|
So your proof that Qanon is a CIA-funded psyop full of russian money and run by a secret cabal of ultrageniuses or whatever it is you've been claiming, is the fact that Qanon exists?
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Warmachine posted:And just in case you're being serious, liberals like to wallpaper over their complete and utter electoral failure by blaming Russia for their own incompetence. Or to absolve them of responsibility so they can keep grifting. Your choice. So wait are we supposed to act like the collusion didn't happen then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
Trazz posted:So wait are we supposed to act like the collusion didn't happen then? No, that's just a distraction technique to straw man attack left wingers, I'm not even sure to what end. Literally everyone I know is upset at both the Democrat's failed attempts to inspire voters AND the Russian collusion. The point in bringing it up, on the left, is to say that you can't JUST blame the Russians - you need to also investigate your own failings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
At this point they have failed to do anything about it, so, yes, either they should have a plan to win regardless or else what is the point of a professional political class? Which is sort of the issue with this whole thing, you can't just point at it and go "that's not fair they're not playing by the rules" because the people it appeals to don't like the rules and also technically they are because the people allegedly in charge of enforcing the rules are all spineless so the rules are whatever lets you win. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:No, that's just a distraction technique to straw man attack left wingers, I'm not even sure to what end. Literally everyone I know is upset at both the Democrat's failed attempts to inspire voters AND the Russian collusion. The point in bringing it up, on the left, is to say that you can't JUST blame the Russians - you need to also investigate your own failings. Okay but it just seems like "Hey Trump loving cheated and stole the election and the Republicans knew and covered it up" seems like a much bigger factor than "Hillary Clinton was unclear on her policy" in the events of the 2016 election so forgive me if I talk about the bigger, ongoing factor more than anything else Also it seems to me like the people who say this are just making a false equivalency
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
It might hold more weight if they were planning on doing anything about the process by which that might have occured other than "so elect our guy next time" But as that is simply how elections work when they are determined by who has the better (funded) advertising campaign they won't, because that's how they think politics should be done, they just don't like the outcome this time. Like if you're going to get into ways that US elections are undemocratic you'd be there all week and 90% of it the democrats are absolutely fine with because it upholds the system that keeps them as the only alternative to the republicans. And if there's an appropriate thread for pointing out that framing pretty commonplace things as apocalyptically significant when and only when it suits your personal and immediate political ends, is disingenuous... well... 
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Trazz posted:Okay but it just seems like "Hey Trump loving cheated and stole the election and the Republicans knew and covered it up" seems like a much bigger factor than "Hillary Clinton was unclear on her policy" in the events of the 2016 election so forgive me if I talk about the bigger, ongoing factor more than anything else The problem with this is that it begs the question, "why was she vulnerable to the conspiracy in the first place?" Part of the vetting process of a politician is digging up the dirt so you know about it, and have a plan to deal with it when (not if) the other side finds out. Alternatively, if you can't actually deal with the dirt, you pick a different horse. So using this framework, Clinton had a big weak spot, but since the Democrats ran her anyway, they must have believed they could handle the weakness. The weakness came out (the means doesn't matter much at this point, since you are supposed to assume breach here), and they were unable to handle it, making them incompetent. Thus, the Democrats failed electorally by not being able to protect their candidate and mitigate the damage of found dirt. This is an electoral failure, and by yelling that the only reason they lost is that the Russians dug up the dirt for the Republicans doesn't change the fact that it was their game to lose--and that they appear to have learned nothing from the experience suggesting that they believe their own story. As you say, the collusion is a big deal, since it is against the law. But it does not absolve the Democrats of their electoral failure, and to try and use it in that way absolutely discredits the speaker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:So your proof that Qanon is a CIA-funded psyop full of russian money and run by a secret cabal of ultrageniuses or whatever it is you've been claiming, is the fact that Qanon exists? I’m not trying to prove anything to someone like you. I am sharing evidence and welcoming analysis. I’ve explicitly said multiple times that it is not the CIA, and the fact that you continually resort to literal straw men like that shows how intellectually lazy you are being. This is serious. The fascists are manipulating people in dangerous new ways, and the consequences of a re-election are potentially catastrophic. Understanding the network of forces at play is important. If you’re not interested in exploring that, that's fine, please go and do whatever you think is best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:The problem with this is that it begs the question, "why was she vulnerable to the conspiracy in the first place?" Part of the vetting process of a politician is digging up the dirt so you know about it, and have a plan to deal with it when (not if) the other side finds out. Alternatively, if you can't actually deal with the dirt, you pick a different horse. What could Hillary have done differently to surmount massive electoral chicanery that no amount of campaigning could overcome?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Trazz posted:What could Hillary have done differently to surmount massive electoral chicanery that no amount of campaigning could overcome? She could have actually tried. And until you accept that Dems will keep on losing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:She could have actually tried. And until you accept that Dems will keep on losing. That's not an answer. The Republicans would have stolen the election from Bernie Sanders if he was the nominee, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
