Here’s that Q&A from periscope — worth your time #richardarmitage

~ by Servetus on September 30, 2016.

9 Responses to “Here’s that Q&A from periscope — worth your time #richardarmitage”

  1. They obviously love talking about the work they created and like talking to one another. No wonder they all said they loved the experience of the shoot.


  2. I found the Snowden question really interesting. I think the question could have been worded differently, asking them what their opinions on whether he was a hero or not was too personal, the entire stage went silent & it became really uncomfortable! but the basis of the question was whether or not their opinions changed after playing out a similar scenario on screen. Richard’s answer was more complex, that it’s just not what you feel is right but how it’s going to affect the whole picture, a certain amount of truth needs to be hidden/safeguarded in order to keep the whole functioning. while Michelle’s answer was the truth is the truth and we all have a right to it. and then how Leland admired her stance even if he didn’t agree with it. I loved that whole exchange b/c my own opinions are often multilayered making it difficult to say a definitive yes/no answer without explanation, so sometimes I envy those who can see their opinion in one solid dimension. and yet, that kind of conviction scares me at the same time b/c it is so unwavering. great discussion!

    Liked by 1 person

    • That was one of the pieces that intrigued me as well, somewhat less for the answers and more for what it said about the personalities involved. (It once again disenamored me of Michelle Forbes — she really reinforces the impression I have that she has little mercy or give in her soul.) And the way that Orser responded to Forbes suggested they had had this conversation many times, perhaps to the point of fatigue.

      Before this three week whammy I’d been working on a post about the privacy / disclosure them — now I am glad that waited, because this is valuable “intel.”


      • I agree about Michelle, nothing I’ve seen in promos so far has changed my opinion of her. but Richard’s response reinforced why I enjoy his interviews so much, that he takes the time to give a complete answer.


        • I also agree that that question was really poorly put. Although it did really yield an interesting answer and I agree, he had really thought about it and gave a more complex answer than the others. Good to see.


    • Just now catching up on this video and agree about his Snowden response. I’ve been really curious to hear his opinion on this topic for awhile and am pleased to know that it’s nicely nuanced, unlike not just Michelle but a lot of the public. Richard’s comments on Facebook a few weeks ago, the ones that were ultimately a dig at Trump but by way of an appreciation of the complexity of the work of national security, were a first hint into his thinking, but these remarks were what I’ve been wanting to know.


      • Part of me has been the whole time thinking, “why can’t you just say this on twitter” but now listening to him, I realize he would have had a hard time saying it in 140 char even in multiple tweets.


  3. Forbes response to the Snowden question reinforced my opinion of her as an unbending hard woman. Her glib “truth is truth” response is something nice to hear but are we really better, happier knowing everything? In your own personal life, aren’t there things you wish you didn’t know? Did knowing them make you feel better? Enrich your life? Yes, governments and the institutions that work to protect us are flawed, but are we going to sleep more soundly in our nice fluffy beds if we know what others have to do so that we can continue to sleep soundly in our nice fluffy beds? “We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us.”
    I think Orser and Armitage realize the issue of Snowden is complex; that some things should not be known. I’m pretty sure Tomita, as the daughter of someone in LAPD, definitely understands the answer is not simple. Her comment about the costs to the families of someone involved in dangerous operations was telling. What is the price of peace? What is the price of security? Snowden endangered a lot of people. He may have exposed wrongdoing, but he also put innocents at risk.
    Forbes commented that we have a right to the truth. How much truth? Will it improve my life to know all your secrets? Is there a line? Are our lives improved by learning who’s gay? Who’s screwing around on their spouse? Who’s got what disease? I realize Forbes was talking about the truth in our Government but I look around and wonder where is the line? What if another Snowden working at an insurance company decides to publicly divulge all of our private health files so that everyone knows everyone’s health business? Well, Forbes would say truth is truth.


    • It’s not so much freedom from worry that motivates me to consider the value of certain kinds of non-disclosures, but more the possibility of political change, and it’s precisely people with Forbes’ personality type that frighten me on that account.

      I think there are certain political situations right now (Israel / Palestine is one, and US / Cuba was another) where long-term political interests are not served by total transparency at all times (the Assange position, which is to be distinguished from Snowden. Assange is against secrecy per se, while Snowden opposes illegal surveillance of American citizens but not secrecy in itself). Right now, there are forces prepared to tank any kind of solution in the Middle East if it were based on open negotiations. These forces would simply make it impossible for their leadership to stay in place. That problem will only be solved if opponents can negotiate in good faith in secrecy, because someone — with the personality type of Forbes, who apparently cannot abide any kind of compromise, and by the way contrary to the implication of this conversation, I do not think that that automatically makes her more moral) — will articulate some inflexible principle that will outrage their constitutents and make a compromise, and thus lasting change, politically untenable.

      You point out a really important point — which is that probably someone as far Left as Forbes occasionally seem to be would have real problems with certain kinds of privacy breaches. The example of health information is a good one. If health information can be used to deny someone health insurance — well, that’s truth. Is it an unalloyed good? Presumably there are also things about her life that she would prefer to keep secret. I wouldn’t venture to say what they were.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: