(05-09-2022, 12:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah because the noble ends do not justify questionable means to that end. That's why I do not follow through with your logic here. For in the end, you could just as well say misinformation is such a grave threat that the government should have the right to prison people for untruths. These untruths being such an existential danger, after all. - I am full aware that the board in question is nowhere near that hypothetical extreme. But your argument could just as well be used for justifying said extreme, and hence I do not see it as a a particularly convincing one.
For sure, I can not really answer your question on what to do instead. My approach often is to stop the conviction terror and to not be so arrogant towards the conservatives, that might lead to an actual conversation instead of trading insults and digging in. I get why that does not fare well with you, for you do not really see this arrogance as part of the problem the way I do. I also have to acknowledge that it is a tough ask to not be arrogant towards people that claim Trump is the savior, a genius, the smartest person on earth who never lies and so on. To me, your system created the perfect everlasting rift and Trump is the perfect specimen for it. He's actually everything the liberals perceive republicans to be. But one could try to be better still, especially with those that also dislike Trump (or say the style Trump represents), but just dislike liberals even more. Which imho are more people than the actual Trump fans.
So yeah, the actual answer is to get rid of this extremely toxic two-party system, which imho is the root of many of these issues. But that will not happen, can never happen, so this is a hypothetical with no value. Other ideas might be getting money out of politics and lending different parties some defined space on the network channels and the papers instead, but yeah that is a hypothetical with no real value too. I really have no good idea (though I think the misinformation does get addressed plenty, people just do not listen to it), in fact I turned cynical and think the US is doomed to go down the authoritarian path and there's no solution. I just claim a government-run board is not a good idea either, for reasons already stated (first and foremost, despite all good primary intentions in the end such a board can very well be used as a viable tool to cement said authoritarian path).
It's extremely interesting to me that someone who has never lived here has these issues so pegged. I'm amazed that anyone, of any political bent, wouldn't see how dangerous this board is, and could be, under different administrations. Even if you 100% trust Biden, and I don't know why anyone would, he won't be POTUS forever.
Also, the underlined is dead on accurate. As inconceivable as it is to some there are plenty of people who dislike the far left more than they dislike Trump.
(05-09-2022, 12:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah because the noble ends do not justify questionable means to that end. That's why I do not follow through with your logic here. For in the end, you could just as well say misinformation is such a grave threat that the government should have the right to prison people for untruths. These untruths being such an existential danger, after all. - I am full aware that the board in question is nowhere near that hypothetical extreme. But your argument could just as well be used for justifying said extreme, and hence I do not see it as a a particularly convincing one.
For sure, I can not really answer your question on what to do instead. My approach often is to stop the conviction terror and to not be so arrogant towards the conservatives, that might lead to an actual conversation instead of trading insults and digging in. I get why that does not fare well with you, for you do not really see this arrogance as part of the problem the way I do. I also have to acknowledge that it is a tough ask to not be arrogant towards people that claim Trump is the savior, a genius, the smartest person on earth who never lies and so on. To me, your system created the perfect everlasting rift and Trump is the perfect specimen for it. He's actually everything the liberals perceive republicans to be. But one could try to be better still, especially with those that also dislike Trump (or say the style Trump represents), but just dislike liberals even more. Which imho are more people than the actual Trump fans.
So yeah, the actual answer is to get rid of this extremely toxic two-party system, which imho is the root of many of these issues. But that will not happen, can never happen, so this is a hypothetical with no value. Other ideas might be getting money out of politics and lending different parties some defined space on the network channels and the papers instead, but yeah that is a hypothetical with no real value too. I really have no good idea (though I think the misinformation does get addressed plenty, people just do not listen to it), in fact I turned cynical and think the US is doomed to go down the authoritarian path and there's no solution. I just claim a government-run board is not a good idea either, for reasons already stated (first and foremost, despite all good primary intentions in the end such a board can very well be used as a viable tool to cement said authoritarian path).
Damn. Well said. Better than I could've put it. Im not even going to try to expand on or add to it.
(05-09-2022, 12:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah because the noble ends do not justify questionable means to that end. That's why I do not follow through with your logic here. For in the end, you could just as well say misinformation is such a grave threat that the government should have the right to prison people for untruths. These untruths being such an existential danger, after all. - I am full aware that the board in question is nowhere near that hypothetical extreme. But your argument could just as well be used for justifying said extreme, and hence I do not see it as a a particularly convincing one.
For sure, I can not really answer your question on what to do instead. My approach often is to stop the conviction terror and to not be so arrogant towards the conservatives, that might lead to an actual conversation instead of trading insults and digging in. I get why that does not fare well with you, for you do not really see this arrogance as part of the problem the way I do. I also have to acknowledge that it is a tough ask to not be arrogant towards people that claim Trump is the savior, a genius, the smartest person on earth who never lies and so on. To me, your system created the perfect everlasting rift and Trump is the perfect specimen for it. He's actually everything the liberals perceive republicans to be. But one could try to be better still, especially with those that also dislike Trump (or say the style Trump represents), but just dislike liberals even more. Which imho are more people than the actual Trump fans.
