Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wobbly]

Plenty of people/organisations associated with the official campaigns are also bad faith actors pumping out bad faith arguments and misinformation.

Obviously you still want to do something about foreign interference but it's just as obviously a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of disinformation pumped out domestically. Most of it seems to consist of amplifying and boosting the misinformation already floating around.

[Rolan7]

A truth uttered by an otherwise unreliable source is still true, and a falsehood uttered by an otherwise reliable source is still false.

If we were to discredit every source caught in a lie - willful or otherwise - there would be no sources left.

I did enjoy the reframing of what McTraveller and Max said though. Your inability to keep your hatred of Max from show and it’s manifestation as having to argue against everything he says, no matter how much you have to twist and turn his argument or yours, is incessantly amusing.

I still have nothing personal against you, I barely recognize you, yet you keep taking offense and interjecting when I criticize MS.  I'm glad you're amused, because I'm weirded out and MS could be as well.

Proclaiming "liars can tell the truth!" is well and good.  Saying it to me is implying I said otherwise, which is a form of lying.  Or absurdly bad reading comprehension, but I don't think you're stupid.

Saying "Everyone lies sometimes" in response to "We should consider whether someone has lied in the past" is... obviously the kind of weasely pro-disinformation shit I was calling out.

How about this:  If you disagree with me, it would be consistent to forget my past behavior (including my justified ire against MS).  It would be consistent to consider my point and address it fairly and evenly.  You won't.  Everything I said was common sense and you don't actually disagree.  You're just being weird.

[StrawBarrel]

Plenty of people/organisations associated with the official campaigns are also bad faith actors pumping out bad faith arguments and misinformation.

Obviously you still want to do something about foreign interference but it's just as obviously a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of disinformation pumped out domestically. Most of it seems to consist of amplifying and boosting the misinformation already floating around.

It is true that there are many bad actors and misinformation artists out and about damaging the informational health of society. But even if this uncovering of right wing propagandist schemes is a drop in the ocean, it’s still a victory despite its small size. We achieve progress bit by bit and step by step.

Most of it seems to consist of amplifying and boosting the misinformation already floating around.

Yeah I remember in the youtube video I linked in a previous post(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gublBEqhhJQ) how Matt Binder points out that the Russian disinformation agents mostly likely selected the Canadian and American conservative propagandists as those Canadians and Americans already held similar views to the Russian conservative propagandists. Perhaps having similar conservative views allowed for the misinformation operations to proceed more smoothly.

[hector13]

A truth uttered by an otherwise unreliable source is still true, and a falsehood uttered by an otherwise reliable source is still false.

If we were to discredit every source caught in a lie - willful or otherwise - there would be no sources left.

I did enjoy the reframing of what McTraveller and Max said though. Your inability to keep your hatred of Max from show and it’s manifestation as having to argue against everything he says, no matter how much you have to twist and turn his argument or yours, is incessantly amusing.

I still have nothing personal against you, I barely recognize you, yet you keep taking offense and interjecting when I criticize MS.  I'm glad you're amused, because I'm weirded out and MS could be as well.

Jiminy Christmas, do you find schoolyard peer pressure tactics to generally work in your adult life? You and Max are both strangers to me. Why should I care if neither, one, or both of you think I’m weird?

What am I taking offense at? I’m taking great joy in your vendetta. It’s petty and stupid and really funny. Anytime you respond when Max says something you fly off the handle and can’t hide your distaste.

Proclaiming "liars can tell the truth!" is well and good.  Saying it to me is implying I said otherwise, which is a form of lying. Or absurdly bad reading comprehension, but I don't think you're stupid.

You’re not special. You said something, I responded with a point against your position.

Ad hominem is a fallacy. If you can’t come up with something better than saying I’m a liar, or can’t read, your argument probably isn’t as solid as you thought it was.

Saying "Everyone lies sometimes" in response to "We should consider whether someone has lied in the past" is... obviously the kind of weasely pro-disinformation shit I was calling out.

I really like how unabashed you are at reframing things to suit your argument. You did not present your argument in such a measured way:

A source should be discredited when it gets caught in a lie.

Words have meaning, and those are the words I responded to. It’s not my fault if the words you used don’t represent your position.

