!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
I personally do, he actually risked his life to release information about the government spying on people. And there are for sure more advanced ways now. Even your phone is listening.
I still like the fact that he released so many documents that when the newspaper tried to open the file it broke Excel, so he had to come in and fix it.
Side note-How much percentage of the Epstein files released? Maybe he could have helped if he knew.
He did a good thing. Don't know enough about the man to pass judgement.
And after all, the guy that killed Hitler (undoubtedly a good thing) was very much an asshole.
What Snowden did was objectively good, and he did so at great personal cost, but you should be cautious about making any living person your hero. His politics seem to lean closer to libertarian nut-job than anything else, and it's very possible he will disappoint you in the future. Case in point, Glen Greenwald broke the Snowden leaks, and I considered him one of my heros for a time,.but these days he sounds more like Tucker Carlson than anyone else. The point is, admire heroic actions, but don't make people your heroes.
His politics seem to lean closer to libertarian nut-job than anything else
Sure, but you could say the same of Luigi Mangione and that isn't slowing anyone down.
Case in point, Glen Greenwald broke the Snowden leaks, and I considered him one of my heros for a time,.but these days he sounds more like Tucker Carlson than anyone else.
Glenn was always a libertarian crank. But after he got ousted from The Guardian, his economic needs superseded his politics. I might suggest that if Glenn had ended up on MSNBC rather than the gutter for FOX News washouts, he'd be denouncing Snowden today rather than praising him.
The point is, admire heroic actions, but don’t make people your heroes.
I don't think you can criticize Snowden because the guy who interviewed him ended up becoming a crank. But I also don't know of what became of Snowden, outside "he fled to Russia after Hong Kong wouldn't hide him".
I might suggest that Snowden was only able to leak what he did because he climbed up the ranks through Booze-Allen to begin with. And there you've got an inherent problem with whistleblowers - either coming or going, they must have done something you don't like.
But I'd say his turn of conscious and his work ethic and professionalism in how the information was aggregated, leaked, and confirmed makes him a role model for anyone else who aspires to turn coat against a fascist regime. Whatever you think of the individuals, you still do need Role Models in order to inform how you might achieve similar results. That means studying other people - studying history at the individualist level - and asking how they did what they did. Ideally, you're studying people you admire because you want to be more like them. Realistically, you're going to study people and see their warts. And that might shape what you think about their motivations and whether your own motivations lead you the same way.
Sure, but you could say the same of Luigi Mangione and that isn't slowing anyone down.
I mean, I would say you shouldn't make him your hero either. Even if you think what he did was heroic, lone gunman assassins usually don't turn out to be very stable, well adjusted people. Hell, Ted Kacynski has some good points about post-Industrial life, but that doesn't mean he should be your hero.
I might suggest that if Glenn had ended up on MSNBC rather than the gutter for FOX News washouts, he'd be denouncing Snowden today rather than praising him.
Very possible, and nearly as disappointing. My point isn't that he changed or became worse, just that I projected more of my ideals onto him than he actually shared.
I don't think you can criticize Snowden because the guy who interviewed him ended up becoming a crank.
To be clear, I'm not. I'm saying that he has some views and beliefs that may lead him to disappoint you in the future. He mostly doesn't comment much on politics outside of the surveillance state, but he has described himself as a libertarian, and said that he believes social security is a scam that needs to die. It seems clear that he is anti-authoritarian, but it's very possible that, if he ever became more vocal about American politics, you'd learn a lot about him that would disappoint you.
I mean I have no idea what this guy's like, outside of what he's broadly known for, but I definately approve of what he did in regards of informing the greater public about the level of intrusion they are actively seeking to have into everybody's life.
I approve of what he did, but I don't approve of his ideals.
I mean he did coin/popularise the phrase "Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
I hate this phrase. I mean, it ain't false, but this argument has the same logic as if I would say: "Saying grass is green is like saying sky is blue".
This phrase cleaverly relates 2 unrealted things to manipulate the recipient.
He could have been, but his actions and words since has made me feel he had ulterior motives from the start.
Agreed
Anything in particular? Or is this just bad vibes?
Not a fan of his personal views but he did do a good thing at the very least
No, his behavior shall be average, not an exception. However we have to fight the repression that target him, like every other one that stand against repression
Bit of a nuanced take, a trimmed down copy-paste from another comment of mine prior. Tl;Dr: he's a product of the system that left the system.
Snowden was an individual that worked in the intelligence community in the mid-2000s. In this era, the American populace was so afraid of terrorism they signed away freedoms for national security. In this post 9/11 world, patriotism was a given, almost nationalistically, if you were American. It's fair to say that a highly nationalistic media and culture can influence the individual to embrace those mentalities more... even if it perverts your true best interest. Snowden likely viewed service to the NSA as patriotic, and in support of his fellow Americans. While he started off supporting it, he soon saw immorality, and decided to resist against them with what I see as an effective measure. I feel that for most whistleblowers, this logic applies. I wanna say "Good job, but still shame on you for taking the job to begin with," yet this system we're in can cause us to support things we otherwise wouldn't like.
Looking to modern issues: The manipulation of individuals, mass surveillance, leveraging of government by powerful. Critisizim of these was always there, but where it was pointed at and pursued sure felt a lot different after Snowden.
conservatives have a wierd obssesion of him being a"traitor" guess exposing conservative hypocrisy is traitorous.