|
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. |
On February 20 2018 00:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 00:04 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2018 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda? You can talk about propaganda. The problem is when you weaponize it. So to kill any discussion about propaganda, all I need to do is accuse someone of weaponizing it for their own benefit and that person is now part of the problem? I’m seeing a real chilling effect in this line of reasoning. It's funny to see you act like this, it's not your typical approach. No, obviously not you can't just say that someone is weaponizing propaganda to kill any discussion of propaganda. You need a situation where the propaganda is indeed being weaponized. But that requires the intent to weaponize it, correct? Because the propaganda’s intent is to deceive, we need to know if someone is truly propagating it with full knowledge the information is false.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I mean using the fact that propaganda exists as a weapon. I'm pretty sure everyone who does that has the intent to do that.
Let's say that I believe some dumb leftist meme, which I have no doubt is possible, even likely. I feed it to you in a conversation because I think it's an argument. You know that it's false, and you demonstrate that to me. This is okay. If I'm a rational person and I'm sufficiently convinced by your demonstration, I will adapt my world view to account for the fact that this information was false.
That's the extent of it though. This doesn't mean that leftism is debunked, it doesn't mean that I'm suddenly a liberal, and it doesn't mean that you get to dismiss everything I say going forward.
Obviously you know all of that, it's quite straightforward. But you don't need more to be critical of the whole spiel of "At some point Russia spread some propaganda in your general vicinity, this is now an attack against you."
|
On February 20 2018 00:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 00:14 Plansix wrote:On February 20 2018 00:04 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2018 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda? You can talk about propaganda. The problem is when you weaponize it. So to kill any discussion about propaganda, all I need to do is accuse someone of weaponizing it for their own benefit and that person is now part of the problem? I’m seeing a real chilling effect in this line of reasoning. It's funny to see you act like this, it's not your typical approach. No, obviously not you can't just say that someone is weaponizing propaganda to kill any discussion of propaganda. You need a situation where the propaganda is indeed being weaponized. But that requires the intent to weaponize it, correct? Because the propaganda’s intent is to deceive, we need to know if someone is truly propagating it with full knowledge the information is false. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I mean using the fact that propaganda exists as a weapon. I'm pretty sure everyone who does that has the intent to do that. Let's say that I believe some dumb leftist meme, which I have no doubt is possible, even likely. I feed it to you in a conversation because I think it's an argument. You know that it's false, and you demonstrate that to me. This is okay. If I'm a rational person and I'm sufficiently convinced by your demonstration, I will adapt my world view to account for the fact that this information was false. That's the extent of it though. This doesn't mean that leftism is debunked, it doesn't mean that I'm suddenly a liberal, and it doesn't mean that you get to dismiss everything I say going forward. Obviously you know all of that, it's quite straightforward. But you don't need more to be critical of the whole spiel of "At some point Russia spread some propaganda in your general vicinity, this is now an attack against you."
I agree. Just trying to make sure I’m understanding people’s arguments.
|
On February 20 2018 00:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 00:42 Nebuchad wrote:On February 20 2018 00:14 Plansix wrote:On February 20 2018 00:04 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2018 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda? You can talk about propaganda. The problem is when you weaponize it. So to kill any discussion about propaganda, all I need to do is accuse someone of weaponizing it for their own benefit and that person is now part of the problem? I’m seeing a real chilling effect in this line of reasoning. It's funny to see you act like this, it's not your typical approach. No, obviously not you can't just say that someone is weaponizing propaganda to kill any discussion of propaganda. You need a situation where the propaganda is indeed being weaponized. But that requires the intent to weaponize it, correct? Because the propaganda’s intent is to deceive, we need to know if someone is truly propagating it with full knowledge the information is false. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I mean using the fact that propaganda exists as a weapon. I'm pretty sure everyone who does that has the intent to do that. Let's say that I believe some dumb leftist meme, which I have no doubt is possible, even likely. I feed it to you in a conversation because I think it's an argument. You know that it's false, and you demonstrate that to me. This is okay. If I'm a rational person and I'm sufficiently convinced by your demonstration, I will adapt my world view to account for the fact that this information was false. That's the extent of it though. This doesn't mean that leftism is debunked, it doesn't mean that I'm suddenly a liberal, and it doesn't mean that you get to dismiss everything I say going forward. Obviously you know all of that, it's quite straightforward. But you don't need more to be critical of the whole spiel of "At some point Russia spread some propaganda in your general vicinity, this is now an attack against you." I agree. Just trying to make sure I’m understanding people’s arguments.
