EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7461
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9641 Posts
i mean it's not the front page story anymore and i think that's good, how long can you milk a dead horse. but to dismiss it completely seems dangerously ignorant. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On May 08 2017 21:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Someone's distracted. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/861550676505219073 The fact that his supporter go along with his sound bite red herrings is astounding. He can just say whatever he wants and they follow. That's his effect on political discourse. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On May 08 2017 22:37 Plansix wrote: The concept that nothing is real on the internet had bleed into reality. Death threats on the internet, not real, likely just a joke. Sure they are stressful and troubling for the person receiving the threats, but that person can just leave the internet. Hacks by state actors to influence the outcomes of elections, also not real and can’t really that that much influence. They might be bad, but we can’t really know how bad so it must be the lowest amount possible. Talking like that, one would expect that you can provide actual proof that the russian government was involved in the hacks. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 08 2017 23:35 Paljas wrote: Talking like that, one would expect that you can provide actual proof that the russian government was involved in the hacks. I don’t work for the FBI or France intelligence agencies? The FBI and NSA said it was Russia when it came to the DNC. I’m not really sure what standard of proof people are expecting in internet discussions that might be about state actors trying to cover their tracks. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 08 2017 23:54 Paljas wrote: I dunno, the standard of proof i expect would be, you know, actual proof. And not just the word of the same people which led you guys into the war in iraq and libya. So by that standard, can you never talk about government ever again because of WW2? How devoid of critical thinking is this discussion going to be? | ||
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On May 08 2017 23:54 Paljas wrote: I dunno, the standard of proof i expect would be, you know, actual proof. And not just the word of the same people which led you guys into the war in iraq and libya. We generally accept the word of accepted experts on these matters. Nobody ever proved to me that Napoleon existed but I'm pretty confident that the institutions that led me to believe that he did wouldn't be able to sustain that kind of lie if he hadn't. If you're about to start insisting that we cannot trust the experts with access to the information and the skills and experience to understand it then it's not unreasonable to ask what it is that you mean when you say "actual proof". You didn't answer his question. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
But hey, the intelligence community never lies and is even less likely to be incompetent, right? If seventeen intelligence agencies say something we should believe them and leave it at that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On May 09 2017 00:07 LegalLord wrote: The "intelligence community" said it, I believe it, that settles it. Never mind that they acted in bad faith and based their findings on rather faulty perceptions of the situation that makes what should be a pretty obvious and straightforward matter to prove.They should be ashamed that a hacky bunch of "private investigators" (e-detectives) made a better case than they ever did. But hey, the intelligence community never lies and is even less likely to be incompetent, right? If seventeen intelligence agencies say something we should believe them and leave it at that. Do you actually think they're wrong in this case or are you just doing your usual bullshit where you try to muddy the waters for the hell of it and discredit anything and everything? Interestingly enough LegalLord's posting matches the best explanation I've ever read for Putin's infowar against the west. + Show Spoiler + After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this kind of cynicism was referred to as the "reverse cargo cult" effect. In a regular cargo cult, you have people who see an airstrip, and the cargo drops, so they build one out of straw, hoping for the same outcome. They don't know the difference between a straw airstrip and a real one, they just want the cargo. In a reverse cargo cult, you have people who see an airstrip, and the cargo drops, so they build one out of straw. But there's a twist: When they build the straw airstrip, it isn't because they are hoping for the same outcome. They know the difference, and know that because their airstrip is made of straw, it certainly won't yield any cargo, but it serves another purpose. They don't lie to the rubes and tell them that an airstrip made of straw will bring them cargo. That's an easy lie to dismantle. Instead, what they do is make it clear that the airstrip is made of straw, and doesn't work, but then tell you that the other guy's airstrip doesn't work either. They tell you that no airstrips yield cargo. The whole idea of cargo is a lie, and those fools, with their fancy airstrip made out of wood, concrete, and metal is just as wasteful and silly as one made of straw. 1980s Soviets knew that their government was lying to them about the strength and power of their society, the Communist Party couldn't hide all of the dysfunctions people saw on a daily basis. This didn't stop the Soviet leadership from lying. Instead, they just accused the West of being equally deceptive. "Sure, things might be bad here, but they are just as bad in America, and in America people are actually foolish enough to believe in the lie! Not like you, clever people. You get it. You know it is a lie." Trump's supporters don't care about being lied to. You can point out the lies until you're blue in the face, but it makes no difference to them. Why? Because it is just a game to them. The media lies, bloggers lie, politicians lie, it's just all a bunch of lies. Facts don't matter because those are lies also. Those trolls on Twitter, 4Chan, T_D, etc. are just having a good laugh. They are congratulating each other for being so smart. We are fools for still believing in anything. There is no cargo, and probably never was. Credit for concept to Ilya Kukulin. Explanation shamelessly stolen from reddit. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
