this post was submitted on
930 points (81% like it)
1,194 up votes 264 down votes
shortlink:

worldpolitics

unsubscribe64,829 readers

~18 users here now

  1. new comments
  2. new submissions
  3. submit now - no restrictions on content, source or title!

Welcome to /r/worldpolitics!

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, §19)

Rules:

No spam.

"r/worldpolitics is the largest anarchy on reddit, and a rebellion against the more censored r/worldnews and r/politics." - u/deletecode

You're supporting Reddit if you see an ad below.
a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

929
930

8 things we would not know without Wikileaks. (infographic) (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by Hrodrik

all 103 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]jocularferret 23 points24 points ago

Hang on... this claims we discovered the 'greatest leak of all time', which was the 'true nature' of the Afghanistan war... I am very curious what this 'true nature' might be. Can anyone inform me?

Separately, why would U.S. Secretary Clinton be interested in DNA of UN members? Secret cloning program? CSI United Nations? Maury Povich paternity tests?

I need answers! (please)

[–]BeepbeepJeep1 2 points3 points ago

The government collects DNA for every important person that visits this country (they already have the DNA of people born here), and associates it with a profile in a federal database that includes phone records, internet activity, bank statements etc etc.

DNA is a very useful thing to have, I'm sure they wanted to have it just to have it. Can't be spoofed like an IP, can't be deleted, can't be hidden or destroyed without ill effects to the person. And of course you can track someone with it, ala Bin Laden.

Never know when it might be useful, and it doesn't matter, it's not like it's going to change.

Over the last 10 years governments have been sweeping up as much data as they can about everyone and anyone. DNA is just a part of this picture.

[–]jocularferret 1 point2 points ago

Makes sense and it remains creepy. Thank you for the explanation.

[–]Muscovy 0 points1 point ago

How can you realistically track someone with DNA?

[–]misplaced_my_pants 0 points1 point ago

Just conjecture here, but it could be less active tracking and more useful in terms of finding evidence of the presence and/or connection of the DNA of an individual in circumstances being investigated where their involvement would otherwise never be assumed.

Sorry for the syntactic clusterfuck.

[–]bluecalx2 76 points77 points ago

Tunisia & Egypt... Mass media see a straight connection between the release of the cables and the beginning of the revolts

Sorry but I don't buy this one. It's been suggested many times by the commentators in the West that Wikileaks revealed for the people of those countries how corrupt their leadership was and they immediately revolted. In fact, this corruption was well known to the people. Wikileaks actually revealed it more to the West than to the Tunisians and Egyptians. Contrary to what we saw on TV, the revolutions didn't happen overnight. They took years of planning, fueled by discontent of the regimes and the crumbling economies. In my view it's a little disrespectful to all those who worked so hard to make change to say that it wouldn't have happened without Wikileaks.

[–]kerat 56 points57 points ago

As an Egyptian, I totally agree with this. 99% of Egyptians don't even know what wikileaks is. For example, there are less twitter users in 80 million person Egypt than in Kuwait, population 3 million.

There have been thousands of riots and protests over the last 2 decades, culminating in this one. It wasn't like everyone was sitting around blissfully ignorant thinking Mubarak was a prince until wikileaks shattered their dreams.

That claim was annoying and orientalist.

"The oriental could not throw off his oppression until the white man benevolently made all things clear"

No, we threw off our oppressor despite you. You supported, funded, and armed Mubarak till his last days. Hillary went on tv to tell the world "Mubarak is our friend" and Tony Blair said he was a "beacon of hope for the Middle East".

[–]Frilly_pom-pom 14 points15 points ago

He has been a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the united states[...] I think he has been a force for stability and good in the region.

-Obama on Mubarak (2009)

[–]fetus_eater_skywalka 2 points3 points ago

Fellow Egyptian here

اهوم اهوم المصريين اهوم !!