Is that what you were doing with this?
On February 19 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:
So only the pure of mind that have not been influenced can talk about propaganda? Does that mean no one can talk about it because we all are influenced by it?
Or is this some next level Russian propaganda that is getting us to distrust our own discussions of propaganda?
Here I thought you were intentionally creating a caricature of the argument because you didn't want to engage with the actual one.
|
all in all, we know they spent money on ads to influence, just how far did it reach? and how high of an impact did it really have? We already know there were troll farms. It's hard to try and debate the money spent, because we really just don't know. But we all know that ads can influence. People are super gullible into clicking what ever result is at the top, and that is usually an ad.
|
On February 20 2018 02:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:
all in all, we know they spent money on ads to influence, just how far did it reach? and how high of an impact did it really have. We already know there were troll farms.
Don't know much of squat other than the influence of those ads has been sensationalized with US propaganda and that is far more prevalent than the Russian propaganda ads/posts we know about to date.
On February 20 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 02:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:
all in all, we know they spent money on ads to influence, just how far did it reach? and how high of an impact did it really have? We already know there were troll farms. It's hard to try and debate the money spent, because we really just don't know. But we all know that ads can influence. People are super gullible into clicking what ever result is at the top, and that is usually an ad. We don’t know. Much like how we don’t know which legit political ad/article/new story changed a voter’s mind. Which is why this stuff is so powerful as making people distrustful of democratic systems.
Sometimes we do though. Not that not knowing stopped all the people in this thread (yourself included) that were so sure Russia propaganda influenced me and others
EDIT: I realize it feels like I'm picking on P6 but that's not my intention. It's just he got caught dead to rights so he makes a great example for the many liberals that would otherwise try to pretend like it didn't happen and without an extensive posting history so easily accessible to prove them wrong.
|
On February 20 2018 02:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:
all in all, we know they spent money on ads to influence, just how far did it reach? and how high of an impact did it really have? We already know there were troll farms. It's hard to try and debate the money spent, because we really just don't know. But we all know that ads can influence. People are super gullible into clicking what ever result is at the top, and that is usually an ad.
We don’t know. Much like how we don’t know which legit political ad/article/new story changed a voter’s mind. Which is why this stuff is so powerful as making people distrustful of democratic systems.
|
Well that money spent on "influence" certainly rocked the liberal media to their core. I suppose if nothing else that counts as a successful influence since it's the only story they still seem to know how to tell.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9MAabKh.jpg)
Can we talk about how insane this pie chart is now?
Everyone seems to be fairly unquestioning about the content of it and willing to draw conclusions from it. I wouldn't be so quick if I were you.
Where are these figures coming from. I mean media coverage, for example, meant to influence the election could easily just be a made up figure plucked out of nowhere's ass. It says its estimated, but there is no explanation as to how it is estimated.
So
Lets just ignore the media figure for now because its meaningless.
The other numbers are interesting (if they are even remotely fact based, which I doubt).
They suggest that Russia spent 3% the amount that superPACs spent on influencing an American election.
As far as i know superPACs' only function is to influence elections so I'm not sure these stats are serving the purpose they were designed for.
I think its maybe better to ignore this chart altogether.
|
On February 20 2018 02:29 LegalLord wrote:
Well that money spent on "influence" certainly rocked the liberal media to their core. I suppose if nothing else that counts as a successful influence since it's the only story they still seem to know how to tell.
It's not just the liberal media, it's both...
|
|
|
On February 20 2018 02:41 Jockmcplop wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Can we talk about how insane this pie chart is now? Everyone seems to be fairly unquestioning about the content of it and willing to draw conclusions from it. I wouldn't be so quick if I were you. Where are these figures coming from. I mean media coverage, for example, meant to influence the election could easily just be a made up figure plucked out of nowhere's ass. It says its estimated, but there is no explanation as to how it is estimated. So Lets just ignore the media figure for now because its meaningless. The other numbers are interesting (if they are even remotely fact based, which I doubt). They suggest that Russia spent 3% the amount that superPACs spent on influencing an American election. As far as i know superPACs' only function is to influence elections so I'm not sure these stats are serving the purpose they were designed for. I think its maybe better to ignore this chart altogether.
In fairness I did mention it was propaganda already.
I think most of us were skeptical of it's precise accuracy from the start, but I decided to double check and sure enough, none of it was accurate, except that the Russia spending was likely a even smaller percentage (to which I think was it's poorly represented point).
Which is to say I think it was the point of it altogether.
I've been noticing more and more of this well made (in it's own way) bipartisan propaganda. The same piece of propaganda can be used by both sides for their points. Republicans post it to show the valid point that Russia spending was minuscule compared to the spending in the election even if we limit it to online stuff. Then Liberals make fun of Republicans for posting foolish propaganda that minimizes Russia's influence with fake numbers.
All the while both sides are oblivious that the propaganda managed to reinforce incorrect ideas in both sides heads (libs thinking Russians spent 11 mil on ads, the right [and libs to a degree] thinking that superPAC's had little influence and that obviously the media didn't help Hillary so that part must be wrong.
EDIT: Believe me if you want to but I didn't read p6 post before writing that.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
I think the idea behind bipartisan propaganda is simply exploiting the partisan system to get views, subscribes and $. It could be that there's a motive to keep people fighting but I'm fairly sure its just people who want their thing to go viral.
|
On February 20 2018 02:47 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 02:29 LegalLord wrote:
Well that money spent on "influence" certainly rocked the liberal media to their core. I suppose if nothing else that counts as a successful influence since it's the only story they still seem to know how to tell. It's not just the liberal media, it's both...
Cool, then that small investment of a couple million dollars was even more effective.
|
I do find it philosophically interesting that "SuperPAC money" and "Russian money" is apparently some discrete category in the discussion when one of the allures of SuperPACs* is that things get murky to the point such a pie chart shouldn't even be possible to make.
Then again, I've seen people post pie charts that add up to more than 100% with respect to things like race without a shred of realization of it, so it shouldn't surprise me.
*Well, 501 (c) 4 puppet SuperPACs anyway a la Crossroads GPS and Organizing for Action that scum their way out of giving donor lists by being "social welfare organizations" because they spent enough promoting issues that only 50% of the spending is "back our dude."
|
On February 20 2018 03:11 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think the idea behind bipartisan propaganda is simply exploiting the partisan system to get views, subscribes and $. It could be that there's a motive to keep people fighting but I'm fairly sure its just people who want their thing to go viral.
There's a great video using "germs" about how the two are intertwined that's been posted here a few times. Which is not at all unrelated to why the media gave Trump such an absurd amount of free media. The idea behind the justifications was/is that covering him more made him less likable but the truth is that the more the media beat on him the more he became a symbol/martyr for every Republican that ever had someone tell them the stupid thing they said was stupid. You've even seen it echoed in some of the posts about Trump here.
|
On February 20 2018 03:11 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think the idea behind bipartisan propaganda is simply exploiting the partisan system to get views, subscribes and $. It could be that there's a motive to keep people fighting but I'm fairly sure its just people who want their thing to go viral.
That is the main goal from all reports. The NPR justice team pointed out that they tried to plan Trump and anti-Trump rallies to happen at the same time. And political operates in the US told them(not knowing that they working for Russia) to focus on purple states for maximum effect. That same report, Carri Johnson, also pointed out that Russians tried this in the 60s 70s and 80s to limited success because they had a hard time understanding the US political system well enough to make the false stories plausible.
|
On February 20 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 03:11 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think the idea behind bipartisan propaganda is simply exploiting the partisan system to get views, subscribes and $. It could be that there's a motive to keep people fighting but I'm fairly sure its just people who want their thing to go viral. That is the main goal from all reports. The NPR justice team pointed out that they tried to plan Trump and anti-Trump rallies to happen at the same time. And political operates in the US told them(not knowing that they working for Russia) to focus on purple states for maximum effect. That same report, Carri Johnson, also pointed out that Russians tried this in the 60s 70s and 80s to limited success because they had a hard time understanding the US political system well enough to make the false stories plausible.
I think you misunderstand. We're talking about bipartisan propaganda as in things like the article you posted that's now being used by the right to undermine the idea that the money spent was for Trump at all because Russians used it to organize a protest AGAINST Trump.
And up until I helped you out by pointing out that it was propaganda, you were stuck defending why your biggest single example of Russian influence was actually an ANTI-Trump rally and that didn't upset your (or the Maddow) narrative which sorta shifts between a few different concepts.
Now you can just tell them that they didn't actually organize that rally at all. But you knew that before you posted it.
|
What weirds me out is that the Mueller indictments indicate the operation had several wings that predominantly helped Trump (e.g. Twitter accounts pretending to be minorities and promoting hashtags encouraging individuals not to vote) as well as wings that fomented chaos, bitterness, and anger on both sides (e.g. nuking Rubio and co.). Heck, it even outright states that the operation transition from the latter more towards the former as time passed.
There's this tendency to depict "the Russians just wanted chaos" and "the Russians wanted a Trump victory" as two conflicting narratives when, as this indictment illustrates perfectly, they can exist side by side.
(I'll also add that the bizarre "did it swing the election for Trump???" on both conservative and liberal sides is utterly silly as someone who thinks looking at effects of separate exposures as "yes/no" is one heck of a silly thing)
|
On February 19 2018 17:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 17:10 Acrofales wrote:On February 19 2018 17:05 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 16:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 16:53 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 16:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 16:47 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:that obviously wasn't part of it but at least acknowledging that it's different is a start.
Dunno if you saw the gun thread but I'm pretty reasonable on this. Another way of thinking about it would be how about everyone in the thread was all in the same room. You think giving us guns makes us safer or less safe? How about just you, danglars, xdaunt, RiK and me. Giving us all guns make us more or less safe? How about just you, gun make you safer? Thinking guns make people safer is a wrongheaded idea. Gun's are tools, they can be used in a wide variety of ways and a wide variety of contexts. It's a small and simple concession to admit that the logic around "more guns=more safe" is comparably stupid to everyone at an NRA rally with the president having the guns they carry everywhere else. To drive this home, if we had 1,000,000 (add as many 0's as it takes for this not to be the focus) yous, and put them all in a room with a gun for a year, some of them would kill themselves with the gun if for no other reason than by accident. Take away the guns and we save some yous. sure we'll lose some yous to a lot of different causes, but no guns will mean significantly fewer dead yous. Same thing if we put the yous in a city or a country. I don't read other threads, basically just abl and the feedback threads. this still isn't really my point though. say it was safer to have an armed populace. in the case of the president it still makes more sense for only the ss to have weapons of any sort. the two situations aren't comparable. same with any other high level VIP with their own security who could be a target by virtue of who they are. only an ignoramus