Support NeoGAF

[ColonelColon]

At the same time? In that case I salute you, pimp among pimps.

Can't really do that unless you have a dual penis.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

My coffee just got a whole lot less appealing. *sips*

 

[Zaptruder]

Wouldn't shake the mans hands.

But would give money to support the wikileaks/openleaks missions.

 

[polyh3dron]

These excerpts just make Assange more awesome. :lol

Pretty much this.

He's endearing in the same way Yung Humma or Flynt Flossy are to me.

 

[polyh3dron]

He surely is an interesting guy. Who should play him in his biopic?

My guess

I see that and raise you

 

[Adam J.]

He has the soul of a poet.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

it's Newcastle damnit, not New Castle.

 

[Jenga]

Pretty much this.

He's endearing in the same way Yung Humma or Flynt Flossy are to me.

but yung humma and flynt flossy are obvious parodies while this guy sounds like a teenager with really awful purple writing

 

[Lard]

White Knight thread.

 

[Trent Strong]

It's douche lords like this who give atheists a bad name.

 

[Monocle]

Why would anything in an OP affirm their position of Assange as a freedom fighter? The two subjects are irrelevant.

I sort of touched on this in a later post, but okay. I've noticed in some admirers of Assange the tendency to conflate his professional activities with their own idealized composite of rebellious character traits. That is to say, a subgroup of his supporters idolize this apparently dauntless, amoral, debonair guy as a symbol for all the naughty things a good citizen isn't supposed to admire, but that many pine for. Basically, Assange is a real-life James Bond, and the journals enhance his myth by suggesting that his public image is not a facade; he lives a dangerous life professionally and privately.

Edit:

It's douche lords like this who give atheists a bad name.

Judge individuals as individuals, not as categories or representatives of whole groups of people. Replace "atheists" with "white people" or "men" in that sentence and you'll see how that line of reasoning bucks the rails.

 

[Belfast]

Dude's an eccentric. Did you think he would be any less?

 

[freddy]

This user restricts their profile to OkCupid members only. Sign in or create an account.

I'm feeling pretty good about not being able to see that site actually.

 

[MrSardonic]

His profile on OKCupid is quite entertaining. Definitely the sort of rouge, liberated character you'd expect. I think only up-tight or quite conformist people would think these writings make him a twat. I bet he'd be an awesome guest to kick back and have a few drinks/smokes with; smart guy no doubt.

 

[Chichikov]

Yeah, drop the bias accusations.

Well, have you viewed the ending of that Wikileaks documentary? Have you listened to what the people who are starting Openleaks have said? Have you read any articles of what they said about this situation? I have, as have many here. I suggest you do so yourself.

I said I did not know why the Wikileaks people quit, because other that what they have said, I would be making assumptions.

You seem to be just another person yelling into the wind about bias, without actually looking into the subject matter.

What?
You said you don't know why the left (which is rather surprising if you've seen the doc as it is pretty much spelled out there).
I wondered how you can make assertions about Assange based on something that you don't know (according to you).
That is all.

And by the way, I have never said Assange is not a douchebag.
He looks like he might be one, I don't know him and I don't care.
What I said is that the attacks against him are for the most part politically motivated.
And I stand by that assertion.

Out of curiosity Chichikov do you support the Wikileaks concept? If yes then so long as something is the truth why would you care about the timing?

I think the government should not keep secrets from its citizens.
It's that simple.
I obviously allow for secrecy when it come to future plans or tactical stuff, but shit that happened in the past?
Can you call out a case in history when it turned out to be a good idea to not let the people know what their government did?
Once case, that is all I want.

Because I can give you countless were it was a very very bad idea.

Or is it that everyone likes secrets that suit them, Assange was no different, not wanting to reveal his address in court but willing to publicize all other kinds of shit, everyone's a hypocrite. Where am I going with this? I dunno.