بافرح فشخ لما بلاقي حد تاني من مصر :)

[–]kerat 2 points3 points ago

!سلام يابن البلد

[–]fetus_eater_skywalka 2 points3 points ago

حبيبي :)

عندك حق في الي انتا بتقولوا الامريكان و الاوروبيين شايفين نفسهم حاجة محصلتش و بيدخلوا في كل حاجة ملهمش دعوة فيها

دي ثورتنا احنا مش امريكا ولا اوروبا

[–]danyedidovich 0 points1 point ago

!مرحبا جدا :D !أنا لا أتكلم العربية، ولكن لم أكن أريد أن تترك خارج

[–]palanoid -1 points0 points ago

99% of Egyptians don't even know what wikileaks is.

99% of Egyptians don't matter. Same applies to every revolution or uprising. There is small group of activists that determine when things happen. There could easily have been 2 more decades of protests and riots without significant change.

When things culminate to some main event, it's usually some some very small happenings that creates the momentum. What Mohammed Bouazizi did in Tunisia woudl have not been known around the world two decades ago. When enough activists get the same signal at the same time, stuff like this starts to happen. There is lots of politically active people in Egypt that use Internet and they may not even be in talking relations with each other.

All that said, it was the people who made it happen, the timing of Arab spring was clearly caused by the increased ability to transfer information from country to country and group to group. Wikileaks was just tiny drop in all it.

[–]kerat 8 points9 points ago

99% of Egyptians don't matter?

In the beginning, things were organized by small revolutionary groups. After that it spiralled out of control of any group, and the 99% became the revolution. They were the people run over by cars, shot by snipers, arrested and beaten. So it's quite elitist of you to say that 99% of the people taking part in a mass revolution "don't matter".

Bouazizi's death and the Tunisian uprising in general had a major impact on Egypt and across the Arab nation. Wikileaks did not. I'd love to hear someone claim that wikileaks notified Tunisians of the police state they were living in. Tunisia had been a police state for 30 years, home of an American pro-democracy initiative whilst simultaneously a strong ally of the US. God only knows what the pro-democracy group were doing for 30 years

[–]chemistry_teacher 2 points3 points ago

I think palanoid is guilty of an poor choice of words, inadvertently mischaracterizing what he means to say. "99% of Egyptians" is his way of referring to the fact that a movement starts with a very small number of people, magnified by circumstance and emboldening the greater majority to join in. In this respect, you are saying the same thing when you say, "In the beginning, things were organized by small revolutionary groups."

As for me, those 99% do indeed matter. It is for them that the small groups feel the sense of injustice and desire to remove the tyrant. Speaking as an American, our government simply gets too involved in international politics. We should not be as isolationist as pre-WWII, but neither should we be arming dictators against their people. In this regard, despite the troubles you and your countrymen and women have been through lately, I am greatly relieved that your Army did not move in to try to quell the demonstrations.

And speaking as one who is fascinated by Chinese society, I only wish they could have been similar in 1989 when their Army moved in on Tian An Men Square.

[–]palanoid 8 points9 points ago

It might be be more accurate to say Internet was the the cause for the rapid speed and timing of the events. Even if 99% of people in Arab countries don't know what Wikileaks is or if most people don't use Twitter of Facebook, the fact that news and opinions from significant events travel between politically active people in the Arab world and not trough newspapers is very significant.

Wikileaks was certainly one of the catalysts.

  1. Wikileaks publishes document showing greed and massive corruption of Tunisian president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.
  2. In unrelated event, two weeks later, Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire.
  3. One months later uprising happens.

Mohammed Bouazizi was certainly the most important catalyst that set the events rolling. All the years of buildup were very important, but there was huge moment created by the relatively close occurrence of independent events that broke the back of the camel.

People knew that Tunisian president was corrupt. Documenting the corruption still made the difference. Once the uprising was going on, it affected the atmosphere in Egypt and Libya because politically active organizers could see and exchange opinions and learn from each other in real time.