So this old dude and his wife came into my arcade today and filled all the daily scoreboard names on a pinball machine with “Q” and “Trump 2020” come the hell on. Working hard saving the world here, one terrible Willy Wonka score at a time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
I don't give a gently caress about making excuses for Hillary, I care about the manipulation that was happening and clearly continues to happen. The fact that her campaign is coming up in this thread at all belies the root of the narrative, which seems to be to minimise the extent and effect of the fuckery, foreign or domestic. Fascists are interfering. In dangerous new ways. And until you accept that, the dems will (probably) keep on losing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Trazz posted:That's not an answer. The Republicans would have stolen the election from Bernie Sanders if he was the nominee, too. Is this just a thing some people do where they persistently ignore 90% of everything to focus on one specific thing they don't like? Like what do you think produces the 60 million odd voters that make up the bulk of each party's votership? Are they all invented by russia? Or do you think it has anything to do with the political conduct of the parties they support?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is this just a thing some people do where they persistently ignore 90% of everything to focus on one specific thing they don't like? So unless 100% of all votes are part of some Russian plot we shouldn't care about large scale foreign attempts to influence our elections?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Running a candidate with massive red 'shoot here for massive damage' signs is always a mistake; the Russians don't change the arithmetic that much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So unless 100% of all votes are part of some Russian plot we shouldn't care about large scale foreign attempts to influence our elections? Perhaps Trazz posted:the bigger, ongoing factor might be the thing that constitutes the majority of the support? Like do you think trump just doesn't actually appeal to people and it's just a russian mind control spell or something? That there's somehow some kind of magic trick happening that is making lots of otherwise perfectly reasonable people turn into frothing reactionaries and if you can just find the right manager to complain to then it will go away? What are you going to do about russia doing... whatever you think it's doing? Do you have a plan? Because if you don't (and the democrats sure as hell don't seem to) perhaps a more viable alternative might be to try and address some other reason why people might want trump in office and think that the democratic party is a massive hive of baby eating satanists. Perhaps there are other, better narratives that might appeal to people, perhaps the structure of electoral politics is repellant and alienating and so are the people who operate in it and that might be why a lot of people don't care about them and will support people who have open contempt for them, and also why they think they're probably lizard people. I mean all of this is hypothetical of course because there isn't anything you can do about it because that's also not how politics works, but this persistant narrative that if only we could point the finger at the correct big bad man who is making all the bad things happen then it would be alright again... it's just daft. I mean I'm sure you can make up whatever story is most appealing to you because again, it's not like anything you do matters, but you're gonna get laughed at if you try to peddle it as being significant or a true and holistic representation of reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
God buckminster sure has poo poo up what used to be a good thread with his delusions. Thanks for ruining something I enjoyed in a lovely year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:the Russians don't change the arithmetic that much. Y'all need to stop limiting it to the Russians. It's general Fascist Fuckery, which the Russians are quite happy to help with however they can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:do you think trump just doesn't actually appeal to people and it's just a russian mind control spell or something? Why do you continue to insist on referring to it in these binary terms
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So unless 100% of all votes are part of some Russian plot we shouldn't care about large scale foreign attempts to influence our elections? Do you think the Russians just printed a bag of ballots and handed it to Boris down at the ballot warehouse or something? "Russian meddling" was literally selling information and buying advertisements and creating media buzz. The same things the normal election cycle features, but more, with innovative use of social media to give it all extra punch. StratGoatCom posted:Running a candidate with massive red 'shoot here for massive damage' signs is always a mistake; the Russians don't change the arithmetic that much. Bucky Fullminster posted:I don't give a gently caress about making excuses for Hillary, I care about the manipulation that was happening and clearly continues to happen. The fact that her campaign is coming up in this thread at all belies the root of the narrative, which seems to be to minimise the extent and effect of the fuckery, foreign or domestic. And I don't give a gently caress about sensationalist chicken little arguments that the presenter can't be bothered to try and connect when people flat out tell them "hey this doesn't make sense could you explain it better?" It's sad because I am 100% on board with the foundations of your argument: Qanon is dangerous, it is being manipulated to sow discord, and this benefits the rising tide of fascism in the United States. But then you go on to cite stuff where there's no daylight between it and the Qanon that it attacks. The only difference is what side of politics the True Believer stands on, and doesn't actually provide new, actionable information. poo poo, you still haven't taken the time to explain how all those citations on Jim Watkins fit together to prove Jim Watkins is Q, which is why I started posting in here in the first place rather than lurking. Bucky Fullminster posted:Y'all need to stop limiting it to the Russians. It's general Fascist Fuckery, which the Russians are quite happy to help with however they can. And try your strategy of flinging citations at a wall hoping one of them is evidence? No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