That's a false equivalence.
Personal privacy is VERY different thing from government secrecy.
You can have the same stance on both, but you're not a hypocrite if you apply different standards for them.
Even the law does.

 

[ampere]

Holy shit, he sounds awesome :lol

 

[mAcOdIn]

Sadly you ignored the more important and relevant part of this post but such is your right. These following two statements were more cheapshots.

I think the government should not keep secrets from its citizens.
It's that simple.
I obviously allow for secrecy when it come to future plans or tactical stuff, but shit that happened in the past?
Can you give instance case in history when it turned out to be a good idea to not let the people know what their government did?
Once case, that is all I want.

Because I can give you countless were it was a very very bad idea.

Just one? Troop movements during war. Anyways, I support an open government but there's a lot of caveats to my support. Exact conversations should be secret. Personal opinions should be secret. if in a conflict combatants movements in a preapproved warzone should be relatively secret. Weapons system's full capabilities and limitations. There's a few others but as you can see they're not super important things to begin with and exposing them doesn't really really hurt us, it just doesn't help in one single way either. That said, troop movements should only be classified so long as they're moving around in pre-approved places, no deciding to go into Cambodia or Laos on a side incursion without telling the people back home first. The problem with government and secrets is we've now grown to big, not only do I think that the current people in these positions are relatively drunk on their positions and keep too many things secret to the point I believe they're no longer acting in our interest I think our government is so large that it probably keeps secrets from itself which is borderline retarded.

Everyone, ok just some people, always decry "but Obama," and while I don't think he was ever a great guy or would have been a great President I bet that he doesn't have the slightest clue over most of what's going on. Nor could he. Wikileaks should not be needed because the government should be rational enough and take their roles seriously enough as servants of the people to keep only that which should be secret, secret, instead we have the current government. So perhaps a period of a complete inability to keep secrets is in order for a few decades to train these people what should and should not be withheld so a Wikileaks entity is not needed. Of course after a few decades I figure we'll be right back to where we are now.

That's a false equivalence.
Personal privacy is VERY different thing from government secrecy.
You can have the same stance on both, but you're not a hypocrite if you apply different standards for them.
Even the law does.

It was a false equivalence but only slightly. He did release personal conversations but that's like releasing someone's IM chatlogs or some shit, not their address, so while he clearly does not respect other's privacy completely I'm unaware of him handing out addresses. He's ok with changing people's opinions regarding certain individuals but has not crossed the line as of yet by enabling total strangers the ability to lash out at these people, releasing his address in public however did just that to him.

But still a false equivalency if only for the fact that even if these conversations were personal to a degree they were still made as members of our government, I can see how one would believe they have a right to know, even if I think that particular example was stupid and no-one needed to know.

I still fail to grasp however the meat of the issue, that is, why it should matter when this "revelation" that he's a douchebag has been released. Unless everything is a lie and he's really some normal, down to earth humble guy, which I highly doubt, what does it matter if this was known now, 6 months ago or 6 months from now? It should have no bearing on Wikileaks the organization nor the case against him, the only place it'll have any effect is cable news and sites like this where we argue over whether he's a douche or not. So fucking what?

This whole thing is so damn annoying to me. One one side I hear he's a douche, fore sure he raped two women and by extension his organization is shit and every leak Wikileaks does is some kind of campaign against the US and no one else, all with no evidence. Well I think that's patently false. But on the otherhand I have people screaming he's a great guy, could never rape anyone, any charges have to be part of some conspiracy or character assassination from the US, Sweden is our puppet and that he'll disappear to Gitmo unless someone step in and stop Sweden from going through the motions with a case. Which I also find patently false. The only thing I'm certain of is that Assange is a douche and last I checked, so was everyone else in government or high up any chain, along with most people if I use the term loose enough, that's it. I fail to see why I should protect a man by affording him a defense that I would spare for no other individual, because I think an accused individual should face an accuser in a court where the accused act took place and believe every country, ok, western country, has the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their legal system. Who else would we give a blanket pass to if they had charges or were wanted for questioning? Who? So why fucking Assange? I always here the black choppers will take him, that there's some kind of conspiracy and all this global power can come up with are some flimsy molestation/rape accusations and 240,000 pounds bail? Pathetic. Let it play out, save the judgement for if/when the trial moves forward or he disappears. You'd afford no other man this defense with so little to go on but yet with the relatively little one knows of Assange so many are all but assured of his guilt or innocence that they can try him without any trial? preposterous.