[–]SteveD88 6 points7 points ago

Wikileaks was certainly one of the catalysts.

Probably, but would they have still happened without it? I think so.

[–]bluecalx2 2 points3 points ago

People knew that Tunisian president was corrupt. Documenting the corruption still made the difference.

I agree with that, I just don't think that it was the cause of the revolutions. As I said, I think it was more significant for the West to see the corruption of the people they were supporting. For Tunisians, that corruption wasn't hidden from view. If you told the typical person about the Wikileaks report, they could go on to tell you countless examples that they or their family or friends had witnessed personally. If it had an effect on the Arab Spring, it was trivial compared to the other catalysts. The western media seemed to be implying that the demonstrations would have never happened without Wikileaks, as though without our help (even from a controversial figure like Assange) people would have remained ignorant and passive. I don't believe that's true at all.

[–]kerat 0 points1 point ago

Wikileaks publishes document showing greed and massive corruption of Tunisian president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.

Again, as has been said before, it only showed his greed and corruption to the west, which had been supporting him and doing business with him for decades. Everyone in the Middle East already knew Tunisia was a vile police state.

Secondly, you're giving the internet too much credit. Sure, it helped quite a bit with the organization of the April 6th Youth movement and the revolutionary socialists, but the internet was totally cut off in the country for several days.

It was news sources, pan-Arab news channels like al-Jazeera that really had an impact. Because they were not beholden to the government, and most of the masses had access to them. Again, the internet isn't used much at all in Egypt, per capita. It's a country with something like 50% of people below the poverty line and 40% cannot read. (I'd double check those figures). So television and 24hour Arabic news channels played a much wider role than the internet.

And as much as I like and support wikileaks, it simply was not a factor in the Arab revolutions at all.

[–]Pas__ 3 points4 points ago

They took years of planning

How were they planned?

[–]bluecalx2 4 points5 points ago

For one thing, they studied the book "From Dictatorship to Democracy", written by Gene Sharp, which outlines tactics for non-violent revolution, as well as meeting and communicating with members of other non-violent protest groups around the world. Sorry that I don't have more exact details off hand, but it's worth reading Sharp's book and more of the background of the Egyptian revolution sometime.

[–]ciaran036 1 point2 points ago

That's not what anyone is saying, at all.

Really don't know where you heard this, but nobody has ever gave Wikileaks credit for anything other than contributing to the revolt in the Middle East.

[–]bluecalx2 1 point2 points ago

People have referred to the Arab Spring as "the first Wikileaks revolution" and the comments in this infographic suggest that it played a significant role in the toppling of these regimes without much evidence to support that. What I'm saying is that, from what I've seen from the people involved in the revolutions, Wikileaks had very little, if any, real connection at all. I suspect that they would have happened exactly the same way even if Wikileaks did not publish these cables.

[–]onesteplower -1 points0 points ago

You're correct, but language such as "contributing to" is necessary to avoid diminishing the part of the People in the Arab Spring nations. Wikileaks is only a website, but the People fought and bled for freedom from tyranny. The People deserve the credit for the Arab Spring, and Wikileaks helped to wake them up. So, Wikileaks contributed to the Arab Spring.

Calling it a "Wikileaks revolution" or arguing that the cable leak was a sole (or even primary) cause is naive and pretentious. The cables were not even the straw that broke the camel's back; they were a straw put on top of the camel's already-broken back.

[–]bluecalx2 2 points3 points ago

I understand what you're saying, but my argument is that it didn't even contribute to the revolution. It didn't wake people up because they already knew what the West only had an idea about. If it had an influence, it was extremely minimal.