So yeah, the actual answer is to get rid of this extremely toxic two-party system, which imho is the root of many of these issues. But that will not happen, can never happen, so this is a hypothetical with no value. Other ideas might be getting money out of politics and lending different parties some defined space on the network channels and the papers instead, but yeah that is a hypothetical with no real value too. I really have no good idea (though I think the misinformation does get addressed plenty, people just do not listen to it), in fact I turned cynical and think the US is doomed to go down the authoritarian path and there's no solution. I just claim a government-run board is not a good idea either, for reasons already stated (first and foremost, despite all good primary intentions in the end such a board can very well be used as a viable tool to cement said authoritarian path).
I don’t think we will go down an authoritarian road. Both extremes like authoritarianism (don’t kid yourselves)that pushes their viewpoint, but whichever side it heads toward, all the rest of the people will oppose including the opposite extreme.
The worst thing about the two party system for me is you can’t cross the aisle in federal elections. There’s too much power in the federal government, and you don’t want to hand the other party the majority. I can’t vote for a Democrat for senator when it’s 50/50. I’m not voting for a Democrat for president with all the power the President now has. I just vote libertarian when I can’t swallow the candidate, and wouldn’t it be nice if that meant something.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(05-09-2022, 07:33 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: The purpose of The Board is to give guidance to the DHS on how to handle disinformation regarding to national security. Although The Board and the DHS lack the power to directly make and implement laws that would "ban untruth," all too often governmental departments make recommendations that do in fact become 'law.' Look no further than the CDC's guidance and recommendations over the past two years as evidence.
While you may trust that the creation of The Board doesn't give the DHS too much power to potentially curtail your first amendment right, I don't. While you may be comfortable giving the DHS the power to potentially do so, I am not. If you don't see or think that this is a possibility, then you're naive.
If Donald Trump runs and wins in 2024 and hand picks his head of the DHS who then hand picks his head of The Board, would you be comfortable with that? Would you be comfortable with their ability to silence and squash the ability to expose any of his illicit dealings? Again, I wouldn't. Imagine them being able to quash the Ukrainian and Russia-gate stories in their infancies?
Look at the sudden jump in your post from "guidance...on how to handle disinformation regarding national security" to the power to "silence . . . the ability to expose any of his illicit dealings" and "to quash Ukrainian and Russia-gate stories in their infancies."
I can easily imagine Trump or whatever Repub wins in 2024 canceling Biden's DoDis as easy as he pulled us out of the Iran Deal, the Paris Agreement, and the TPP.
What I cannot imagine is such a dept. being able to "quash Ukrainian and /Russia-gate stories." That would require very tight control of Congress and the Judiciary too, not to mention the DOJ--all enlisted in directly muzzling the press.
We the people have ALREADY given those three institutions that worrisome power to "potentially" silence and "quash," but you think a little DHS department would somehow overwhelm them? That's possible only if you have a regime party in control of all three branches of government, which we have never had yet, but certainly could if people don't start recognizing disinformation as itself a threat to speech and many other freedoms. THAT is the worry; not some toothless dept.
(05-09-2022, 07:33 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: In matters such as these, it is best to ask yourself how you'd react if it wasn't your guy, your side, or you ideology in charge.
No. I don't think it best to ask myself how I'd react if “my guy” wasn't in charge. By which I mean that at the current juncture, the question offers at best no analytic guidance/value, and at worst it invites diversion from a really existing as opposed to fictional threat. A DoDis is not like a law or Senate rule, which requires majorities of elected representatives to put in place or undo, and which both sides must live with beyond momentary advantage for one. Trump or whoever the “other guy” is in 2024, can scrap Biden’s DoDis the moment he gets in office, or swap it out for his own. But the “other side” cannot scrap the DOJ, Congress, or the Supreme Court, or conjure something equally powerful into existence by fiat.
Yet y’all imagine one little DoDis “quashing” all that representative government, checks and balances, and an adversarial press because someone said “Ministry of Truth.”
All my life I have been fine with, or at least tolerated, that in democracies the "other side" gets its turn in office, from local mayor and sheriff all the way up to Congress and president--so long as they obey the same laws and democratic norms my side does. But is that the case right now?
On this thread, #35, I have already answered the question of how I'd react if the other side were in charge of posts with real power. Trump regaining control of the DOJ and DOD*, which he already had for four years, concerns me much more than any DoDis. And his power to "silence" and "quash" has been a function of party refusal to hold him accountable, a party whose power is linked to the maintenance and amplification of disinformation—unless you suppose Biden really did steal the election.
