[Dragon]

Yes, if only to debunk it. Believe me, I have a lot of personal experience with that particular side... OK, so it's more "Russians shot it down" (though I believe aliens did come up at some point, much like everything else), but either way, trying to silence such claims only encourages them. Better to listen, at least if they can produce some "proof" (note that I'm not advocating listening to completely unfounded stories) and at least try to make their case. Anyone who goes that far warrants a solid, well researched debunking, at the very least.

[karajorma]

And you really think that a newspaper should devote column inches to "aliens shot it down"?

Yeah, I prefer my newspapers to be readable rather than covering every single piece of nonsense that has something to do with the story in the interest of "objectivity".

[Grizzly]

That's not objectivity, that's false equivalence...

[Luis Dias]

The whole "deplatform" thing that should have been seen for the miserable idea that it always was *only* got good references when biologists couldn't take with creationists anymore, since any effort to debate or talk to them was always absorved by the other side as a "win" ("See? They're talking with us which means there's a controversy"). So to counter this regurgitating tactic by some creationists, biologists thought that "deplatforming", denying any kind of conversation and so on should be the correct answer. "We're not going to lend our credibility to these buffoons", they said.

And everyone with a brain understood that position. What very few people understood was how this idea was poisonous and anti-intellectual in itself, it based on an anti-enlightenment view of the world, one which just suspects people are dumb and should not be trusted into reaching truths through reason and debate, but rather should be told what to believe by those who are obviously in the right. But few people cared, because the target was so obviously wrong on their positions (and they did try hard to dismantle actual biological education).

Problem is how hard and how ubiquituous this idea has become, this one of "deplatforming" anyone who disagrees with the "obvious truth", which is, of course, always with a "liberal bias" (Colbert, 2005). You disagree with climate change even if just in this one little detail? You're a denier and should be deplatformed. It's about the future of the world, you see, nothing personal. You disagree with feminism? You're a sexist and should be deplatformed. It's about equality. You disagree with intersectionality? Let's ban and shout you down. You are a student that disagrees with the black lives matter movement? What are you, a KKK member? We'll have the university administration persecute your ass down until you're out. And then it eats itself, when we see trans people being deplatformed because they were invited by a jewish club (worrying about anti-semitism is so 20th century, guys), when we see Maryan Namazie being deplatformed because she had one wrong particular idea within the ideology she so shares 99% with. It eats itself while burning the wider forum, the wider "marketplace of ideas". Enlightenment itself.

It's a tragedy, but what to expect? Bad ideas are not suddenly good ones because they had good intentions behind them. This devilish deal we had with deplatforming as a tool to crackdown "bad ideas" is turning any debate into either an intellectual masturbatory exercise between those who think alike (and in progressive manners, but I can totally find right wing analogues), or into a cruel witch hunt against that guy who just said something deeply "problematic", "disturbing" and "triggering".

Life is not a safe space where we have to deplatform (to where, Mars?) those who disagree with us. And my primary reason for this is that I do not trust *anyone* to do the job of deciding who is to be deplatformed, because as far as I know, he's an ape just like me, with his own agenda and errors. Deplatforming should be deplatformed. For the sake of us all.

[Luis Dias]

Ah, also, yeah, anyone defending "deplatforming" as something viable shall not come to whine about how our societies are getting so polarized and balkanized. Anyone making those two points will so get a slap out of me, I ****ing warn you beforehand.

[Bobboau]

That's not objectivity, that's false equivalence...

no "false equivilence" is the fun new meme you are using to justify no platforming people who you disagree with now that you have the power to do it.
just like "its not censorship when corporations do it", and "racism is power + privilege" all memes to justify why it's OK for you to be intellectually lazy or morally reprehensible for the greater good.

when the power shifts away from you, and you are the one being shut down, I will remember what you did when you had the power.

was thinking about making a topic for this, but sinse it seems relevant to the current discussion
http://lokithescottishrapper.com/2016/02/25/privilege-and-prejudice-social-justice-in-an-age-of-male-confusion/

[Luis Dias]

Loki is probably too late in his observations there.