[–]onesteplower -1 points0 points ago

It contributed to the understanding of Arab perceptions of the West, which in turn had a contributory factor in anonymous technical support and the vast feeling of solidarity people everywhere shared as the Arab Spring nations stood up for themselves. As an aside, I still think of the Arab Spring as a contributor to cultural healing in a post-911 West, silly as it would seem. People over here got to be reminded that we're not so different from people over there even though none of those nations were involved in the attacks. It was the first time since 2001 that I have seen discussion of the Middle East without nationalism or recriminations (much moreso with a general tone of good will).

However, in terms of motivators among the People in those nations, I agree with you completely. If a single website post could mobilize a regional uprising, then we'd at least see events resembling Occupy much more often.

[–]bluecalx2 2 points3 points ago

I still think of the Arab Spring as a contributor to cultural healing in a post-911 West, silly as it would seem.

Yeah, I agree. There was such a feeling of hope for their success against the regimes, rather than irrational fear of the people. Well, aside from a handful of commentators who suggested the opposite. But generally, very positive.

[–]zach84 0 points1 point ago

And with this, I now don't find this infographic creditable.

[–]bluecalx2 0 points1 point ago

As far as I can tell, the rest of the infographic matches with what I already understood about Wikileaks. This is just one point where I think there are trying too hard to make a connection that isn't really there.

[–]nlakes 55 points56 points ago

It's amazing how many matters of "national security" are also incredibly shameful and embarrassing.

[–]ThatFuh_Qr 7 points8 points ago

it's also amazing how many typos one infographic can have.

[–]addeman94 24 points25 points ago

That's why they are matters of national security. I mean, imagine what would happen if US citizens couldn't trust their government.

[–]funkshanker 9 points10 points ago

Indeed. The government might try to muzzle the press and wage war on whistle blowers in order to prevent that trust from being lost.

[–]FreeWillDoesNotExist -1 points0 points ago

Matters of national security only appear shameful and embarrassing because the people who think such things are coddled first world humans entirely ignorant of human nature and how international relations work. I cannot stress enough the degree that your perception of America's actions is the product of confirmation bias. Please pick up an Introduction to International Relations textbook so you can put countries' actions in their proper context and not come off as some uninformed idealist aka a person who is incapable of contributing anything to the dialogue on matters of war and peace.

Here is an Introduction to International Relations textbook that you can purchase for TWO DOLLARS. If you really care about the behavior of countries' you should at least take the time to be informed. There is no reason to hold uninformed positions in the era of the information age, they just perpetuate misconceptions that continue to distance the citizenry from being able to make informed decisions on how to vote and what to care about.

[–]FreeWillDoesNotExist 23 points24 points ago

391,000 leaked reports on Iraq and you only post numbers about the death toll and another thing related to that.

92,000 documents released and you could only post "it revealed the true nature of the war" as the third thing we learned from 92,000 documents leaked on Afghanistan.

You are either trying to make a big deal and praise wikileaks over nothing, or you were just trying to karma whore and half assed one of the least informative infographics I think I have ever seen. This infographic illustrates the absurdity of the wikileaks supporters and their exaggeration of the positive impact that the website had on international relations. It makes sense that you have "8" pieces of information and only 4 cited sources, please tell me you are 14 years old.

[–]Inthethickofit 5 points6 points ago

Thank You, this could not be more true.

Additionally the info graph provided no demonstrable evidence other than a refuted argument about the arab spring, that any of this information actual helped anyone. It may be because I'm an American but finishing every argument with, and this was good because it hurt America's image in the world is not really a compelling argument.

If you argued that it led America to change some of its more problematic policies than that would be good, but there's been no evidence of that. Additionally, other governments continue to work with the American government even after the leaks.

Finally, given that almost all of the arguments in the info graph end with America looks bad, the defense of Bradley Manning is ludicrous. He swore to protect the United States of America, he literally criminally failed to do so. He should receive a trial, but his punishment should be harsh.

[–]thelunchbox29 9 points10 points ago

Wait.... are we at war with Yemen?

[–]Elranzer 4 points5 points ago

We've always been at war with [Yemen].