What is the difference between what you call "fascist fuckery" and what I call "an entirely logical outgrowth of money driven electoral campaigning in a mass media environment" because I don't think anything you have yet described is novel. Utilizing religion for political ends is not new, it's been the republican strategy for decades and all parties pay lip service to the idea because none are willing to challenge it. Utilizing disinformation is not new, there is no rule that says you have to be honest in an electoral campaign and even if there was nobody would be able to enforce it because winning makes you immune to consequences. Utilizing the internet is perhaps slightly new but only in the sense that it is a relatively new medium. This is not new. What you are seeing is the logical result of decades of how politics works across a lot of the world. That you don't like the outcome doesn't mean it's some new thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is this just a thing some people do where they persistently ignore 90% of everything to focus on one specific thing they don't like? "She should have tried." Like Trump actually tried! He and the GOP cheated! Why don't we acknowledge that???? It seems way more important! I think I'd rather "focus on the specific thing" that actually loving matters! OwlFancier posted:What are you going to do about russia doing... whatever you think it's doing? Do you have a plan? They've compromised the Republican party and fund their voter suppression and disenfranchisement efforts. The plan is to arrest every Republican responsible for this and put them in jail for the rest of their lives, to make an example of what we do to political parties that accept foreign interference in our elections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
Trazz posted:They've compromised the Republican party and fund their voter suppression and disenfranchisement efforts. The plan is to arrest every Republican responsible for this and put them in jail for the rest of their lives, to make an example of what we do to political parties that accept foreign interference in our elections. Mate if you think that voter suppression and disenfranchisement are a new russian invention I have some unfortunate news for you. Also who's gonna do that? Who's gonna lock them up? Even if you did lock them up, how's that gonna stop it in future? What do you think's gonna happen once the democrats get their act together and figure out how to manipulate the system better? Who's gonna stop them, do you think? Politics is dirty tricks, politics is illicit funding. That's what the engines of our countries political systems run on, because they exist to facilitate the interests of the political class and their wealthy backers. Drawing an arbitrary line and saying the money is bad if it comes from russia and the tricks are bad if they're too predicated on lies and disenfranchise people in a way that does not merely allow, say, the perpeutation of mass incarceration, that's very silly. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
Trazz posted:Okay but it just seems like "Hey Trump loving cheated and stole the election and the Republicans knew and covered it up" seems like a much bigger factor than "Hillary Clinton was unclear on her policy" in the events of the 2016 election so forgive me if I talk about the bigger, ongoing factor more than anything else The Republicans cheated in 2000 and in 2004, and also in 2008(they failed that time, resulting in Karl Rove's fall and the Democrats deciding that BIG TURNOUT is more important than starting fights with their terrible friends.) Again, we don't care if it's Diebold or Russia, they'd sacrifice their firstborn if they thought it'd help. They committed treason in '68 and '80, we already know they're fascist traitors! Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:And I don't give a gently caress about sensationalist chicken little arguments that the presenter can't be bothered to try and connect when people flat out tell them "hey this doesn't make sense could you explain it better?" It's sad because I am 100% on board with the foundations of your argument: Qanon is dangerous, it is being manipulated to sow discord, and this benefits the rising tide of fascism in the United States. But then you go on to cite stuff where there's no daylight between it and the Qanon that it attacks. The only difference is what side of politics the True Believer stands on, and doesn't actually provide new, actionable information. poo poo, you still haven't taken the time to explain how all those citations on Jim Watkins fit together to prove Jim Watkins is Q, which is why I started posting in here in the first place rather than lurking. sorry man, I said I think the Jim Watkins articles speak for themselves and I stand by that, I don't have anything further to add beyond what's outlined in the articles (which is a lot more than a 500 word yahoo news article someone described it as). If that's not enough for you that's fine, it's just all I got. I'm not sure what else is still unclear but if you're posting in good faith I'm happy to answer whatever I can. It's just hard to know where to spend time. OwlFancier posted:Utilizing the internet is perhaps slightly new but only in the sense that it is a relatively new medium. hahaha
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:02
