Seconded. I realize this is (probably as a direct consequence!) a contentious position, but I'm concerned that Wikileaks is as much an arm of an imperialist state actor as Russia's Internet Research unit. And, like it, a more effective weapon than the actual deteriorating military of the state… and accordingly in heavy, aggressive use.
Since I'm not interested in seeing Russia win anything but 'best dubtechno the world will ever see' I'm not interested in seeing Wikileaks prosper. It's a bit of a litmus test to me: I'm suspicious of anyone who passionately supports something like it, or 'Q', and so on. It is of great importance to the Russian imperialist effort.
It's simply a bad position. You've characterized all of Wikileaks by the one leak that upset your party, the (at the time) ruling party of a hegemonic state.
Do you have anything other than the leaks about the Democrats as evidence of anything? Have you surveyed Wikileaks materials and seen evidence of the evil Russian hand in anything except your own personal grievance, which is that your party lost an election, partially because its process was shown to be corrupt?
Wikileaks hasn't even added any material since then, but somehow it's been relentlessly working for Putin.
It has become very popular among certain political groups to reference Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance" in order to justify silencing of people they disagree with.
However, "we must not tolerate the intolerant" seriously misrepresents the actual argument.
It was not intended as an enthusiastic endorsement of silencing tactics. It is an uneasy acknowledgement that liberal ideals, if embraced completely, leave the door open to the destruction of liberalism. It presents a question with no comfortable solution. It is absolutely not a demand that we trample the rights of people whose ideas we don't like.
Here's the actual argument:
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
First of all, it is not talking simply about tolerance but about "unlimited tolerance." It's not saying you should extend no tolerance to the intolerant, simply that you should not extend unlimited tolerance to them.
Nobody is suggesting unlimited tolerance, the parent is merely positing introspection on matters of our position in the world.
Our enemies become our leaders, if/when our leaders move against our interests as a country surreptitiously and the subsequently keep knowledge of wrongdoing from us.
in this case: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but only since our enemy seeks to enlighten us.
Our leaders should be scared of this, and act in our interests accordingly and with transparency. This is the only way to build trust, and would completely eliminate any power our foreign adversaries would have in destroying trust in political power.
I would much prefer that knowledge come from proper journalistic methods, but given the fact that only a handful of people own all the news media, and the US has been so extremely heavy on any whistleblower journalism: I fear that we have to take what we can get; and I do not say that with happiness or pride... I say that as a person who feels utterly defeated by the crushing weight of the state and the fact that all my heroes are in prison or exile.
> It is absolutely not a demand that we trample the rights of people whose ideas we don't like.
Good, because that's not what I'm advocating. I'm not advocating an act of destroying Wikileaks, I'm advocating for it getting destroyed by omitting active support to it.
