|
ram dass in hell posted:So the DNC email leaks were not tainted and useless, then? That seems like a sizeable shift from a page or two ago. fool of sound posted:I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm consistently saying that I distrust both Assange and the DNC, and do not see any particular evidence to believe one more strongly than the other. I generally believe that the DNC was biased against Sanders and towards Clinton, as the leaks suggest, but I acknowledge this is in large part a product of my support for Sanders and dislike of Clinton.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Apologies, then, I think I was conflating your position and DV / CommieGIR's
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 01:55
|
|
|
I don't disagree with fool of sound, the DNC had obvious biases and reason to want Sanders out of the way regardless of his popularity. Not really suprising they were rigging it as a power play. Other than that, what did the leaks actually tell us? Nothing that wasn't really already open secrets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't disagree with fool of sound, the DNC had obvious biases and reason to want Sanders out of the way regardless of his popularity. Not really suprising they were rigging it as a power play. This is incredibly inconsistent though? The leaks weren't credible or trustworthy and should be ignored, because we already know everything theh contain?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:This is incredibly inconsistent though? The leaks weren't credible or trustworthy and should be ignored, because we already know everything theh contain? No its not? Even if the GRU released evidence of what everyone already knew: That the DNC rigged it against Bernie, what does that change? Not a god damned thing. It doesn't make the leaks more trustworthy? It just basically confirms what everyone knew. What else in the leaks changed anything about the DNC? The fact that their emails were crass? Please. But given the context of why Putin and the GRU wanted them leaked, as well as Assange's personal goals and arrangements with Trump's campaign, it was media fodder and not much else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No its not? Even if the GRU released evidence of what everyone already knew: That the DNC rigged it against Bernie, what does that change? Not a god damned thing. It doesn't make the leaks more trustworthy? It just basically confirms what everyone knew. don't forget WikiLeaks also released a ton of personal info on politicians and donors which disrupted the campaign separate from the main content of the emails quote:On August 12, 2016, DCLeaks released information about more than 200 Democratic lawmakers, including their personal cellphone numbers.[18] The numerous prank calls that Hillary Clinton received from this disclosure along with the loss of her campaign's email security severely disrupted her campaign, which changed its contact information on October 7, 2016 by calling each of her contacts one at a time.[2]
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No its not? Even if the GRU released evidence of what everyone already knew: That the DNC rigged it against Bernie, what does that change? Not a god damned thing. It doesn't make the leaks more trustworthy? It just basically confirms what everyone knew. You believe the GRU fabricated a series of leaked documents from the DNC but also those leaks essentially reflect the reality of that organization and nothing in the made-up leaks was particularly interesting or of consequence one way or the other? Sorry, but that is cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:don't forget WikiLeaks also released a ton of personal info on politicians and donors which disrupted the campaign separate from the main content of the emails Yeah which was the real goal: Not to be transparent, but to help throw a wrench election for both the benefit of a rapist running a leaks site and a GOP presidential campaign. I love that Assange basically got as hosed by Trump as everyone who deals with Trump, which is amazing because if he was half as good at leaks as he claimed to be, he'd be openly aware that was what was going to happen. The Kingfish posted:You believe the GRU fabricated a series of leaked documents from the DNC but also those leaks essentially reflect the reality of that organization and nothing in the made-up leaks was particularly interesting or of consequence one way or the other? I believe they used what they could to achieve their goal which was to throw a wrench in an election for an already unpopular Democratic candidate which benefitted Putin directly for the next four years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
I’m going to be really annoyed if it turns out you’ve believed the leaks were genuine this whole time and your criticism of them is based on enmity toward Assange for hurting Clinton and helping Trump/Putin. Because it’s starting to seem that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If the DNC proved (or even claimed) that one specific email was a forgery it would put the trustworthiness of the entire leak in question. I’m not saying it would immediately put to bed all questions of legitimacy, but it would do a lot of work to discredit the whole. I can elaborate on why this is if you like, but it seems fairly self-explanatory. It's actually a lot of work to go through a massive amount of documents, comparing each and every one side by side to make sure that there aren't any differences or manipulations whatsoever. That means having staffers spending their time on it, probably with multiple levels of checking to catch human error by the checkers and ensure mistakes don't slip through. The DNC would prefer to focus their manpower and efforts elsewhere, especially during an election year. Diverting their resources away from campaigning to go through and authenticate a leaked data dump isn't something they really have much incentive to do. Even if they find individual fakes or manipulations, it won't meaningfully help their position. And besides, the leaks already did their job, regardless of whether they were true. As ACORN learned the hard way, backlash and outrage don't calmly sit around and wait for fact-checking and verification.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 02:54