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Thanks for ruining something I enjoyed in a lovely year. https://twitter.com/REALpunknews/status/1301339127124643840?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Mate if you think that voter suppression and disenfranchisement are a new russian invention I have some unfortunate news for you. That doesn't mean that it's okay to do, and it's CERTAINLY not okay to reach out to a foreign power to help you do it! OwlFancier posted:Also who's gonna do that? Who's gonna lock them up? I dunno, send in loving Interpol or something! Somebody do something!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:11
|
|
|
I have some further unfortunate news for you in that just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean it's not effective. And further, it definitely doesn't mean that it isn't supported by the political system, that it's some abberation that can be cleanly excised from the surrounding body. Again, you will have a much better view of things if you look at this as an entirely consistent progression of the established system. This is how it works, this, broadly, is how it has worked for a very long time. Because if you hope that it's going to just go away if you finally identify the right people, you're in for a lot of disappointment down the line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:15
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:I’m not trying to prove anything to someone like you. I am sharing evidence and welcoming analysis. I’ve explicitly said multiple times that it is not the CIA, and the fact that you continually resort to literal straw men like that shows how intellectually lazy you are being. This is serious. The fascists are manipulating people in dangerous new ways, and the consequences of a re-election are potentially catastrophic. Understanding the network of forces at play is important. If you’re not interested in exploring that, that's fine, please go and do whatever you think is best. I’m volunteering, organizing, and working with leftist groups, I’m also going to likely be working as a poll worker. I’m very curious to know what ‘people like [me]’means to you, though. I’ve been nothing but concerned for your mental wellbeing, and asking you to please take a breath (along with several other posters asking similar) because you’re coming across as unhinged, and it is EASY to get unhinges in this day and age. Let’s say you have the map, you know what happened, you plotted it all out. What’s next? Mitch and others don’t give a poo poo. You’re a dude who posts on SA with a Buckminsterfullerene pun username. What’s your move? How do you achieve anything? And if you aren’t achieving anything (except posting the contents of your Facebook wall as evidence of a vast and unknowable conspiracy) then what are you doing? And why are you fighting so hard against people that are actively telling you that, from the outside, you look crazy? People on your ideological side, no less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What is the difference between what you call "fascist fuckery" and what I call "an entirely logical outgrowth of money driven electoral campaigning in a mass media environment" because I don't think anything you have yet described is novel. Utilizing religion for political ends is not new, it's been the republican strategy for decades and all parties pay lip service to the idea because none are willing to challenge it. Utilizing disinformation is not new, there is no rule that says you have to be honest in an electoral campaign and even if there was nobody would be able to enforce it because winning makes you immune to consequences. Utilizing the internet is perhaps slightly new but only in the sense that it is a relatively new medium. Ok I guess it's the "using anonymous message boards to create an alternate reality " part which is new. And yes even then, you can still trace that back to the Protocols of the elders of Zion, Nesta Webster's Secret Societies, and of course "Proofs of a Conspiracy" and "Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism" in post revolutionary France before that. It's the "conspiracy narrative virus". McCarthy kind of paved the way for Robert Welch to bring it into American Politics with the John Birch Society. Then Bill Buckley tried to contain it, so it went and infected the broader public, through Gary Allen and Eustace Mullins and the like. The Koch brothers were also quite happy to use it in their fight against any government regulation on their business with the global warming haox. And most importantly, Alex Jones. When Roger Stone saw an opportunity to get Donald Trump in the White House, he knew he'd have to use Alex Jones and 4Chan to do it. So he basically weaponised the conspiracy virus and now here we are. Yes, the the internet is new too, and now the conspiracy virus (especially this particularly virulent strain) can infect more people, more quickly, and more severely, than ever before, and now we have millions of people all around the world who are sold on this story. Is that what won the election? Not necessarily. Do we need to be aware of it? Absolutely. At this point, many in the thread will insist that Qanon is not actually a part of this whole process you've painstakingly proven to exist, to which I say "Ok". 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
Or maybe things go viral because people have common experiences and interests and the advent of instant low cost global multimedia personal communication means that people talk about their common experiences and interests a lot. And this applies to politics too. Like you keep coming out with "and then this guy did this and then this guy did that and that made this happen" when like, maybe the world moves for reasons other than because some particular people tell it to? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Maybe! That giant quacking, waddling thing could in fact just be something else entirely. Best not to dwell I suppose. e - I mean you're making a hell of a whatever-that-gamble's called there Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
