Venezuela: The Empanada Summit

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Venezuela: The Empanada Summit

«‹›9 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Moridin920 posted:

Forget about the video

No. I'm not going to stop making note of the sourcing of these messages.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2019 19:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'll take deflective epistemic relativism for two hundred, Alex. I mean, c'mon, it took three posts to identify how its frame was misrepresenting even John Bolton, idiot king of warmongers, regarding the US's plans for the region. You don't even have to scroll up that far to see it!

Flayer posted:

We're talking about the reasons for America to get involved with Venezeula, in this thread. You seem to be on a mission to straw man Russian newsbots to dismiss a news item you don't like getting any attention.

I'm not the one posting them, and what we keep finding is the news items and arguments made by them...aren't. Hence the discussion of what he says versus what people say he says, just a little ways above. It shouldn't be hard to source things from sources that aren't part of a state propaganda apparatus, or even, at a bare minimum, acknowledge and contextualize the sourcing. People shouldn't have to go to In the NOW, or The Miami Voice, or TeleSUR, to support these arguments, and if that's where they keep having to go, and where they keep refusing to state or acknowledge their sourcing, it stops looking remotely honest.

edit: lol they swapped the miami voice av for a woman in the same pose

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Feb 5, 2019

# ¿ Feb 5, 2019 06:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

�How does this situation reaffirm my previously held beliefs about socialism� is a weird focus given everything else going on.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2019 15:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

khwarezm posted:

Can somebody please link me some sources to better explain the state of the Venezuelan economy and how it got there, especially in relation to Sanctions?

I recommend starting with posts by the OP, who does a great job citing sources and setting up historical context.

Phoneposting, but here is a direct link to sanctions at State.

https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/venezuela/index.htm

It�s worth generally noting that the US is the only place Venezuela has been able to feasibly refine its oil, and the US has no real financial incentives at this point to �get� oil.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Feb 5, 2019

# ¿ Feb 5, 2019 22:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Why are you citing that twitter account, of all the possible sources of authority on foreign policy in the world

Why are you citing

Crypto Cuttlefish

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 04:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

uninterrupted posted:

It's... a screenshot of a newspaper? Do you think it's fake? What's your argument here dude?

You�re not citing the article, you�re citing a combination of quoted parts of articles presented in the context of a specific argument. The text of the message includes the mediator you are using to present it- who I know you were also citing, to mockery, in USPOL to back up their same arguments.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 05:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

uninterrupted posted:

Lol this is that Russian video of Bolton all over again.

Do you think the quotes are fake?

What is your objection here beyond "the quoted information is something I don't like?"

As was pretty quickly determined by discussing what the Bolton video was being cited to mean, it was a selective misrepresentation of information to present a poorly supported argument. In this case, though, you're not even doing that. You're citing a lefty twitter cryptocurrency rando for their argument, not just for a random quote from an article about the deposition of Allende. There's no further argument or citation or structure presented, either. It's the sum total of your thought, aside from repeating the phrase "US-backed coup" and easily disproven lies.

History is not a flat circle. The world exists outside of the US, there are more events in history than just CIA conspiracies and coups, and other people in places other than the united states have agency in both current and past events. It's not about the United States. This is not the United States thread. The aggravating thing is that a bunch of the people who were reading the thread more than a month ago know this, and when you're not here, we actually get to have some kind of discussion of new things, incorporate new information and facts, and try to figure out what possible ways forward for Venezuela are.

