I am not entirely sure that someone who feels that America is ‘literally the worst thing to happen to the planet.’” can be called a patriot. (If she actually said that.)
It might be argued that she she had good motivations for what she did, but she is not a patriot.
Snowden made a massive dent in the security state: he is the reason most people even know what “mass surveillance” is. His leak was an act for the history books, and the effects are still unfolding even now.
You’re confused because you think there’s a safe way to contest state power that’s yet to be discovered. There’s no safe way. Attacking, exposing, etc are the only ways to reign in the state’s power, and that always involves risks and costs. We can’t let that stop us, because the risks and costs of unchecked power are far worse.
I hate to disagree when you’re agreeing with me and all, so let’s call it a minor correction - I don’t think I said that. I think it wasn’t intentional - I think it was a side-effect of their carelessness, which stemmed from their refusal to take her seriously, which in turn came from their ideological refusal in the face of all evidence to accept Russian interference in the election as a real thing. Greenwald and his crew, they’re not bad people. they’ve good intentions, and they think they’re fighting the good fight - But you know what they say about good intentions. They’ve made some big mistakes that have hurt people, but they’re not irredeemable. They can learn, grow, and do better in the future - but only once they start accepting their mistakes, and making an effort to improve, which they’ve made no sign of yet.
The reason I thought it would make people cross - Well, Greenwald is generally respected around here. People think he’s a great journalist, that he’s a trustworthy sort of guy, that he’s generally a pretty smart guy who has done his research, and thinks the right things. He’s kind of a hero to a lot of people. But that doesn’t line up with the reality of what’s happened here - or in general - and people generally don’t like to hear that their heros are fallible, and can absolutely do the wrong thing, and hurt people, or think the wrong things. And they tend to push back, vigorously, and occasionally viciously, when people think that you’re attacking their heros.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re not bad people. And they’re trying to be good journalists, and do the right thing. But all the best intentions in the world won’t save you, if you refuse to acknowledge and learn from your mistakes. Maybe they will in the future, but they haven’t yet. I can’t encourage going to The Intercept as a serious news outlet, or supporting them - but give them a chance, occasionally. If they do learn, and improve themselves as an outlet, start doing it right, I’ll be the first person right there, telling folk to listen and pay attention to what they have to say, and support them doing what they do.
But that time hasn’t come yet.
I don’t think sending an obviously traceable document as they did can have just been carelessness, and if they did it either to further Greenwald’s silly Putin narrative or even just for the sake of the story, then yes, it does make them bad people.
While I don’t necessarily agree - I think it’s more negligence than malice, and I think it takes more than negligence to make them bad people - it’s definitely a fair comment. And I can also see where you’re coming from - Even if it was negligence completely without malice, they are the very definition of people who know better, and they have experts on tap who absolutely know better they could have and should have spoken to. With that in mind, they can certainly be blamed for their negligence, and it’s not unreasonable at all to think that makes them bad people.
Think of the person in public life you hate most in the world. The one who’s done the most damage to your sense of how the world ought to work. Chances are extremely good that that person is also “principled” and an “idealist.”
I’m not interested in passing judgment on Winner, so this isn’t a comment on her. I’m just saying that characterizing someone that way is not really exculpatory.
It’s interesting that you critique “principled” and “idealist”, but leave “patriot” unchallenged.
To me, that is the much more dangerous characteristic. Infamously so; refuge of scoundrels etc.
That’s funny, because I always viewed him as that guy Laura Poitras had to teach how to use crypto, because his opsec was so bad, and he just didn’t get it.
Snowden is a hero, Scahill is a quality commentator and The Intercept provides useful coverage of AFRICOM etc.
OTOH, Greenwald is meh and several of The Intercept’s reporters appear to be clueless douchebros.
To me, there’s not much of a difference between them. Idealists think of themselves as patriots. Patriots are proud of what they think their country’s ideals are. You can be an idealist/patriot/person of principle on the good way or the bad way. It’s just not absolving or damning someone to describe them that way.
But if it won’t cost you a point, I hereby so critique “patriot.”
Know that that isn’t the meaning of patriot for many people, and if you assume it always is, you will misunderstand them. Context is critical in language, especially with words that mean significantly different things to different people. And yes, one can always point to dictionary definitions, be they Wiktionary or the OED, but language is a living ecosystem more complex than even the most exhaustively researched dictionary.
Maybe I’m too old, but from the article I see her as a naive, anxiety ridden young woman with an extremely low self esteem (also Daddy issues), not a principled patriot. Also, her “patriotism” is rooted in the teachings of her mentally ill father.
Hey, I said a lot of people think it, I didn’t say it was actually true. Like I said, doesn’t really line up with reality.
And isn’t it funny how closely those people, and Glenn’s inner circle seem to overlap. Hmmm, a mystery indeed.
Oh, and also one of them was literally fired from another outlet for anti-Semitic comments, and another tried to use FIOA to try and snoop on a journalist who published an article critical of The Intercept’s chosen candidate in the Georgia Gubernatorial race. I’ve said in this thread that I don’t believe the journalists at the intercept, as a general statement, are bad people. However, I absolutely think that some of the journalists at The Intercept are extremely shitty people.
