JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
For my part as a fairly outspoken and reasonably well-known skeptic, this is a huge conundrum.
The problem we have as skeptics, and especially as skeptic commentators, is that governments (and corporations and individuals) frequently do lie, and frequently do misuse the apparatus of legitimate secrecy and security. And that means there's a legitimate market for bona fide whistle-blowers. As long as human nature is what it is, there will be people who try to get ahead by abusing the system and others who try to get ahead by tattling. It just depends on what's in your character to do. I think there's a whole psychology behind the keeping or disclosing of secrets, and therefore logic and ethics don't by themselves describe the phenomenon.
But the problem comes when there's a nugget of truth in the middle of the ball of crap some conspiracy theorist has devised. It would be nice to say that all secret-keepers are altruistic and conscientious. It would be nice to rebut a conspiracy theory by the credible argument that Powers That Be are universally trustworthy. But since they can point to some malfeasance, it stands to reason in their minds that some other kind of malfeasance is just as credible even if the evidence differs.
Every whistle-blower is, to some extent, an attention-seeker. Blowing the whistle has an objective benefit, yes. But there is also a payoff in being recognized as the whistle-blower. The benefit of the revelation attaches to you personally. Hence every whistle-blower has to be treated with some degree of skepticism. At some point in psyche or time, the altruism gives way to egotism. And you have to stop believing them at that point.
Now for some that point comes relatively quickly, because their whole point in coming forward was simply to get attention. They have no real knowledge and are just looking to stir the pot, to get retribution, or to have their 15 minutes of fame. I don't think Snowden is one of these. But there are plenty, and they do a lot of damage and they do attract a lot of conspiracy theorists because the outrageous stores the faux whistle-blowers tell tend to be exactly the ones the conspiracy theorists want to hear. It's a symbiosis of crap.
But then you have people trying to co-opt the conscientious legitimate whistle-blowers by attributing to them things they never said or did, or by goading them into embellishing the truth. Just like in the Apollo hoax stories, every astronaut is Neil Armstrong. And every whistle-blower (the archetype needed in so many conspiracy theories) today is Snowden.
The problem we have as skeptics, and especially as skeptic commentators, is that governments (and corporations and individuals) frequently do lie, and frequently do misuse the apparatus of legitimate secrecy and security. And that means there's a legitimate market for bona fide whistle-blowers. As long as human nature is what it is, there will be people who try to get ahead by abusing the system and others who try to get ahead by tattling. It just depends on what's in your character to do. I think there's a whole psychology behind the keeping or disclosing of secrets, and therefore logic and ethics don't by themselves describe the phenomenon.
But the problem comes when there's a nugget of truth in the middle of the ball of crap some conspiracy theorist has devised. It would be nice to say that all secret-keepers are altruistic and conscientious. It would be nice to rebut a conspiracy theory by the credible argument that Powers That Be are universally trustworthy. But since they can point to some malfeasance, it stands to reason in their minds that some other kind of malfeasance is just as credible even if the evidence differs.
Every whistle-blower is, to some extent, an attention-seeker. Blowing the whistle has an objective benefit, yes. But there is also a payoff in being recognized as the whistle-blower. The benefit of the revelation attaches to you personally. Hence every whistle-blower has to be treated with some degree of skepticism. At some point in psyche or time, the altruism gives way to egotism. And you have to stop believing them at that point.
Now for some that point comes relatively quickly, because their whole point in coming forward was simply to get attention. They have no real knowledge and are just looking to stir the pot, to get retribution, or to have their 15 minutes of fame. I don't think Snowden is one of these. But there are plenty, and they do a lot of damage and they do attract a lot of conspiracy theorists because the outrageous stores the faux whistle-blowers tell tend to be exactly the ones the conspiracy theorists want to hear. It's a symbiosis of crap.
But then you have people trying to co-opt the conscientious legitimate whistle-blowers by attributing to them things they never said or did, or by goading them into embellishing the truth. Just like in the Apollo hoax stories, every astronaut is Neil Armstrong. And every whistle-blower (the archetype needed in so many conspiracy theories) today is Snowden.
