It's necessary to forget that in order to be sufficiently outraged.
Half of all outrage is due not primary to the bad news in front of you but due to self-inflicted amnesia to allow the outrage to go on. If every time we saw something that makes us want to be pissed off and we controlled that emotion long enough to stop and think, "Gee, has this happened before in a way that I didn't find objectionable?" we'd be better off.
We do it with people we empathize with. Not with those we don't like, either because of their politics, their ability to keep us from getting what we want, or things like ethnicity and skin color. There should be a pause to judgment.
So, Wikileaks and the CIA hack that we can only know about if we have a really high security clearance.
And there are things like this, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/hackers-cia-john-brennan.html, where the CIA director's email and the accounts of others were hacked. Now, these were personal accounts, but still, if you hack the CIA director's accounts that's perilously close to "hacking the CIA." And it makes sense to make sure that if you're a federal official in high office you don't put anything in the least damaging or secure on a personal server. (This isn't a trivial thing. However, there's little point in hammering away at such things for years and years. Fix it, account for the damage, and then move on.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