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I’m going to be really annoyed if it turns out you’ve believed the leaks were genuine this whole time and your criticism of them is based on enmity toward Assange for hurting Clinton and helping Trump/Putin. Because it’s starting to seem that way. Yeah I loving voted for Bernie, so maybe you are reading way to much into it. But again: The entire point of the leaks, be they fabricated or real, was the reaction, not the actual leaks. The DNC confirmed nor denied anything. And as far as I know there's been no real attempt to carefully review the leaks for validity. The goal was not what was in them, but what they did to the election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't disagree with fool of sound, the DNC had obvious biases and reason to want Sanders out of the way regardless of his popularity. Not really suprising they were rigging it as a power play. As I've said a few times now, the democrats rely on having the moral high ground as a major selling point of the party. The leaks showed them to be just another petty squabbling bunch of lanyards engaging in underhanded power brokering. I think the leaks started a lot of people on the path towards recognizing the reality of the democrats. E: So a more general Russian goal could be to undermine faith in American institutions in general. The people most likely to believe in the political process are democrats, so showing the democrat party to have feet of clay really digs at that legitimacy. And I think it can be both be true that Russia wants people to have less faith in the US, and that the proper response is to have less faith in the US. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:As I've said a few times now, the democrats rely on having the moral high ground as a major selling point of the party. The leaks showed them to be just another petty squabbling bunch of lanyards engaging in underhanded power brokering. I think the leaks started a lot of people on the path towards recognizing the reality of the democrats. Friend, petty squabbling and underhanded power brokering are an inherent feature in human politics, full stop. Find me any political system on Earth in which it isn't rampant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
How are u posted:Friend, petty squabbling and underhanded power brokering are an inherent feature in human politics, full stop. Find me any political system on Earth in which it isn't rampant. And yet suggesting the DNC acted against Sanders in 2016, or that the centrist candidates dropping out to support Biden in 2020 was coordinated, still gets quite a lot of pushback in democrat circles. Theres a very strong 'our team is the good team' streak in American politics, whereas other nations, at least from appearances, idolize their politicians less E: And all of this is related to media literacy in how willing Americans are to reject negative information as foreign influence while mindlessly consuming media from the approved sources for their ideological outlook. Information that makes the democrats look bad is decried as Putin's propaganda, or President Xi at it again, regardless of the truth content of the information. Meanwhile saying that there is a former CIA agent serving as a director at Reuters gets a long derail over corporate structure and the exact definition of a media conglomerate Other nations have had to deal with American interference in their elections as a matter of course for at least several decades now. Buying a bunch of twitter bots is a joke compared to organized media campaigns run by USAID or Voice of America, but Americans acted like it was an unprecedented attack on the electoral process. Sometimes America will even sponsor a coup if they don't like how an election went. Not a bunch of idiot tourists with no real plan, but a real 'deposed the president and took over the country' coup. How do you get the most heavily propagandized population on Earth to recognize that foreign interference is a common and expected part of the process, or that politicians will casually lie to them about their goals to secure their vote? Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Nix you're not responding to arguments that people are actually making, and clearly trying to lay performative zingers on people. Don't post in this thread again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:And yet suggesting the DNC acted against Sanders in 2016, or that the centrist candidates dropping out to support Biden in 2020 was coordinated, still gets quite a lot of pushback in democrat circles. Theres a very strong 'our team is the good team' streak in American politics, whereas other nations, at least from appearances, idolize their politicians less Is there evidence that the centrist candidates dropping out was coordinated in those emails? You seem to think that any disagreement or even asking for evidence of your claims makes a person a blind Democrat worshipper and it makes it impossible to try to discuss anything or take you seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