So really, seriously, I cannot get all spun up because Biden is making efforts to address the security threat posed by that disinformation, the far greater threat to free speech if left unchallenged.
*Esper was on MSBC today discussion how Trump wanted to shoot BLM protestors. The DOD staff who pushed back on that, contained him, won't be appointed the next time around, should Trump be re-elected. There's your threat to free speech.
(05-09-2022, 07:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Look at the sudden jump in your post from "guidance...on how to handle disinformation regarding national security" to the power to "silence . . . the ability to expose any of his illicit dealings" and "to quash Ukrainian and Russia-gate stories in their infancies."
I can easily imagine Trump or whatever Repub wins in 2024 canceling Biden's DoDis as easy as he pulled us out of the Iran Deal, the Paris Agreement, and the TPP.
What I cannot imagine is such a dept. being able to "quash Ukrainian and /Russia-gate stories." That would require very tight control of Congress and the Judiciary too, not to mention the DOJ--all enlisted in directly muzzling the press.
We the people have ALREADY given those three institutions that worrisome power to "potentially" silence and "quash," but you think a little DHS department would somehow overwhelm them? That's possible only if you have a regime party in control of all three branches of government, which we have never had yet, but certainly could if people don't start recognizing disinformation as itself a threat to speech and many other freedoms. THAT is the worry; not some toothless dept.
No. I don't think it best to ask myself how I'd react if “my guy” wasn't in charge. By which I mean that at the current juncture, the question offers at best no analytic guidance/value, and at worst it invites diversion from a really existing as opposed to fictional threat. A DoDis is not like a law or Senate rule, which requires majorities of elected representatives to put in place or undo, and which both sides must live with beyond momentary advantage for one. Trump or whoever the “other guy” is in 2024, can scrap Biden’s DoDis the moment he gets in office, or swap it out for his own. But the “other side” cannot scrap the DOJ, Congress, or the Supreme Court, or conjure something equally powerful into existence by fiat.
Yet y’all imagine one little DoDis “quashing” all that representative government, checks and balances, and an adversarial press because someone said “Ministry of Truth.”
All my life I have been fine with, or at least tolerated, that in democracies the "other side" gets its turn in office, from local mayor and sheriff all the way up to Congress and president--so long as they obey the same laws and democratic norms my side does. But is that the case right now?
On this thread, #35, I have already answered the question of how I'd react if the other side were in charge of posts with real power. Trump regaining control of the DOJ and DOD*, which he already had for four years, concerns me much more than any DoDis. And his power to "silence" and "quash" has been a function of party refusal to hold him accountable, a party whose power is linked to the maintenance and amplification of disinformation—unless you suppose Biden really did steal the election.
So really, seriously, I cannot get all spun up because Biden is making efforts to address the security threat posed by that disinformation, the far greater threat to free speech if left unchallenged.
*Esper was on MSBC today discussion how Trump wanted to shoot BLM protestors. The DOD staff who pushed back on that, contained him, won't be appointed the next time around, should Trump be re-elected. There's your threat to free speech.
Your position on this is surprisingly short sighted. You don't have to "quash" anything, you just have to officially label it disinformation. Then you get thrown in with the crackpots and conspiracy theorists, for all intents and purposes rendered a side show attraction. You don't have to "quash" anything when you effectively render it an extremist position. This is especially true when you get into the realm of labeling "dis, mis and mal" information as terrorism, with all the government powers to deal with it that this word entails. You're an obviously well educated person who clearly puts a lot of time and effort into forming their opinions. And while I frequently think your opinions are wrong they aren't conjured out of thin air. But you also have a glaring, and for me quite baffling, ability to ignore wrong doing in those who you agree with ideologically. This may be the most glaring example of this to date.
(05-09-2022, 07:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t think we will go down an authoritarian road. Both extremes like authoritarianism (don’t kid yourselves)that pushes their viewpoint, but whichever side it heads toward, all the rest of the people will oppose including the opposite extreme.
Well, for sure authoritarianism is not connected to any specific political current, it can come from the right, left or center. I hope I am not kidding myself about that, or that I'd use Trump to diminish authoritarian tendencies from other sides. But if you believe that the current danger of authoritarianism is more or less equally distributed between what you call the extremes of both parties, I feel like I kindly have to make the same request to you, as in don't kid yourself.
Eg. Hillary, for all her faults, did not call a governor after her election loss to beg him to find the number of votes it would take for her to overturn the result. Can you imagine what would have happened if a phone call came out, where Hillary is to be heard asking party friends that are responsible for the votes to just find her the votes she needs, saying give me a break, aka what's the big deal, and then trying to pressure and threaten them if they wouldn't comply. If such a phone call became public, she'd be gone in utter shame in the same minute, and no one in the democratic party would defend her or take it up with these officials that would not obey. The republicans, well they did just that, or at least had nothing to say about what should have been a huge scandal.
