WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground

This reads like a hit piece. They&#x27;re lambasting Wikileaks for not understanding some obscure triple parenthesis nomenclature? They&#x27;re anti-semitic because they&#x27;re not plugged into the anti-semite culture enough to know their jargon?<p>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&#x27;t have Unicode ?

<i>And then, inexplicably, the WikiLeaks official Twitter account also dove straight for naked anti-Semitism.</i><p>The author, Emma Ellis, has no comprehension of the tweet in question. Understanding the background could have prevented this:<p>1. Neo-Nazis begin to point out to their supporters that the people they are discussing are Jews (or &quot;Jew aiders and abettors&quot; [sic]) by placing three brackets around their name. The subjects are often unaware and their account usernames (obviously) do not display brackets.<p>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].<p>3. A subset of these self-labelled, self-bracketed individuals criticize WikiLeaks.<p>4. The WikiLeaks account notices that many of their critics are <i>self-bracketed individuals</i> 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.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Amen" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Amen</a>. [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Deputy#Historical_models" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Deputy#Historical_models</a> [3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Spartacus_(film)#.22I.27m_Spartacus.21.22" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Spartacus_(film)#.22I.27m_Spar...</a> [4] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tvtropes.org&#x2F;pmwiki&#x2F;pmwiki.php&#x2F;Main&#x2F;IAmSpartacus" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tvtropes.org&#x2F;pmwiki&#x2F;pmwiki.php&#x2F;Main&#x2F;IAmSpartacus</a>

I hope WikiLeaks moral high ground and&#x2F;or credibilty are never huge factors. Their releases should probably always be treated with trust-but-verify disposition. Or maybe distrust-until-verified.<p>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&#x27;s a map to the bodies, we go there and see if it&#x27;s accurate info.

No it hasn&#x27;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.

That particular tweet falls under the &quot;never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity&quot; razor, which kind of undercuts the rest of the author&#x27;s (fair, but quickly sketched) points.