On that note, I asked in the Latin America thread and SexyBlindfold gave a fantastic, detailed account of several factors involved with the role of the military in Chile after Pinochet began his descent from power.:

SexyBlindfold posted:

Short answer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB9DbxrjBaI

Long answer:
The chilean transition to democracy had... a lot of ups and downs, even though it might appear that post-dictatorship Chile was a lot more stable than other Latin American nations during the same period. Pinochet was voted out in a 1988 referendum, but during the negotiations that followed this, and that eventually led to an elected civilian government taking over, the military, and Pinochet in particular, still held a lot of leverage, and the resulting system reflected that. Some concessions were granted to the military in order to ensue a smooth transfer of power. Some of these concessions were informal, and others were coded into the constitution - these would later be termed as the "authoritarian enclaves".
- The terms of the transition to democracy established that Pinochet would remain in command of the Armed Forces until his retirement, at which point he'd become a Senator-for-life, and a number of seats in the Senate were reserved for retired commanders of the armed forces (who, it could be expected, would all be hardline Pinochetists for the foreseeable future).
- Pinochet used his position as Commander in Chief in two separate occasions to very overtly and publicly intimidate the civilian authorities into looking the other way regarding a multi-million-dollar corruption case involving Pinochet's son. (link in spanish)
- The center-left coalition that defeated Pinochet in the 1988 referendum did not have too much trouble winning presidential elections in the 90s, but the electoral system concocted under transitional negotiations ensured that legislative elections would always hand out seats more evenly, which in the 90s came to the great benefit of the right-wing coalition that sought to preserve the legacy (either political, economic or cultural) of the dictatorship. As such, it was all but guaranteed that changes to the constitution that sought to amend the "authoritarian enclaves" would have to be negotiated with the right.
- While the dictatorship did not intervene the judiciary system as thoroughly as it did other institutions, during most of the 90s the Chilean high courts were still packed with judges who had been appointed by Pinochet decades ago, and thus ensured that no meaningful prosecution would be given to most cases of human rights abuses under Pinochet. Civilian authorities in the 90s pursued the policy of "justice according to what's possible" regarding the cases of torture and disappearances, where they'd order an investigation in order to establish the facts, but would not follow said investigation with criminal charges, or would immediately apply the Amnesty Law passed by Pinochet. Even this lukewarm approach was met with severe push-back by Chilean courts and pro-military sectors.

So, for the first five to ten years or so, the answer to "how did Chile reduce the power of the military?" was "it didn't". The military, and Pinochet, still held a lot of power, but since their privileges did not come under direct threat, they did not see the need to exert that power, save for the aforementioned instances regarding the investigation against Pinochet's son.

Eventually, it might have come down to playing the long game - by the time Pinochet was detained in London, which came as an extreme embarrassment to all sectors in post-transition Chile, the years had allowed for naked pinochetism to be swept under the rug, at least in public discourse, and as such it was less politically expedient, even among the right, to defend some of the key "authoritarian enclaves". So, slowly, civilian authority over the armed forces was consolidated, courts became more receptive towards human rights cases (not just investigating but also prosecuting), the figures of designated and for-life senators were abolished, Pinochet himself was eventually investigated and charged (though never convicted), etc.

It's possible to see it in a cynical way - the military's vast material benefits were never under direct threat, the dictatorship's economic framework for Chile was never dismantled, and therefore the armed forces were content to leave the actual politicking to right-wing politicians.
You can also see it in a more favorable light towards the civilian authorities of the earlier transition - they navigated the confusing and oftentimes humiliating framework that the dictatorship imposed, and still managed to slowly but surely bring the military under civilian authority, prosecute and imprison many of the dictatorship's major human rights abusers (though not Pinochet himself), phase out Pinochetist elements in the judiciary, eliminate the authoritarian enclaves, etc.
You can also see it in a broader historical context - while Pinochet ruled for 17 years, and Chile had been no stranger to dictatorships before that, overall the chilean armed forces had at the very least projected a tradition of non-interference in political affairs for the larger part of its history, and to go openly against it was bad optics - even Pinochet sought to dress his dictatorship under the veneer of a legitimate constitutional presidency. As such, the military stepping away from any position of political influence was just a return to the natural state of affairs in chilean politics.
It's probably a bit of everything - under the forced 'stability' of the earlier transition, there was really no reason for the military to act up, as its interests were well protected. Whatever potential influence the military could have kept began to slowly dissipate as democratic institutions consolidated and Pinochetism's star began to wane, and the generational shift locked it all in before anything major could interrupt the excruciatingly slow process of the military shifting away from Pinochet's shadow. Eventually, if the army pretends to be subordinated to civilian authority for long enough with no major hitch, it becomes indistinguishable from actually being subordinated to civilian authority, since past a certain point you'll phase out most officers and generals who ever knew a different state of affairs.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Feb 6, 2019

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 06:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Squalid posted:

That post is good, but it's important to remember that even as Maduro has ceded increasing power to his generals, I don't think Venezuela should be described as a military government. Of course if Guiado and Bolton have their and the military does remove Maduro, Venezuela will, at least briefly, fall under army control.