No democrat would organize a Capitol protest and then be content with it turning into a Capitol storm including violence and death and gallows. The whole party would be in shock. Republicans, not so much, at least not for long. This attempt to overthrow the election was called a vacation, a legitimate protest, and then some. Sure, Navarro complained about it for it interfered with his own plan to overthrow the election through a "Green Bay Sweep". And the party in question has no real problem with any of that.
I feel I have to depict that in some length just to make clear that I do not agree with bothsideism in that matter, at least not for the current state of affairs. Right now, the danger comes from the extreme right, for it holds power over almost the whole republcian party. That is beholden to an authoritarian. Who argues in court that as president he should have the right to do whatever he wants, yes explicitely including shooting random people, who openly admires dictator-like figures for their iron fist and whatnot, at times falls in love with them, threatens critical journalists with new libel laws to sue them for negative stories and calls the press an enemy of the people. CPAC holds a summit in Hungary and quite some people praise the Orban system of an "illiberal democracy". These are not unimportant people, that claim without any proof the election was stolen and thereby undermine democracy. I stop for length concerns here. But as I said, don't kid yourself by claiming the danger of authoritarianism, at this very moment of time, is still distributed quite equally through the political spectrum. It is not and I hope you can see that.
(05-09-2022, 07:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The worst thing about the two party system for me is you can’t cross the aisle in federal elections. There’s too much power in the federal government, and you don’t want to hand the other party the majority. I can’t vote for a Democrat for senator when it’s 50/50. I’m not voting for a Democrat for president with all the power the President now has. I just vote libertarian when I can’t swallow the candidate, and wouldn’t it be nice if that meant something.
I understand. I just want to add that imho, the worst thing about the two-party system is that it kills all honest discourse. Supporters of both sides have to dig in, play for their team and use every bad faith, dishonest argument they can muster to score points for their squad. Because what else can they do. Folks cannot possibly go with the detested liberals, or the detested conservatives, never and no matter what, and there's no other alternative (a third party for some, but as you said, it means nothing but checking out).
From an outsiders perspective, I witnessed lots of bad debates in my home country, and in Germany, but they were never nearly as awful and hate-driven as the ones in America, where it's just talking point vs. talking point, that often appear to be designed to cause maximal rift. And in that climate, authoritarianism can thrive.
(05-09-2022, 08:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your position on this is surprisingly short sighted. You don't have to "quash" anything, you just have to officially label it disinformation. Then you get thrown in with the crackpots and conspiracy theorists, for all intents and purposes rendered a side show attraction. You don't have to "quash" anything when you effectively render it an extremist position. This is especially true when you get into the realm of labeling "dis, mis and mal" information as terrorism, with all the government powers to deal with it that this word entails. You're an obviously well educated person who clearly puts a lot of time and effort into forming their opinions. And while I frequently think your opinions are wrong they aren't conjured out of thin air. But you also have a glaring, and for me quite baffling, ability to ignore wrong doing in those who you agree with ideologically. This may be the most glaring example of this to date.
If the bolded were really the case, Trumpism would be long dead.
You are attributing to government the power Trump actually has for his followers,
and which government might have, should voters put Trump and GOP in control of all three branches.
You titled the thread "Ministry of Truth?" For some, at least, that rendered Biden's initiative an "extremist" position.
The "power to quash" you discern here could only appear AFTER all three branches are under control of a regime
party. Yet some folks are arguing as if the mere creation of a DoDis accomplishes that--trumps all the checks.
I don't see a "a glaring example of wrong doing" here amongst those I agree with ideologically.
Or is the the DoDis that example?
To you I would pose the same question I posed Hollo--what should be done about disinformation, homegrown and
or imported, and used to make our current system ungovernable? Resist defining and identifying it does not seem
like a good option.
(05-10-2022, 01:12 PM)Dill Wrote: To you I would pose the same question I posed Hollo--what should be done about disinformation, homegrown and
or imported, and used to make our current system ungovernable? Resist defining and identifying it does not seem
like a good option.
Not to anticipate SSF's answer, but I want to answer again that "what else should be done" is not a good argument. You can justify all kinds of wrongdoing with that question.
Eg. I could suggest nuking Moscow to end the Ukraine war. And if anyone is against that, I could then ask "well, do you have a solution for the war in Ukraine?", and if that person does not come up with a good solution I can feel emboldened to stick with my nuking Moscow plan.
(05-10-2022, 01:12 PM)Dill Wrote:
If the bolded were really the case, Trumpism would be long dead.
You're actually helping me make my point. How many of Trump's statements were labeled crackpot that ended up having far more truth to them? The Steele dossier? His being spied upon by the Hillary camp? The problem is that the disinformation accusation is the new racism allegation. It got used too often and, in some high profile instances, was proven to be wrong. The accusation itself has become politically tainted.
Quote:You are attributing to government the power Trump actually has for his followers,
and which government might have, should voters put Trump and GOP in control of all three branches.
