Swedish human rights activist Anna Ardin is glad Julian Assange is free.
But the claims she has made about him suggest she would have every reason not to wish him well.
Ardin is fiercely proud of Assange’s work for WikiLeaks, and insists that it should never have landed him behind bars.
“We have the right to know about the wars that are fought in our name,” she says.
Speaking to Ardin over Zoom in Stockholm, it quickly becomes clear that she has no problem keeping what she sees as the two Assanges apart in her head - the visionary activist and the man who she says does not treat women well.
She is at pains to describe him neither as a hero nor a monster, but a complicated man.
How dare she not view the world in stark black-and-white terms!
She’s throwing out the whole playbook and trying this new thing the hipsters are calling: “Nuance” . This lady has some balls, what’s next?? CONTROLLING YOUR EMOTIONS???
I would assume most rapists aren’t government whistle blowers and their victims most likely have no reason to hold a nuanced view.
I love me a lady with huge balls.
God damn liberuls
A(n actual) Christian deacon who believes in forgiveness???
ObViOuSLy HeS iNnOcEnT!/1!
She just seems to believe in due process and fairness. Obviously, what happened to Assange so far hasn’t been either.
I mean her case was investigated and he was freed to leave the country afterward. It didn’t come back with a vengeance until it could be used as a means to put him where the US could get at him.
What about the 3rd man, who espouses his organization isn’t an arbiter of information, and yet, repeatedly prevented Russian leaks from being published? 🤔
And with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where is wikileaks now?
Cozy Bear really appreciated having such a loyal publisher, I imagine.
This, to me, is less important than the fact that this woman is publicly talking about how someone can do a bad thing but still be a public good, something not talked about enough in a world where when someone does something bad, it makes people ignore everything else they’re doing.
I have struggled with this a lot in recent years. For example, I grew up with Ender’s Game as my favorite book. Orson Scott Card is a racist/misogynistic/etc POS, and it has tainted my view of his books. People are experiencing this with J. K. Rowling right now.
I like to think I can keep the artist separate from their art, but it’s hard.
I dealt with that as a kid with Roald Dahl because he was super antisemitic, but he also wrote amazing children’s books. I guess for me it depends on how much they put such ugliness into their work. Lovecraft, creative as he was, had no problem being racist in his writings and I just can’t read them even though I love the mythos. Dahl didn’t do that.
Card and Rowling are somewhat different cases because they didn’t start by writing terrible things, but they got to the point that their ugly beliefs began to seep into their books.
Dahl is another great example. I loved his book as a kid, and still read them to my kid now.
Me too, but I couldn’t get through Great Glass Elevator. I try my best to voice all the characters, and I couldn’t get through the president’s phone calls with China, even toned down.
I had the same experience with Arthur C. Clarke.
He moved to Sri Lanka to dodge all the accusations of pedophilia. It was all hushed up. As was the custom at the time.
I like to think I can keep the artist separate from their art, but it’s hard.
You can’t, but in some cases the art stands for itself without the artist. Basically, you can separate the Art from an Artist, but not the Artist from the Art. (if that makes any sense…)
The Rowling shift is a gut punch in particular for me because I also long admired her specifically. A single impoverished mother writing her drafts on napkins while taking the train to work. Her work for Amnesty International. Her fierce rejection of right-wing extremism and fascism…I remember saving her Harvard commence address as being the most powerful one I’ve ever heard. The road to hell is paved with good intentions? I don’t know. Frustrating because INFJ-to-INFJ I relate to her personality type.
Meanwhile her books were incredibly impactful of my upbringing and my relationship with my mother as well.
Controversial though this may be I don’t view her as some evil anti-Semitic trans-lynching nazi in lieu of her views. Misguided, sure, but in the aggregation of all she is I’m still struggling with the mixed back of her character. Maybe that’s my own cognitive dissonance; maybe it’s hers.
I was with you until you called her misguided. She is way beyond misguided at this point. She’s gotten so hateful that even Elon Musk told her to tone down the anti-trans bigotry.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/elon-musk-jk-rowling-trans-obsession-rcna151323
Sure, substitute whichever word you’d like in place of misguided. I’m not sure if that changes the rest of my points. Especially within the context of this entire thread discussing nuance and not painting people in black-and-white.
I wouldn’t substitute any word in that case because there is absolutely no excusing her at this point. Her actions are indefensible. Love her books, fine, but she is a horrible, horrible person and her bigotry does not deserve to be excused by calling it misguided or anything else but bigotry. If she said about black people what she says about trans people, that wouldn’t even be a consideration in terms of talking about her.
Well now I’m a little confused. Did I find a point of cognitive dissonance in you? In one breath you defend Assange under fire for sexual assault and to consider nuance, but this is too far?