Back to the topic. I don't see any harm whatsoever in being a little paranoid and skeptical about the sources and the journalists doing the gatekeeping of these secrets. I think that's quite healthy in fact, for a society to possess skeptical individuals like that.

I will only groan when skeptics then overreach and conclude that Putin (or any other outed dude) is actually in the right, or a good guy, because the Powers That Be are against him, and these Panama Papers being so filled with bad info on the guy proves the papers' actual source is The Powers that Be, and thus let's all root for Putin and against "Soros" or, ultimately where the hole goes, "the Jews" (it always goes there, doesn't it?).

No, I am quite skeptical in fact, despite acknowledging that this was probably the best way to leak bad **** to the public at large. It's too well organized for it to be totally trustworthy (any such good organization can't be so opaque to the kinds of people who were dug up). So I will still be skeptical about the whole "narrative" that will be built around this, but one thing we cannot do is deny the facts.

What I find more optimistic in all of this is how game theory somewhat negates the worst paranoias, since because if so much **** is being dug up from so many people, that if they feel this is gamed or whatever against them from equal or worse people, then the former will find a way to dig up dirt on the latter too. Which is a win win for all of us.

[The E]

I cannot get past this idea that good organization (or presentation) implies untrustworthiness. It's really, really bizarre.

[Bobboau]

as opposed to just a raw data dump, followed by a simple search, followed by shnazzy UI. it's a red flag because it makes me think "where did this come from? who paid for this site?" I have a feeling all the info is legit, but one sided, but we will see what comes out, maybe Trump or Hillary will have a shell company in there somewhere.

[Grizzly]

Bobbeau, is a website like politifact deplatforming people by virtue of them fact checking statements before they publish them?

[Bobboau]

so long as they are publishing accurately and fairly those people's statements, and they are not cherry picking, no, that would not be deplatforming.
but that site does not give one side of an argument a platform at all, and I would not classify that site as a journalism outlet, so I think that would be a tenuous link to begin with.

[Luis Dias]

I cannot get past this idea that good organization (or presentation) implies untrustworthiness. It's really, really bizarre.

I don't care how well the html's are done, I'm thinking much more on the lines on how 400 journalists all over the world were coordinating all of this without a peep for a whole year, and now suddenly the papers are getting these leaks according to some kind of highly coordinated planned leakage. And I'm quite skeptical not a single one of those 400 journalists were slightly corrupt or leaking anything at all that might have reached someone who treats billion dollars like a fun game. Moreso, such coordination needs a kind of hierarchy.

Now think. If there's a kind of comitee, and if someone leaked this a long time ago, is it really a stretch to imagine this organization to be compromised by the wrong kinds of people? If you remember, we are dealing with a leak that compromises people who manipulates laws to get profits from the total destruction of entire countries.

So no, I don't think being skeptical is out. Not that I'm not thankful... at least I am pretty sure a lot, if not all of, those journalists are really trying to do good, and much more can come out of it. But to think there's no possible way this organization isn't flawed or compromised is a tad naive, sorry. Real life is harsher than that.

[Bobboau]

but the journalists say the journalists can be trusted, there is no other side.

[Luis Dias]

That's always the catch, isn't it? We have now superheroes of sorts, watching for us all the bad **** that they got their hands into. But who watches the Watchmen?

There is much to go Hmmm. Specially the manner in which these things can easily be weaponized. Already a PM quit his job. Curiously, it was a PM that benefited from its own country's rebellious treatment of the global banking system collapse. The other leak was about Cameron's dad, which could be a sign that his real power is meaningless (and it is, ever since the pig scandal). Then there's Putin, but Putin has been a bad boy for a long time. And then, very few people from the US. If we were to take Joshua's excuse seriously (there's enough US laws to make Panama unimportant), then why would anyone else even go through the troubles of using Panama in the first place, when there are also so many european offshore places to begin with? It doesn't smell right.