You titled the thread "Ministry of Truth?" For some, at least, that rendered Biden's initiative an "extremist" position.
Trump has more power than the federal government? Can Trump mobilize the entire weight of the Federal government to decide and enforce what is officially true or not? To even suggest such a thing is an excellent example of your blind spot. Blind trust in a source is hardly confined to Trump supporters
Quote:The "power to quash" you discern here could only appear AFTER all three branches are under control of a regime
party. Yet some folks are arguing as if the mere creation of a DoDis accomplishes that--trumps all the checks.
No, the "power to quash" was your point, not mine. I specifically stated that "quashing" was not necessary to achieve the intended goal. Merely labeling it "disinformation" is sufficient, especially when the terrorism aspect, which you didn't address, is considered.
Quote:I don't see a "a glaring example of wrong doing" here amongst those I agree with ideologically.
Yeah, which is both unsurprising and exactly my point.
Quote:Or is the the DoDis that example?
To you I would pose the same question I posed Hollo--what should be done about disinformation, homegrown and
or imported, and used to make our current system ungovernable? Resist defining and identifying it does not seem
like a good option.
There are some very simple steps that could be taken immediately. For one, be as open and transparent as possible. This will make you more likely to be believed by the middle of the road voter. We all know that highly partisan actors will believe whatever benefits their chosen side, but most voters are open to honest and transparent sources of information. If a story is wrong, then show how it's wrong. Nothing has to be labeled as "dis, mis or mal" information if you provide proof of its mendacity. Again, not everyone will accept it, but that's true of anything, the point is to show the average person the truth in a non-partisan fashion. Why did the Trump insurrection fail? Because the middle ground voter never bought into the "big lie".
As stated in my OP, the optics of Biden's disinformation board are terrible. Especially coming on the heels of Musk buying Twitter and the subsequent Dem freak out it precipitated. Then you put a highly partisan actor in charge, a person who has promoted "dis mis or mal" information in the past. It's just one mistake after another. John Stewart made an excellent point when discussing this topic. If you dared disagree about Iraq having WMD's after 9/11 you were made to seem like a fringe conspiracy theorist. That was the official government position and it was considered unassailable fact. This perfectly illustrates the danger in letting the government decide what is true or not. In a democracy with a, ostensibly, free press it's also unnecessary. The truth requires no explanation and as long as it is freely available it will win out. There will always be people susceptible to propaganda or disinformation, you can't govern your way around that. What you shouldn't do is get into the mud with it and try and wrestle it out of the public square, especially in a way that appears highly partisan.
(05-09-2022, 07:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t think we will go down an authoritarian road. Both extremes like authoritarianism (don’t kid yourselves)that pushes their viewpoint, but whichever side it heads toward, all the rest of the people will oppose including the opposite extreme.
Mike, to me this is like saying "Don't kid yourselves: both sides deny climate change when it suits them."
Given the underlined qualifier, your statement could be accurate.
One would just have to add that the Dem viewpoint, whatever that is, does not seem to require trashing rule of law on the scale of Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Iraq War or the Green Bay Sweep.
Whatever Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi said that one time hardly balances the scale.
Finally, regarding the bolded, the central political issue in the U.S. right now is that one party is heading towards ever more explicit and direct authoritarianism, but "the rest of the people" (or at least not enough to keep control of Congress away from them in 2022) don't seem very interested in naming the problem and opposing it. That might happen though, AFTER the authoritarians take power and start bringing anti-gay, anti-Sharia and anti-CRT legislation to the national level.
Meantime "both sides" do it so "I'm voting 3rd party"--i.e., leaving them the field?
(05-09-2022, 07:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Look at the sudden jump in your post from "guidance...on how to handle disinformation regarding national security" to the power to "silence . . . the ability to expose any of his illicit dealings" and "to quash Ukrainian and Russia-gate stories in their infancies."
I can easily imagine Trump or whatever Repub wins in 2024 canceling Biden's DoDis as easy as he pulled us out of the Iran Deal, the Paris Agreement, and the TPP.
I'd prefer new administrations not so quickly and whimsically undo previous administrations actions, so I don't get casually dismissing any concerns by thinking that the next guy can just change whatever. Especially when you're dealing with Constitutional Rights such as what the First Amendment affords.
Quote:What I cannot imagine is such a dept. being able to "quash Ukrainian and /Russia-gate stories." That would require very tight control of Congress and the Judiciary too, not to mention the DOJ--all enlisted in directly muzzling the press.
We the people have ALREADY given those three institutions that worrisome power to "potentially" silence and "quash," but you think a little DHS department would somehow overwhelm them? That's possible only if you have a regime party in control of all three branches of government, which we have never had yet, but certainly could if people don't start recognizing disinformation as itself a threat to speech and many other freedoms. THAT is the worry; not some toothless dept.
SSF covered this already. I was going to repeat, but why waste time? See his post.
