[grzm]

The HN community has quite a wide variety of views and tends to value civil, considered, constructive discourse (as well as refraining from commenting on down votes). Tone as well as content go a long way: there have been plenty of comments over the years that are critical of Snowden. Choosing to use a pejorative nickname and phrases like "HN worships" don't do anything to promote your argument. You're choosing to participate on HN, and are therefore part of the community and its culture. I doubt you include yourself when you say "HN worships", yet you're participating here. Consider that there may be others on HN who wouldn't categorize their opinions of Snowden as "worshipping" either. (And there definitely are.)

You mention the "divide and wreck of culture of this nation", which indicates to me that you care about such things. Are the comments you've posted going to do anything to make this better? Likely not: people who agree with you are likely going to continue to agree with you, and those that don't are likely to write you off due to how you're presenting yourself. If your goal is to help make things better, I encourage you to think on ways you might be more effective. People may not necessarily agree with the positions you hold, but they may also have reasoned and nuanced reasons for holding the positions they do.

[thrownsjdke]

You seem to have good writing skills. Can you now respond to my post whereby I’ve made the claim that Snowden has committed treason, weakened US national security, and possibly ticked off a decline in interest for working for US intelligence?

If the public is aware of our intel capabilities as a direct result of Snowden’s action, it seems close to certain that my points are correct.

[grzm]

I think all of the points you raise are worth discussing. Of particularly interest to me is figuring out how to have discussions on contentious topics in a constructive manner, which is why I commented here. Whether or not I'm effective in this, I do know that I haven't done enough research to weigh in responsibly on Snowden or the other points you raise. (For example, to be effective, I would want to have some facts at hand with respect to education levels and curriculum of high school students in St. Petersburg, Russia, undergrads in the US, rates of entry into the intelligence services over time, etc. I don't have such and am not sufficiently motivated to look them up). I do believe that the points you make in this comment are much more likely to result in a better discussion. Thank you for that!