[jedsmith]

I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself. However, the folks that distance themselves from you undoubtedly have things to lose, and can't afford to share your fight. You could certainly label those folks as cowards, but I think it's a bit disingenuous.

As you are finding out, the government can take a lot from you when you piss them off. In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management to protect your loved ones from similar treatment, particularly if you're raising a family. Not many employers will stick with you if you get this kind of harassment in your personal life, because it will eventually affect them too; that cuts right into feeding your family, which is high on my list of things I will not sacrifice. Putting my family above an ideal is not cowardice, particularly when my family isn't even aware of the reason for an ideal and definitely doesn't share it.

It's also dangerous to assume that a given outcome is unlikely for any set of circumstances. Continuously, we read about things that blow our mind when governments abuse power, and there are probably far more things that we are not lucky enough to read about; if they really wanted you gone, you'd be gone tomorrow and none of us would ever know. It stands to reason that you haven't disappeared yet because they want Assange. Planning for the best from your adversary is a dangerous path, I think, but I know that you're far more familiar with your own circumstances than Mr. Internet Commenter here is.

[mquander]

I can see where you're coming from because you've already determined that you don't have anything to lose by standing up for yourself.

What? That sounds insane. In what sense does he have nothing to lose?

Bowing to bullies is cowardice, no matter how rational it is. The reason "cowardice" is a perjorative word is that usually seeking your own rational self-interest by accommodating thugs ends up hurting other people, and I believe that's true in this case, as well. If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.

[jedsmith]

> In what sense does he have nothing to lose?

Based upon my quick reading, it sounds like he has nobody that depends on him. All of us have to consider that if we were to suddenly disappear from the face of the planet, who would suffer as a direct result?

> If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.

Yeah, I detained him at the border. Good one.

You give the government a lot of credit for being extraordinarily clever. I have serious, serious doubts that people distancing themselves from inviting similar harassment (which means aiding Jacob, not necessarily knowing him -- I never committed on that point) is something that the government would consider a win. "We have succeeded by limiting new acquaintances!" That's hysterical.

This is the government we're talking about here, the world's legendary bureaucracy, the same government that can't even find bin Laden after how many years. They want Julian Assange, and they'll procedurally harass anybody they can to get to him until they get him. Assuming there's a shadowy evil plot to decrease Jacob's LinkedIn connection count is patently silly, and accusing me of furthering the government's attack because I don't want to risk my family for a cause is a pile of disrespectful and stupid.

[mquander]

It might be true that nobody depends on him, but that's sure a long way from "nothing to lose." Notwithstanding his own self, I'm sure he has a lot of friends and loved ones that suffer when he's hurt.

I don't think it takes extraordinary cleverness to try to attack people by ostracizing them and indirectly threatening others who associate or collaborate with them. That sounds as straightforward as it gets. I guess I don't see what seems silly about it.

[jedsmith]

Granted. I can see your point, but I'd argue that Jacob is a means to the end, not the end. I don't think ruining his life is the goal here. They just want to beat him up until he gives them who or what they really want.

[ioerror]

It is one of the goals and I'd love to see your evidence to the contrary.

[jedsmith]

I'd love to see your evidence that it is beyond drawing a conclusion from circumstances. That's a zero-sum game, right there, because there's no way either of us could have evidence as to the ultimate motive.

At any rate, I've said my piece, and I'm circling close to offending you -- which isn't my goal -- so don't take anything I say as intentionally offensive. It seems silly to argue about your life, anyway, from the perspective of someone not in your life.

[kragen]

> You could certainly label those folks as cowards, but I think it's a bit disingenuous … In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management

I don't think "simple risk management" and "cowardice" are mutually exclusive, and I am deeply offended that you are accusing me and Jake and others of dishonesty for expressing that opinion. I understand the desire to defend yourself (however cowardly you may be) but I do not believe that desire justifies launching personal attacks on the integrity of those who disagree with you.

Indeed, it's rather ironic to hear someone justifying cowardice setting themself up as a judge of the integrity of others.

[jedsmith]

Please do not infer that I was accusing anybody of dishonesty. I wasn't aware that disingenuous carried that overtone -- to me, it means "aware of a couple explanations and intentionally picking one that makes a little less sense," and I have seen now that my usage of the word was incorrect. I meant no such attack, and had I wanted to call you dishonest, I would have gone about it more directly.

HN certainly gets more and more hostile as days go by, and I think it'd do us all a favor to assume the best in our conversational counterparts. Judge of integrity, indeed.

[sophacles]

I would argue that someone assuming you actually know the definitions of the words you use is assuming the best in their conversational counterpart. It isn't like you made a super complex point and he's nitpicking and straw-manning and the like -- it's a pretty well understood word.

[kragen]

> to me, it means "aware of a couple explanations and intentionally picking one that makes a little less sense,"

If a person is aware of a couple of explanations for something and has judgments about how much sense they make, those judgments represent their degree of belief in those explanations. If they claim to believe the one they actually believe in less, then they are being dishonest.

[ioerror]

Your first premise is flawed: I have not determined that I have nothing else to lose.