Quote:I don't think it best to ask myself how I'd react if “my guy” wasn't in charge.By which I mean that at the current juncture, the question offers at best no analytic guidance/value, and at worst it invites diversion from a really existing (threat) as opposed to fictional threat.
So really, seriously, I cannot get all spun up because Biden is making efforts to address the security threat posed by that disinformation, the far greater threat to free speech if left unchallenged.
To you I would pose the same question I posed Hollo--what should be done about disinformation, homegrown and
or imported, and used to make our current system ungovernable? Resist defining and identifying it does not seem like a good option.
You seem to genuinely have a fear of the "threat" of disinformation, especially that which you feel is coming from foreign actors. With all due respect, I think your fear is overblown. For perspective, some people have a fear of CRT being taught is schools. But your thoughts are that that fear is being overblown and used by political actors as tool to cause division. Have you ever stepped back for a second and considered the possibility that Russian and foreign disinformation are the same and being used the same way?
Disinformation is a subjective term that exists on a spectrum ranging from blatant and misleading lie, to a difference of opinion. It has been around for as long as time. And it always will be. There's really nothing that can be done about it, short of an authoritarian and heavy handed government crackdown on free speech.
(05-10-2022, 01:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: Not to anticipate SSF's answer, but I want to answer again that "what else should be done" is not a good argument. You can justify all kinds of wrongdoing with that question.
Eg. I could suggest nuking Moscow to end the Ukraine war. And if anyone is against that, I could then ask "well, do you have a solution for the war in Ukraine?", and if that person does not come up with a good solution I can feel emboldened to stick with my nuking Moscow plan.
"What else should be done?" is a question, not an argument.
And is commonly and reasonably asked any time there is disagreement over a policy.
Hard for me to imagine a situation in which someone could not come up with a better response to Ukraine than nuking Moscow.
(05-10-2022, 03:58 PM)Dill Wrote: "What else should be done?" is a question, not an argument.
Imho you use it as an argument. In the sense of "if you oppose that idea, what is your idea? You have none? Then don't dismiss the idea that is presented."
And nuking Moscow was for sure a drastic example, one that clearly is not desirable even though I do not know how to end the Ukraine war (and neither does anyone else it seems).
(05-10-2022, 02:14 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I'd prefer new administrations not so quickly and whimsically undo previous administrations actions, so I don't get casually dismissing any concerns by thinking that the next guy can just change whatever. Especially when you're dealing with Constitutional Rights such as what the First Amendment affords.
Regarding the bolded--I am not casually dismissing any concerns that the next guy can change whatever. I am obviously VERY concerned that Trump pulled out of the TPP (effectively tanking it) and the Paris Agreement, and broke the Iran Deal--and along with it the credibility of U.S. foreign policy.
My point was that directing me to ask how I would feel when the other guy/side/ideology gets their turn misrecognizes what a new DHS department actually is. If I support an amendment changing or eliminating the electoral college, your question is valid. Eventually, the new law will favor the other side over mine. And one should not vote for such unless one can live with the other side having a turn.
But a new DHS department is structurally different. If Biden creates one, Trump and the GOP won't have to live with it if he wins in 2024. If Biden is following this thread and decides to drop the idea, nothing stops Trump from creating his own if he wins.
Hence my reference to institutions of real power, which a president cannot create or undo on his own--like the DOJ--though he may, as Trump did, convert it to a party tool through partisan appointment.
(05-10-2022, 02:14 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: You seem to genuinely have a fear of the "threat" of disinformation, especially that which you feel is coming from foreign actors. With all due respect, I think your fear is overblown. For perspective, some people have a fear of CRT being taught is schools. But your thoughts are that that fear is being overblown and used by political actors as tool to cause division. Have you ever stepped back for a second and considered the possibility that Russian and foreign disinformation are the same and being used the same way?
Well, yes, as I've been saying, I do fear the "threat" of disinformation. I "feel" some comes from foreign actors because the FBI and CIA claim to have intelligence establishing that, and have determined it is a threat to our elections and national security.
Not all of it comes from abroad though--Trump's Big Lie remains a threat to domestic security, as it continues to fuel changes in election laws and personnel at the state level, in preparation for upcoming elections.
Passing laws to eliminate CRT from schools which aren't teaching is, yes, a good example of how disinformation affects our politics--laws as well as elections.
But are you proposing that U.S. intel agencies are running a similar game, making up threat assessments to "cause division"? It sounds like you are doing that. "Fake intelligence agencies" like "fake news"?
(05-10-2022, 02:14 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Disinformation is a subjective term that exists on a spectrum ranging from blatant and misleading lie, to a difference of opinion. It has been around for as long as time. And it always will be. There's really nothing that can be done about it, short of an authoritarian and heavy handed government crackdown on free speech.
One can just as easily say any manner of bad behavior has been around for "as long as time" and "always will be."
