are exposed by groups like Wikileaks, people are instead bickering about where the leaks came from and for what motive.

The government is not my brother and wikileaks is not a bank employee. Let's just stick to what we know and not try to create false analogies.

[OngBonga]

There's a difference between questioning and dismissing.

You really don't need to tell me this. If you think I haven't questioned the sincerity of these guys, you're mistaken.

Sure there are, I'm one of them. The problem is you can't necessarily know who they are. The good guys don't necessarily wear white hats.

Well, it boils down to this... people like Murray and Assange are a lot more likely to be good guys than any given politician, or a celebrity. If Assange is gonna spend 5 years or whatever cooped up in some embassy to pull the wool over my eyes, bravo to him, he did it. They've done everything they can to destroy him. To think he's a plant is even more paranoid than any of the theories I do subscribe to.

Let me be clear about something... from the way they come across both in type and in media, I don't particularly like Assange, and I do like Murray. Assange seems arrogant. Murray seems compassionate and honest. If it wasn't for Wikileaks' track record, helped along by Murray's endorsement of Assange, I'd be a lot more skeptical about the latter. If Murray is a plant to get close to Assange, well he could just be the world's best spy. I'd probably like him even more. Sadly, I don't think that's the case.

[OngBonga]

The government is not my brother and wikileaks is not a bank employee. Let's just stick to what we know and not try to create false analogies.

Nicely dismissed.

The point of that analogy is to point out that what matters is that your brother stole some money (allegedly), not that the bank employee dobbed him in. A crime was committed (allegedly).

Wikileaks are exposing crimes, and people are accusing them of having ulterior motives. Who gives a fuck about their motives if what they are exposing is actually true? Why is that the primary concern?

[Poopadoop]

You really don't need to tell me this. If you think I haven't questioned the sincerity of these guys, you're mistaken.

I don't think that. You're confusing my questioning with dismissal and that's not what I've been saying.

Well, it boils down to this... people like Murray and Assange are a lot more likely to be good guys than any given politician, or a celebrity. If Assange is gonna spend 5 years or whatever cooped up in some embassy to pull the wool over my eyes, bravo to him, he did it. They've done everything they can to destroy him.

They may be. It's also possible Assange is actually a rapist hiding to save his own skin.

To think he's a plant is even more paranoid than any of the theories I do subscribe to.

Again (and again and again), you're confusing what I consider as a possibility with what I believe. Believing all of these speculations whole-heartedly would indeed be paranoid. Not trusting him 100% is being sensible.

If Murray is a plant to get close to Assange, well he could just be the world's best spy. I'd probably like him even more. Sadly, I don't think that's the case.

You're adding bits to the story I never even said.

[Poopadoop]

Wikileaks are exposing crimes, and people are accusing them of having ulterior motives. Who gives a fuck about their motives...

if what they are exposing is actually true?

Do you not see the link between these two questions?

If you say 'I don't care why they're putting out all this information that embarrasses gov'ts, I just accept their motives are pure and the information is accurate', then you're not thinking very hard.

And I'm not accusing you of that. But you're accusing me of being paranoid for questioning those same things. Ok then, I'm paranoid.

[OngBonga]

They may be. It's also possible Assange is actually a rapist hiding to save his own skin.

Yeah I mean out of all the possible outcomes, this is probably the least likely. As far as I can tell, the girl in question has never accused him of rape.

[wufwugy]

[Poopadoop]

Inappropriate.

[wufwugy]

Indeed.

[Savy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38593513

How mad are you going to be when this works out amazingly Wuf?

[Poopadoop]

In b4 Ong moves to Finland.

[Savy]

In b4 Ong moves to Finland.

People getting a basic income to spend as they please would make like much harder for people like Ong who sponge off loads of different types of benefits.

On a more serious note it strikes me that most places will be going towards a system like that in the future.

[wufwugy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38593513

How mad are you going to be when this works out amazingly Wuf?

What do you think my opinion on this is?

[wufwugy]

Oh wait this is the shitposting thread so I'll assume you being partly tongue in cheek

[Poopadoop]

What do you think my opinion on this is?

Um, 'ZOMFG Communism!' ?

[Poopadoop]

People getting a basic income to spend as they please would make like much harder for people like Ong who sponge off loads of different types of benefits.

In b4 Ong realises his mistake and moves back to the UK.

[Savy]

What do you think my opinion on this is?

Makes a thread and gets annoyed when people post on topic.

In b4 Ong realises his mistake and moves back to the UK.

Thankfully he never got through customs.

[wufwugy]

Current systems < non-ridiculous basic income < no welfare

[wufwugy]

Makes a thread and gets annoyed when people post on topic.