If this is some statement that the masses as a whole are to ignorant to handle the knowledge that Assange is both a douche and doing something more beneficial than not and fear that they'll be unable to form a fair opinion of the man, so what? It's opinion. One only needs to concern themselves with Sweden's opinion and their government of residences opinion(like say mine, I don't support my government whisking him off to Gitmo or some shit), who cares what mAcOdIn or ChiTownBuffalo on Gaf thinks? Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? Who even cares what Obama thinks? None of it matters, what matters isn't whether any of us think he's guilty or innocent but whether we are going to do anything about it. Obama can hate Assange and wish him death all day long but so long as he doesn't utter the order to do it, what's the problem? If the public being so moronic than that also calls into question their ability to actually handle their secrets being leaked by Wikileaks. If we can't even know the truth about Assange perhaps we should live in ignorance?

I don't even see why a thread about Assange being a douche became a debate. He is a douche. Why is that even thread worthy? There's a lot of douches, lots here on Neogaf, Obama's probably a douche, McCain's surely is a douche, Palin's a douche. So what? What's there to debate?

 

[DR2K]

I love how some people are quick to defend with, "BUT AT LEAST HE HAZ BUTTSEX WITH GURLS!!!"

 

[Trent Strong]

I sort of touched on this in a later post, but okay. I've noticed in some admirers of Assange the tendency to conflate his professional activities with their own idealized composite of rebellious character traits. That is to say, a subgroup of his supporters idolize this apparently dauntless, amoral, debonair guy as a symbol for all the naughty things a good citizen isn't supposed to admire, but that many pine for. Basically, Assange is a real-life James Bond, and the journals enhance his myth by suggesting that his public image is not a facade; he lives a dangerous life professionally and privately.

Edit:

Judge individuals as individuals, not as categories or representatives of whole groups of people. Replace "atheists" with "white people" or "men" in that sentence and you'll see how that line of reasoning bucks the rails.

Oh I agree, and I do usually judge people as individuals. My concern is that theists see people like Assange and say "so that's what atheists are like." He gives us a bad name. Also, if I said "it's douche lords like him who give white guys a bad name" I don't think it would be that big of a deal. (I'm white and an atheist.)

 

[Puddles]

Sounds like Puddles.

:lol :lol

i don't see what Julian Assange has to do with Korea.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Deleted member 30609]

oh, so basically he was an arts student once?

 

[Esch]

anyone who thinks that mind games and general douchery are not essential tools in pulling a ton of ass obviously does not pull a ton of ass

:lol

And these are hilarious.

 

[Sew]

*shudder* So creepy/douchey

 

[Jenga]

I think only people who were pretentious arts student in college would think these writings make him look cool

fixed

 

[Chichikov]

Sadly you ignored the more important and relevant part of this post but such is your right. These following two statements were more cheapshots.

Sorry, I didn't mean it, I just saw my name and assume that's the only part that is addressed to me, but let me fix that (you're talking about that part, right?) -

I still don't get what it matters, if the smear is true so what? Are you suggesting that people should avert their eyes from truthful smears when they're conveniently, or inconveniently timed depending on your perspective, out of some kind of fairness?

Of course, I'm not saying everything here about Assange is true, I don't know but I am confident he is a douche and while that may be convenient to the US for me to know now, so what? Would Assange offer the US that same courtesy? Would he offer me that courtesy?