I was going to say, "murder" for example, but "libel" might be a clearer analogy here. If we have developed workable legal definitions and evidentiary protocols for establishing when it has or has not occurred, those harmed by it can get justice well short of any authoritarian and heavy handed crackdown on free speech.
If we can identify instances of libel, and what counts as evidence for it, and assess harm, why should that be out of reach for "disinformation," which may do much greater harm to the nation than garden variety libel? If it seems more subjective than "libel" or "murder," that's only because it hasn't until now reached such threatening proportions as to require political and legal attention.
Side note: "been around" and "always will be" arguments do not have a very illustrious history, as they appear mostly to contest challenges to a status quo: think of slavery, domestic violence and "the poor." Most agree that our society has much improved because some of our ancestors rejected claims that we can do nothing about social ills, or that attempting to does more harm than good.
(05-10-2022, 10:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, for sure authoritarianism is not connected to any specific political current, it can come from the right, left or center. I hope I am not kidding myself about that, or that I'd use Trump to diminish authoritarian tendencies from other sides. But if you believe that the current danger of authoritarianism is more or less equally distributed between what you call the extremes of both parties, I feel like I kindly have to make the same request to you, as in don't kid yourself.
Eg. Hillary, for all her faults, did not call a governor after her election loss to beg him to find the number of votes it would take for her to overturn the result. Can you imagine what would have happened if a phone call came out, where Hillary is to be heard asking party friends that are responsible for the votes to just find her the votes she needs, saying give me a break, aka what's the big deal, and then trying to pressure and threaten them if they wouldn't comply. If such a phone call became public, she'd be gone in utter shame in the same minute, and no one in the democratic party would defend her or take it up with these officials that would not obey. The republicans, well they did just that, or at least had nothing to say about what should have been a huge scandal.
No democrat would organize a Capitol protest and then be content with it turning into a Capitol storm including violence and death and gallows. The whole party would be in shock. Republicans, not so much, at least not for long. This attempt to overthrow the election was called a vacation, a legitimate protest, and then some. Sure, Navarro complained about it for it interfered with his own plan to overthrow the election through a "Green Bay Sweep". And the party in question has no real problem with any of that.
I feel I have to depict that in some length just to make clear that I do not agree with bothsideism in that matter, at least not for the current state of affairs. Right now, the danger comes from the extreme right, for it holds power over almost the whole republcian party. That is beholden to an authoritarian. Who argues in court that as president he should have the right to do whatever he wants, yes explicitely including shooting random people, who openly admires dictator-like figures for their iron fist and whatnot, at times falls in love with them, threatens critical journalists with new libel laws to sue them for negative stories and calls the press an enemy of the people. CPAC holds a summit in Hungary and quite some people praise the Orban system of an "illiberal democracy". These are not unimportant people, that claim without any proof the election was stolen and thereby undermine democracy. I stop for length concerns here. But as I said, don't kid yourself by claiming the danger of authoritarianism, at this very moment of time, is still distributed quite equally through the political spectrum. It is not and I hope you can see that.
I understand. I just want to add that imho, the worst thing about the two-party system is that it kills all honest discourse. Supporters of both sides have to dig in, play for their team and use every bad faith, dishonest argument they can muster to score points for their squad. Because what else can they do. Folks cannot possibly go with the detested liberals, or the detested conservatives, never and no matter what, and there's no other alternative (a third party for some, but as you said, it means nothing but checking out).
From an outsiders perspective, I witnessed lots of bad debates in my home country, and in Germany, but they were never nearly as awful and hate-driven as the ones in America, where it's just talking point vs. talking point, that often appear to be designed to cause maximal rift. And in that climate, authoritarianism can thrive.
Don’t kid yourself wasn’t directed at you. I didn’t make that clear. It’s for the others that will come along. . But if you look at some of the authoritarians the left has admired over the last 60 years, it’s not a reach.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(05-10-2022, 02:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike, to me this is like saying "Don't kid yourselves: both sides deny climate change when it suits them."
Given the underlined qualifier, your statement could be accurate.
One would just have to add that the Dem viewpoint, whatever that is, does not seem to require trashing rule of law on the scale of Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Iraq War or the Green Bay Sweep.
Whatever Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi said that one time hardly balances the scale.
Finally, regarding the bolded, the central political issue in the U.S. right now is that one party is heading towards ever more explicit and direct authoritarianism, but "the rest of the people" (or at least not enough to keep control of Congress away from them in 2022) don't seem very interested in naming the problem and opposing it. That might happen though, AFTER the authoritarians take power and start bringing anti-gay, anti-Sharia and anti-CRT legislation to the national level.
Meantime "both sides" do it so "I'm voting 3rd party"--i.e., leaving them the field?