Which mysterious figures do you think are responsible for the growth of leftism internationally? And/or things like BLM and metoo? Other things that have taken advantage of the networking and multimedia capabilities of the internet to achieve political ends? Because if you are covninced that the existence of a political end necessitates the existence of some singular intelligence directing it and a conspiracy to organize it then such people must exist, right? Like these are things that grew organically without being tied to really any established political platform, and leftism is kinda harder to do than a lot of things, because it requires a way of thinking that is strongly discouraged by basically every form of media out there, and the establishment is extremely hostile to it, and yet it's still there. qanon is literally just warmed over republican politics with a side of satanic panic and it has major traction with, astonishingly, republicans and miserable quiet noveau tory fucks, exactly the kind of people who have been raging against the left and guzzling the culture war slop for ages. I don't think that's a novel thing, it's your lovely boomer parents just being lovely boomers. Or your mush brained gen x ers who took a break from poisoning their kids with essential oils to attend a rally about saving the mole children because the mole children don't talk back to them. The world is full of people like this, they're not a new creation. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:
I don't think anyone even disagrees with you, that there's a common thread of malice running through all of these things, or that they contribute to each other and that Qanon is the latest outgrowth of the Protocols of Elder Zion (and further back through the middle ages, and likely back even further). What's in question are some of your bolder claims, and also how excitable you are about it. You make a dozen posts a day in this thread, pointing to Facebook posts and tweets as evidence of something ill-defined, and when you're questioned about it you change the subject or get defensive. When told you're acting erratically by multiple people, you take it as an attack. Qanon being related to and springing from older protofascist conspiracy theories isn't something that I've seen anyone doubt in this thread. However, your posting seems to point to some sort of shadowy hundred year old arch-conspiracy which you've provided no evidence of. Apophenia is one of humanity's curses, and you seem to be falling victim to it, it's REALLY easy to do and there's no shame in it, but 'hey log off for a bit and breathe' is completely valid advice to someone falling down a conspiracy hole like you seem to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaps Yeah I've never really got this, everything that Russia's head oligarch is alleged to have done is all stuff that American oligarchs can do 100% legally. Even if libs got their nuclear war with Russia, and America emerged unscathed, it's not like Sheldon Adelson couldn't pay some american kids to code twitter bots. If Democrats aren't proposing a solution to that then what's the point of the Russian collusion hysteria, aside from it being very useful politics to rally people behind nationalism and racism and xenophobia. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Sep 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
I think some of the Russia stuff is more referring to hackers getting into DNC servers, and all of that. Which seems very likely to have happened in collusion with the Trump campaign. But that was not the sole failing in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I've never really got this, everything that Russia's head oligarchy is alleged to have done is all stuff that American oligarchs can do 100% legally. I'm sure nobody would suggest that characterising the intrusion of wealth and entrenched power into electoral politics as russian is a very effective way to otherize it in a manner that is acceptable even to conspicuously PC liberals and thereby effectively deflect from the exact same practice being both viable and historical domestically, in a hilariously similar manner that blaming wage depression on immigrants deflects from when companies cut wages of their own volition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
Hell, forget Alex Jones, blame Glenn Beck. That guy was the real bridge between the average Fox viewer / Rush listener and the Jones contingent. He didn't form the Tea Party that would ultimately go on to make up the Trump base, but he was their poet laureate of lurid conspiracy every night on prime time television, and introduced a whole new audience to the wonders of Bircherism and interconnected shadow cabals of leftist puppeteers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which mysterious figures do you think are responsible for the growth of leftism internationally? And/or things like BLM and metoo? Other things that have taken advantage of the networking and multimedia capabilities of the internet to achieve political ends? You seem to be misinterpreting me. I am not denying the existence of natural forces. That does not preclude things from being manipulated, which is what you seem to be insisting. That there is no such thing as influence. It is a very weird argument you're making, it's the same one you were making a few weeks ago, it didn't really make sense then either I don't think there's much left to discuss. Could this have happened organically? I guess it's theoretically possible. Does that mean it was definitely not orchestrated? Of course not. To answer your question, I mean, #Metoo was Tarana Bourke via Alyssa Milano. But beyond that, no, there don't seem to be equivalent manipulators on the left, because the capitalists are largely, by definition, the ones that have the bloody capital. I think I've come out and lamented the fact that we don't have a progressive Roger Stone (in this thread or another) as part of the reason why this conversation over the last few decades is so drat one sided. The closest thing we have is the Justice Democrats, who yes, successfully managed to put AOC in congress. Their political machinations were indeed responsible for the growth of leftism internationally. Do you think I'm saying they're solely responsible? Of course not. Was AOC able to play off other factors? Absolutely. But without that "singular intelligence" of the JD, the world would be a different place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 05:28
|
|