E: ^^^ Its a direct response to HRU's claim (thats why I quoted him, its a response) that everybody knows politics is corrupt and underhanded. If everyone knows this, why is there such pushback on basic underhanded explanations for events, as you've so nobly made yourself an example for. E2: You appear to be making a very basic category error here. I never claimed that there was proof the 2020 primary was coordinated in the 2016 email leaks, mainly because I don't believe in time travel. Ok, media analysis time. Russia released a bundle of email documents stolen from DNC servers using Wikileaks as a mediator. The emails are, for the most part, mundane politicking. There are a few emails though that lend a lot of weight to the idea, scoffed at by party loyalists in 2016, that the DNC acted against Sanders during the primary. This would validate the Bernout's claims that the DNC had rigged the primary by creating an uneven playing field. In 2016 this was a major scandal, and probably contributed to at least one Sanders fan being disillusioned with the democrats and staying home during the general. Ok, so we know what happened, so lets do some media analysis and work out the why of it. Why would Russia leak the documents? Thats easy, to gently caress with the election and undermine a hated warhawk candidate in favor of a total dumbass who didn't have the attention span to start a loving war with Russia. So why use Wikileaks? Also easy. They used Wikileaks to capitalize on the organization's reputation for accurately breaking scandals, as the leaks would be more likely to be discounted if they came directly from a Russian source. As an aside, why was Assange so willing to work with Russia? He had very few friends in the world since the US was trying to get its claws on him for leaking classified information that made the US look bad. If the US had simply been less of an rear end in a top hat about trying to get revenge Assange might have been less willing to work directly with Russia. On a personal note I find this very funny. So what about the response? Many disillusioned democrats were primed to believe the leaks because they already suspected the democrats were full of poo poo given the conduct of the 2016 primary. The leaks confirmed their suspicions. Would they have been less likely to believe the leaks if they were known to come directly from Russian intelligence on release? Probably, which is why the Russians went through Wikileaks. Would they have questioned the validity of the leaks if the DNC had put out a statement saying they were false? For some, no. The bad blood over the primary was too much and any statement the DNC put out would have been seen as yet more lies. But for others, less convinced? I believe yes. A strong DNC denial would have kept at least a portion of disillusioned Bernouts with the party. But if the emails weren't faked then a strong denial would have opened the DNC up to rebuttal which would have been even more disastrous. This is where the truth value of the leaks becomes important. If the more damning emails were fabrications the DNC could have salvaged the situation and restored faith in the party by proving that. There would always be doubters, but likely they would have found another reason eventually anyways. The lack of a denial was taken by many as tacit admission of truth, affirming the belief that the DNC didn't play fair and lowering democrat enthusiasm, maybe even lethally. Were the people who believed the Russian email leaks and lost faith in the DNC doing the work of the dastardly Putin? Sure, I guess. But it also wasn't *wrong* to be suspicious of the democrats in the wake of the leaks. Regardless of Russia's involvement the leaks, which the DNC opted to not refute or even really meaningfully address, showed an obviously biased party, and if you're not into obviously biased parties then dropping out makes sense regardless of who told you about the bias. If you've been feeling tired for weeks, inexplicably lost 20 lbs, and have night sweats and your hated enemy tells you it might be cancer, solely because he wants to see the miserable look on your face when you get the diagnosis, its not noble to continue to pretend everything is fine. The intentions are evil and the informal diagnosis is biased to make you panic, but also thats a lot of cancer symptoms you've got and its important to know whats going on. I think thats my major disagreement with the thread. The provenance of the leaks doesnt matter to me, nor the mediation or all the other fancy analysis words. I already suspected the DNC was full of poo poo long before Putin made a call to Assange. Sure the leaks hit a confirmation bias for me, but ultimately they were one drop in an ocean of doubt. Calling into question the circumstances around Exhibit Z does not invalidate Exhibits A-Y. This stuff is not considered in a vacuum. I have plenty of reasons to think of the DNC as shifty bastards aside from Putin wanting me to think of the DNC as shifty bastards, and claiming that Putin's goals invalidated my own agency in coming to a conclusion is infuriating. 'Repeating right wing talking points' is one of those thought terminating clichés that seems very prevalent in D&D, and honestly should be probatable. If Alex Jones says that the sun rises in the east I shouldn't have to distance myself from prograde Earth for fear of repeating right wing talking points. Right wing idiots can occasionally notice things that are true. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 04:32
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:'Repeating right wing talking points' is one of those thought terminating clichés that seems very prevalent in D&D, and honestly should be probatable. If Alex Jones says that the sun rises in the east I shouldn't have to distance myself from prograde Earth for fear of repeating right wing talking points. Right wing idiots can occasionally notice things that are true. A bad source is going to give you accurate information on occasion in order to get you in to their media spheres so that you bathe in their framing. This is particularly problematic in today's world when you're dealing with the algorithms of social media. If you're turning to the YouTube channels and Twitter feeds of, for example, Alex Jones in order to see or post the supposed "information," the algorithms will feed you similar content. The social media method of information peddling is precisely what bad and highly biased sources need in order to mediate even more extremely ridiculous