I could have written this for you. I honestly don’t recall you ever having a problem or thinking there is a problem with anything Democrat. I never said it was equal right now, but the left has admired Mao, Fidel, Che, Hugo, Vlad and I’m sure I’m missing some. COVID was an orgasm of control for the left. They loved every second of it. Saving lives was secondary.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
New Press Secretary just dropped. Insurrection, threat to democracy, literally shaking, etc. etc. Seems misinformationy to me, let’s take a moment to be grateful there is an impartial czar of disinformation to sort out the new mouthpiece of the administration’s past tweets. I hope she does it to the tune of “Let’s Go Fly a Kite”.
New Press Secretary just dropped. Insurrection, threat to democracy, literally shaking, etc. etc. Seems misinformationy to me, let’s take a moment to be grateful there is an impartial czar of disinformation to sort out the new mouthpiece of the administration’s past tweets. I hope she does it to the tune of “Let’s Go Fly a Kite”.
I'll give her (some) credit. She's had plenty of time to delete these tweets. I guess she knows how the double standard works.
-The only bengals fan that has never set foot in Cincinnati 1-15-22
(05-10-2022, 05:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, yes, as I've been saying, I do fear the "threat" of disinformation. I "feel" some comes from foreign actors because the FBI and CIA claim to have intelligence establishing that, and have determined it is a threat to our elections and national security.
Passing laws to eliminate CRT from schools which aren't teaching is, yes, a good example of how disinformation affects our politics--laws as well as elections.
But are you proposing that U.S. intel agencies are running a similar game, making up threat assessments to "cause division"? It sounds like you are doing that. "Fake intelligence agencies" like "fake news"?
No, I am not suggesting "Fake" anything or denying what our intelligence agencies have claimed. What I am suggesting is that you have been influenced to believe that this is something new or worse than it has been in the past. Foreign actors have been trying to influence our elections for decades and we (the US) have been doing the same to other countries too. I am suggesting that the only thing that has changed is that you are being reminded of it daily and as a result are over focused on it. I do think that we should do everything in our power to eliminate it and trust that our intelligence agencies are working hard on it, around the clock.
Quote:Not all of it comes from abroad though--Trump's Big Lie remains a threat to domestic security, as it continues to fuel changes in election laws and personnel at the state level, in preparation for upcoming elections.
Election laws. I've heard the debate and honestly it's tough to make heads or tails of it. I hear the left yelling about restricting rights. And I hear the rights argument for the changes. Trying to find an unbiased source to refresh my memory is tough. The BBC doesn't have a dog in the fight and is pretty centrist.
But debating the voting laws isn't the point. Misinformation is. So there's this from Chuck Todd. Interesting because he admits that when Joe Biden said it was Jim Crow in the 21st century that it wasn't true. Sure does sound like The President was tracking in his own little bit of misinformation, doesn't it? Should he get a Twitter ban? Should FB posts containing him saying that be flagged and fact checked?
Quote:I was going to say, "murder" for example, but "libel" might be a clearer analogy here. If we have developed workable legal definitions and evidentiary protocols for establishing when it has or has not occurred, those harmed by it can get justice well short of any authoritarian and heavy handed crackdown on free speech.
If we can identify instances of libel, and what counts as evidence for it, and assess harm, why should that be out of reach for "disinformation," which may do much greater harm to the nation than garden variety libel? If it seems more subjective than "libel" or "murder," that's only because it hasn't until now reached such threatening proportions as to require political and legal attention.
The slightlittle difference here is that for a person to be compensated and another punished for libel, you actually have to prove it a court of law. What you are suggesting, advocating for, and are a-okay with is a board made up of political appointees, accountable to no one, deciding when someone is harmed, and how the offender is punished.
Wow! That is outright dangerous and I have zero tolerance for it since it strikes at the core of the foundations of our Constitution. I cannot believe that you don't see the danger in it.
Quote:Side note: "been around" and "always will be" arguments do not have a very illustrious history, as they appear mostly to contest challenges to a status quo: think of slavery, domestic violence and "the poor." Most agree that our society has much improved because some of our ancestors rejected claims that we can do nothing about social ills, or that attempting to does more harm than good.
Again...nuance.
Slavery and domestic violence are pretty cut and dry. You cannot hold someone and force them to work against their will, nor can you assault and batter your wife. There's no gray area open to interpretation like there is with speech. Unfortunately, too many people can't make that distinction anymore and mis/dis information is being used to label anything that they don't agree with.
Public debate is being lost and being replaced by labeling opposing opinions as "dangerous misinformation" that is a public threat worthy of shame, humiliation, social media bans, and if you'd have your way, punishment.
New Press Secretary just dropped. Insurrection, threat to democracy, literally shaking, etc. etc. Seems misinformationy to me, let’s take a moment to be grateful there is an impartial czar of disinformation to sort out the new mouthpiece of the administration’s past tweets. I hope she does it to the tune of “Let’s Go Fly a Kite”.
Something tells me that somehow this isn't dangerous misinformation.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
