On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:

On 09/19/2016 08:46 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Some good points being raised, on sl1shd()t no less:
>
> https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/09/18/2023216/assange-agrees-to-us-p
rison-if-obama-pardons-chelsea-manning
>
>
>
> What is a traitor?

It is a label indicating a prejudicial, emotional value judgment. Bob
Wilson would probably have said it is a synonym for "a no good shit."

> When is it appropriate to label someone a traitor?

When you want idiots to endorse your intention of kidnapping,
torturing and/or murdering someone for political reasons.

> When is doing so, an attempt at manipulative propaganda?

Every time, as in every other case where a categorically derogatory
label is branded onto someone.

Extreme ignorance apparently excuses anything: I have seen people
call Australian national Julian Assange a "traitor" because Wikileaks
published DNC and HRC e-mail dumps.

I completely agree with Steve on this.

Morally, in my view, one can never be a traitor to the State, because to betray the State, you have to have entered into some agreement with the State voluntarily, i.e. not under duress. The State is force and violence incarnate, therefore no truly voluntary agreement with it can exist. If anything, it is those who act as an instrument of the State who are traitors against the people they dominate. Which means Trump and Clinton are vying for the position of Head Traitor.