Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-10-2022, 08:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.As

If my take on the current GOP and Trump is right, then it is right whether I ever "have a problem" with Dems or not. It does not become more accurate if, under water torture, I agree that Maxine Waters should not have said that one thing she did one time.

I certainly CAN have a problem with them if they use their power to go outside the law, as happened in Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Iraq War, and the Green Bay Sweep. But I am not going to have a problem with them BEFORE they do that, as you seem to.

They have had the same chances as the GOP in this respect. But so far have not followed them outside rule of law. 

Some on the left-without-quotation-marks have indeed admired Mao, Fidel, Hugo, and Che, for good reason. (I don't know who "Vlad" is. Putin??)

But "the left" certainly has not. Even if they did, that alone would not make them authoritarian or practitioners of authoritarianism. 
A miniscule portion of the U.S. population admiring Mao for throwing off the imperialist yoke =/= the Capitol Insurrection.

As for the astounding claims that "the left" loved "every second" of some "orgasm of control" required by mass distribution of life-saving vaccine and temporary mask mandates, and that "saving lives was secondary"--I hardly know how to respond. It doesn't seem based on evidence, but rather on what you have always already "known" about Democrats, and will always see behind all their policies. Never fooled for a second as to what their "real" aims are. How is this different from "knowing" that Ike was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party?

[Dill]

(05-10-2022, 10:59 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Something tells me that somehow this isn't dangerous misinformation. 

I’d love to hear Dill’s take on this.

Dill would love to give his take, but 

1. you're going to have to take a number. I still have to respond to Hollo, SSF, and your own more substantial post #99, which was interesting reading and raises good points worthy of substantive response. And I still owe you one more contextualizing post on Benghazi, to answer your questions about why Hilary never responded to the security requests she never got and why security was minimal at the diplomatic mission there.

2. in the meantime perhaps you could distill these tweets for me? Twitter is forcing me to sign up if I want to read them, and I don't really want to sign up. 

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2022, 09:07 AM)Dill Wrote: If my take on the current GOP and Trump is right, then it is right whether I ever "have a problem" with Dems or not. It does not become more accurate if, under water torture, I agree that Maxine Waters should not have said that one thing she did one time.

I certainly CAN have a problem with them if they use their power to go outside the law, as happened in Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Iraq War, and the Green Bay Sweep. But I am not going to have a problem with them BEFORE they do that, as you seem to.

They have had the same chances as the GOP in this respect. But so far have not followed them outside rule of law. 

Some on the left-without-quotation-marks have indeed admired Mao, Fidel, Hugo, and Che, for good reason. (I don't know who "Vlad" is. Putin??)

But "the left" certainly has not. Even if they did, that alone would not make them authoritarian or practitioners of authoritarianism. 
A miniscule portion of the U.S. population admiring Mao for throwing off the imperialist yoke =/= the Capitol Insurrection.

As for the astounding claims that "the left" loved "every second" of some "orgasm of control" required by mass distribution of life-saving vaccine and temporary mask mandates, and that "saving lives was secondary"--I hardly know how to respond. It doesn't seem based on evidence, but rather on what you have always already "known" about Democrats, and will always see behind all their policies. Never fooled for a second as to what their "real" aims are. 

You have no problem with them ever on anything.  Your first instinct on any issue is to defend yours.  

As for my astounding claim.  It was easy enough to see.  We will just call it my opinion.  Oh no I'll call it my truth.  Apparently calling something "my truth" eliminates disagreement.

[Dill]

(05-11-2022, 09:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You have no problem with them ever on anything.  Your first instinct on any issue is to defend yours.  

As for my astounding claim.  It was easy enough to see.  We will just call it my opinion.  Oh no I'll call it my truth.  Apparently calling something "my truth" eliminates disagreement.

Because right now there is a very big problem, and it is not them. And it exists whether I "defend mine" or not.

"Both sidesism" is an aspect of problem, as it enables Trumpism and obscures very real differences in scale and deed.

Democrats may be framed as equal to Trumpisms threat to democracy, because some college students back
in the '60s liked Mao.   

THE LEFT--once you understand how the Dems are affiliated with Mao, Castro and Che, then everytime one of them brings
up Watergate or the Green Bay Sweep, you can counter with dictatorships set up outside the country by people who do not
belong to the Dem party. Because, well, THE LEFT.  How is this different from '50s anti-communism?

[hollodero]

(05-10-2022, 10:55 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 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. 

I have to somewhat disagree with this.
Russian influence campaigns reached 126 million people on facebook alone. This, imho, is an unprecedented scale. Everything Russia does to influence other countries is. I'm from Europe, and Russian influence is or at least was everywhere. They give tons of money to right-wing parties like Le Pen or our own Freedom parety and plenty others all over the continent, they at times flood our message boards, and nope it never was like that in the past, not even close.

