The Wikileaks debate continues

[Wrath of Dagon]

All your secrets belong to us: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...r-secrets.html#

[Walsingham]

Presumably, as I say, you need to have mroe than just the dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction is the dry brush surrounding the edifice of state. You need an organisation to mobilise people. Thus far this seems to be absent from Egypt. I would suggest that you also need the security forces to decide they won't commit mass murder to stay in place.

[213374U]

If either were true you'd expect revolutions to have kicked off somewhere hopelessly despondent (or if you prefer, the place with the poorest living conditions) like Yemen, not in relatively affluent Tunis; and moved to poor Jordan rather than not badly off Egypt.

Um, no. I never said that living in squalor was necessary and sufficient for revolution, nor that that risk of revolution is a function of poverty that can be analysed and whose inflection points can be used to make predictions. You either misunderstood or are twisting my original statement by introducing a notion I didn't talk about and then attacking that. Bad form.

 

However, historical evidence does suggest a correlation between poverty -or a steep decline in living standards- and the willingness of people to revolt openly and risk their lives in resistance against the system, while the same isn't true for simple oppression or evidence of wrongdoing by the ruling class; I have provided examples, but if you want more, the military dictatorships of South America also support this. Dismissing a sample as "coddled, smug and self-satisfied" just doesn't cut it - clearly, that is a consequence of several generations living in welfare states where people tend to take everything for granted and the sense of entitlement is second only to the qualities you named. This can only happen if high living standards are maintained consistently for a long time.

 

@Wals: true enough. A sufficiently well organized internal security apparatus can go a long way towards aborting any revolutions.

Edited February 5, 2011 by 213374U

[Orogun01]

Presumably, as I say, you need to have mroe than just the dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction is the dry brush surrounding the edifice of state. You need an organisation to mobilise people. Thus far this seems to be absent from Egypt. I would suggest that you also need the security forces to decide they won't commit mass murder to stay in place.

Not always effective otherwise revolutions wouldn't happen. It is also very possible that the inverse happens and the rebels gain the public's favor.

[Zoraptor]

If either were true you'd expect revolutions to have kicked off somewhere hopelessly despondent (or if you prefer, the place with the poorest living conditions) like Yemen, not in relatively affluent Tunis; and moved to poor Jordan rather than not badly off Egypt.

Um, no. I never said that living in squalor was necessary and sufficient for revolution, nor that that risk of revolution is a function of poverty that can be analysed and whose inflection points can be used to make predictions. You either misunderstood or are twisting my original statement by introducing a notion I didn't talk about and then attacking that. Bad form.

I replied to exactly what you wrote, I even quoted it, twice, now thrice. Yeah, you need the oppression too but I never forced you to say that "people don't stand in front of tanks -or bayonet charges- unless they don't have much to lose", reinforcing "reasons for the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt are consistently reported to be the high unemployment rates and skyrocketing food prices" two things which effect the poor far more than the middle class. I did two things. I pointed out that the stats indicated that Tunisia and Egypt were relatively well off and had relatively well developed middle classes, which supported my assertion about a decent middle class being important. I pointed out that they also severely weaken any assertion that those rebelling "don't have much to lose" (now four) as it's clear they have a lot more to lose than people in similar situations who aren't rebelling to anywhere near the same extent and would have far more difficulty actually feeding themselves and getting jobs, the two things you cited as "reasons for the revolts". Since the level of oppression (the main factor in the west being smug and self satisfied being the lack of oppression- it's hard to be complacent if someone's got a jackboot rammed into your spine) is roughly the same in all the countries I cited...

 

I don't blame you for trying to back out of a losing argument, but trying to do it by implying I'm deliberately misinterpreting you? Now that's bad form.

[Calax]

 

?

[Orogun01]

Is it wrong that the pic made me laugh?

[213374U]

two things which effect the poor far more than the middle class.

This is false. Unemployment hits across the board, it doesn't hurt the poor more than the middle class - in fact, it would hurt the middle class more because the middle class is a larger portion of the population.

 

 

I pointed out that they also severely weaken any assertion that those rebelling "don't have much to lose" (now four) as it's clear they have a lot more to lose than people in similar situations who aren't rebelling to anywhere near the same extent and would have far more difficulty actually feeding themselves and getting jobs, the two things you cited as "reasons for the revolts".

