GeorgeBMac said: LOL... That's the standard line of extremists from both sides: doing the Trumpian thing of justifying their position by attacking the other -- because their own position is unjustifiable except to fellow extremists. But they nevertheless want to impose their twisted and distorted will on everybody.
Agreed... but in all the various ideological battles going on... which sides are the ones using the power they can muster to shutdown opposition?
GeorgeBMac said: For the SPLC: I agree that it has sometimes (maybe too often) over reached. But they have stuck to their basic mission of calling out and exposing real hate groups. For the most part, the lawsuits just mean that they're doing their job -- but some are likely justified.
Using their billions to bully? The problem is they aren't just going after so-called 'hate groups' but going after anyone who disagrees with the ideology they subscribe to, calling them hate groups whether or not there is any hate involved. And, that's a real problem because the groups who follow their lists don't seem to make any distinction either, which can (and has) resulted in dangerous and violent outcomes.
robbyx said: Personally I'm glad to see Apple standing up for the important issues of our day, political or otherwise. ...
But, isn't what the 'right thing' is what is up for debate in the first place?
Doesn't that go without saying? Aren't we all just expressing our opinions here?
Well, no, I don't think they are just opinions. If they were, there would be no 'right' to stand up for in the first place. But, my issue is more with the Nineteen Eighty-Four manner of just labeling something as 'right' or 'being on the right side of history' in rhetorical-method without showing up for the actual debate. It's typically just a power-play.
I get the impression, sometimes, that people who lean more liberal think conservatives sit around thinking up wrong-things to do and then pushing for them. LOL
I get the impression, sometimes, that people who lean more conservative think liberals sit around thinking up wrong-things to do and then pushing for them. LOL. Well, not really LOL. More like, GROAN.
Well, no, because the liberals don't think the things the conservatives are pointing at are wrong in the first place. Whereas, the liberal seems to think the conservatives are pushing for things both think are wrong, but the conservative just wants to get away with it.
robbyx said: Yeah, and it works quite well in all the "socialist" countries of Europe that consistently rank higher than the US in quality of life, happiness, health, etc. What I find frustrating is the endless parroting of the same bad old ideas from the "conservative" side, ideas that have never worked, that are, in essence, just selfishness wrapped in a hybrid religious/political coating so that the pill goes down a little easier. And then, the kicker is, conservatives claim to be Christian, which is the biggest laugh of all because Jesus was a hardcore socialist.
But, to be honest, I don't even know what "conservative" means anymore. I know there are still some "real" fiscal conservatives out there, somewhere, I think...but the mainstream conservative movement has, for the most part, been taken over by the Christian Taliban element. These snowflakes, the most precious and delicate snowflakes among us, can't stand the idea that people might NOT want to live as they do and cast any effort to balance the scales as an attack on them and their faith. They are totally schizophrenic in their beliefs as they weirdly (and somehow successfully) reconcile their faith with their selfish political ideology. They never cease to amaze as they cherrypick passages from their good book to give them cover for everything they do while ignoring all those pesky and inconvenient passages that might call their actions into question. That's what comes to mind when I hear the word "conservative" these days.
Hmm, what countries are those? I suppose you're going to list some capitalistic based places with a higher level of social programs? And... those utopias, if I'm understanding correctly, are starting to unravel a bit too these days, as they are no longer homogeneous cultures mostly resting on highly Christian-influenced principals.
Jesus was a hardcore socialist? Maybe you can explain that one to me.
But, I'm a bit with you on the confusion over conservatism. I'm even with you on some of the forms of corrupted Christianity wedded with government and the Conservative label. I think the ones that tick me off the most are the neocons (which is why I opposed Hillary so vehemently).
Doing a quick definition search, I come up with, "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion" which is a bit close to what I see as real conservatism. Or, maybe to put it in the negative, we don't think the past has nothing to teach us, and that any kind of move away from the past is progressive. We also don't oppose change/innovation, but can be cautious about it.
Then, of course, there is the aspect of 'traditional' views of how culture should operate in terms kings, queens, position, etc. and economics... and I suppose in that regard, I'm a classic liberal. (So, I'd probably say that Liberal/liberal are almost as mucked up categories in the USA, especially.)
robbyx said: You're deluding yourself. Mainstream climate change deniers don't acknowledge human involvement. They scoff at the idea that burning a little oil could change the environment. They aren't proposing any solutions other than drill baby drill. And we all know who is in on the take (and has been for decades): the oil companies. And we all know who supports them blindly and unquestioningly: conservatives. Conservatives claim to want energy independence, but do everything they can to limit renewables. We were once the leader in renewable energy technology. Now China and Germany pretty much own it.
