Author Topic: Can WL's supporters be objective about all issues concerning Julian Assange?  (Read 15924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Can WL's supporters be objective about all issues concerning Julian Assange?

objective (definition) >  uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

compare these two blogs:

http://www.alexaobrien.com/timeline_us_versus_manning_assange_wikileaks_2010.html

http://amiobjective.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/assange-case-quick-reference-with.html

    Both of these blogs are well researched and written by intelligent people with a passion for what they do. Obviously one of them is pro-Assange and one of them is not. How much does the passion towards the support for WikiLeaks and/or Assange allow us to remain impartial when reading two very different views of the same subject?
    Why am I asking this? Because right now we are in a flurry of activity concerning  WL/JA so intense these days, that I feel like supporters for WL/JA are being made and unmade with each passing day. How well anyone of us can detach ourselves and our personal feelings toward all of the current volatility of everything that has to do with the organization these days could make or break our support. Do we allow our personal feelings and/or needs for Julian Assange to be or act a certain way in his dealings with all that he faces, get in the way of our ultimate goal of supporting what WikiLeaks was all about to begin with?
 comments please....   :) 
     
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear

julia

  • Guest
Hi Riney,

I am not sure what you are referring to in particular. I can give you my opinion though ..
I try to loOk at Assange as a professional . I loOk at his work , what he does, what he says. His personal life doesn't concern me . It's his business . The prob is that the two aspects , personal and professional , have been mixed to damage him and his project. It is meant to confuse people . That is my opinion.

I think if I met Assange in person I would prob clash with him, maybe not,but it doesn't stop me from supporting him because it's irrelevant . You cannot separate Assange from wikileaks . Assange is wikileaks and wikileaks is Assange. They can't be separated.

julia

  • Guest
I think if you have doubts you can leave fowl. Being there is taking a stand for wikileaks . I haven't read the blogs, I m sorry I am awful but I've been reading articles for the past hour !! Listen , take your time to think and decide for yourself . What you cannot do is to stop thinking and be a blind follower, don't be afraid if you end up in another place. This is your path.

greekemmy

  • Guest
There is no such thing as pure objectivity, we all wear tinted glasses. If we try really hard to empty our minds from preconceptions and judgements, well we might end up with an empty head, and what use can an empty head be for any person or society.

Accepting our inescapable inherent judgemental positions as human beings we must also factor in that politics is a constant dialogue of opposing interests in a society and these interests are actively engaged to shape, influence and recruit others not to mention get rid of opponents.

Put in all this the revolutionary new idea at stake of Justice through transparency via the break down of conspiracies as analysed by JA in is Essay about Conspiracies and you have one big powerful political arena, where we are currently engaged.

Fact finding is our "Ariadne's Thread" to navigate our way through the labyrinth of arguments that are flying about and thankfully we all posses our basic faculties to use towards that purpose.

For me the journey continues, in support of Julian Assange and his brainchild Wikileaks.

greekemmy

  • Guest
Just for objectivity purposes, one blog is written by Alexa O'Brien, the other blog (and I just had a quick look through) does not identify the author. Riney do you know who they are? it looks really professional and hours of work spent in putting together these resources, references.

This forum has been my only internet place and I have kind of accepted that anonymity on the internet world goes without saying to protect the privacy of the individual especially against cyber bullying and financial fraud. In this forum for example we all accept anonymity and we use  names that do not fully identify us.

In the real world though we all carry our thoughts and ideas under our true identities with the full sense of responsibility that this carries.

That Alexa O'Brien identifies herself in the internet world with her true identity immediately makes her political activism one that a historian of the future will look as a source when writing books. The other blog has no provenance and as such by limiting the comparison between the two, is a puff in the air in credibility.

I love the chance I get to peruse different opinions and perspectives as you find on the net, it certainly forces one to sharpen their mind and broaden their horizon. This is exactly what this forum is all about.

Of course its title "The Official WikiLeaks Forum" is what brought me to it and what will always keep me coming back as it promises to be what it says on the cover and it has so far been true to its title.   

There have been other places on the net with "WikiLeaks" on the cover... a shiny shell full of promise and when you pick it up and have a look inside you find not WikiLeaks values but an ugly crab ready to cut at your fingers, I am referring to fraudulent sites that capitalise on the name to make money and it is full of spam or advertisements or both ... diets and goodness knows what... links, links links, all they care about to go up the google "hit count" that will promise higher revenues from advertising.

But commercial profit is not the only reason for putting up a blog for Wikileaks... sadly internet anonymity however useful for protecting the private individual offers a wonderful opportunity for propaganda and disinformation too.

