That was an unnecessary and uncivil remark about anigbrowl.
I'm saying this despite the fact that I probably agree with you about Manning. I was once much like the descriptions of him, possessed by a combination of high intelligence, arrogance, emotional confusion, and moral naivete, and frequently in denial about very obvious realities before me. In as much as I can forgive myself for being a bit of a messed up kid, I can forgive Manning.
There are nuances in arguing that what the NSA/Manning/Snowden did is wrong or right . It isn't a 100% black/white and/or issue. It seems HN thinks that it should be this way, but it isn't like that in the real world we live in.
I understand that position, and there are nuances to to the matter, but I am coming from the position of my personal principles - which are far less nuanced.
I am 100% unequivocally against the NSA, the USGs position on this and the entire world that supports this. It is not the reality I want for anyone to live in a reality with absolute surveillance and no freedom of thought. I refuse to accept this.
You will never get to the truth by shouting down those that oppose your views. As long as someone is willing to engage in an open and robust discussion ... The minute "opinion, belief or faith" enter the equation, an intelligent conversation is dead. Otherwise, you should get to the truth.
I would hope you have more respect than 100% belief in just about anything. Look up the Socratic method for some good example of flaws in anything being 100% wrong, or 100% right.
I'm not saying I'm 100% right. I am saying I am 100% against the NSA surveillance state.
Also, we can have soft debates all day long, but I stand for the belief that what the USG, the NSA are doing is against a free and sovereign state and I am taking a stand.
Heh, no. While I am not going to point to my online history - I have held the same position for several decades. I have been aware of these programs since the early 90s.
You can see in my HN comment history where I talk about my first learning of USG backdoor requirements in Cisco gear in 1997.
The thing is, by refusing to accept a middle ground and holding an extremist position, all of your arguments carry much less weight. In particular, your arguments about the non-extremists like anigbrowl that you disagree with because they are leaning towards the other extreme are going to be ignored by just about everyone, save for other extremists.
So what I'm saying is, if you really care about the NSA and USG not abusing their powers - and most of us care about this - you're not actually helping yourself or anyone else by holding on to a black-and-white position.
So, I am uncivil for calling Anigrbrowl "an apologist" - then you label me "extremist" and use the language "non-extremist" to describe Anigrbrowl?
While at the same time, you're deriding me for my language, and completely ignoring the issue, or the points, I am arguing, and on top of that, condescendingly advising me how to debate.
I'm using the word "extremist" because you are unequivocally 100% against the NSA. Those are your words. That's an extreme position. You could not possibly be more against them, because you're at one extreme of the continuum of beliefs about the goodness of the NSA. Whereas anigbrowl is not an extremist, in that he is not unequivocally 100% in favor of the NSA.
I'm not even sure why it's offensive to you that I'm calling your position extremist, or you extremist in so far as you adopt that position, given your clearly stated understanding of your position. I'm an extremist when it comes to the badness of molesting infants, for example. I understand that this is hypocritical with respect to what I wrote above, I just feel that strongly about it.
But "the worst kind of [government] apologist" is needlessly pejorative and doesn't advance any useful argument, besides indicating that anigbrowl's position is somewhat pro-NSA, which is not a priori a bad thing.