OK, I'm sure there are such people, but not in the circles I run in. I'm happy with renewables, but they just aren't even close to being up to the task. Germany's system isn't working, and most of the successful renewables are building nuke plants. Meanwhile, people in the USA are freaking out over getting people to buy electric vehicles when over 1/4 of greenhouse gasses come from electricity. I'm not sure you're actually understanding the scale of the problem.
And... while I'm sure the oil companies have been involved in all sorts of nefarious things, I'm not sure you are understanding the scale of money being pumped into Global Warming fight either... we're talking $trillions.
If a civil discussion could be had, I'm all for that. I'm also for taking reasonable action on things we're pretty sure about (and about the outcome of the actions). What I'm against, is the hysteria, political games, propaganda, and shutting down and dissent. When I see that stuff, I get skeptical quickly, even if I know nothing about the subject. Then, when I dig in a bit and see good arguments on both sides, but one side is being silenced... that pushes me in their favor. Then, when I see how the projections are being fudged, with only the most extreme outcomes being emphasized. Or, when I see reality not aligning with the projections. Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical. (Of course, I'm still in that 97%, as the bar is so low.)
robbyx said: Bullying? Yeah, gay people know all about it. That last paragraph is such "I want to sound tolerant but I'm really not" homophobe crap. Personal rights versus societal impact? Give me a break. Conservatives (aka Christian Taliban) want everyone to accept that a magical wizard lives in the sky and created all of this, that this Santa Claus for Grownups is keeping a list of who's been naughty and nice, and will one day judge us all. We're in the 21st century, but the Christian Taliban wants to keep the Bronze Age going strong! And we're all supposedly to just fall in line and take it as fact. And any attempt to push back is bullying. Precious snowflakes indeed.
Wow... that was... 'articulate'?!?!? LOL
Yes, I'm well aware that gay people have been bullied. I've stood up for gay friends who've been bullied. But, that doesn't mean turnabout is fair play. And, yes, absolutely personal rights vs societal impact. Parental rights, for example, are already being impacted. People's rights to hold their beliefs and live in accordance with them have been impacted (cf. Brendan Eich, or some of the 'cake baking' lawsuits, for a small start).
But, as we run this experiment, the real question is how these moves will ultimately impact marriage and family, which are the foundation of society. No fault divorce was the biggest impact, but no longer being able to even define with a marriage or family is, won't be without long-term impact. The effects are already starting to show up in some of the census data where such things are tracked (like Canada).
And, I guess I would suggest you back off your rhetoric a bit there, and invest some time in actual study. If you think you've really nailed Christianity with your silly diatribe above, you've only shown your ignorance to someone who is actually trained in the subject.
fastasleep said: Frank Turek, the homophobic, anti-atheist, anti-science young earth creationist bigot? That's your go-to for quotes on inclusion? Give me a fucking break.
Hey, it's a good quote, even if your description where slightly accurate, which it isn't.
fastasleep said: Being inclusive and tolerant does not necessitate including and tolerating the non-inclusive and intolerant.
I suppose, so long as we just toss out any reasonable word definitions and such.
fastasleep said: I look to the freshman class of 2019's Congress and other down-ballot elections throughout the US as a positive sign of things to come, at least on the Democrat's side of things.
I hope so, but don't really see it. The few newcomers I've seen have mostly just made a splash as being world-class idiots who can't think at all. But, hopefully there are other more reasonable and learned minds taking over. But, nearly all of the existing ones were bad-news, regardless of political affiliation.
beowulfschmidt said: At least one of those Founders didn't. Check out Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence sometime.
Even then, politics managed to screw things up.
Context is also important... the science of the time was that African people weren't as fully human as European people. So, obviously (on that thinking) they wouldn't necessarily have the same rights. So, they weren't necessarily being as inconsistent as they look through our lens. Humanity has a long history of dehumanizing some 'other' and then treating them differently. We have our own modern-day equivalents.
GeorgeBMac said: According to Michael Moore (who is very pro-Progressive) if Progressives had not held back their vote in a "My guy or no guy" tantrum, Trump would have lost. So, essentially, Progressives elected Trump (but, admittedly they had help from Russia, Comey, FauxNews and 4 years of Benghazi investigations)
Somewhat true, in that a lot of people were pissed off about the DNC shenanigans. But, I think even without that, enough of them realized that Hillary is really a neocon in liberal clothing, that they wouldn't have voted for her. Most of the Progressives I know, hate Hillary.