He’s also - and I can share this one, since it’s already been shared in public by the people involved - someone who threw a full-on, foot-stomping, paper-throwing tantrum when some of the outlet’s own investigative reporters came back on a story with a result he didn’t like. Basically, The Intercept sent Ken Silverstein out with Natasha Vargas-Cooper for a series on the case covered in the podcast Serial. In the process, they also reviewed and examined, independently, all the other evidence available at the trial, and came to the conclusion that the guilty verdict was justified. He apparently hated the first interview Ken and Natasha published with key witness Jay Wilds, and outright threatened to quit over the second interview with the Prosecutor, Kevin Urick, defending the guilty verdict - as well as delaying the second interview a week while Scahill and Glenn “Reviewed” it, which is completely inappropriate, as they were not editing or involved in the piece.
Industry scuttlebut also claims there was a planned third part to the series, which was spiked by “Internal pressure.” And no prizes guessing who from. However, that’s pure scuttlebutt, and I cannot confirm or verify in any way that it’s true, and I strongly encourage you to take it with an extremely large grain of salt.
One of the things that makes some languages useful is the ability to make a statement that has a specific and non ambiguous meaning. When using sentences with
I suspect that some of those people are just not very well educated on their use of vocabulary. If I am writing a statement or instruction intended for someone not in my group of friends, or for future persons, I cannot expect them to understand words where my intended meaning is different than the literal definition. that is the whole point of people going to the trouble to compile the OED. It is a continuously evolving document, but most words have specific meanings. If you use a word like “patriot”, it is reasonable to assume that you are writing about a person who “vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.” Other dictionaries might have slightly different wordings of that definition, of course. But an antonym of patriot is “traitor”, which is defined as “a person who gives away secrets about their friends, their country, etc.”
So describing Ms. Winner as a patriot is an excellent example of irony. (The expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite).
Where one’s loyalties lie matters. The crown loyalists and the American revolutionaries both regarded themselves as patriots, despite the latter group’s appropriation of the tern as their name, but they still fought for opposite causes. You use phrases such as literal definition and specific meaning and reasonable to assume but you completely elide the fact that those are different to different groups of people and no single group of people has the power to unilaterally arbitrate words. Words are defined by how they’re used and when they’re used in different ways by large groups of people then they have multiple literal definitions.
Washington and his cohorts were patriots to or for The United States of America, but reasonable considered traitors towards GB. Even so, the patriotism would not happen until the USA existed. How they would be seen by future generations depended on their success or failure.
If we were making such a case for Snowden or Manning, we might say that they released evidence of criminal or unconstitutional actions by government agencies. Those disclosures could be seen as patriotic acts.
Winner released intelligence about Russian attempts to breach US voting systems. Raw intelligence that includes information on US data collection methods and processes. Informing the Russians of the methods used to stop their attack could make their next attempt successful.
But if words mean whatever you decide they mean, instead of the agreed on definitions, we add an element of ambiguity. Some words have multiple meanings, sometimes by region. Definitions do change over time. Those allowances are made in good dictionaries. But if you want to effectively communicate your ideas, you should use words as the listener or reader would define them. Using a shared dictionary is an efficient method of doing that. I don’t think the editors of OED are trying to impose anything on you. It is an evolving document.
Of course, I am writing as someone who, as part of my job, regularly records information in ways meant to be absolutely specific and non-ambiguous, and who can expect to be called on to defend specific word usage at any time. Your background might be different.
I see the source of your confusion. You believe a country is its government. A government is only one facet of a country.
Not what I said. Words mean whatever someone decides they mean only to the person making that decision. Words only obtain useful meaning when many people agree on that definition. This is not even remotely the same as everyone agreeing on that definition.
They are, but no dictionary is perfect. Quite literally since the original outdated definition of perfect is finished (a Latin construction meaning after the fact).
That’s my entire point, which is why one should be aware when words have multiple widely used meanings and look to context for which is in play. The person to whom I originally responded was overlooking the context in which Cory called Winner a patriot. My point was nothing more than that.
It certainly is. A dictionary should nonetheless not be a substitute for context, especially since even within a good dictionary like the OED multiple definitions will often be given.
I’m absolutely positive they are not. I raised the point of dictionaries because there is a certain type of internet debater who will simply post a dictionary definition as if it settles the matter and cannot be argued against, a form of the call to authority fallacy. I don’t assume any particular person, yourself included, would necessarily do so, but I wished to head the possibility off since it’s such a common response.
My profession is immaterial to my very strong desire for precision communication. I would value precision whether or not I was a scientist.
After your reply to this comment, which I look forward to reading if you decide you want to post one (if not, no worries), I think we should table this discussion as it’s drifted well off topic.
Hope your holidays are going well.
Well done taking a very nice simmering edition of ‘My Bloodbath is not apropos! Look at the bloodbath I just let go! Upvote the bloothbaths I point out, go go!’ and turning it into ‘Your OED hand is weak, Padawan.’ It is nice to see whistleblower tribunal procedure get the firesafe stucco full of knives knocked off it. [Off to read TFA@nymag]
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
