←back to thread

Waltz's team set up at least 20 Signal group chats for crises across the world

(www.politico.com)
295 points mdhb | 3 comments | 02 Apr 25 19:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.581s | source
Show context
palata ◴[02 Apr 25 19:20 UTC] No.43560458[source]▶
> Hughes said. “Any claim of use for classified information is 100 percent untrue.”

It's great to be able to say "Signal has never, EVER been used for classified information" in a context where classified information discussed on Signal has just been leaked.

replies(3): >>43560626 #>>43561347 #>>43562360 #
mindslight ◴[02 Apr 25 19:35 UTC] No.43560626[source]▶
It's the first line of the thirty-three dog whistle defense. The followers accept that answer as King Krasnov having simply declared that any such information isn't classified, just like he did for those boxes of files exfiltrated to his bathroom-turned-guest-library. It's the adult version of a kid going "I'm not hitting my brother I'm just swinging my arms and walking forward". And then of course if the courts actually start to disagree, the neofascists ramp up the threats for stochastic violence.
replies(1): >>43562284 #
palata ◴[02 Apr 25 22:11 UTC] No.43562284[source]▶
> It's the adult version of a kid going "I'm not hitting my brother I'm just swinging my arms and walking forward".

I always say that adults are kids who don't have the supervision anymore.

When a kid says "2 + 2 = 5" you can say "well you always fail your math exams, you obviously can't be trusted with that". When an adult says it... it becomes a "belief" and we "respectfully agree to disagree".

replies(1): >>43563626 #
from-nibly ◴[03 Apr 25 01:10 UTC] No.43563626[source]▶
That's because we are too tired to argue.
replies(2): >>43567024 #>>43568466 #
1. Xylakant ◴[03 Apr 25 12:07 UTC] No.43568466[source]▶
Thing is that people are entitled to have different opinions and we can argue about those all day. But people are not entitled to different facts, and if someone pretends 2+2=5, then there's very little arguing about that. It's not that I'm too tired to argue, but if someone is so far out of the common ground, there's no basis on which it makes sense to argue because they'll just declare all of your premises void and "win".
replies(1): >>43575141 #
2. soperj ◴[03 Apr 25 20:43 UTC] No.43575141[source]▶
You don't need to pretend. All you need is a number system that consists of the number 0,1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,A and it's very clear that 2+2 does equal 5.
replies(1): >>43583344 #
3. IAmBroom ◴[04 Apr 25 14:55 UTC] No.43583344[source]▶
And perhaps a broader point is: "Facts are simply opinions we generally agree upon."

At its best, "Science" doesn't claim the force between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses. It merely observes that this has been the case in all known, well-documented instances, and attempts to find exceptions have failed, so that this "law" is valid and reliable, and expected to remain so forever.

We use the term "fact" very casually, and eagerly. "The Dow is up 20% year-over-year, unemployment is under 4%, and the dollar is strong. The economy is strong. That's a fact!" Not only is that not a fact, it's not even a fact that unemployment is under 4%. That's (presumably...) just the U3 number as published by the Department of Labor.

My point is: the best "facts" still require a certain amount faith in the data sources around us. That's fine. I don't wish to visit every country on Earth to ensure that it exists, and observe the weighing of the Kilogram in Paris. (I mean, unless I can take time to sightsee a bit.)

There has been a genuine breakdown in that faith in authority in US culture. Maybe Ukraine attacked Russia first. Maybe poor people are inherently lazier than rich people. Maybe the Earth is flat.

I believe this breakdown has been intentionally orchestrated and groomed and fed by nefarious people like Rupert Murdoch, but that's just an opinion. Based on things I like to call "facts".