You're absolutely right, I was grappling for some sort of orderly decentralization of power I could draw on for possible policy approaches but I'm really not clear what it can look like, and there are too many differences in play. A scenario like Chile (for all the problems SexyBlindfold details) still seems relatively optimistic, in that the incentives just aren't there for this sort of approach, and because the economic infra's so thoroughly hosed.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 07:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

We've already explained multiple times that Maduro seized power away from legitimately elected representatives. It's in the OP material you're refusing to read that was already reposted for your convenience less than a page ago.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 07:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

A Typical Goon posted:

Ok so what? Is American going to attempt regime change in every dictatorship they don't like or only the ones with oil and gold?

So, before we can even start correcting all the other wrong things you say, we'd like you to stop tossing off references to what Guiado is doing as a coup:

A Typical Goon posted:

It's an coup because it's an attempted illegal seizure of power according to the constitution of Venezuela as well as the nations Supreme Court

Like, dude, the troll would be way more effective if you'd at least space out the circular argument more than three posts.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 08:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Into what areas can/should Venezuela diversify its economy as it tries to grow past this castrophone?

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 08:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

the most easily accessible frame of reference for Americans

This is the core of the problem, right here.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 20:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Who is this? I can't find any good contextualizing information or background to determine their affiliations, and their entire feed is one-directional.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 20:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

That is one of the lowest production zombie movie barricades I've seen.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 21:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

exploded mummy posted:

I dont want to mock the efforts of a starving populace from blocking food

I hear you, but I also agree that it's a really ill-thought out symbolic effort, presumably so that the government can get footage of aid getting through it and call it a military invasion.

Has anyone read the precise location of that barricade? I want to look at the surrounding geography.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 22:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Argh, sorry and thank you, I have no idea why I didn't get any results the first time I entered that.

it'd be very interesting to swing by some of the other entry points and see if they're similarly blocked.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Feb 6, 2019

# ¿ Feb 6, 2019 22:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

It's annoying that this is being used as some sort of case for putting Venezuela under siege conditions while the United States is building up for some kind of military action, yes.

What building up for military action?

# ¿ Feb 8, 2019 14:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'm interested in what mediating source he's specifically making it hard to identify by reposting just the title and an image, as an image.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 06:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ChaseSP posted:

It's RT lmao. https://www.rt.com/news/451026-guaido-venezuela-military-intervention/

No wonder they didn't post the actual news article.

ofc, I shoulda recognized the damned formatting. I like how they jump straight from food aid to military, plus the double scare quote action.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 07:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pharohman777 posted:

Read the op dude.

Read their post history.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 07:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

That�s not the message. The original message we got was a title and image with zero context scare quotes specifically trying to obscure its source. The RT article�s text itself is similarly distortive. My favorite part is how it�s chopping and screwing an AFP interview, but the bottom has an advertisement to sign up the the RT newsletter, for information �the mainstream media won�t tell you�.

Edit: Russian propaganda suggests they might be floating this guy, Hugo Chavez�s oil minister Rafael Ramirez, as a controlled successor . What do folks here know about him?

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Feb 9, 2019

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 15:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Cerepol posted:

Which is why I dug up the originating article. Rt like most places just reposts poo poo. Bonus of adding, removing, or highlighting.

Oh I entirely agree, and thank you for finding it! I just wanted to prebut the �how can you attack this sourcebwhen they�re just reposting other news stories�, as if that weren�t a major way to construct the illusion of source legitimacy.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 9, 2019

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 15:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

GoluboiOgon posted:

Maybe you could do the minute of googling to check if there is a non-RT source yourself instead of detailing the thread by instantly calling it fake news?