Not really, no. The unemployment rate for young people is among the highest in both Tunisia and Egypt, with figures as high as 40% (IMF data). Yeah, it's not the poor(est) that have been burning police trucks in Egypt, it's a generation that suffers from long-term unemployment and is faced with the prospect of not finding a job in the foreseeable future, given that the economic growth of their country just isn't enough to create enough jobs for all the people joining the labor force.

 

So, yeah, those people don't have much to lose at all, because what we're looking at here is a lost generation. Those aren't my words, by the way. I guess it's also a coincidence that some countries likely to go up in flames (Morocco, Syria, Jordan...) are already moving to tackle precisely the issues of unemployment and food prices. Crushing repression take care of things in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Massive protests also going on in Yemen. The Arab countries have the highest mean unemployment rate in the world. All a coincidence, right?

 

The issue here is that either you have trouble understanding the difference between "if" and "iff", or maybe think that others don't understand this difference and therefore won't spot your attempts at equivocation. You keep rebutting my idea of an iff between bad economic conditions and revolution. The problem is, that's not my opinion at all, rather a misrepresentation you keep repeating. Adverse economic conditions are possibly the single most common element present in revolutions through history, followed closely by war, perhaps. When studying history, there's no such thing as linear causality, but the prevalence and correlation are difficult to dispute. The same is not true for government excesses (if only because favourable economic conditions tend to paint governments in good light), which is the thesis you were putting forth, with Wikileaks as the agent of change.

 

 

I don't blame you for trying to back out of a losing argument, but trying to do it by implying I'm deliberately misinterpreting you? Now that's bad form.

Yeah... because declaring that I'm "losing" clearly makes it so. Quite telling that you describe the debate in terms of victory/defeat, too. Now that I really know what's your motivation here, I have finally lost interest. Congrats.

[Thorton_AP]

And you're in it just for the intellectual stimulation?

[Walsingham]

The way I heard it, the Tianenmen square pic with the tanks ended with the tanks running the ****er over.

 

Hooray for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

Assuming I heard correctly.

[Zoraptor]

Dunno what happened to tank man. He's one of the people I've always wanted to meet, if only because that would mean he's still alive.

 

Yeah... because declaring that I'm "losing" clearly makes it so. Quite telling that you describe the debate in terms of victory/defeat, too. Now that I really know what's your motivation here, I have finally lost interest. Congrats.

You're the one who made the first accusation of bad faith, not me, so it's a bit rich you getting all huffy now.

 

(youth unemployment estimates in Yemen pretty much start at 50% and go on "up to" 80%. That's way higher than either Tunisia or Egypt. The estimates are only slightly lower for Jordan. also, massive protests in Yemen? 20k, in a city of 2 million and a country of 24 million vs Egypt with roughly 3x the population where estimates go "up to" 2 million, or 100x that number, and even the authorities seem to accept half a million. Plus, Syria next domino to fall as day of rage attracts... well, no one, apparently. Or in other words, there are still lots more people in Yemen and Jordan with "nothing to lose at all"/ more of a "lost generation" yet they are relatively quiescent. There's clearly something else at work and, well, I've shown the evidence to back my thoughts up and they correspond with what has been observed, not some sort of perceived wisdom.)

[Gorth]

No rest for the wikied...

 

I know, old thread, tired subject, etc.

 

It just struck me as funny:

 

Assange criticises unauthorised Wikileaks memoir

 

How does the old saying go, it's more fun when happens to somebody else?

[Walsingham]

No rest for the wikied...

 

I know, old thread, tired subject, etc.

 

It just struck me as funny:

 

Assange criticises unauthorised Wikileaks memoir

 

How does the old saying go, it's more fun when <bleep> happens to somebody else?

 

Julian Assange hypocritical asshat? Irony's a bit predictable, but still made me gut laugh.

[Gfted1]

WikiLeaks suspends publishing to fight financial blockade.

 

Julian Assange, co-founder of WikiLeaks, has announced that the whistleblowing website is suspending publishing operations in order to focus on fighting a financial blockade and raise new funds.

 

Assange, speaking at a press conference in London on Monday, said a banking blockade had destroyed 95% of WikiLeaks' revenues.

 

He added that the blockade posed an existential threat to WikiLeaks and if it was not lifted by the new year the organisation would be "simply not able to continue".

 

The website, behind the publication of hundreds of thousands of controversial US embassy cables in late 2010 in partnership with newspapers including the Guardian and New York Times, revealed that it was running on cash reserves after "an arbitrary and unlawful financial blockade" by the Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and Western Union.

 

WikiLeaks said in a statement: "The blockade is outside of any accountable, public process. It is without democratic oversight or transparency.

 

"The US government itself found that there were no lawful grounds to add WikiLeaks to a US financial blockade. But the blockade of WikiLeaks by politicised US finance companies continues regardless."

 

Assange said donations to WikiLeaks were running at

[Gorgon]

Didn't the Swedish office of Wikileaks split some time ago to create their own operation because they were fed up with Assange and his top down management style and too much focus on one person. Well, just leak there when you feel the urge folks.

 

I don't like to leak with so much public attention anyway, it spoils my concentration.

[Malcador]

Well, expected, he was going to leak some bad things banks did, or something along those lines, no ?

[Calax]

That's the curse of being a whistleblower in a globalized market. You piss off a business by publishing their dirty laundry, the other businesses will drop their hammer on you. And you can't "launder" your donations through something else because the same companies control things world wide.

[Lexx]

Biggest problem, imo, is that he became too much a popstar. He should have remained more in the background. Now who wants to give him or openleaks-dude stuff for release anyway? They can't be trusted anymore, it became way too dangerous.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Lexx

[Walsingham]

Biggest problem, imo, is that he became too much a popstar. He should have remained more in the background. Now who wants to give him or openleaks-dude stuff for release anyway? They can't be trusted anymore, it became way too dangerous.

 

Surely that was always his agenda. It wasn't to encourage good governance, but to embarass governments. I could expand this point, but I'd only be repeating earlier statements.

 

I doubt this will be the last we see of him, or his adoring fans.

[Gorgon]

I don't care for Assange personally, but there definitely needs to be someplace to air the dirty laundry of governments considering all the sick twisted things that have been done in the name of national interests.

[Meshugger]

Interesting. What ever happened to the leaks concerning Bank of America? Did they disappear? What?

[Walsingham]

I don't care for Assange personally, but there definitely needs to be someplace to air the dirty laundry of governments considering all the sick twisted things that have been done in the name of national interests.

 

1) As we've seen with Wikileaks "airing" is exactly what these leak sites amount to - hot air. Malfeasance in government has to be known about to be fixed, but merely being known is insufficient. There have to be robust accountable bodies in place to tackle the corruption.

 

2) Most free states have parliamentary committees of elected persons, appointed legally to deal with leaks.

 

3) The public press handle leaked material all the time, and generally pursue the story, not just air it.

 

What if 2 and 3 fail? Then you're ****ed sideways anyway. At that point the engine of government is so badly twisted that leaking material won't help.

[Malcador]

Letting average people know about it can't hurt, even if the press will bury anything meaningful.

[Orogun01]

Letting average people know about it can't hurt, even if the press will bury anything meaningful.

Average people know about WikiLeaks they don't know about the contents of wikileaks. Aside from people who have an interest in that sort of thing I don't see anyone stopping their work around their home or using their free time to research a leak.

[Gorgon]

I don't care for Assange personally, but there definitely needs to be someplace to air the dirty laundry of governments considering all the sick twisted things that have been done in the name of national interests.

 

1) As we've seen with Wikileaks "airing" is exactly what these leak sites amount to - hot air. Malfeasance in government has to be known about to be fixed, but merely being known is insufficient. There have to be robust accountable bodies in place to tackle the corruption.

 

2) Most free states have parliamentary committees of elected persons, appointed legally to deal with leaks.

 

3) The public press handle leaked material all the time, and generally pursue the story, not just air it.

 

What if 2 and 3 fail? Then you're ****ed sideways anyway. At that point the engine of government is so badly twisted that leaking material won't help.

Internal oversight is nice when it works. It doesn't all the time. The press can be more worried about the bottom line, lawsuits, etc. and often times don't feel particularly adventurous about being the first to stick their necks out. Ideally whistle blowing entities like Wikileaks hold themselves to a high standard and consider whether the material is in the public interest and in doing so build up a reputation for integrity. It's not a perfect word.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Gorgon