He leaked some important information that the public should probably have the right to know. This doesn't void what the author is pointing out. The author is saying, "I recognize this soldier was a bad soldier and its because she's a bad soldier that she decided to leak this information." In reality, Manning most likely leaked all this shit as a sort of tantrum/fuck-the-man maneuver. It just happened to be very valuable to the public. In other words is it still a strawman if it's true and critical to an objective view of the argument?
That's begging the question. The author has 0 proof that his depiction of Manning's time in basic is accurate, and 0 proof that her treatment was the reason for the leak. On the contrary, there is specific evidence that it was not the reason for Manning's actions. Claims from a random internet person with an interest in making good with the intelligence/military establishment are not enough by themselves.In other words is it still a strawman if it's true and critical to an objective view of the argument?
I hear ya, thanks for the explanation. I believe what the author is saying because the description of Manning fits spot-on with a handful of drop-outs and still-stragglers from Basic, and based on conversations with a few of my classmates that have were active duty and deployed solidifying my understanding that this description of Manning is exactly what they would've assumed. The fact that these people I've spoken to, and myself, assumed anyway that this is the kind of soldier Manning was based on our own experiences, is certainly a logical error in itself. There is no evidence that she truly was this way. But the same way I assumed that all the horrible shit Manning leaked was going on anyway, it would be mind-blowing to me if this person's account was not the spot-on truth about Manning. Being in the Army comes with complaining about insane shit that goes on in the Army a helluva lot more than a civilian complains about the Army. If there was some other shit going on, I'm inclined to believe that this author would probably say so.
But that's my point: saying that the link is consistent with your own and others' preconceived ideas doesn't magically make it accurate. This is a textbook example of the kind of "post-truth" rhetoric that is flying around these days. The same is true about this. Two baseless sets of assumptions don't suddenly become supported once there's enough of them.I believe what the author is saying because the description of Manning fits spot-on with a handful of drop-outs and still-stragglers from Basic, and based on conversations with a few of my classmates that have were active duty and deployed solidifying my understanding that this description of Manning is exactly what they would've assumed.
But the same way I assumed that all the horrible shit Manning leaked was going on anyway, it would be mind-blowing to me if this person's account was not the spot-on truth about Manning.
To be clear, I know, I was stressing that they're baseless assumptions. I am illogicaly choosing to believe them due to a set of red flags on a checklist of experience.