I see that my efforts to prebut this were in vain. The point isn't that what a message says is false- it often doesn't have to be. It's that the message is deliberately misleading in its presentation of true information - it takes true information and recasts or alters it to change what recipients take from it. That's frequently how propaganda material works. There's a reason we keep getting garbage from RT posted, instead of the root sources in mainstream media. In this case, we straight up weren't given the body of the message because it's so obviously bad that it became the subject of mockery unto itself.

Epicurius posted:

He looted PDVSA as its president/energy minister, and there was talk about him taking over when Chavez died. Maduro made him UN ambassador, probably ly to get him out of the country, but fired him about a year ago after arresting a much of people close to him in PDVSA. He then wrote a bunch of online articles where he demanded Chavez resign and accused him of betraying the Revolution. As far as I know, he's still in New York.

Interesting, wikipedia says he was one of the subjects of 2017 individual sanctions, though afaict he's no longer on the list. This might be because he's no longer officially a Venezuelan government member, but that's unlikely.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Feb 9, 2019

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 17:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I appreciate the straightforwardness of the false dichotomy frame Bob le Moche uses here, because it really demonstrates the impoverishment of the epistemic relativism argument. There are, in fact, ways to approach information sources that don't require either

1. Totalizing, solipsistic relativism about bias. This position lets the believer select whatever messages cater to their prior beliefs, and makes them a fantastic mark for misleading messages. Like, yes, we know postmodernism is a thing. This is much less mind-blowing than you think it is.
2. Strict privileging the positions of specific message sources, be they "capitalist-owned corporate western media" or "owned by foreigners" or anything else. I mean, the idea that folks are doing this is kinda facile, but that's the tomato that's getting thrown.

Alternatives to either of these approaches require some degree of scrutiny of the construction of messages, and I don't mean a broad theory of "media". I mean actually looking at the motivations and constitution of specific sources, and the techniques and tools used in the creation of specific messages. Not all messages or sources are equal, and none are absolutely trustworthy, but we can use other sources of information, observation, and logic testing to identify the motives, methods, accuracy, and, ultimately, trustworthiness of sources.

In analyzing sources, we are flawed and imperfect. One of our biggest weaknesses is that our resources are limited, and we are vulnerable to manipulation by deceptive sources, even those we know we should not trust. Sources that have a deliberate, intentional program of deception are thus worth rejecting out of hand, except (when we have the time and tools) to study them and identify how they are trying to abuse the good faith of our analysis.

Message scrutiny is time and effort-intensive, which is why we use a variety of heuristics to allocate our respective uncertainty about messages. On technical or specialized subjects, or anything where we don't have subject-specific knowledge, one of the most straightforward heuristics is to find people with direct knowledge that can directly respond to questions.

One of the strongest anchors this thread has in evaluating sources information is that we have posters who are actually personally familiar with the situation in Venezuela, who don't just post news, but who are also so generous that they answer questions and respond to pushback. People who are able to do this about Venezuela (or, in other threads, about cars, or law, or video games, or what have you) are what makes this forum great. It's why I spend so much time asking questions and discussing sources, rather than giving definitive statements.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

The substance of the message is that Guaido won't rule out American military intervention. Harping on RT is pointless when the AFP source has already been posted, and it's bizarre that you think you're proving a point.

The substance of the message shifts when the RT article (which, again, we only got the title of) pushes all mention of food aid down to paragraph six, past several other advertisements for other messages from RT about Venezuela. That shift seems immaterial to you because you've already accepted the way its authors are framing its content. The shift is deliberate, and is one example of a whole host of other really obvious ways that the article attempts to reframe and shift the content of the original source to manipulate the perceptions of the message recipient.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 17:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I know you know this and are being disingenuous, but for the benefit of others, the entirety of the original AFP message is the substance of the original message. The selection and framing of a narrower "substance", the selection of meaning, is an act by the recipient and, in this case, also the mediating entity acting upon the message. All changes to the original message's content in the course of being reconstructed as a new message by RT are deliberate. Pushing the aid references down in the RT article (versus their direct reference in the third paragraph, and general framing in other parts of the AFP story) is a deliberate choice to get readers to disregard this part of the message. To be clear, there are a ton of much more obvious manipulative moves in the article, from the use of scare quotes to the image selection to the use of interstitial story links, to the order of clauses.