hot takes and bad faith arguments. At least with someone like Alex Jones - or with larger organizations like NY Times or WaPo - we have lots of history to identify where their biases lie. As mentioned before, WaPo trying to put anti-labor or pro-Bezos-in-space articles out are those that require significantly higher scrutiny. While anything Alex Jones posts on socialism, minorities, LGBT rights, etc, requires higher scrutiny, the issue is not simply that you shouldn't trust Alex Jones when he says the sun rises in the east, the thing you should be asking is why am I hearing about the sun rising in the east from Alex Jones, and why am I thinking to use him to inform others about it? Someone taking part in a discussion who is thinking that posting Alex Jones or some Twitter nobody with, "BREAKING NEWS" is simply demonstrating that they've been identified by the algorithms as someone who is looking to get mad online (so they make them madder to get them to click and share more), someone who missed the way beginning of the thread of, "you can't just declare you're smarter by not trusting anyone on anything" and led that to the logical conclusion of getting got by their psychological profile that media personalities (and the social media companies) understand how to manipulate these days. By going back to what we've been discussing all along and understanding the why of the mediator and how they're acting, and then thinking of how you discovered it, you can start to unravel how you've been identified by the social media empires.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
Look, there is no solid or even corroborating evidence for or against falsification. Everyone here appears to acknowledge that all parties have motives other than absolute truth or whatever, and that all parties are less than fully trustworthy. I think to a greater or lesser extent everyone realizes that their position on the leaks is predominantly a result of their pre-existing worldview. I don't think we're going to get any more productive conversation out of the leaks themselves. Maybe we could give talking about media coverage surrounding the leaks a try instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Look, there is no solid or even corroborating evidence for or against falsification. Everyone here appears to acknowledge that all parties have motives other than absolute truth or whatever, and that all parties are less than fully trustworthy. I think to a greater or lesser extent everyone realizes that their position on the leaks is predominantly a result of their pre-existing worldview. I don't think we're going to get any more productive conversation out of the leaks themselves. I think its worthwhile to examine the gut reaction to the leaks in context of larger attitudes towards the democrats in particular and American politics in general. There seems to be a definite correlation between the people most eager to condemn the leaks as Putin's lies to destroy the democrats (but lets not talk about the content or truth value of the leaks) and the people most willing to defend the system no matter what. Recall the whole border concentration camp debacle in USNews. I got probed by Ralph for asking someone who was being squirrely about the Veritas sourced pictures from the camps if they thought the pictures were doctored or not. Two pages later they declared the pictures could be doctored because they came from Veritas, because they could not wrap their head around team blue also being trash. People frequently move to discredit the source of information because they don't like the content of the information but can't find a good argument against it, and I feel the media analysis thread should be a place to contend with that kind of misdirection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
Not all sources of information are the same, and not all sources require the same scrutiny. Perspectives on information should not be based on prior worldview- the whole point of being sensitive to and literate in the attributes of mediating sources is that selecting based on worldview is inadequate and facilitates abuse. Equivocation about sources is another way to escape from accountability for how users mediate information. We should not have to pretend a bad actor in media acts in good faith, or have to endlessly entertain and refute their abuse. To do so allows them to control the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Not all sources of information are the same, and not all sources require the same scrutiny. Perspectives on information should not be based on prior worldview- the whole point of being sensitive to and literate in the attributes of mediating sources is that selecting based on worldview is inadequate and facilitates abuse. Equivocation about sources is another way to escape from accountability for how users mediate information. We should not have to pretend a bad actor in media acts in good faith, or have to endlessly entertain and refute their abuse. To do so allows them to control the discussion. This is the kind of spherical cow assumption an economist would get laughed at for making (but would nevertheless underpin the entire discipline). Real humans always consider new information in context to their prior worldview, and determine how much to believe a thing based on how well it fits with their current understanding of the world. All information is contextual. You can't just look at information in a vacuum and declare that the source was bad so its wrong to consider it. You can still solve a logic puzzle even if you know one guard always tells lies