What a journey is this of learning... looking forward to an interesting discussion. :) 

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Thank you juju and greekemmy- I can always count on you two for replies. When I posted this yesterday I was wondering if I would get responses. I tried to illicit comments and participation from both twitter and facebook without results.
 
 juju- I agree with separating JA's professional and private life out from my feelings towards him and WikiLeaks. The one thing I have always wanted and needed from him he has provided- to remain obsessed and completely consumed by his work. His private life and private legal issues(separate from his legal issues that come from his actions as WL staff) are his business. Unfortunately, as you said they can't be separated. His private legal issues have very negatively affected his work both politically(the image of the organization to the world) and functionally(their funds have nearly dried up).

greekemmy- As I read through all the information presented by both sides I am finding faults on both sides. I can forgive faults- what I can't get around is peoples need to be one sided about things. As you stated people will come to any argument with their "preconceptions and judgements" and this certainly guides their ability to concede to other viewpoints. The author Jonathan Haidt in his new book "The Righteous Mind" brings up something that is has already been known for awhile, that once people designate their belief about something as sacred- they will no longer be able to listen to evidence that are contrary to their beliefs. I am trying to as you say- "navigate our(my) way through the labyrinth of arguments". It has now consumed me to do so, and I can see the view from both sides and do my best to find a "safe" place to be in between. As I said my biggest frustration is with very one sided people on both sides.

For instance look at this tweet:
  David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
What @craigmurrayorg and other #Assange apologists simply do not get is that rape complainants have rights too.

The biggest problem with this is his used the word "simply" for an issue that is highly complex. I have read through many opinions of Assange supporters on this one issue and found a huge range of opinions from "it is the only one thing I have against him, that he just doesn't go to Sweden and face the allegations" to the other extreme "as a rape survivor I am offended by being called a rape apologists- this whole thing has been about Assange being extradited to the US and nothing else". But David Allen Green has stated his opinion in such a way that all Assange supporters can be lumped into one big group of dumb blind sheep following a messiah and capable of disregarding all the rights of rape victims to due process while doing so. 

Well, I am glad to have this forum as a safe place to bring these issues up... let me post this greekemmy before I address your next post.  :) 
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Just for objectivity purposes, one blog is written by Alexa O'Brien, the other blog (and I just had a quick look through) does not identify the author. Riney do you know who they are? it looks really professional and hours of work spent in putting together these resources, references.

I know who Alexa O'Brien is- as you say she is very public and identifiable- she is even seen on this forum in video on "The World Tomorrow" series speaking. It is the episode about Occupy.


 
As for Objectiviser ‏ @objectiviser, I will send you a personal message on this to protect their anonymity and mine.  :)

 
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear

ariana

  • Guest
I also share the opinion that no one is completely objective, but we should try not to become extremely onesided and as a result lose our judgment capability. Also, to stay fairly objective it’s important not to forget what we’re supporting: organization itself, its members, founders or rather goals and motives of their deeds. Namely, motives can change and we won’t be able to notice and/or accept it if we started to support the organization itself or to worship its members/founders at some point. The history is full of examples for “revolutions which devoured its children”.   

I started the thread about extradition yesterday not because I want to discredit Assange, but rather out of curiosity AND fear of possibly being influenced as a supporter. One can understand his fears, but in my opinion they are in no way proportional for his given reasons to be extradited. In other words, his fears outweigh  the possible charges he faces in Sweden. However, that doesn’t mean that I’ll forget all good things about Assange, but I’m surely going to be more cautious from now on.

julia

  • Guest
Riney, is this what your post is about ??
Please, WL supporters are not a mass of blind people just doing what they're told . I am one of them and I think Julian Assange is innocent and the word rape offends me . Please read all the background of this story. Have you ? I think not ! If you had you wouldn't talk like this.

If suddenly wikileaks was transferred to another team, what do you think would happen ? They would be stopped as well. They would be blocked, charged, whatever , until they were crushed. Julian is not only defending his life he is defending his organization and freedom of speech . He is thus not selfish but extremely generous .

julia

  • Guest
And yes, wikileaks supporters can be objective and they are. You will find that they are supporting WL because they are smart, well informed, they have thought for themselves weighting all the issues and have seen the inconsistencies of th Swedish allegations and the interests, dark games, behind and decided to take a stand to defend WL against this abuse of power. It's not a blind follow. WL supporters are a very smart well informed group of people. You could call Lady Gaga's blind followers, not WL .