But we know these arguments you're now raising are disingenuous because the original posting of the message excluded anything but its title. We also know that RT is propaganda, that it's a part of a larger information source system that acts in bad faith. We have common sense, and we've seen how that messaging entity has operated in other contexts. When people post poo poo from RT or places like it, and especially when they try to hide it, this should be called out and people like Cerepol can find the original, less poo poo, source of information.

Now this is the part where I point out that AFP is also a state-owned enterprise. There's a whole additional analysis that can be done on its methods, history, composition, motives, etc, contrasting them with Russian state media. But, as I previously said, our resources for the allocation of certainty are limited, I haven't spent as much time studying AFP, and I don't like pretending that you're a serious poster. Suffice to say that AFP has few of the traits of message manipulation that RT does. It uses a different composition style, has a different audience, different governing rules, and a different business model.They are, on all subjects, better than RT, and on some subjects, a mostly trustworthy source, whose known issues primarily involve their general organization as a wire service and inconsistencies in their style in published messages. I still don't like them very much because they're state-owned and I tend to look for parallel coverage as a result, but there it is.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 18:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

My devil whispering in my ear part of me wants a deposed Maduro to appear on The Biggest Loser.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 19:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

brugroffil posted:

What does any of this have to do with anything being discussed

It's the Venezuela thread. Not the United States thread.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2019 17:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Chuck Boone, is it your sense that tourism is a viable avenue for economic diversification in Venezuela? I'm still trying to wrap my hands around the challenges involved in diversifying a former hardcore petrostate.

Bob le Moche posted:

I've explained this before but this is an English-language forum based in the USA. We should be focusing on opposing our own governments' imperialist foreign policy in Venezuela because it's where we actually have power to do something. I'm not interested in helping build the anti-Russia and anti-China propaganda effort that the US and NATO are going to use to justify starting World War 3 to their citizens when one of these conflicts like Venezuela, Syria, or Ukraine inevitably escalates too far.

Quoting this just so it can stick around. The solipsism it entails is just :discourse:

# ¿ Feb 12, 2019 17:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

BoneMonkey posted:

Heya, I'm super ignorant and dumb about Venezuela but I'm hearing an awful lot about it from sources I don't trust. Like any news station. Is anyone able to explain like I'm 5 all this to me? Or point me to a dumb persons run down, from a half decent source?

I assumed the OP was old and out of date because this thread was old, but it seems to have to updated, I'll read that too.

Generally, posts from the OP and a few other Venegoons are the best source of information in the thread. The situation in Venezuela is subject to a tremendous amount of propaganda material from the Maduro regime and its backers (even more so than usual, owing to the circumstances).

# ¿ Feb 12, 2019 19:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

zapplez posted:

The Gray Zone is Max Blumenthal's media organization. Not exactly an unbiased source. His is currently in-country in Venezuela, appears to be part of a large government effort to invite small time media and influencers to start a propaganda campaign.

https://elcooperante.com/la-turista-espanola-vino-invitada-por-cancilleria-y-se-comio-mas-de-26-millones-de-bolivares/

Hahaha, that explains a shitton about the weird low-scale "independent" journalist coverage I'd been seeing echoing the Maduro line.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2019 20:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Presenting Nipples posted:

That's fine, there is bias. Can you give me an source free of bias?

Astonishingly, there are such things as different levels and forms of bias. We know this.