I didn't say people should avert their eyes or ignore the fact.
I actually didn't say anything about what Assange did or didn't do, mainly because I think it has practically no bearing on the wikileaks discussion.

But I think it's important to understand what's the motivation behind those attacks because:
1. Smear campaigns are not honest, they play fast and loose with the facts and ignore stuff that doesn't make that person look bad.
2. It's valuable knowledge to know who is engaging in such tactics, at least to me, you don't seem to be bothered by that, but such is your right.

Just one? Troop movements during war. Anyways, I support an open government but there's a lot of caveats to my support. Exact conversations should be secret. Personal opinions should be secret. if in a conflict combatants movements in a preapproved warzone should be relatively secret. Weapons system's full capabilities and limitations. There's a few others but as you can see they're not super important things to begin with and exposing them doesn't really really hurt us, it just doesn't help in one single way either. That said, troop movements should only be classified so long as they're moving around in pre-approved places, no deciding to go into Cambodia or Laos on a side incursion without telling the people back home first. The problem with government and secrets is we've now grown to big, not only do I think that the current people in these positions are relatively drunk on their positions and keep too many things secret to the point I believe they're no longer acting in our interest I think our government is so large that it probably keeps secrets from itself which is borderline retarded.

Everyone, ok just some people, always decry "but Obama," and while I don't think he was ever a great guy or would have been a great President I bet that he doesn't have the slightest clue over most of what's going on. Nor could he. Wikileaks should not be needed because the government should be rational enough and take their roles seriously enough as servants of the people to keep only that which should be secret, secret, instead we have the current government. So perhaps a period of a complete inability to keep secrets is in order for a few decades to train these people what should and should not be withheld so a Wikileaks entity is not needed. Of course after a few decades I figure we'll be right back to where we are now.

Did you miss this part: "I obviously allow for secrecy when it come to future plans or tactical stuff, but shit that happened in the past?".
But regardless of what I did or did not say, let me be crystal clear here about what I actually think -
Obviously attack plans, secret technological details, encryption mechanisms etc. should be kept secret.
But after the fact (and I'm intentionally don't address the question "how long after the fact" as it a technical detail), what good can come out of not knowing, and how the fuck can we even begin to hope for accountability without that knowledge?

Anyway, I don't think wikileaks talked about such matters, but that's besides the point:
If they did then in my mind it's a mistake that needs to be rectified, but that does not invalidate the concept of wikileaks any more than a blue on blue incident invalidate the concept of an army.

Also, can you explain why stuff that happen in a war zone should be relatively secret (and yeah, I don't know what "relatively secret" means so I assume you think it should not be made public) most of the worst shit ever happened during war was in a war zone.
As for opinions, I don't get it either, if an army officer want to create a rape squad, isn't something the public should know?

It was a false equivalence but only slightly. He did release personal conversations but that's like releasing someone's IM chatlogs or some shit, not their address, so while he clearly does not respect other's privacy completely I'm unaware of him handing out addresses. He's ok with changing people's opinions regarding certain individuals but has not crossed the line as of yet by enabling total strangers the ability to lash out at these people, releasing his address in public however did just that to him.

But still a false equivalency if only for the fact that even if these conversations were personal to a degree they were still made as members of our government, I can see how one would believe they have a right to know, even if I think that particular example was stupid and no-one needed to know.

He didn't eavesdropped on conversations, this is all stuff that the military itself thought it's important enough to document.
There's no real personal privacy issue as this information was already available to shitload of military personal.
What I'm saying is that by and large, the military don't get to decide what's important enough for the citizens to know.