Donald Trump made a concerted effort to discredit the “mainstream media” during his campaign and presidency. Why? Because that’s where the criticism is going to come from, and if they’re not to be trusted in the first instance, people won’t take notice.

So yeah, you can say my position is pro-disinformation, but your position is no better.

The logical conclusion to saying a source that lies should be discredited (which is to say all of them, legitimately or otherwise) is that nobody can trust anything unless they were there to witness it, which is how you get people like Edgar Maddison Welch shooting up a pizza parlour to see if there are Satan-worshipping paedophiles in the (demonstrably non-existent) basement.

How about this:  If you disagree with me, it would be consistent to forget my past behavior (including my justified ire against MS).  It would be consistent to consider my point and address it fairly and evenly.  You won't.  Everything I said was common sense and you don't actually disagree.  You're just being weird.

Wowzers, do you know what the word “irony” means? We should add this as an example to the dictionary.

Everything you said was uttered because Max articulated a position. Perhaps you should consider your own advice?

I considered your point, and I found it to be lacking, which is why I argued against it. Pretty simple concept when you think about it.

Your vitriol toward Max was a side observation, because you cannot help yourself from the jabs whenever he says anything. I didn’t see the post before you edited it, but I’d be willing to put money on you editing it to insert the jab.

I don’t understand the goal, and it clearly isn’t working else you wouldn’t continue doing it, but you keep at it anyway. Keep it up, I could do with a chuckle every now and again.

[McTraveller]

It's worth acknowledging the difference between someone who makes mistakes versus someone who intentionally misrepresents things.  I think this is what is meant by "don't trust a liar" versus "everyone lies."  There is definitely a range of behavior.

There's also a distinct difference between "I don't think that interpretation reflects reality" and "that view is a lie."  Furthermore, there's a difference between "That policy probably won't have the desired effect" and "That policy is a lie."

Often propaganda isn't even "lies" - usually it's making incorrect extrapolation, over-generalization, or fails to consider a more complete data set, and appealing to emotion rather than attempting to understand actual facts.

[Doomblade187]

Governor Brian Kemp called for thoughts and prayers for the victims of this week's school shooting.

I'm just gonna leave that here and wander off.

[McTraveller]

I think it's funny that society accepts vehicle registries but doesn't want to accept firearm registries.

Incidentally, though, I don't think a firearm registry will do anything to prevent firearm-related incidents, just as vehicle registries do nothing to prevent vehicle-related incidents.  I don't think background checks will help either, just as passing a driving test doesn't make people safer drivers.

I don't know how to solve the problem and maintain a balance between freedom and responsibility.  I see the argument that society has not demonstrated its ability to act responsibly when it comes to firearms so limits are needed. But I don't know how to limit that freedom and still fulfill the vision of allowing the populace to legally own theoretical means to protect themselves from tyranny (forget about materiel asymmetry) and protect themselves if "the government" doesn't.

Simply taking peoples guns away could solve the problem, but that would essentially be solving the problem of car crashes by taking away cars.  It just doesn't make sense unless you start rationalizing how "but cars are a necessity, and guns aren't" because cars really aren't necessary either, we just built a society that favors them.

Some interesting reading:  https://usafacts.org/data-projects/child-death

Also interesting fact: more than 4 people die per day in car crashes, why does society accept that, when we spaz out over school shooting? Why don't we ostracize the adults who drive recklessly and kill children every day by misusing their vehicles?  This is a real psychology question here - why does the mode of violence change our emotion, rather than the outcome?  Should we be treating car violence as more egregious?  Note: This stems from a belief that there is no such thing as a car "accident" - they are all preventable, and most are due to intentional poor choices from the driver.  Is it because it's "incidental damage" and not "intentional" damage, like the big scary firearm events?

I have a hard time wrapping my head around all this, even without the political aspects.

[Maximum Spin]

I think it's funny that society accepts vehicle registries but doesn't want to accept firearm registries.

If firearms were regulated like vehicles, anyone would be able to buy one (or as many as you like) to keep at home or use on private property with permission, without the slightest bit of state involvement, as long as you don't use it in public.

Jiminy Christmas, do you find schoolyard peer pressure tactics to generally work in your adult life? You and Max are both strangers to me. Why should I care if neither, one, or both of you think I’m weird?