Even if I'm being too harsh, the point is not this. The point is that this harshness should be allowed to enter the discussion. After Wikileaks and the NSA scandal, it's all easy to see how "big leaks" could be politically weaponized against major powers in the world (and by powers I don't mean countries). In this interpretation, what would appear as a benign "Watergate" type of grassroots David vs Goliath talking truth to Power, could actually be just the front-end of a particular kind of cold war being waged between different political / financial hidden superpowers, and where one bunch is trying to gain some kind of leverage over another bunch. And that by using the very public as a weapon.

There are many possible explanations for the unfolding events. One of them includes the good heoric story. Others do not. Never be too optimistic when there's so much hidden information.

[The E]

Don't get me wrong: I fully understand where you're coming from. It's just that, after the last 18 months, the constant insinuations that there's a jewish agenda, an SJW agenda, a neocon agenda, a muslim agenda, an agenda agenda behind everything are losing their grip on me. There's an element of sanity preservation at play here, the idea that if you expect the worst of everyone, the only surprises you're going to get are good ones; But I do not want to play that game anymore. It's not doing good things to me and my outlook on life.

[Luis Dias]

I'm not going to debate your own personal priorities, and don't take my words negatively or "depressingly", at least. That wasn't my point either... I try not to expect anything (neither bad or good) from anyone. David Brin interprets all of this as one more step into his susveillance idea, and I kinda hope it's the true correct interpretation, that somehow barriers of information are destroying horrible powers' ability to at least maintain their farces. Probably that's why there are so many ghastly truths going around about every kinds of people going around - it's not that we are living in a worse place, it's just that we are getting the information that these people exist when previously we didn't (the world is getting more and more collapsed into a swirling singularity where people and information are clashing like never before).

My thing is, I don't expect anything to come about in these papers. And I didn't even touch the worst outcome of all of this.

The worst, most pessimistic outcome is the following: it becomes passé. Nobody cares. It's just "another one of those leaks", despite uncovering truly maddening stuff. In such an outcome, dangerous powers start to realise that they can just do whatever they want without even disguising it (what cynics would call at least a modicum of civilizational respect), and become more like Trump: lying all the time, pure emotional discourse without any kind of reality check.

That kind of interpretation is not unrealistic. It happened once too, in the beggining of the 20th century when radio started to enter the discussion and there was a similar kind of "collapse" of information, when suddenly everyone got aware of much more they were used to. We didn't enter an age of reason then, we had to go through a collapse of emotional rage and that generated fascism itself. The germans had to go a step further than that and go super-sayian about it, and it didn't end well. Freud was terrified by what was happening in the late 20s and the 30s and had become totally misanthropic and depressed.

Well, the world did go through a crisis but the silver lining is, we are still here. And I think, in a better shape. So, you know, there's always hope and chance for good to come through (goodness is quieter than evilness, I do think, and much more ubiquitous than we often imagine).

[Grizzly]

I cannot get past this idea that good organization (or presentation) implies untrustworthiness. It's really, really bizarre.

I don't care how well the html's are done, I'm thinking much more on the lines on how 400 journalists all over the world were coordinating all of this without a peep for a whole year, and now suddenly the papers are getting these leaks according to some kind of highly coordinated planned leakage. And I'm quite skeptical not a single one of those 400 journalists were slightly corrupt or leaking anything at all that might have reached someone who treats billion dollars like a fun game. Moreso, such coordination needs a kind of hierarchy.

Now think. If there's a kind of comitee, and if someone leaked this a long time ago, is it really a stretch to imagine this organization to be compromised by the wrong kinds of people? If you remember, we are dealing with a leak that compromises people who manipulates laws to get profits from the total destruction of entire countries.

So no, I don't think being skeptical is out. Not that I'm not thankful... at least I am pretty sure a lot, if not all of, those journalists are really trying to do good, and much more can come out of it. But to think there's no possible way this organization isn't flawed or compromised is a tad naive, sorry. Real life is harsher than that.