This whole thing is so damn annoying to me. One one side I hear he's a douche, fore sure he raped two women and by extension his organization is shit and every leak Wikileaks does is some kind of campaign against the US and no one else, all with no evidence. Well I think that's patently false. But on the otherhand I have people screaming he's a great guy, could never rape anyone, any charges have to be part of some conspiracy or character assassination from the US, Sweden is our puppet and that he'll disappear to Gitmo unless someone step in and stop Sweden from going through the motions with a case. Which I also find patently false. The only thing I'm certain of is that Assange is a douche and last I checked, so was everyone else in government or high up any chain, along with most people if I use the term loose enough, that's it. I fail to see why I should protect a man by affording him a defense that I would spare for no other individual, because I think an accused individual should face an accuser in a court where the accused act took place and believe every country, ok, western country, has the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their legal system. Who else would we give a blanket pass to if they had charges or were wanted for questioning? Who? So why fucking Assange? I always here the black choppers will take him, that there's some kind of conspiracy and all this global power can come up with are some flimsy molestation/rape accusations and 240,000 pounds bail? Pathetic. Let it play out, save the judgement for if/when the trial moves forward or he disappears. You'd afford no other man this defense with so little to go on but yet with the relatively little one knows of Assange so many are all but assured of his guilt or innocence that they can try him without any trial? preposterous.

If this is some statement that the masses as a whole are to ignorant to handle the knowledge that Assange is both a douche and doing something more beneficial than not and fear that they'll be unable to form a fair opinion of the man, so what? It's opinion. One only needs to concern themselves with Sweden's opinion and their government of residences opinion(like say mine, I don't support my government whisking him off to Gitmo or some shit), who cares what mAcOdIn or ChiTownBuffalo on Gaf thinks? Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? Who even cares what Obama thinks? None of it matters, what matters isn't whether any of us think he's guilty or innocent but whether we are going to do anything about it. Obama can hate Assange and wish him death all day long but so long as he doesn't utter the order to do it, what's the problem? If the public being so moronic than that also calls into question their ability to actually handle their secrets being leaked by Wikileaks. If we can't even know the truth about Assange perhaps we should live in ignorance?

I don't even see why a thread about Assange being a douche became a debate. He is a douche. Why is that even thread worthy? There's a lot of douches, lots here on Neogaf, Obama's probably a douche, McCain's surely is a douche, Palin's a douche. So what? What's there to debate?

I can't speak for unnamed masses so I'll speak for myself and myself alone.
Again, I'm not saying he's not a douchbag, I'm saying that focusing on him instead of the substantive issue is missing the point.
Which is exactly what the people behind those attacks want to do.
I refuse to participate in that game,

 

[legend166]

oh, so basically he was an arts student once?

yes

 

[Staccat0]

Sounds sorta' like shit I used to write in High School (admittedly, it's better but still overwrought). Homeboy needs to read some Hemmingway and have himself an epiphany.:lol

Either way, his douchiness was always apparent, but I'm for more transparency and accountability to an extreme so whatever...

Bob Dylan and John Lennon = both supreme douches.
Chris Marten and Dave Grohl = pretty cool guys

I guess I like douches

 

[ijed]

it's Newcastle damnit, not New Castle.

That's what I was gonna say!

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

It's douche lords like this who give atheists a bad name.

But he's supposedly more awesome for this. What do I believe?!

 

[Fusebox]

When a Wikileaks discussion devolves into critiquing the founders personal writings and sexual habits, you know you've been Outfoxed.

 

[Jenga]

When a Wikileaks discussion.

topic of thread

Julian Assange is a douchebag

 

[Chichikov]

topic of thread

Discussion != thread.
Just saying.

 

[Wallach]

Discussion != thread.
Just saying.

There is not 'a' Wikileaks discussion.

 

[Fusebox]

topic of thread

Touche.

I'll rephrase: The fact we're talking about whether the Wikileaks founder is a douche instead of focusing on Wikileaks means we've been Outfoxed.

 

[Chichikov]

There is not 'a' Wikileaks discussion.

You can get all literal if you want (though you still be wrong, much like there's a healthcare discussion in this country, there's a wikileak one) but I think you can understand what he meant, can't you?