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Hi juju,  :)
So your question is "is this what your post is about??" and this confuses me. What is your question? Is my post about what exactly?
   The post is about whether WL supporters allow their own "preconceptions and judgements" that they have affect their ability to judge things about Julian Assange's current situation in an unbiased and impartial way. As you know, there is so much information being put out about his current legal situation from both sides, information that completely contradicts the other in certain instances. The question is does anything that we believe long before we ever even knew about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange affect our ability to weed through all the contradictory information that is out there now and see the truth.
   For instance, I am for the underdog- always have been. If I can detect that anyone is being bullied or picked on by a more powerful thing or person- I always side with the "underdog". That is just me. That is the way I think in all things. Of course then, I am drawn in immediately by the whole Julian Assange (the underdog) versus the US government (the bully) situation. So then I should be full on no holds barred battling it out for Julian at not cost. I should be believing everything that is published about him that is good to be the truth and then anything that is published about him that is negative as an outright lie. But it is just not that simple.
   I understand that you believe that all WL supporters are well informed and not blind to any truths. But what I find when I explore both sides is actually a very wide range of beliefs among them, that vary from the hard core complete denial that he could possibly have a single fault all the way to people that question everything he does and do so in order to keep him in line with the reality he faces.
   I am sorry if I have offended you by even posting this question, but the question has to be asked. I have detected some "blindness" among some of his supporters. People that have said things that are blown out of proportion and could not be true of any human for that matter. We do no favors to Julian Assange by cuddling him and pleasing him in his fight against very powerful enemies. He has to do what is hard and face certain facts no matter how comforting it is to him to hear things that ease his worries. We all become scared and stop being ourselves when faced with desperate situations. He is no exception.   
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear

julia

  • Guest
Riney, if you believe Assange has to face sexual allegations that's fine . He himself has offered to do so. To deny that there is a political motivation behind it is very naive, specially when there is proof of it. If you think it's not convenient for the powerful that Assange cannot clean his name becaus he cant face the risk to go to Sweden , and Sweden in turn has rejected to question him where he is, then i don't  know what else to tell you. If you think he is guilty of rape then be it , it's your subjective opinion. I don't care, but don't accuse others of being blind because they think differently . Some ppl may have more passion than reason, you will find this anywhere,I don't see what the biggie is.it just surprises me that you are still in this stage of doubt, don't  blame it on others .

Offline Riney

  • Support Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Thank you juju, for the speedy reply. Now lets look at the facts of your reply:
"Riney, if you believe Assange has to face sexual allegations that's fine"
I never even mentioned the sexual allegations in my reply - not once
"He himself has offered to do so. To deny that there is a political motivation behind it is very naive'"
I never denied or confirmed there is a polictical motivation- never mentioned it
"specially when there is proof of it" - proof is always negotiable juju - who is really being naive here?
You suggest "doubt"  as a weakness, but doubt can make or break a soldier on the battlefield - overconfidence will kill them for sure - "doubt" is what keeps them alive.
   
 Well, you see where this is going juju. We have parted in away- and that is OK- on some level we will always agree- but not here. You came to this discussion with preconceived ideas. You assumed things about my beliefs that may or may not be true. Julian has no wiggle room- he has to be right on target about what is true in his situation and what is not. 
His enemies are bigger than our disagreements - lets just proceed with caution and do the best we can.  :)
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" Anais Nin .. and yet we must arm ourselves with fear

julia

  • Guest
   Riney, I have re-read the whole thread with a cold mind. I may have overreacted because I have been very overwhelmed by the mediatic reaction. The speech on Sunday was wonderful and it seemed that finally the world was considering whistleblowers rights seriously. Things that haven't been talked about finally coming up to the surface . I felt that finally justice would be possible with so many wonderful people defending the truth. Something that never happened before . Unfortunately it all lasted less than 24h hours as the MSM started a discredit campaign. I felt as if somebody stepped on my beautiful garden , cut the flowers that I carefully grew, and left a desert of dirt and destruction . Reading your post here I thought you implied other things because I had so much anger and frustration. I see what you mean now. You just don't want to position yourself and you want to stay neutral. It is very dangerous to do do when there is so much at stake. I would like to see criminal charges in what concerns issues like torture and military misconduct that lead to thousands   Of deaths. There are still innocent men in gitmo. Those are real crimes. Assange has been arrested for almost 2 years and those others haven't even been  questioned . How can you still trust the justice system? How can you still not think its nothing but a shield for those in power ? And how can you not doubt them but you can doubt Assange? I think you got the wrong focus of attention. Is it ok for the UK to favor natiOnal legislation over international law? What are your opinions on these things and why are you so critical of a man fighting for justice when there is almost none? Thanks to Ecuador at least there is some ...

Furthermore, if I was hanging from a cliff, for a long time , and my life was at risk,  Would you still ask me : "hey juju but listen, did you slip or did anyone push you? I am not sure what are the implications here , you need to figure it out."
Would you say that and watch me fall?

That's not what you do. You need to listen to your heart. What is the mind without the heart ? As greekemmy said, it's complete emptiness .   
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 04:06:22 AM by juju »

julia

  • Guest
This one is for @objectiviser

Start looking at minute 19 please:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Sorry to disappoint you honey ;)