[–]weezer3989 2 points3 points ago

Apparently 4 bombing strikes, condoned by the government of Yemen, against terrorist training camps counts as a war now...

[–]iSteve 1 point2 points ago

Oh yes. And Pakistan and Somalia. Pretty much the whole of east Africa. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/03/august-2012-update-us-covert-actions-in-pakistan-yemen-and-somalia/
US Covert Action in Yemen 2001 – 2012 Total confirmed US operations (all): 52-62 Total confirmed US drone strikes: 40-50 Possible additional US operations: 114-129 Possible additional US drone strikes: 58-67 Total reported killed (all): 357-1,005 Total civilians killed (all): 60-166 Children killed (all): 24-34

[–]Hazy_V 15 points16 points ago

Economic factors and food supply problems were bigger contributors in Egypt and Tunisia. Also, why would you want a political entity to be completely blunt and honest with everyone? How would it maneuver?

[–]Harbltron 24 points25 points ago

why would you want a political entity to be completely blunt and honest

It's not so much a matter of honesty as it is a matter of what they're lying about, or withholding.

Not revealing sensitive or strategic military information to the public? That's one thing.

Trying to enact legislation aimed at the public in secret and attempting to whitewash civilian blood off your own hands? That's another.

[–]someonelse 11 points12 points ago

How would it maneuver?

Without bullshit. Contrary to orthodoxy, the stuff is not actually productive for society. That chronic liars derive short term advantages over each other is no validation.

[–]Hazy_V -3 points-2 points ago

Sorry buddy, but this only works in theory. I'd like to hear about a successful state in human history that has used this approach.

Even without evidence, if you could please provide a theoretical approach that would allow a state to run itself without "bullshit." I understand the sentiment of what you're saying, but it only really applies to individuals. Groups of people are political because there's more than one person. That's the requirement.

I get that we have brains, but we're still in animal bodies, and that's where our susceptibility to conflict comes from.

[–]verbalsadist 0 points1 point ago

This is what I love about Reddit. No one provides a counter-argument, but they sure do try to suppress the argument via downvotes.

Stay classy Reddit.

[–]Hazy_V 0 points1 point ago

Some people want to converse, others want to be right. I constantly fight the urge to show my balls to everybody.

Takes all kinds.

[–]someonelse 0 points1 point ago

I constantly fight the urge to show my balls to everybody

Keep trying.

[–]someonelse -1 points0 points ago

I'd like to hear about a successful state in human history. All we've had so far is tyranny, with a few exceptional flashes in the pan, precisely when transparency prevailed.

There is no theory required for how things can work without bullshit, yet you bizzarely demand one after telling me that it "works in theory."

There is only the Machevellian theory that deceit is necessary for effective power, and there is no evidence of this at all besides (invalid) appeal to temporary victories in the shitfights of tyrants.

If you take such shitfights to be the inevitable consequence of animal bodies, so what? The masses have every reason to prefer transparent politics wherever possible to such animal brawling.

To claim that such transparency is impossible is both irrelevant to its desirablity (which you originally disputed) and patently false. Some official transparency is always present, but rarely much and never too much.

[–]Hazy_V -1 points0 points ago

Oh my god I'm not arguing with you, I'm actually asking you to come up with theories or ideas, because a real example of what you're talking about doesn't exist...

I'd like to hear about a successful state in human history that has used this approach.

This is an ideal statement. "I'd like to," implies that I understand that it doesn't exist.

Even without evidence, if you could please provide a theoretical approach that would allow a state to run itself without "bullshit."

Now I get that this isn't the best English, but still, you didn't really provide a theoretical approach, did you? You just want me to trust you that you know the best way to do things? Because you're super smart? No one is going to do things based on the ideal way that things should be, they need a plan, they need to know how things are going to work practically before they can change the ENTIRE FUCKING SYSTEM.

