05-10-2022, 01:37 PM
(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.
