General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What the hell, DU? [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)My statement (in #7) was: "But some DUers are, in effect, saying that the current surveillance isn't problematic because of the personal histories of some of the people who've brought information about it to light, or have made a stink about information that was already known."
Your response (#15) admitted that people had criticized Snowden personally, but, you asked, "Got a link to a DUer saying illegal surveillance isn't problematic?"
My statement used the key phrase "in effect" because no one comes right out and says this. Because you apparently missed the point the first time, I elaborated (in #69): "SunSeeker is correct to the extent that this implication isn't spelled out, presumably because it's so obviously indefensible."
The undeniable facts are these:
1. Edward Snowden revealed facts that, in the opinion of many people, reflected badly on Barack Obama, a President who was elected as a Democrat.
2. Democratic Underground is a forum generally supportive of Democrats. In particular, a large number of its members are supportive of Obama, ranging from the tepid he's-the-lesser-of-two-evils to the fervent.
3. Snowden is not (and, as far as I know, never has been) an elected official, a candidate for elective office, or a Presidential appointee. He was a Civil Service employee of the federal government and/or an employee of a private contractor doing work for the federal government.
4. There are many, many, many people who meet the description in (3) above. None of them are the targets on DU of the kind of sustained personal attacks that have been directed at Snowden. Snowden was not such a target before he made the revelations referred to in (1) above.
I have asked, and others have asked, if Snowden's views on Social Security and the like have any logical relevance to the current controversy about NSA surveillance. No one has provided such a connection that I've seen.
It's fair to ask why anyone on DU bothers even to mention (let alone make a major topic of) what you call "the many things Snowden did wrong". My conclusion is that this focus on irrelevant personal details about a low-level employee is intended to deflect criticism from what the Obama administration has done.
Finally, I agree with you that DUers have huge areas of common agreement. I try to avoid making personal attacks on other DUers; I haven't called anyone a tool, a troll, or an authoritarian. What I did was to point out that one specific line of argument that people were making was McCarthyite and invalid. Love men, slay errors, as St. Augustine said.