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Not all sources of information are the same, and not all sources require the same scrutiny. Perspectives on information should not be based on prior worldview- the whole point of being sensitive to and literate in the attributes of mediating sources is that selecting based on worldview is inadequate and facilitates abuse. Equivocation about sources is another way to escape from accountability for how users mediate information. We should not have to pretend a bad actor in media acts in good faith, or have to endlessly entertain and refute their abuse. To do so allows them to control the discussion. I am glad we are in agreement that we do not need to pretend that the oligarch-run Washington Post acts in good faith, nor do we need to endlessly entertain and refute their abuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:29
|
|
|
Nix, you would agree that a source that consistently falsifies or wildly misrepresents their stories like Project Veritas at least deserves particularly harsh scrutiny, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:I am glad we are in agreement that we do not need to pretend that the oligarch-run Washington Post acts in good faith, nor do we need to endlessly entertain and refute their abuse. Speaking of, how hilarious was the Washington Post "conspiracy theory" quiz? It was incredibly insulting to the intelligence and showed a complete lack of knowledge of actual history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
How did this thread turn into yet another litigation of the 2016 primaries?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:I think its worthwhile to examine the gut reaction to the leaks in context of larger attitudes towards the democrats in particular and American politics in general. There seems to be a definite correlation between the people most eager to condemn the leaks as Putin's lies to destroy the democrats (but lets not talk about the content or truth value of the leaks) and the people most willing to defend the system no matter what. [...] People frequently move to discredit the source of information because they don't like the content of the information but can't find a good argument against it, and I feel the media analysis thread should be a place to contend with that kind of misdirection. What you're doing is making a leap to conclusion about other posters, and I'm really trying to understand how it's not that you're arguing in bad faith largely to attempt to derail a thread that otherwise is based on sound information that everyone should try to understand and utilize. The DNC leaks, done by Russian Intelligence, could contain any number of edited bits of information. They could also be entirely true. What they were mainly used for was to destabilize the DNC and the election because we have historical context of when they happened. This impacts the ability of the Democrats to appropriately respond in that timeframe, and the Democrats were (arguably correctly) not going to spend the months and thousands of hours of worker (who are we kidding, volunteer) time so they can after the fact say, "these things are true, these are false." The purpose was to get the media frenzy going, "DNC LEAKS?!" rather than, "let's discuss Democratic policies." The purpose was to make public lots of private contact information to make the Democratic Party's efforts more difficult because now they've got to manage the poo poo that comes with that. In that regard, it's not actually relevant whether or not the DNC leaks were true, which is why "let's not talk about the content or truth value of the leaks" is entirely relevant. The 1st batch of leaks were dropped by WikiLeaks July 22nd, 2016. The Democratic National Convention was held July 25th, 2016. Contained were 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments. The 2nd batch of leaks were dropped by WikiLeaks on November 6th, 2016. The election was held on November 8th, 2016. Contained were another 8,263 emails. The timing for both is extremely to the point of making it so there was no feasible way the DNC could determine what, entirely, was true and false within each leak prior to a very important event where unity of party/purpose is needed to advance forward. When the DNC should have been in the news for, "this is what we can agree on, progressives and moderates, going against the Republicans," it was instead for salacious leaked materials. Given the acrimony that already existed between Sanders and Clinton voters, and given the media framing of, "it's her election to lose," providing a push to Sanders voters and other on the fence Democratic voters to sit out Clinton's election is one of the reasons the DNC leaks is a part of the, "election loss by 1000s of problems" issue of the Clinton campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Speaking of, how hilarious was the Washington Post "conspiracy theory" quiz? It was incredibly insulting to the intelligence and showed a complete lack of knowledge of actual history. It was a truly amazingly brazen display of oligarch propaganda, I'd assume even the most credulous posters itt would agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:It was a truly amazingly brazen display of oligarch propaganda, I'd assume even the most credulous posters itt would agree. So hey, here's a little mod challenge: do an effortpost criticizing the quiz in detail. Feel free to take time if you need it; 3 days sound like enough?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:53