Discendo Vox posted:

There are, in fact, ways to approach information sources that don't require either

1. Totalizing, solipsistic relativism about bias. This position lets the believer select whatever messages cater to their prior beliefs, and makes them a fantastic mark for misleading messages. Like, yes, we know postmodernism is a thing. This is much less mind-blowing than you think it is.
2. Strict privileging the positions of specific message sources, be they "capitalist-owned corporate western media" or "owned by foreigners" or anything else. I mean, the idea that folks are doing this is kinda facile, but that's the tomato that's getting thrown.

Alternatives to either of these approaches require some degree of scrutiny of the construction of messages, and I don't mean a broad theory of "media". I mean actually looking at the motivations and constitution of specific sources, and the techniques and tools used in the creation of specific messages. Not all messages or sources are equal, and none are absolutely trustworthy, but we can use other sources of information, observation, and logic testing to identify the motives, methods, accuracy, and, ultimately, trustworthiness of sources.

In analyzing sources, we are flawed and imperfect. One of our biggest weaknesses is that our resources are limited, and we are vulnerable to manipulation by deceptive sources, even those we know we should not trust. Sources that have a deliberate, intentional program of deception are thus worth rejecting out of hand, except (when we have the time and tools) to study them and identify how they are trying to abuse the good faith of our analysis.

Message scrutiny is time and effort-intensive, which is why we use a variety of heuristics to allocate our respective uncertainty about messages. On technical or specialized subjects, or anything where we don't have subject-specific knowledge, one of the most straightforward heuristics is to find people with direct knowledge that can directly respond to questions.

One of the strongest anchors this thread has in evaluating sources information is that we have posters who are actually personally familiar with the situation in Venezuela, who don't just post news, but who are also so generous that they answer questions and respond to pushback. People who are able to do this about Venezuela (or, in other threads, about cars, or law, or video games, or what have you) are what makes this forum great. It's why I spend so much time asking questions and discussing sources, rather than giving definitive statements.

So,

Discendo Vox posted:

Try again, Nipples.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2019 20:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Is this an "all sources are equally trustworthy because bias exists" argument?

It's an "all sources are equally untrustworthy, so I will uncritically believe whatever confirms my previously held beliefs" argument.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2019 20:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

This is the Venezuela thread. Not the United States thread.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2019 02:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

"right wing death squads" aren't the sole alternative outcome. It's not a binary situation, no matter how much you present it as such.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2019 03:20

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

We already discussed the problems with that poll the first time you posted it.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2019 03:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Venezuelan legislature and its supporters exist and have agency. There are things and people in the world other than the United States.

And, again, it�s not a coup, and it�s not military.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2019 16:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The coup occurred when Maduro subverted the democratic process, years ago. Again, we've been over this.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2019 16:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

How can this thread be about Venezuelans when I keep insisting it's about the US government?! How can their opinions matter when I have opinions?

# ¿ Feb 15, 2019 07:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The only sources of information they will accept, including accounts from Venezuelans, are those that agree with and reinforce their own previously held beliefs.

Darth Walrus posted:

This is interesting - apparently, Maduro and his people have been talking to Abrams and his people about arrangements to help them leave the country (presumably with their money intact). I'm sure he'd appreciate taking over the PSUV's infrastructure (such as it is) to set up a more overtly US-friendly dictatorship.

That's incredibly promising, if true, but Maduro has shown such a tendency to insist the sky is polka-dot green in interviews of late that I don't know what to really make of it.

edit: oh, he's trying to frame it in terms of the US and Abrams. great. There's some pushback on the obvious lies, but way too much paraphrasing as fact.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Feb 15, 2019

# ¿ Feb 15, 2019 22:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

What documentation is publicly available of foreign control of different Venezuelan extraction assets? I'm less interested in the numbers than the contents of the legal agreements that transferred ownership.

Ruzihm posted:

unlike me, who ignores the accounts of 2/3 of venezuelans who aren't in favor of intervention because they don't agree with me.

You are, again, conflating multiple positions and measures about "intervention" and transition of power away from Maduro. It's not a binary. There are people in Venezuela who want Maduro to leave power. They have agency independent of the United States.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2019 22:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Venezuela: The Empanada Summit

«‹›9 »