I can get the reasoning behind your suspiciouns, but I have no idea why people working on this for a year would validate those suspicions: YOu say yourself that these are extremely serious allegations. There is a lot of stake on people getting this right. When people get this wrong, when there is a case of information being manipulated in order to suit a political goal or whatnot, it would not just invalidate this particular leak - it would seriously comprimise anyone who would want to leak in the future. The Panama route is not the only route to tax dodging, and it's not the one that is commonly used by Americans due to the strong ties that Panama has with the US government. They HAVE to get this a hundred percent right. The Law(tm) will be doing their own investigations, and this information has to match. A failure to do this would be a violation of quite a few journalistic principles, and would seriously hamper their agenda: To uncover corruption.

And that's why the organisation around it has to be so strong. It really is the same back when wikileaks first started (although they have since gotten a lot more sensationalist).

but the journalists say the journalists can be trusted, there is no other side.

Becuase this is their side. This is a group of journalists presenting a hard case. There will be plenty of other newspapers that will also be looking into this, which will also be looking into the journalists behind this. Although journalists generally have the same principles it's not like they ever agree with eachother. Look at the diversity of newspapers in even a small country. But these journalists presenting a hard case does not immeaditely mean that the 'other side' (Although considering the amount of people involved it's more of a variety of sides) is being excluded. Do you think that newspapers will stay silent if these revelations turn out to be phoney? Off course they won't, which is also why see above.

[Luis Dias]

It's not that the good willing people are willing to validate my suspicions. It's not those I'm worried about. The mere fact they are uncovering these harsh truths is a testament that there are cruel evil bastards out there, willing to do very different things than the "Good people". This "they have to get this a hundred percent right" I don't get. Is there some law of physics that demands this to come to pass that I'm unaware of? What is really there that forces all of these stories to be 100% uncompromised? Please do tell.

A failure to do this would be a violation of quite a few journalistic principles, and would seriously hamper their agenda: To uncover corruption.

First, violating "journalistic principles" is not something novel for my eyes. It's actually pretty common, if you pay the minimum of attention. Second, you are attributing agendas to people you don't even know about. That's some kind of super meta telepathy that I just can't follow you on. Until you prove me that you do indeed have this Marvel-like kind of superpower to discern what people are actually "up to", why would anyone take your statement seriously?

I'm *not* saying it is a false statement. I'm saying that you are just asserting a belief with little to no evidence apart from the journalists' own statements that they are indeed doing what they say they are doing. What now, are journalists a class of their own too, like scientists? They are hovering all over us with their amazing moralities unlike the rest of us apes? They are humans, Joshua. That means they are as flawed as ****.

Becuase this is their side. This is a group of journalists presenting a hard case. There will be plenty of other newspapers that will also be looking into this, which will also be looking into the journalists behind this.

Don't buy it. Journalism has been long replaced in the mainstream by clickbait emotional discourse produced to get your eyeballs for publicity money. I love the idealism. I just don't see it with my eyes.

[Grizzly]

Journalism has been long replaced in the mainstream by clickbait emotional discourse produced to get your eyeballs for publicity money. I love the idealism. I just don't see it with my eyes.

You are aware that there are plenty of newspapers which operate with a classical subscriber system and don't rely on publicity money?
Like, those paper things? Don't take Gawker or Breitbart or Fox as the arbiter of everything journalism.

This "they have to get this a hundred percent right" I don't get. Is there some law of physics that demands this to come to pass that I'm unaware of? What is really there that forces all of these stories to be 100% uncompromised? Please do tel

Becuase doing anything else would mean they would get into a lot of trouble. There are quite a few nations with plaintiff friendly libel laws, and falsely accusing someone of corruption with falsified evidence is, well, awfull. Why do I even have to explain you this?

[Bobboau]

these are extremely serious allegations. There is a lot of stake on people getting this right. When people get this wrong, when there is a case of information being manipulated in order to suit a political goal or whatnot, it would not just invalidate this ... - it would seriously comprimise anyone who would want to ... in the future. ... They HAVE to get this a hundred percent right.

oh, it's 2003 and the American political establishment says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. they won't show us the solid evidence? but they swear they have it? OK, well they wouldn't just lie right? I mean the consequences to that would be disastrous to them once it was found out there was nothing.