> I’m more and more desensitised. If anything, I found it demoralising.
Reminds of this explanation of the soviet era 'hypernormalization':
"The word hypernormalization was coined by Alexei Yurchak, a professor of anthropology who was born in Leningrad and later went to teach in the United States. He introduced the word in his book Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation (2006), which describes paradoxes of Soviet life during the 1970s and 1980s. He says that everyone in the Soviet Union knew the system was failing, but no one could imagine an alternative to the status quo, and politicians and citizens alike were resigned to maintaining the pretense of a functioning society. Over time, this delusion became a self-fulfilling prophecy and the fakeness was accepted by everyone as real, an effect that Yurchak termed hypernormalisation."[0]
Then, what are the purposes of the leaks. Street cred for the hackers, a moral checkbox off the list for a leaker, attempt at embarassment for the individuals/firms/banks involved?
Well, kudos to the leakers, and they are doing their bit, sure. I guess people with a penchant for investigative journalism aren’t the same ones as lobbyists, politicians etc. They are doing good work.
It’s more that without someone taking it to the next step, it is in vain. It feels like yet-another report in what the world will be like if we don’t stop CO2 emissions. It will be very bad. There are so many reports like that, I dont bother reading them anymore. More desertification. More hurricanes. Hotter summers, colder winters. Droughts and floods, death and disease.
Not the person you’re replying to but it was just a three word reply, which could be interpreted in whole bunch of different ways, so it feels like you may have made a bit of a leap here… :)
The commenter was succinct. They are pedantically subverting and misinterpreting OPs comment into an argument about exclusivity, when in fact OP displayed no such idea. It's a deliberate sleight.
Or maybe they think that words matter and if you care enough about something to be calling people to action maybe you should care enough to phrase your words so they're less ambiguous.
Not everyone reads things the same way, even if you think it's the obvious and only way to interpret something. If they did, there would be a lot less misunderstandings online.
Someone pointing out ambiguity is possibly helping you refine your point and message, so if you encounter it maybe try to read it less as someone being a pedantic asshole and instead someone helping you express your message more successfully. At a minimum it will likely help you keep a good attitude or emotional state, which is nothing to sneeze at.
It was rhetorical and snide. We all know there is no exclusivity. OP is just asking for action for the amount of already acquired information. He isn't saying we shouldn't acquire more evidence.
There is no ambiguity, just verbal gymnastics played by those who want to comment in bad conscience as if they have somehow furthered the conversation.
Are these exclusive?