Aside from that, apparently around 60-70% (more or less, depending on the survey) of republican voters believe that the election was stolen. A majority, that much seems to be quite certain. That also is an unprecedented scale for an apparent lie, meaning an assertion with zero evidence to back it up. I can't remember a conspiracy theory being so engrained into the mainstream.

And I have to agree with Dill that this is turning into a severe problem. If a majority of a party is willing to believe everything over truth and facts, the outlook is grim. Who knows what Trump or anyone like him will come up with next, maybe it's even less harmless than election fraud (not that it was harmless), and at some point it will be. If people are willing to believe everything, then there are no boundaries in villifying the other side, up to the point where they are all perceived as evil, mentally ill and subhuman. And this is actually happening already, on a scale I never witnessed before, not in my own dumb country nor anywhere else. Misinformation turns into a weapon in an ideological warfare, and the real weapons might very well follow. And the fringe of the past steps into the spotlight, and it's not just MTG or the Breitbart mob. The whole GOP goes with their voter's guts (or the planted lies) over facts. This, imho, is a very dangerous development.

Not that I predict anything, I do hope things turn back to more normalcy and these things are not the stepping stone to authoritarianism; and I can understand that you see it differently. But the things Dill are mentioning are imho not that overblown as you make them out to be, in the same sense as I believe the things I said are not phantasies.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2022, 10:06 AM)Dill Wrote: Because right now there is a very big problem, and it is not them. And it exists whether I "defend mine" or not.

"Both sidesism" is an aspect of problem, as it enables Trumpism and obscures very real differences in scale and deed.

Democrats may be framed as equal to Trumpisms threat to democracy, because some college students back
in the '60s liked Mao.   

THE LEFT--once you understand how the Dems are affiliated with Mao, Castro and Che, then everytime one of them brings
up Watergate or the Green Bay Sweep, you can counter with dictatorships set up outside the country by people who do not
belong to the Dem party. Because, well, THE LEFT.  How is this different from '50s anti-communism?

Please with the “right now”. You’ve been here for a long time. Me merely mentioning that authoritarianism can come from the left had you rampaging. I didn’t even say it was happening. I said I didn’t think it would stick no matter what side it came from. BUT THAT’S BOTHSIDEISM AAAAHHHHHGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

Then I showed you specific leaders that the left embraced just to show it is possible. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

[Dill]

(05-11-2022, 12:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Please with the “right now”. You’ve been here for a long time.  Me merely mentioning that authoritarianism can come from the left had you rampaging. I didn’t even say it was happening. I said I didn’t think it would stick no matter what side it came from. BUT THAT’S BOTHSIDEISM AAAAHHHHHGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

Then I showed you specific leaders that the left embraced just to show it is possible. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Hope I haven't misunderstood you, Mike. 

Possibly I misread your post, which appeared to me to juxtapose Watergate with Castro's Cuba, because--THE LEFT. 

Which would be like me saying--Don't defend Repubs around me, THE RIGHT !! so what about the Holocaust!? Yeah!! Gotcha!

If I jumped to unwarranted conclusions and misrepresented you then I do apologize--regardless of "my truth." 

That said, your wielding of the term "left" is rather problematic here, conflating the left with "the left."

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-11-2022, 09:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Dill would love to give his take, but 

1. you're going to have to take a number. I still have to respond to Hollo, SSF, and your own more substantial post #99, which was interesting reading and raises good points worthy of substantive response. And I still owe you one more contextualizing post on Benghazi, to answer your questions about why Hilary never responded to the security requests she never got and why security was minimal at the diplomatic mission there.

2. in the meantime perhaps you could distill these tweets for me? Twitter is forcing me to sign up if I want to read them, and I don't really want to sign up. 

Sorry, I have no idea how to post tweets or videos to make it easy for people to view right on the post itself:

Karine Jean-Pierre 4/20/20: “Reminder: Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams”

Karine Jean-Pierre 12/17/16: “Stolen emails, stolen drone, stolen election …..welcome to the world of #unpresidented Trump”

Karine Jean-Pierre 3/12/19: (In reply to someone saying they’d call Abrams loss stolen) “Yes - the race was stolen”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-11-2022, 01:16 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Sorry, I have no idea how to post tweets or videos to make it easy for people to view right on the post itself:

Karine Jean-Pierre 4/20/20: “Reminder: Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams”

Karine Jean-Pierre 12/17/16: “Stolen emails, stolen drone, stolen election …..welcome to the world of #unpresidented Trump”

Karine Jean-Pierre 3/12/19: (In reply to someone saying they’d call Abrams loss stolen) “Yes - the race was stolen”

A clear threat to our democracy.