How dare you assume my reaction

[BananaStand]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38593513

How mad are you going to be when this works out amazingly Wuf?

Sounds like a tragedy of the commons waiting to happen.

[Poopadoop]

Thankfully he never got through customs.

We're still in EU, there is no customs for you guys. I meanwhile get to stand in line.

[OngBonga]

People getting a basic income to spend as they please would make like much harder for people like Ong who sponge off loads of different types of benefits.

On a more serious note it strikes me that most places will be going towards a system like that in the future.

This trial is on a par with what I claim in benefits. It would make life much easier for me, because I wouldn't have to apply for jobs that I have no intention of taking on.

[CoccoBill]

Clearly the amount of basic income everyone gets would be lower than the benefits people might get now, since it's paid to everyone. The point is that working would not cut your benefits as it does now, creating more incentive to find work.

Sorry bout the somewhat non-shitpost.

[BananaStand]

The point is that working would not cut your benefits as it does now, creating more incentive to find work.

Eliminating a dis-incentive is not the same as 'creating more incentive'.

This trial is on a par with what I claim in benefits. It would make life much easier for me, because I wouldn't have to apply for jobs that I have no intention of taking on.

see.

[OngBonga]

Clearly the amount of basic income everyone gets would be lower than the benefits people might get now, since it's paid to everyone. The point is that working would not cut your benefits as it does now, creating more incentive to find work.

What I meant is that this basic income of £490 that they're giving is more or less the same as what I currently claim in total. And yes, you're right, if they had a similar system here, then it would greatly increase the chances of me getting some work, perhaps in a pub.

Eliminating a dis-incentive is not the same as 'creating more incentive'.

Of course it's an extra incentive. Just because the vast majority of jobs out there are shit and not jobs I intend to take on, doesn't mean I'll never work again so long as I have benefits.

[wufwugy]

Eliminating a dis-incentive is not the same as 'creating more incentive'.

It's not?

Mathematically it must be. Consider the number line as aggregate incentives; negative values are disincentives and positives are incentives. Any subtraction of a negative necessarily moves our aggregate value more positive.

Using a real world example: reducing tax write-offs for healthcare consumption is a disincentive to consume healthcare and an incentive to consume other products (or to invest or save).

[Savy]

Lets not get started on the meanings of similar and the same again.

In context they are the same.

[Poopadoop]

Lets not get started on the meanings of similar and the same again.

Hey, that convo was about the meaning of same and opposite, which Ong claimed were related and thus identical. It was a philosophical tour de force.

[OngBonga]

I've got steam left in that one if you wish to continue...

[Poopadoop]

I've got steam left in that one if you wish to continue...

I'm sure you have lots of time given the spacetime Ongularity that is your infinite present.

[OngBonga]

It is still my present, so I can confirm that it is certainly longer than a nanosecond. It's at least the time between since we had that discussion and now.

[JKDS]

Time is an illusion.

[wufwugy]

I need this in my life

[JKDS]

I like quitaly. Also Oui out. And finished. And Swedone.

[OngBonga]

I like Brexit. Happy memories.

[wufwugy]

I like quitaly. Also Oui out. And finished. And Swedone.

I'm partial to Fruck-off but you're right Quitaly might be the overall highest quality.

[OngBonga]

Only because it's an anagram of quality.

[wufwugy]

oh snap crackle pop i didnt see that

[OngBonga]

How do you not immediately see that quality and quitaly are anagrams? Are you some kind of word retard?

[wufwugy]

How do you not immediately see that quality and quitaly are anagrams? Are you some kind of word retard?

I can spell words in my head and pronounce them backwards crazy fast.

[a500lbgorilla]

[Poopadoop]

More, please.

[wufwugy]

declaration of independence made me chuckle.

[wufwugy]

literalol

[wufwugy]

In class yesterday sitting next to chick who was moaning about how bad a day she was having because it was inauguration day. Other things about this chick:

Obese.
Messy.
Cheats.
Not smart.
Brags about not being attractive.

It's gotten to the point that I just assume the most well put together people in each of my classes is on the Trump Train and all the others are oppressed victims of oppressive mansplaining oppression.

[wufwugy]

More triggering! How dare he!

[Poopadoop]

It's gotten to the point that I just assume the most well put together people in each of my classes is on the Trump Train and all the others are oppressed victims of oppressive mansplaining oppression.

That says a lot about them.

Oh sorry, I mean you. It says a lot about you.

[Poopadoop]

So how many people went to celebrate Trump's grand inauguration? I heard it was the lowest turnout for quite a while.

How about those super low approval ratings? Rigged?