SO I ask you again, can you come up with any reason why your ideas are worth trying other than an idealized moral stance? How are you different from a Christian that wants to deny womanz abortions because they think it's morally correct to do so, or those hardcore traditional Muslims that want to destroy womens rights because of the way men act around them?

Conflict exists because it's nature's method, we can rise above it with cooperation, but it still looms as a threat when everything goes to shit (running out of resources, natural disasters, etc). One does not have to rely on the convoluted philosophical theories of a writer to understand why the world is the way it is, but trust me, it's not because the kings and leaders couldn't come up with a better idea. They used this method because it's the only thing that allowed them to keep the power. So we... convince powerful men not to want power?

I'm asking you to pull your theories out of the ideal and try to interface with other minds in the real world, if you can't do that, why should anyone listen to you?

Man is an imperfect political animal, this is why he/she does politics. What you're saying is impossible, it implies that humans can run a society without their humanity, that they can detach themselves from the natural world just because we have self-consciousness.

Wat.

[–]someonelse -1 points0 points ago

No one is going to do things based on the ideal way that things should be, they need a plan, they need to know how things are going to work practically before they can change the ENTIRE FUCKING SYSTEM.

Bullshit is not a generic plan, its a pathetic improvisation.

[–]Hazy_V -1 points0 points ago

So you have no idea? Just say that dude. I'm sorry your ideas don't work in the real world.

Intelligence is being able to properly communicate, you seem to only be interested in manipulating words.

I have no interest in ideals, only in what's practical, so stop talking to me now.

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 9 points10 points ago

It always amazes me how much work people are willing to put into an infographic without checking their spelling before publishing.

[–]h4n1 2 points3 points ago

I only found one error. It's also a translation, read the bottom.

[–]LaszloK 1 point2 points ago

In the Yemen bit, missile and responsibility are spelled wrong. Also, surely saying "The Al Qaeda" is pointless since Al means The in Arabic...

Not that I care that much.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points ago

Need help getting off your high horse?

[–]SmellsLikeUpfoo 4 points5 points ago

Spelling and grammar errors decrease the influence and credibility of your message. If you have something important to say, it must be said correctly.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

Reasonable people understand people sometimes make mistakes. Especially if it's translated you dumb ass.

[–]MediocreJerk 0 points1 point ago

Considering yourself one of the "reasonable people" in one sentence and calling someone who made a well-reasoned argument a dumb ass in the next sentence. Wonderful.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

well-reasoned argument

Can you mother fuckers not read? It says it is an unofficial translation. Get the fuck out of here with your "reasonable argument".

[–]MediocreJerk 0 points1 point ago

Yes I believe us mother fuckers are able to read. You obviously missed the clearly spelled-out original point, which is that perception is very important in the presentation of a message. An infographic which is aiming to educate should have at the very least proper spelling and grammar. Any free translation website would correct the spelling errors, it wouldn't take longer than a few minutes. If you are planning on distributing some type of material with the purpose of relaying information then you should make sure it is the final version.

Of course it doesn't take excellent foresight to predict your reaction to this (more swearing, name-calling, down-voting, and a stubborn attachment to your original refuted point.)

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

I don't see how one misspelling invalidates the overall points made by this. You're just a fucking dumb ass trying to change the subject to a fucking misspelling. Dude, get the fuck out of here.

[–]MediocreJerk 0 points1 point ago

Well, I was right on 75% of my prediction (you still have time to down-vote me).

I don't recall anyone dismissing the "points" that are offered in the infographic, everyone was just pointing out that it could have been much more effective if it was more professionally put together (i.e.: using spell check...)

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

it could have been much more effect if it was more professionally put together

Take your own advice, grammar god. You're a fucking clown dude. Beat it.

You would think someone trying to make a point about grammar would be a little more careful with their own. Dumb ass.

[–]WalterWhite_Jr 0 points1 point ago

Man, if only there was a way to shut the internet down, or control it. Then governments wouldn't have to worry about these sort of embarrassments and could go on protecting us.