And since when do we care what Elon Musk has to say? He called someone a pedophile, too, remember? Should we jump on the bandwagon with that just the same?
The worst part with Rowling is she just keeps doubling down, and directly uses her money and influence to make other peoples lives worse.
Exactly the same way I felt reading your comment when you inserted astrology for nerds into it!
How could you ruin your previous work so profoundly?
In what realm does a personality test compare to predicting the future with horoscopes and star patterns, lol?
I’d be happy to discuss because you don’t seem particularly informed on this subject. Perhaps be a bit more humble? I find it kind of amusing how worked up this can get people. Did I ever tell YOU to subscribe to it? lol.
Now sure nobody should view such things as utterly conclusive or written in stone, but it was honestly incredibly eye-opening for me in terms of introspection. More helpful than therapy in my case. To each their own.
It’s pseudoscience in both cases, saying you’re so and so because your personality is INFJ has almost as little value as correlating to being a gemini. Now if you find some sense in those personality types, maybe that contains some lessons.
Well naturally, I think that’s the entire point of such tests, is it not? Entertain me for a minute, please:
First of all, you would agree that you can aggregate clusters of people based on how each answer a variety of probing questions, right?
Naturally, one must say, “yes, of course.”
To which the next question is, “So once you’ve arranged clusters of similar responses under banners, how can you interpret those results?”
Well once you actually pool a group of people into these boxes and see where these subsets are, you can then analyze these population subsets further, right? To which most would say, “of course. Scientists do this all the time.”
… And if those subsets are analyzed and their commonalities generalized, what would be the problem with that?
… To which any reasonable person would say, “Nothing, really, except for how that may impact edge-cases,” which is fair.
Now those clusters coalesce and find community with each other and reflect, “Hey wow, yeah I can totally relate to that, too!” It’s kind of remarkable to see.
The only substantive arguments that I’ve seen made – and the only “debunking” aspects to this test revolve around veracity and validity – which is understandably concerning. But let’s unpack that: Do the results bear repeatability, and do what the results say reflect the reality of who that person is?
Edit: I should say there is legitimate concern that the overlap can lead to crossover into other categories quite easily.
This is of course difficult because a lot of people get some things wrong about said tests: These tests are not immutable. People are fluid; they can change. Moreover if you take the test when not at your emotional and cognitive baseline with average sleep, average temperament, and no major life events influencing this, then of course that will change from when these are not accounted for. Similarly, some people struggle to take the test honestly: They respond with whom they want to be as opposed to who they are. In this case, sometimes it’s good to take the test side-by-side with a loved-one who knows you intimately and can see you from the outside-looking-in. Some answer candidly but get results they don’t like. Reality contradicts who they want to be. So they get upset.
All of these are of course suggestive that it’s not a one-size-fits-all test and should be taken with a grain of salt but the vast majority of criticism resides under user error and a misunderstanding of the test’s objectives.
At this point I can only speak for myself, but it’s a harmless test that impacts nobody else and it was deeply, emotionally revealing for me. I’ve truly never felt more understood in my whole life and my wife looked at it confirmed every piece of it while her own test reflected her to a T.
Now I’m a non-religious trained Engineer who pushes away superstition and things like astrology, balks at homeopathy and pseudoscience and broscience alike but I’m telling you, there’s something worthwhile here, even if science hasn’t sufficiently shined a light onto what.
Now if I missed anything, please, by all means.
I had the same experience with Scott Card. I loved the Ender books, the books about his older brother trying to be a good person when he was a “bad child” really resonated with me.
I was so disappointed when I looked him up and saw how hateful he really was.
I was a big fan of the Belgariad growing up… that one is fucking rough.
Uuh what? What did Eddings do? (Genuine, I don’t know)
Honestly, it’s pretty fucking rough so I don’t want to post it here - if you Google “Eddings abuse” you’ll get the results.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eddings
TL;DR: child abuse of their adopted children in the 1970’s.
That’s fair. That isn’t where my own head is currently but I do appreciate nuance for once. People can be complicated, and I’m certain she knows the real Assange better than most.
“Oh, Andy Capp. You wife-beating drunk.”
– Homer Simpson“Oh, Bobby Hull. You wife-beating drunk.”
– my take
I still see absolutely no reason to lock him up. Just because he’s biased towards one side that doesn’t make the crimes of the other side any better. Ideally, yes, he should publish everything. But that’s not the case. And it’s still irrelevant.
Yeah I’m not necessarily in disagreement there. Though I respect those whistle-blowers who are willing to be a martyr for a cause they believe in. Ellsberg faced justice head on, for example. Meanwhile Snowden fled to one of the most corrupt countries in the world with a vendetta against the USA, and Greenwald is now parroting Kremlin propaganda strangely. Assange is somewhere in the middle for me.