[Dill]

(05-11-2022, 10:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: I have to somewhat disagree with this.
Russian influence campaigns reached 126 million people on facebook alone. This, imho, is an unprecedented scale. Everything Russia does to influence other countries is. I'm from Europe, and Russian influence is or at least was everywhere. They give tons of money to right-wing parties like Le Pen or our own Freedom parety and plenty others all over the continent, they at times flood our message boards, and nope it never was like that in the past, not even close.

Darn it. Hollo beat me to the punch on that one.  

I was thinking of "Citizen Genet," defying Washington and diplomatic protocol to get Americans to enter the Republican France's then war with Britain, Spain and Prussia. 

He was not only attempting to persuade lawmakers to this end, but actually raised a militia and ships in the Carolinas, threatening and end run around Washington's resolution NOT to take sides.

So yeah, that foreign interference has always been there. Hollo has explained how technology has massively changed the scale, reach, and effectiveness though. 

And as I mentioned earlier, social media allows Russia and whomever closely observes our culture to mimic and amplify homegrown
disinformation (and the right information) to the degree it can sway elections to the foreign entity's preference, not to mention sow divisions which
make the country ungovernable. 

So that is a security threat. 

[hollodero]

(05-10-2022, 08:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.

I can see that now. It's quite possiible that I just used your words as a bridge for leaving a bunch of words on my own here that might not have been all that personal. You know how life is. Like that, at times.

About it being a reach, yeah Dill would probably say that saying the left is too broad a generalization. The Che admirers or communism symphathizers sure existed, but never really were mainstream. That being said, I again just use you to get something across from my own country, which I usually avoid. We have a government formed of conservatives (in US terms, democrats) and a small left-wing party, and boy oh boy the latter display quite some (at times laughably unattached) authoritarian vibes. I most certainly do not call it a reach even in non-historical terms.

- It's still worth and maybe necessary to point out that these are rather small grains of sand. The real desert, if you allow me the same generalization, is on the right. At least today.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2022, 01:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: I can see that now. It's quite possiible that I just used your words as a bridge for leaving a bunch of words on my own here that might not have been all that personal. You know how life is. Like that, at times.

About it being a reach, yeah Dill would probably say that saying the left is too broad a generalization. The Che admirers or communism symphathizers sure existed, but never really were mainstream. That being said, I again just use you to get something across from my own country, which I usually avoid. We have a government formed of conservatives (in US terms, democrats) and a small left-wing party, and boy oh boy the latter display quite some (at times laughably unattached) authoritarian vibes. I most certainly do not call it a reach even in non-historical terms.

- It's still worth and maybe necessary to point out that these are rather small grains of sand. The real desert, if you allow me the same generalization, is on the right. At least today.

I don't mind being used as a springboard.  I think it would benefit everyone to hear about things in your country.  I have to imagine it's in the normal range as far as European countries go so it would be a good education for us all. Or at least the ones of us who aren't all that knowledgeable about European politics.  

[hollodero]

(05-11-2022, 02:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't mind being used as a springboard.  I think it would benefit everyone to hear about things in your country.  I have to imagine it's in the normal range as far as European countries go so it would be a good education for us all. Or at least the ones of us who aren't all that knowledgeable about European politics.  

Yeah I don't think it would benefit all that much. My country is more weird than normal, and so is our specific political landscape. In the end, I'd rather people don't know all that much about it, it's a bit embarrassing really. A better role model to study, imho, would be Germany.

The main thing I'd say though is that a parliamentary system with multiple parties, where every vote actually counts for the intended party, is preferrable. For one, we get the radicals in the radical party, leaving other parties somewhat alone. Also, voters actually feel that they can vote close to their beliefs and that their vote has meaning. Debates are more nuanced, more pluralistic. Reaching across aisles, at least to another partner, is usually necessary to govern (which some see as a bad thing, I don't). Also, while our parties tolerate donations to an extent I find too copious, what American parties and politicians have to do in that regard is totally unfathomable. So yeah, no open bribary might be something America could learn too. The ranked voting with 4% hurdle might also be something you'd like, you get seats in parliament if 4% of the voters countrywide vote for you, wouldn't that be nice. You could have libertarians in Congress, or even a more reasonable party. Hey, this could turn into a too long response after all. I'd better stop.

[Sled21]

One thing is for sure, if they ever get this thing off the ground and up and running, it will be trolled into non-existence.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-11-2022, 02:55 PM)Sled21 Wrote: One thing is for sure, if they ever get this thing off the ground and up and running, it will be trolled into non-existence.