would think they are the same. Your point seems kinda dumb. I mean without at least admitting more guns don't make you safer, which is I think the root of what people were getting at. If your point is certain people having guns in certain contexts makes certain people safer I don't think anyone would really disagree with you. the latter is exactly the point. I'm not here to argue the virtues of the second amendment. But to compare presidential security and regular open carry and then use that to claim hypocrisy is ridiculous. you joe schome on the street don't have a gigantic target on your back. People are asking how big the target has to get before it's valid. You can't really address that because of the flawed premise. You can point to people where you can say it makes obvious sense, but you can't get anywhere near a threshold because the whole argument would fall apart. While I appreciate the nuanced perception of what they said vs trying to read what they meant (forgive the liberals) they were addressing the larger "more guns =more safe" argument you're perfectly capable of agreeing with them is as stupid as it clearly is and this can be done without any more indignation on either side. Well I reserve the right to object to that but...there doesn't have to be a cut off. Just because it's not clear that "state legislator no, Congressman yes" doesn't mean it's absurd or will break down. My premise is not "more guns=more safe," but although it could be, we just have to decide who has the guns :p And to see there is no logical inconsistency we can consider an example. Why would you cc out on the town? For self-defense. Why would you carry a gun into a presidential speech? To shoot the president. The place is already secure, you don't need a gun for your own safety. I don't have to draw a hard line, and such a demand is unwarranted. Lots of famous people have armed private security. That's fine too. No one has demonstrated the need for a hard line but the fact that they go for the two polar extremes is interesting by itself. Why can't I use a gun in self defense at a Trump rally? Or alternatively, why aren't colleges (and high schools) secure? Because presumably you are already safe, though perhaps you could start a fist-fight. And colleges do have armed security. But this is the sort of line drawing I said didn't matter to the narrow scope of president vs citizen. You can have places or people that are defined targets. You in downtown are prob not a target and you prob aren't targeting anyone else. You bring a gun into a Trump rally, you prob have a target. Your reason for having the weapon on your person in those two situations is different. This is quite obviously true, and it is the entire crux of the hypocrisy charge.
Any given person is probably not a target, but a non-trivial number of people are targets, and those who are probably don't know it. For example, this just happened:
SAN ANTONIO -- Police were seeking a suspect after a 6-year-old boy and three adults were shot in the parking lot of a popular San Antonio steakhouse.
San Antonio Police Chief William McManus says two of the adults' injuries are life-threatening. The boy was shot in the leg and is expected to survive.
McManus says all four victims are related and the adults are in their 20s.
According to police, the shooting occurred 8:40 p.m. Sunday as the group waited outside the Texas Roadhouse, near Ingram Park Mall.
McManus said, "We do not believe that this shooting was random."
CBS San Antonio affiliate KENS-TV reports investigators think it was a family violence situation.
Police say the masked suspect opened fire about 15 feet from the front of the restaurant, emptying the magazine.
KENS says a semi-automatic handgun was used and one round penetrated the restaurant's wall.
The station adds that the suspect fled and neither the suspect nor any of the victims entered the restaurant.
www.cbsnews.com
|
On February 20 2018 03:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What weirds me out is that the Mueller indictments indicate the operation had several wings that predominantly helped Trump (e.g. Twitter accounts pretending to be minorities and promoting hashtags encouraging individuals not to vote) as well as wings that fomented chaos, bitterness, and anger on both sides.
There's this tendency to depict "the Russians just wanted chaos" and "the Russians wanted a Trump victory" as two conflicting narratives when, as this indictment illustrates perfectly, they can exist side by side.
It also indicated it had operations that were Russia facing. Meaning not aimed at us at all. It was an ambitious project outdone only by the credit and uncritical attention given to it by liberal media and liberals in general.
We don't have a breakdown of their books and it's a (reasonably well founded) accusation, not a conviction, but we know US media dwarfed it many times over and we also know they are STILL circulating sensationalized propaganda around Russia's influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