At the end of the day, Assange effectively did face justice and came out the other side, so I give credit.
I honestly don’t condemn any whistleblower for running away from “justice”. Because there is absolutely no justice in any of this.
Strictly speaking, he didn’t. He ran out the clock on the statute of limitations for the all but one of the sexual assault charges in Sweden while in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and prosecutors said enough evidence was lost to time that they weren’t going to be able to indict on the remaining charge.
And with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where is wikileaks now?
I mean what do you want him to leak? Everything is out there for everyone to see.
If you’re saying this tongue-in-cheek to note that it’s flatly obvious that Putin is a corrupt imperialist tyrant, true I agree. But there is always more damaging information to be revealed not just to the world but internally to the people of Russia within the echo-chamber. For instance, more on Putin’s personal finances. More on Aleksandr Dugin, Putin’s neo-nazi Rasputin, etc.
Did Assange ever have access to that information? I admittedly don’t know the details but I don’t tbink he was ever in that kind of position.
No idea, honestly. But historical precedent would suggest that he would ignore it even if he did.
Speaking to Ardin over Zoom in Stockholm…
That place does seem to have a certain effect on people.
Stockholm syndrome is bullshit by the way.
I’ve heard accusations that assange is politically biased and refused to publish leaks about rupukelicans on wikileaks so I’m not sure what to think of him
I don’t know that he has refused, but he definitely allowed Russia to play him like a fiddle in having him publish the DNC hack (and let’s not forget, it was a hack, not a leak) while holding on to RNC hacked data.
I have questions on if Trump wins in 2016 without Assange, and that’s enough to make me hate him.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
They set off a chain of events which saw him trying to avoid extradition to Sweden by seeking asylum in a London embassy for seven years.In 2019 the Swedish authorities ended their investigation.
If this was the case, he probably would have committed an offence under Swedish law.Later, Ardin writes that she heard from another woman - named in legal papers as SW - who had attended the seminar.
In a 2016 statement to Swedish prosecutors, Assange maintained that his sexual relationship with SW was entirely consensual, and that in texts seen by his lawyers, she told a friend that she had been “half asleep”.Both women filed police reports - Ardin’s case was categorised as alleged sexual misconduct, and SW’s as alleged rape.The press got hold of the reports, setting off an extraordinary series of events.
Now we have the first one.”Another post followed the next day: “Reminder: US intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks as far back as 2008.”Assange’s UK lawyer Mark Stephens claimed that a “honeytrap” had been sprung and that “dark forces” were at work.A social media furore erupted which Ardin describes as “hell” – she tells me the amount of harassment and death threats forced her to leave Sweden at one point.“I couldn’t work.
Greece’s former Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, a long-time supporter of Assange, last week described her claims as “mud” and “innuendo”.No evidence has ever been found to link Ardin with US intelligence.
Months after the incidents, an international arrest warrant was issued for Assange, who was in London at that point.In December 2010, he admitted to the BBC that it was “not probable” he was part of a classic honey-trap operation - but he still denied any wrongdoing.Assange was convinced that if he went to Sweden he would then be extradited to the US - where he feared the death penalty awaited.
The original article contains 1,510 words, the summary contains 308 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It’s amazing how every liberal that sees massive American war crimes under Bush and Obama being exposed can only go "but what about Republicans? Else it doesn’t count!
Bush is literally a Republican.
However, he spent the next five years in a British prison fighting extradition to the US, where he faced prosecution over massive leaks of confidential information.
These include US army footage showing Iraqi civilians being killed, and documents suggesting the US military killed hundreds of Afghan civilians in unreported incidents.
Fuck, BBC. Do you think you maybe forgot something there? Really? Can’t think of anything else? Just the . . uh . . the army footage? That’s it huh. No . . other . . possible . . . lets say, espionage? No? Well, BBC. This is a highly factual article. fOr Me To pOoP oN!!
What are you talking about?
Probably still salty that Wikileaks publicized the DNC/Team Hillary emails discussing how they were rigging the 2016 primaries.
Granted, the delay to after the primaries but before the general WAS sus as fuck, obviously, but the greater crime was still the election rigging, not revealing it at an inopportune time for the conspirators 🤷
Hey its FOIA, Wikileaks’ legal little brother
he was locked hiding in a small studio for over an year away from all human contact then she came trying to interview him off course he acted like a caveman who hasn’t eaten meat in decades
This ^ hot take is brought to you by the same people who ask " If you don’t believe in god what is stopping you from raping and murdering your whole neighborhood? "
What the fuck?
This take that is basically saying men are just animals that can’t control their urges, brought to you by a person who 100% replies to any statement about men being shitty with “nOT AlL mEn”.