Yep.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2022, 02:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I don't think it would benefit all that much. My country is more weird than normal, and so is our specific political landscape. In the end, I'd rather people don't know all that much about it, it's a bit embarrassing really. A better role model to study, imho, would be Germany.

The main thing I'd say though is that a parliamentary system with multiple parties, where every vote actually counts for the intended party, is preferrable. For one, we get the radicals in the radical party, leaving other parties somewhat alone. Also, voters actually feel that they can vote close to their beliefs and that their vote has meaning. Debates are more nuanced, more pluralistic. Reaching across aisles, at least to another partner, is usually necessary to govern (which some see as a bad thing, I don't). Also, while our parties tolerate donations to an extent I find too copious, what American parties and politicians have to do in that regard is totally unfathomable. So yeah, no open bribary might be something America could learn too. The ranked voting with 4% hurdle might also be something you'd like, you get seats in parliament if 4% of the voters countrywide vote for you, wouldn't that be nice. You could have libertarians in Congress, or even a more reasonable party. Hey, this could turn into a too long response after all. I'd better stop.

It still could be interesting.  My daughter spent three weeks in Ireland, Spain and Greece last month, and she called to inform me that the President of one of the countries in Europe and I share the same name. (Shouldn't be all that hard to figure out)  I had no idea.  That's a bit embarrassing.  

[Dill]

(05-10-2022, 01:37 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.

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.

To the bolded, I'm not sure that, outside of Fox Nation, ANY of the thousands of Trump's dis-informative statements ended up having "far more truth." And accurately labeling them "crackpot" has not at all had effect you claim for it, and couldn't even if it came from some government "ministry of truth." The Steele dossier may be your strongest example, and yet it is still rather weak, as many of its points/allegations are still credible. I am still unaware that "the Hilary camp" spied on Trump in the WH. Fox and at least 8 other RW news sources were trumpeting that "breaking news" some weeks back--"bigger than Watergate"--then went silent.

Just not good or effective to use Trump as an example of someone falsely accused of spreading disinformation, and all as part of an argument that we don't want government addressing disinformation of the sort that set a mob on the Capitol and sent red states somersaulting to control election outcomes—as if we dare not challenge that threat to democracy for fear it would limit our freedom.

(05-10-2022, 01:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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

Well now I didn’t “suggest such a thing.” 
 
My statement says NOT that Trump, who is out of office, has more power than the federal government. Only that HE, not the government, actually has a cultish power over his followers, only them, and that YOU, on no good basis, ATTRIBUTE a similar power to U.S. government that it has never had over the mass of citizenry. Who slavishly follows the U.S. government the way many Trump followers follow Trump?

The Oathkeepers were not ready to die for government because they bought into government disinformation; they were ready to die for Trump because of Trump disinformation, augmented by Russian disinformation.

Even when Trump was president, he was unable to mobilize “the entire weight of the Federal government to decide and enforce what was officially true or not.”

So maybe not an excellent example of my alleged but stlll elusive blind spot.

[hollodero]

(05-11-2022, 04:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It still could be interesting.  My daughter spent three weeks in Ireland, Spain and Greece last month, and she called to inform me that the President of one of the countries in Europe and I share the same name. (Shouldn't be all that hard to figure out)  I had no idea.  That's a bit embarrassing.  

Your name's Sakellaropoulou?
Nah, for sure my money's on Michael Higgins. Not that I knew who the president of Ireland was before looking it up. It's Ireland. No one here cares about them.

As for a deep dive in Austrian politics, I will postpone that until greater public demand which most certainly will never materialize.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2022, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Your name's Sakellaropoulou?
Nah, for sure my money's on Michael Higgins. Not that I knew who the president of Ireland was before looking it up. It's Ireland. No one here cares about them.

As for a deep dive in Austrian politics, I will postpone that until greater public demand which most certainly will never materialize.

Oh good.  If you didn't know then I don't feel so bad.

What the hell is a Sakellaropoulou?  Is it related to a Samsquanche?

[hollodero]

(05-11-2022, 05:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh good.  If you didn't know then I don't feel so bad.

What the hell is a Sakellaropoulou?  Is it related to a Samsquatch?

Katerina Sakellaropoulou, president of Greece. A name like music. Schönberg music.

Since she's a woman every comment on a possible relationship to bigfoot would be very inappropriate and sexist. Not that that's a no. Just inappropriate.
And before you ask, what you surely will, nope I did not know her before either. To be fair to myself, most European presidents don't really do much. Barring France.