Snowden: NSA employees routinely pass around intercepted nude photos

[NanceGreggs]

181. Here's what is simple ...

Finding Snowden not credible has nothing to do with the truly simple-minded idea that it has anything to do with one's support of Obama. It has to do with Snowden making assertions that he has yet to provide any evidence for.

Finding Snowden not credible does not make one an NSA cheerleader or defender. It is simple-minded thinking to believe that the NSA lying automatically means that Snowden is telling the truth. Both are more than possible.

It is equally simple-minded thinking to believe that if one isn't 100% on-board with one position, it means they are 100% on-board with the extreme opposite position. i.e. if you are a not a Snowden fan, you must be an NSA "fan"; if you support stricter gun control legislation, you want everyone's guns confiscated.

"Logic and reason are frequently ignored in their calculus. These are the people who only surround themselves with like minded individuals. They never attempt to understand or absorb opposing viewpoints."

This is THE most simple-minded thinking imaginable, the notion of attributing such broad-brush behaviour to one group of people as opposed to another. There are many Snowden fans who have frequently ignored "logic and reason" where he is concerned. A perfect case in point is the fact that many Snowden supporters still point to the released email in which he asked a question about training material as the "smoking gun proof" that he had raised his concerns with his superiors - when even the man himself never claimed that, or attached any real importance to that particular exchange.

"I really do believe that one of the biggest reasons why everyone seems to hate each other over politics is due to these people. They have the biggest voice even if it is sometimes uninformed."

Exactly who are "these people"? The people who don't agree with your assessment of things? The people who don't simply defer to your superior judgment, and have the audacity to voice opinions you don't share?

There is nothing more simple-minded than the idea that this site (or the world at large) consists of black-and-white positions, where disagreeing with A means one is firmly in the camp of Z, where those on one side of an argument "engage in strawman arguments, misdirection and insults", while the other side does not.

I realize (quite sadly) that this kind of black-and-white thinking has become prevalent here on DU. However, it's prevalence does not equate to it being right, logical, or acceptable by those who recognize the myriad shades of gray that exist between one position and another.

"These are the people who only surround themselves with like minded individuals."

You might want to investigate how many DUers (and, more to the point, which ones) brag about the size of their Ignore lists. THEY are the people who have proclaimed, and rather proudly, how important it is to "surround themselves with like-minded individuals", with absolutely no tolerance for the opinions of those who disagree with them. Rather than be exposed to differing opinions, they simply block those who hold those differing opinions from view.

"The fact that they voted for the president means that they must continue their complete and undying devotion."

In truth, there are many Snowden fans here who proclaimed him the Greatest American Hero within twenty-four hours of his name becoming known - and many of them feel that "they must continue their complete and undying devotion", regardless of what unsavoury facts about him - e.g. his comments that SS recipients are parasites, that whistle-blowers should be shot in the balls - subsequently became known. If you want to see "complete and undying devotion", you need look no further than that.