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Nix, you would agree that a source that consistently falsifies or wildly misrepresents their stories like Project Veritas at least deserves particularly harsh scrutiny, right? Absolutely. But what was happening wasn't harsh scrutiny, it was discarding the story out of hand because it made some people feel very uncomfortable and it was easier to attack the source of the story rather than contend with the story itself. There was a desire to wait until a source they were comfortable with told them the uncomfortable thing, but of course the sources they preferred weren't digging into the story because it would have made their audiences very uncomfortable. Bit of a Catch-22 E: Also theres a difference between harsh scrutiny and casting about for reasons to discard evidence while working up to outright claiming its fraud. Also, consider the following: During the hunt for Bin Laden the CIA used vaccination programs in Pakistan as cover to gather DNA samples to... something. Find Bin Laden's kids? Look that part doesnt make any sense but its not important to the story. When the deception was uncovered the Pakistani were furious and not only refused to cooperate with the Americans, but also rejected vaccination missions in general out of suspicion. Children are dying of preventable illnesses in Pakistan because of suspicion over bad faith actors with vaccines. Now, from a Media Analysis standpoint, are the Pakistani wrong? The US is a known bad faith actor who deceived the people. They also delivered vaccines, but that was purely as cover for their bad faith operations, and as HelloSailorSign mentioned a source can provide useful information (or vaccines in this case) to get you to cooperate with their greater project. According to DV's construction, yes, the Pakistani are correct to be wary of known bad faith actors, and should regard all outreach as tainted because the source is tainted. This answer is killing children. Clearly a better answer would be to critically examine useful programs before coming to a decision rather than reject everything because of the source. The content matters even if the source is tainted. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:54
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:So hey, here's a little mod challenge: do an effortpost criticizing the quiz in detail. Feel free to take time if you need it; 3 days sound like enough? Sure. I can do that tomorrow, it'll be a lot of fun. I may need a little longer than that for the part requiring hard proof that Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself, though, I'll need time to gather and perform an Ocean's 13 to retrieve a hard drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
The wariness about Project Veritas photos are an example of events unfolding in real time, we now have the benefit of hindsight. It is absolutely reasonable to wait for more confirmation and second sources of information when in the moment the main source appears to be noted ratfucking/disinfo operation Project Veritas. edit: I brought this up before. The discussions we are having right now are retrospective; we have a much more complete understanding of what happened now than we did at the time each of these media stories were unfolding. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
Nix I understand the analogy you're going for there but it's not really a useful comparison: skepticism towards a story from a known unreliable outlet until it's corroborated is very rarely a matter of life and death, and discussing it in the setting of an ancient internet forum never is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
I guess what I'm trying to get at is it seems to me that media analysis is very different in real-time as events are unfolding than what we are doing now with the benefit of hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 06:07
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Nix I understand the analogy you're going for there but it's not really a useful comparison: skepticism towards a story from a known unreliable outlet until it's corroborated is very rarely a matter of life and death, and discussing it in the setting of an ancient internet forum never is. I was deliberately trying to up the stakes to highlight the absurdity of the position. Again, I feel DVs construction is just a set up to attack the source of uncomfortable information because you're not equipped to contend with the uncomfortable information itelf. Fritz the Horse posted:The wariness about Project Veritas photos are an example of events unfolding in real time, we now have the benefit of hindsight. It is absolutely reasonable to wait for more confirmation and second sources of information when in the moment the main source appears to be noted ratfucking/disinfo operation Project Veritas. If I recall correctly you were one of the chief border skeptics, so I'm not surprised by this take. If you instead held the viewpoint that the democrats only condemned Trump's border policies to score points and didn't care about immigrants outside of election season you would have found the photos and the government response significantly more believable. Honestly I thought the woman pleading to 'please give dignity to the people' while she tried to block the shot of people lying on the ground with their foil blankets was almost too on the nose. This is another example of choosing whether or not to believe information based on your pre-existing worldview, and then attacking the source rather than contending with the information if you find it too uncomfortable to believe E: Fritz the Horse posted:I guess what I'm trying to get at is it seems to me that media analysis is very different in real-time as events are unfolding than what we are doing now with the benefit of hindsight. There were two camps while the story was unfolding in real time. There were the skeptics whose worldview didn't allow for the democrats to continue to maintain Trump's camps without missing a beat, and the, for lack of a better word, cynics who felt that was absolutely in line with how government in America functioned. It was quite contentious actually. Trying to claim everyone was taken in and just trying to sort out what was true is some real Iraq War WMD revisionism. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 06:15
|
|
|
