
WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground - gormo2
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/
======
jandrese
This reads like a hit piece. They're lambasting Wikileaks for not
understanding some obscure triple parenthesis nomenclature? They're anti-
semitic because they're not plugged into the anti-semite culture enough to
know their jargon?

That three parenthesis thing was news to me. It seems weird that people would
brand themselves in such an obscure way. I guess Twitter handles can't have
Unicode ?

~~~
danso
This was a fairly big meme in media and political circles:
[http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11853244/google-chrome-
exte...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11853244/google-chrome-extension-
jewish-people-pulled)

> _Yesterday, Mic reported that a Google Chrome extension called "Coincidence
> Detector" was creating a database of Jewish people in order to notify users
> when they were reading the work of, or reading about, a Jewish person
> online. The extension placed three sets of parentheses (a symbol used by
> neo-Nazis) around certain names to identify them as Jewish. Now, one day
> later, Google has pulled the extension for violating its hate speech policy,
> Engadget reports._

Has the triple-parentheses ever been used to signify something previously?
Kind of hard to believe that the Wikileaks Twitter account used it
coincidentally:
[http://twitter.com/gallopingcats/status/757527227798003712/p...](http://twitter.com/gallopingcats/status/757527227798003712/photo/1)

~~~
jandrese
Wait, so the idea is that the Wikileaks Twitter account operator installed a
neo-nazi chrome extension, then forgot he had it installed and tweeted out in
confusion as to why people were tagged, thus outing himself as some sort of
Hitler youth with bad memory?

Calling that tweet anti-Semitic just doesn't make sense. It reads like someone
trying way too hard to turn a molehill into a mountain. I'm guessing if we
look through the history we'll discover that the people attacking him on
Twitter had changed their usernames to include the parenthesis.

~~~
danso
Uh. No, the Chrome extnsion had long been booted by the time this tweet came
along. The meme is that Jewish folks and their allies would intentionally put
"(((" and ")))" around their own names as a show of solidarity against this
purported targeting. But the implicit meaning of those triple parentheses is,
"this person is Jewish". Are you suggesting that the Wikileaks tweeter was
just throwing that symbolism out there randomly?

~~~
jandrese
That doesn't make much sense either. Certainly Jews wouldn't be itching to put
a metaphorical Star of David on their usernames? Historically that was not a
good thing. I can see why Neo-Nazis would jump on it, but it seems strange for
members of the community to voluntarily brand themselves in such a way.

I just got why it is six parenthesis though, just like the 6 pointed star.

~~~
bbctol
It's a way of fucking with neo-nazis in turn. The three parentheses were
originally meant as a sort of euphemism or code: rather than be publicly anti-
semitic, people would put the parentheses to highlight how often Jews were
being heard from, the idea being that once you notice the amount of Jewish
voices around, you'll think this can't just be a coincidence (hence the name
"Coincidence Detector.") It wasn't meant to be something those not in the know
would get.

Jews putting three parentheses around their own names is a way of saying "I
see what you're doing. I'm onto you." And non-Jews doing it is just to mess
with them.

------
keane
_And then, inexplicably, the WikiLeaks official Twitter account also dove
straight for naked anti-Semitism._

The author, Emma Ellis, has no comprehension of the tweet in question.
Understanding the background could have prevented this:

1\. Neo-Nazis begin to point out to their supporters that the people they are
discussing are Jews (or "Jew aiders and abettors" [sic]) by placing three
brackets around their name. The subjects are often unaware and their account
usernames (obviously) do not display brackets.

2\. In reaction to this, numerous camps (social justice activists, evangelical
Christians, civil society workers, journalists, etc.) both Jewish and non-
Jewish alike begin to place three brackets around their display name to draw
attention to the practice and to express solidarity with those who are being
discussed in brackets, a practice sometimes revered in Western culture
[1][2][3][4].

3\. A subset of these self-labelled, self-bracketed individuals criticize
WikiLeaks.

4\. The WikiLeaks account notices that many of their critics are _self-
bracketed individuals_ expressing solidarity and wonders what type of people
do this, as one might question the individuals who change their profile
pictures to have a flag overlay for the tragedy du jour, and if said people
are doing so for their own interest.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen).
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deputy#Historical_models](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deputy#Historical_models)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus_(film)#.22I.27m_Spar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus_\(film\)#.22I.27m_Spartacus.21.22)
[4]
[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmSpartacus](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmSpartacus)

~~~
jganetsk
Then why did the tweet start with the word "Tribalist"? Which alleged
tribalism did they happen to be referring to there? The myriad tribalisms of
social justice activists, evangelical Christians, civil society workers,
journalists, etc. Or that of the Jews?

~~~
keane
WikiLeaks writes: "Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets))) around their
names... Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?"

Tribalist here in the sense of those who are complicit with In-Group/Out-Group
dynamics [1]. Knowing that Assange is some sort of anarchist helps [2]. Such
language is common within a certain political perspective that includes
anarchism; these 'horizontalist' 'global citizens' envision a utopia and as
they work towards it, in addition to opposing establishment climbers
especially, they often look down on and view 'identity politics' or 'lifestyle
politics' (and the use of ideological labels and in-group signaling all
together) as base and beneath them [3]. And yes, they often practice the same
things they critique and theoretically oppose.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups)
[2]
[http://web.archive.org/web/20060712184552/http://iq.org/inde...](http://web.archive.org/web/20060712184552/http://iq.org/index.html)
[3] [http://new-compass.net/articles/beyond-ideology](http://new-
compass.net/articles/beyond-ideology)

------
spacemanmatt
I hope WikiLeaks moral high ground and/or credibilty are never huge factors.
Their releases should probably always be treated with trust-but-verify
disposition. Or maybe distrust-until-verified.

The way I look at it, WikiLeaks is basically a parallel construction. We have
no idea how or where the info came from, but if it's a map to the bodies, we
go there and see if it's accurate info.

~~~
mywittyname
> I hope WikiLeaks moral high ground and/or credibilty are never huge factors.

I think they are hugely important factors. Information is power and they have
a huge amount of influence because of the trust people have placed in them.

Like it or not, wikileaks will influence all of our lives. To say that they
are a mere conduit and have no obligation to vet or squelch the information
they've been given is to also assume that they will never get their hands on
information (factual, or otherwise) which may have a direct, negative impact
to you personally.

Useful information is rarely neutral. There are nearly always winners and
losers when it is disclosed.

~~~
krapp
Edward Snowden refused to trust them for a reason - he knew they would
probably refuse to vet anything that could damage the US, and just dump
everything they were given.

------
MollyR
No it hasn't. The DNC leaks will be remembered as historic. I talked with the
protesters in philly, and the vast majority had pro-wikileaks signs or were
pro-wikileaks.

------
bbctol
That particular tweet falls under the "never attribute to malice what can be
attributed to stupidity" razor, which kind of undercuts the rest of the
author's (fair, but quickly sketched) points.