For the record, as I've said before, I appreciate your sincere willingness to discuss and interact and do not think you're weird.

That said, I'm not sure there's any value in even responding like that. But if it amuses you, feel free. As for me, I'm not going to give this guy or any of the others a second thought. Whatever grudge anyone wants to hold is his own business, but I'm not gonna remember it or have a clue.

[hector13]

You’ve made your position on it pretty clear. I just want my jollies.

Stop ruining it :p

[Maximum Spin]

You’ve made your position on it pretty clear. I just want my jollies.

Stop ruining it :p

Fiiiine, fine. I won't say another word about it. You enjoy yourself.

[Folly]

Simply taking peoples guns away could solve the problem, but that would essentially be solving the problem of car crashes by taking away cars.  It just doesn't make sense unless you start rationalizing how "but cars are a necessity, and guns aren't" because cars really aren't necessary either, we just built a society that favors them.

I think that a major part of this is the fact that most other prosperous societies around the world have no guns or strict gun regulation. It has been demonstrably proven that we don't need excessive gun ownership in the modern world. The same cannot be said about cars.

[eerr]

also on the older topic, if you do the kremlin a 'favor' they're going to want more and more from you.
They only want to find the most corruptible and build them up.
If you acquiesce to what they want on anything, you won't like what they eventually start 'asking'
(asking in the Russian fashion)

if you do, you'll be forced to go against your current country of residence.
and if you refuse, well, you happen to be useless to them and will be treated accordingly.

being a spy for russia sucks in the long term.

[hector13]

Donald Trump fails to learn a lesson.

Maybe if he gets sued for defamation over the same thing for a third time he might figure it out.

[Rolan7]

It's worth acknowledging the difference between someone who makes mistakes versus someone who intentionally misrepresents things.  I think this is what is meant by "don't trust a liar" versus "everyone lies."  There is definitely a range of behavior.

There's also a distinct difference between "I don't think that interpretation reflects reality" and "that view is a lie."  Furthermore, there's a difference between "That policy probably won't have the desired effect" and "That policy is a lie."

Often propaganda isn't even "lies" - usually it's making incorrect extrapolation, over-generalization, or fails to consider a more complete data set, and appealing to emotion rather than attempting to understand actual facts.

Yeah that's the kind of moderate approach I expected you meant.  I didn't mean that we should never believe someone who's told a lie.  I certainly didn't claim that liars never speak the truth.  Those were the mischaracterizations of someone I can only presume was deliriously angry at me for reasons I don't want to think about.

Propaganda is often lies of omission or misleading emphasis, or abuse of charts and human psychology.  I call that lying, but maybe "dishonesty" is more fair.  It can also just be honest, too, not all propaganda is dishonest... but I am automatically suspicious of a message people are paying to push.  Applies to product marketing too heh, even though most of it isn't malicious.

But yeah ideally we would consider every case on its merits.  I still say that's impossible though.  We literally don't have the time, especially when faced with deliberate misinformation floods.  We are being bombarded by misinformation from agencies and personalities, both foreign and domestic, who seek to abuse that goodwill to confuse and overwhelm and distract.  It's not a new tactic but the nature of social media has amplified its effect.

If I was a supercomputer that could evaluate *every one of those claims* fairly, then cool.  But I've got stuff to do, yaknow?  lol

You’ve made your position on it pretty clear. I just want my jollies.

Stop ruining it :p

A creepy game.  The only winning move is not to play.

[McTraveller]

I'm not convinced the studies and comparisons between nations that do or don't have strict gun laws correctly factor in variables unrelated to gun availability.

For example, consider in US the significant geographical, cultural, and economic differences in gun violence rate.  Is it the availability of guns that matters, or something else? Is punishing responsible people worth it to keep irresponsible people from causing havoc? This is a deep cultural/philosophical question - and in the US, we do largely still are willing to let the guilty have freedoms so we don't limit the freedoms of the innocent.

When you realize it's not really about guns, and not about the deaths, but it really is about that fundamental worldview, where many think the possibility of violence is an acceptable price for individual liberty, that you start to understand why this is such a complex topic in the US.  There's "founding father" quotes to that effect even - "giving up liberty for security means you're undeserving of both," and all that.