 

[Wallach]

You can get all literal if you want (though you still be wrong, much like there's a healthcare discussion in this country, there's a wikileak one) but I think you can understand what he meant, can't you?

Not when this discussion has nothing to do with Wikileaks discussion. I mean I am in full support of Wikileaks, but that doesn't mean I don't find the content in the OP hilarious and somewhat pathetic. Talking about whether he is in fact a douchebag or not is not immediately made irrelevant by his organization's work.

 

[Monocle]

Oh I agree, and I do usually judge people as individuals. My concern is that theists see people like Assange and say "so that's what atheists are like." He gives us a bad name. Also, if I said "it's douche lords like him who give white guys a bad name" I don't think it would be that big of a deal. (I'm white and an atheist.)

True enough. But then, the same religious people who use isolated examples of callousness and arrogance to support negative generalizations about nonreligious people often treat reasonable actions like insisting on the separation of church and state (for example, protesting the phrases "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on currency) as grave threats to their traditions, and moreover, society itself.

The correct response to that vulgar breed of prejudice is not to make apologies and concessions, nor to waste more than a few moments disavowing people who don't represent us. We ought to resist slander by taking a firmer stand for our convictions and multiplying our efforts to make those convictions understood by the uninformed and misinformed elements of the public.

 

[I <3 Memes]

He surely is an interesting guy. Who should play him in his biopic?

Jude Law should be posting Assange's bail for making his movie career relevant again.

 

[legend166]

Touche.

I'll rephrase: The fact we're talking about whether the Wikileaks founder is a douche instead of focusing on Wikileaks means we've been Outfoxed.

Assange has to shoulder some of the blame. He put himself out there as the face of Wikileaks because he's clearly got a massive ego he wanted stroked (amongst other things, hiyoooooo). The fact that he's a sociopathic creep doesn't help matters.


Disclaimer: I have no real problem with wikileaks and don't think he should be in prison or charged with anything relating to the leak of the cables.

 

[Zaptruder]

Assange has to shoulder some of the blame. He put himself out there as the face of Wikileaks because he's clearly got a massive ego he wanted stroked (amongst other things, hiyoooooo). The fact that he's a sociopathic creep doesn't help matters.


Disclaimer: I have no real problem with wikileaks and don't think he should be in prison or charged with anything relating to the leak of the cables.

Or he put himself out there in order to stop others from claiming credit for wikileaks and subverting the agenda.

Of course it's worked pretty much exactly as he had feared, albeit not in the exact manner he had predicted... but he had his heart in the right place.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

This went a lot longer than I thought it would before a fight broke out.

 

[Sweedishrodeo]

russell crowe as julian assange in biopic "leaks from the faucet"

Spoiler

it's a porno

 

[Ben Pierce]

seems like a smooth and intelligent man.

 

[jufonuk]

Cant get onto his online diary now either

 

[Deleted member 1235]

If winning was coffee beans, Julian assange is the strongest espresso on the market. Deal with it.

 

[mentalfloss]

He surely is an interesting guy. Who should play him in his biopic?

My guess

 

[mAcOdIn]

I actually didn't say anything about what Assange did or didn't do, mainly because I think it has practically no bearing on the wikileaks discussion.

100% in agreement.

But I think it's important to understand what's the motivation behind those attacks because:
1. Smear campaigns are not honest, they play fast and loose with the facts and ignore stuff that doesn't make that person look bad.
2. It's valuable knowledge to know who is engaging in such tactics, at least to me, you don't seem to be bothered by that, but such is your right.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I think it is important to know who's behind a smear attack just so we know which two sides are fighting it out, however, if the content of the smear attack is true I don't see how who was behind it being released should affect how I take this new-found truth.

Did you miss this part: "I obviously allow for secrecy when it come to future plans or tactical stuff, but shit that happened in the past?".
But regardless of what I did or did not say, let me be crystal clear here about what I actually think -
Obviously attack plans, secret technological details, encryption mechanisms etc. should be kept secret.