Nix if, say, Andy Ngo posted a big report that claimed that he had proof that Seattle antifa was secretly planning to go church to church rounding up conservatives to put them on trial in kangaroo courts, would you believe that? It certainly would be uncomfortable information if true, and would affirm many peoples' pre-existing worldviews (though not yours, I assume). How would you respond if someone made the argument that you were dismissing the report because it was too uncomfortable for you? "They don't want you to know this shocking information" is standard operating procedure for bullshit artists, as is "our evidence is bad because there's a coverup". That doesn't mean that it isn't sometimes true, but those sorts of statements are red flags, especially when they're coming from a known bullshit artist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Nix if, say, Andy Ngo posted a big report that claimed that he had proof that Seattle antifa was secretly planning to go church to church rounding up conservatives to put them on trial in kangaroo courts, would you believe that? It certainly would be uncomfortable information if true, and would affirm many peoples' pre-existing worldviews (though not yours, I assume). How would you respond if someone made the argument that you were dismissing the report because it was too uncomfortable for you? "They don't want you to know this shocking information" is standard operating procedure for bullshit artists, as is "our evidence is bad because there's a coverup". That doesn't mean that it isn't sometimes true, but those sorts of statements are red flags, especially when they're coming from a known bullshit artist. Like everyone else I would consider the information in context with what I already know. I already know 'antifa' is code for the boogeyman and the right likes to make them out to be way cooler than they are. I can place that story in context with all the other antifa super soldier stories that turned out to be fabrications. I can also use my personal biases that Seattle antifa would sooner put each other on trial in kangaroo courts. All of that would lead me to conclude 'lmao, but wouldn't it be cool if it were true'. Events don't happen in a vacuum. If there was a history of left wing organizations rounding up conservatives and lynching them, instead of the other way around, I would be much more open to the story. E: And if someone persisted in insisting it was true I would probably respond with 'lol' and wait for evidence to show up, because we would be so clearly operating from two completely different world views that I'm not likely to convince them otherwise. Persuasion has its limits. Or maybe it doesn't but my patience does. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 06:33
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:because we would be so clearly operating from two completely different world views that I'm not likely to convince them otherwise. Persuasion has its limits. Or maybe it doesn't but my patience does. Maybe reflect on this thought a little bit. Imagine if this sentiment were applicable the other way round, and that you were the one with the alien worldview.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
I mean, yeah, the conditions and treatment of migrants at the US Southern border were and are uncomfortable to read about at the very least. That's not the wording I'd use, more like "unacceptable," "disgusting," "inhumane," "horrifying" etc take your pick. Part of critical thinking is being able to admit you were wrong when faced with new evidence. The Veritas photos were genuine, in retrospect! At the time, they appeared to be the only outlet running them and they are a known disinfo hatchet-job operation. My response was not "I cannot believe this is happening" it was more "I'm gonna take this with a grain of salt until there's reporting from more reliable sources." Anyway, I think it would be a much more productive exercise to discuss media criticism in real-time as events are unfolding, things will be confusing and messy and that's when such analysis is most relevant imho. fool of sound you and other mods/participants might consider having this thread practice with events in the near future as they happen? It seems like most/all of the posting so far itt has been retrospective or theoretical. You might compare/contrast to the COVID thread where there has been discussion of news and science in real-time as the pandemic proceeds. I guess I'm suggesting we engage in applying the various approaches to media literacy discussed here as poo poo happens rather than navel-gazing about past events which we have more full knowledge of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
How are u posted:Maybe reflect on this thought a little bit. Imagine if this sentiment were applicable the other way round, and that you were the one with the alien worldview. Theoretically we're both operating from evidence based reality, which is why it can be frustrating interacting with D&D sometimes. To me, its down to Fritz's sentiment a few posts up. They genuinely seem to believe there was a chance the border camp photos and videos were all fake, because of course the democrats can't be that callous, and further that it was the reasonable position everyone was taking to extend the benefit of the doubt. Why though? Why is there this base supposition that the democrats have ever earned the benefit of the doubt? And what about the people who knew from the start the camps were real and were derided for it? Look at DV. When Nancy Pelosi made her incredibly thoughtless comment thanking George Floyd for dying, the first response from the resident Media Analyst was that perhaps it wasn't an exact quote. Moments later a video clip showing the speech surfaced. Why would someone reflexively defend Pelosi without spending a few seconds to confirm there wasnt literally a video clip available? Why would anyone just assume Pelosi isn't completely out of touch and tone deaf? It reminds me of Iraq War revisionism, where people like to claim there was a lot of confusion around the invasion and that nobody really knew it was all a big lie, they were just trying their best until all the information came in. No, actually, a lot of people saw right through that lie from the very start, and many of them were called conspiracy theorists for their trouble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 07:01
|
|