From this, i think its pretty obvious what i mean when i say "actual proof": reliable data and information which confirm and assure the assumptions and claims. No such data was provided in this case. Of course, you may claim that i am overly skeptic and distrustful, but considering what can happen (iraq and libya), i believe that my distrust is justified. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10884 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On May 09 2017 00:13 Paljas wrote: Kwark, the reason why we believe in experts in precisly because they can prove their claims and have the knowledge to correctly use and gauge the data and information. If you would ask a biologist to prove that evolution exists, he would have plenty of data to proof that evolution is real. And if you ask a historian to prove the existence of a person (e.g. Napoleon), they would again be able to provide historical documents etc. to support and proof their claims. From this, i think its pretty obvious what i mean when i say "actual proof": reliable data and information which confirm and assure the assumptions and claims. No such data was provided in this case. Of course, you may claim that i am overly skeptic and distrustful, but the considering what can happend (iraq and libya) i believe that my distrust is justified. What would you accept as actual proof of Napoleon that could not have been falsified by a conspiracy of experts working to deceive you? I'm not sure there is anything I could accept, every route just leads me to more experts. Dating primary sources needs me to trust concepts like nuclear decay and so forth, it's not feasible that I ever do it all by myself. All I can do is trust that the conspiracy would collapse if it existed. And oddly enough the intelligence community was publicly divided on the case for Iraq, exactly as we would want to see if there was something unreliable. Experts were speaking out against the politician's misrepresentation of facts. The intelligence services of other nations were speaking up and saying that this report isn't right. The Chilcott Report in the UK concludes that there was sufficient information at the time for the politicians to have made the correct choice and that the incorrect decision was deliberately made despite the intelligence for political reasons. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On May 08 2017 22:37 Plansix wrote: The concept that nothing is real on the internet had bleed into reality. Death threats on the internet, not real, likely just a joke. Sure they are stressful and troubling for the person receiving the threats, but that person can just leave the internet. Hacks by state actors to influence the outcomes of elections, also not real and can’t really that that much influence. They might be bad, but we can’t really know how bad so it must be the lowest amount possible. On the other hand, watching various forms of popular social and traditional media, you're left with the impression that Putin almost single-handedly went into the brains of Trump voters when they were at the booths - or at least had such a sway on a huge group of people that they didn't vote at all. Which is equally fucking ridiculous. If you even try to suggest that the Russian influence wasn't all that overwhelming, you get incredibly hard pushback from a lot of disgruntled people. Yeah, voter turnout was lower due to various factors, including the e-mails, but its always been total shit in the US, and I suspect that maybe some black people who did come out for Barack Obama were essentially too racist or misogynistic to vote for a white chick. But whatever. Keep being upset at it, maybe it will turn out for the best. Personally, in terms of the distinction between the internet and reality: I consider the internet to be an addition to meat space. The government doesn't keep logs every time I leave my own private house and enter another building, so they shouldn't do that when I'm on the internet and leave my own private network and enter another. Yet that is essentially what is happening. Personally, I think all network equipment should be open sourced through a highly collaborative method to increase security with software that essentially goes along the lines of 'disconnect-and-forget', as far as that's feasible in networking, and with no logs kept whatsoever, but it seems to be going in quite the opposite direction. So, yeah, I take it seriously. And when it is confirmed that the US hacks into the phones of European diplomats at the Copenhagen climate negotiations to listen in on their conversations in order to strengthen their own position in those negotiations, I take that very seriously. Especially considering the backward attitude that half your population seems to have on the issue. And when Russia hacks into the US political parties and releases that info in order to strengthen their own position in the world, I take that very seriously as well. And when China hacks into who knows what to get state secrets from everybody and their mother, I tend to take that very seriously as well. I am well aware of the threats and the the abuse of these kind of angles of attack. I think that this is going to come down to another world war at some point, quite frankly, if we are not already in it right now in digital space. Governments can throw all the lines they like for catching hackers, and monitor all network activity of citizens in their countries exceptionally closely - but that's not going to stop states with opposing geopolitical interests from interfering in each others networks - not even if they are supposed to be allies, apparently. They're not going to care too much if they get traced -- people just say "well, that's just how it is, countries spy on each other" or "well, we have to look out for our own interests" in order to defend such actions. That's what the Russians were doing, they were looking out for their own interests at the cost of everybody else, just as the US did when they hacked into the climate negotiations. I really hope that this doesn't bleed into meat space before we come to our senses and figure this out through some kind of 'hacker truce' negotiations at the UN or somesuch. I fear that people may not realize this in time, however. So yeah, keep being upset at it. But also keep pushing for a solution. Otherwise people might just end up launching those nukes after another couple of decades of escalation. Especially considering the military build-up at borders every-fucking-where. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