I actually did, my apologies.

But after the fact (and I'm intentionally don't address the question "how long after the fact" as it a technical detail), what good can come out of not knowing, and how the fuck can we even begin to hope for accountability without that knowledge?

I actually do not disagree with this. Especially with our current government which is insanely secretive and deceptive they can't be trusted nor can any oversight committee, the entire system needs a complete overhaul.

Anyway, I don't think wikileaks talked about such matters, but that's besides the point:
If they did then in my mind it's a mistake that needs to be rectified, but that does not invalidate the concept of wikileaks any more than a blue on blue incident invalidate the concept of an army.

It's impossible for Wikileaks to touch on current troop movements when these cables are all old, I know you didn't mention time so I will. In my opinion the current location, destination and fighting strength of a unit should be secret only so long as that unit is currently deployed assuming it is almost always in combat so really at most a year and a half but that should be shortened dramatically to immediately after an engagement for a police action type scenario in my opinion.

Also, can you explain why stuff that happen in a war zone should be relatively secret (and yeah, I don't know what "relatively secret" means so I assume you think it should not be made public) most of the worst shit ever happened during war was in a war zone.

This is a hard thing for me to express in words. Things that are illegal in the United States should be illegal, and are illegal, in the military and should never be secret. But I support some things being secret only because in addition to the obvious exact location of a unit that could be useful to the enemy I don't also wish them to know more indepth details like their current fighting strength, how much ammunition they have, what supplies they have, how long it will take supplies to reach them if needed, yadda, yadda. But when it comes to conduct, if someone breaks our laws, whether here or on foreign soil that should not be protected, nor do I think it's officially protected now I think it's just a bunch of asshats taking it upon themselves to protect people they shouldn't whether out of some idiotic sentiment of protecting our reputation, an idiotic sense of loyalty to losers or for a number of other reasons I'd find stupid. But it's extremely hard for me in my spare time to come up with a perfect list of exactly what I think should be secret and for how long but I actually presume it's not too far from what you yourself think, I'm starting to think we're arguing for no other reason except the fact I don't like Assange the man.

As for opinions, I don't get it either, if an army officer want to create a rape squad, isn't something the public should know?

Of course.

He didn't eavesdropped on conversations, this is all stuff that the military itself thought it's important enough to document.
There's no real personal privacy issue as this information was already available to shitload of military personal.
What I'm saying is that by and large, the military don't get to decide what's important enough for the citizens to know.

I never said he eavesdropped, nor were these all things the military or embassies deemed important enough to document. These are messages and reports sent to others, they're sort of like email or snail mail, some are nothing but gossip and random musings and others are important things like directives, assessments and the like. I don't believe it hard to distinguish between what's gossip or stupid chatter versus actual important things that do have a need to be known. I am willing to let this particular part of my argument slide just out of the fact that even though I believe there is no reason a citizen should need nor even want to know what a diplomat calls a foreign leader in private they did forfeit the right to privacy when they used a government cable to relay that message. If (s)he was bitching about Putin on their private phone or whatever, I'd defend this harder but being a government service was used, I can let it slide and say the public should get to see it. If they don't want embarrassing useless statements leaking out then they need to watch what methods they use to communicate those embarrassing statements on.

I can't speak for unnamed masses so I'll speak for myself and myself alone.
Again, I'm not saying he's not a douchbag, I'm saying that focusing on him instead of the substantive issue is missing the point.
Which is exactly what the people behind those attacks want to do.
I refuse to participate in that game,

What game? This is purely a thread about Assange being a douche, it's not a Wikileaks thread. I think that's where our argument began, I don't see this as a Wikileaks thread and feel free to call him a douche and you seem to view it as a Wikileaks thread and thus want to go on the defensive.

Just so people know I:
Think Assange is a Douche.