[–]paulnewmanseyes 0 points1 point ago

Don't forget that we'd never have learned how many people think that penetrating a sleeping woman without her consent isn't rape without Wikileaks, either.

[–]gahtu -4 points-3 points ago

In other words, not much we didn't already know.

[–]torptube 19 points20 points ago

There's a difference between no proof and suspecting and concrete proof.

[–]gahtu 1 point2 points ago

Yes. The collateral damage video, for example, may be interpreted different ways and is only "proof" of something to a non-analytical thinker. I find it hard to believe that there weren't far more damning videos to be found.

[–]EastenNinja 5 points6 points ago

At the foreign policy conferences (OFPS in particular) I have attended the comments I hear from both diplomats and academics in the field is that wikileaks if anything is a testament to how well they are really doing. For weeks leading up to it there was constant speculation over all sorts of horrible shit that they were going to find. But really, they found so little to incriminate. I will add that if anything is incriminating its from the military generals and soldiers and not the diplomats.

[–]gahtu 1 point2 points ago

Agreed. I'm not saying that wikileaks is necessarily a government tool, I'm just saying that if it were, how would it do things differently? Obviously it would have to release some info that makes the government look bad, which it has.

[–]TheGardiner 2 points3 points ago

would have been nice if someone ran this throuhg a spell-chekcer first

[–]iSteve 0 points1 point ago

Published in Montenegro, translated by twitter. Always look at the small print at the bottom of any infographic. It will tell you where the bias is coming from.

[–]AlienAnarchists -5 points-4 points ago

I just started bawling after reading this. I'm not usually so emotional even on the Internet, but this has revealed to me just how fucked up our world is. You can't trust anyone anymore, world leaders are cunts, and we're supposed to live it. Our world is a shithole and we can't do anything about it.

[–]Daniel_SJ 19 points20 points ago

Thankfully you are wrong.

  1. The world started out a shit hole. It's certainly not any worse now than before. Poverty and starvation is the default state of humanity and both lead quite quickly to oppression and use of force to get food and safety. Anything else has to be built on top of that.
  2. In fact, the argument can be made quite clearly that we live in the richest, most peaceful, most civilized and most tolerant age ever, and that the trend is continuing for the foreseeable future. Even climate change is hopefully being tackled (albeit not in a stellar manner).

[–]fromITroom -1 points0 points ago

Can anybody actually read text in that small image?

[–]vendlus 11 points12 points ago

Your browser is probably shrinking it to fit the window. Click on the image to make it larger. The text is readable at full size.

[–]fromITroom 3 points4 points ago

Thanks

It initially appeared as shrunk image then I clicked to zoom and it was still showing at max of 250px width. That is when I messaged.

However looking at the image properties it is supposed to be 700px wide. I will check if any of my Chrome extension is playing up.

Edit: Issue was very simple and fixed easily, since chrome remembers zoom in value for each website I had to press Ctrl+0 to bring that to normal zoom level.

[–]Markasovic -1 points0 points ago

There's more these were just some of the anti-US ones. Everyone wanted to act like wikleaks revealed damaging information about the US when really it was more eye opening with concerns to the rest of the world. I mean, even the media just focused on what someone had to say about Germany's Chancellor; boring. No one from like OpWallStreet will talk about how it confirms that Iran is a threat and that Russia is a mob state. The number one thing that I took away from WikiLeaks is that the US tries to work with people, they have to, we live in a global community, and a lot of those countries like the smaller ones in Africa and the middle east to be specific, were terribly corrupt but what do you do? You have to work with them. Also, China and the US get along pretty well and have similar intentions in the world and that is to prosper.

[–]renevilfortune -3 points-2 points ago

Bullshit. We already knew, except idiots that rely on wikileaks.

[–]Mordor -3 points-2 points ago

.. and behind this all is Obama, what a disgusting man.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 12991 on app-77 running e31913e.