Don't like everything Wikileaks has done and would like for them to either evolve a tiny bit or someone replace them but in no way want them to go away before either of those two happen, so currently I'm still pro-Wikileaks because there's little to no alternative and currently world governments have shown themselves to not be capable or even wanting to be governments of their respectful people and are instead only furthering their own agendas. If the situation where slightly different and all Wikileaks could dig up was embassy gossip and no bad things were happening perhaps I'd feel differently about Wikileaks and wish this current iteration of them go away, but since this is a harsher reality than that I think they currently play a vital role for the people of the world and since no alternative exists we're better off with them than without.

I don't know if Assange raped or sexually molested a woman or two but do believe that he should face those charges. If he wins or the case falls apart he should be left alone just as any other citizen, if he is guilty he should face the punishment just like any other citizen. If once everything has begun you do see silliness like the US try and extradite him or whatever then yeah I think that would then be a time to stand up but currently I do not, I feel we're all impeding an investigation that may turn out to be legit and may not, but by claiming it's not legit before it's really even started, by claiming the victims aren't victims before it's started, it just seems like people are fucking with due process just because they either support Assange or Wikileaks. I honestly don't see this happening for anyone else.

Regarding the charges themselves, I'm not going to get into specifics because I will admit that I recognize that all I really have to go on are translations and I don't like to use those because the translator can add bias or miscommunicate the actual original statement but I want to address the concept while skirting from the actual charges themselves. If what Assange did was illegal, in Sweden, then as far as I'm concerned that is that. It doesn't matter if I or you find it absurd, he broke Sweden's law. If he broke the law and one or both of the girls let it slide because they thought he was in love with them and changed their mind after they found out he wasn't, then he still broke the law, again that's that. Of course if they're lying, CIA plants or some other nefarious plant well then of course he's innocent and everything should be dropped and people should go about their lives.

Now this part is again hard for me to express and decide on. Lets assume for a moment that Assange is guilty but that the law he broke was hardly ever enforced and is a law rarely used in Sweden except to tack on charges against someone for a harsher penalty, kind of like how Sodomy laws were used in the US. Technically he did break the law in that scenario but that is very much going after him that they probably wouldn't do for just any random person. This is hard for me to say which way I'd fall on because the law is the law, whether I agree with it or not, but it is the law coming down harder on one person than the next. I do think laws should be upheld but they should also be applied evenly.

But regardless, it's my impression right now that none of that matters because currently he's only wanted for questioning, he hasn't I believe actually been charged with anything yet, so I think all this speculation is still premature to say the least. As I've said before I do think a person should be expected to be questioned in the country that believes he may have committed an offense, I believe that is Sweden's right to invoke. Now if after that it turns into a sham trial, witch hunt then I will flip sides and join everyone saying it's all BS, but not before.

I want to take one more moment to talk about relationships because in the Assange Arrested thread people were claiming everyone in the thread was a rapist or had been raped and getting all hyperbolic. Look, this is a risk you take when you sleep with random women. There is a difference between a woman you pick up and your lover of 3 years or your wife. I don't like these false parallels brought up in defense of Assange by making everyone out to be the Devil along with him, but if one must go that route, then sure, all men are the Devil just some are luckier than others. if you do what could be considered sexual molestation or rape in Sweden and the girl liked it or whatever and you're off scott free, congratulations! That's all there is to it. If I were to make an equally stupid comparison it's like me proclaiming jay walking is not illegal because I jay walk all the time and never get in trouble. Well it is illegal whether I agree with it or not and whether I get called out for it or not, because millions of people do it and never get a ticket is not a defense one should use when faced with a ticket for jay walking.

But again, all of that except Julian Assange is a douche is irrelevant to the current thread.

 

[APF]

Wait are people saying certain information shouldn't be shared because it's only of prurient interest, not demonstrative of criminal behavior, and only serves to muddy the waters?