As for Russia, Comey, etc... that's mostly baloney propaganda made up to justify Hillary's loss in the minds of the MSM who still can't believe it.
beowulfschmidt said: Yes, because voting for someone I actually want to be in office is wasting my vote, while voting for someone I don't is not.
No, it’s a waste because you will not be counted as anything other than a rounding error in most cases, and in the worst case may enable the worse of two evils to win. Look at the Jill Stein voters — she’s a serial loser, yet pulled enough votes from key states that it’s hard to argue she didn’t directly aid Trump’s electoral college victory. Nader, same thing. Look at the amount of 3rd party representation in our government.
Yes, but doesn't that become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If 3rd parties are always wasted votes, we'll never have a 3rd party.
fastasleep said: Frank Turek, the homophobic, anti-atheist, anti-science young earth creationist bigot? That's your go-to for quotes on inclusion? Give me a fucking break.
Hey, it's a good quote, even if your description where slightly accurate, which it isn't.
He's literally a bigot making an intellectually dishonest appeal for inclusion of his "diverse view". Color me unimpressed.
As for Russia, Comey, etc... that's mostly baloney propaganda made up to justify Hillary's loss in the minds of the MSM who still can't believe it.
Haha? Are you claiming that these things didn't happen or that they didn't have any effect on the election? Because it's pretty well established now that both were not insignificant factors in the 2016 election.
beowulfschmidt said: Yes, because voting for someone I actually want to be in office is wasting my vote, while voting for someone I don't is not.
No, it’s a waste because you will not be counted as anything other than a rounding error in most cases, and in the worst case may enable the worse of two evils to win. Look at the Jill Stein voters — she’s a serial loser, yet pulled enough votes from key states that it’s hard to argue she didn’t directly aid Trump’s electoral college victory. Nader, same thing. Look at the amount of 3rd party representation in our government.
Yes, but doesn't that become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If 3rd parties are always wasted votes, we'll never have a 3rd party.
I was actually referring presidential and congressional elections, in which case what I said is pretty much true. Voting for nutjobs like Stein or Johnson is literally a waste of a vote. The last third party presidential run that did better than a snowball's chance in hell was Perot, who got under 19% in 1992. We have two third party Senators, one of which is running for President as a Democrat (go figure). State and down ballot races are another story, and better to work on that to build any sort of national momentum towards a viable national third party. From there, you can start working on things like third party ballot access restrictions, debates, building healthy state and national campaign offices and fundraising infrastructure, so forth. Until that happens, anything higher up the ladder is pretty much a fool's errand barring some unicorn candidate, but again, anyone smart enough (see Sanders) will just run Dem/GOP for the reasons mentioned above.
Never say never, but know when your vote has a fighting chance of actually making the difference you want it to, and not work against your own best interests.
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Yes, that is what conservatives used to believe, a very long time ago.
I would refer you to the voting record of "conservatives" in Congress since 1980 or so to see if that matches up to the doctrine you espouse, and also if -- when "businesses and individuals" do in fact get a chance to do some of the above-mentioned issues (environmental self-regulation, privacy self-regulation, immigration, capitalistic self-regulation) -- your theorem about their ability to do it better holds any water.
It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.
It is, however, accurate to label them both as fascist leaning, one religious and one economic. Both Liberals and Conservatives have abandoned their liberal and conservative principles in order to accrue more power and money.
Actual philosophical conservatives still believe those things, even if Political Conservatives do not.
That false equivalency only holds water if you ignore Citizens United -- which makes it near mandatory to raise massive amounts of money to succeed in any national election.
I'm not understanding your point here. Are you saying that Citizens United makes it "near mandatory to raise massive amounts of money"? I'm unclear on how exactly that could be? Or maybe you're trying to make another point that I'm missing entirely?
Never say never, but know when your vote has a fighting chance of actually making the difference you want it to, and not work against your own best interests.
In my view, voting for either of the mainstream candidates in the last presidential election would, in fact, have been working against my own bests interests.
Never say never, but know when your vote has a fighting chance of actually making the difference you want it to, and not work against your own best interests.
In my view, voting for either of the mainstream candidates in the last presidential election would, in fact, have been working against my own bests interests.
If you live in a swing state, your vote essentially went to whichever mainstream candidate won there. If you live in a definite-red or definite-blue state, your vote did nothing.
fastasleep said: He's literally a bigot making an intellectually dishonest appeal for inclusion of his "diverse view". Color me unimpressed.
I'm guessing you read that on some atheist blog or wikipedia page or something?
I guess it is a matter of definitions, as it seems you and those who oppose his views are equally intolerant of his views (if a bigot is someone who isn't tolerant towards opposing views, which seems the modern definition. I always thought it had something to do with intolerance due to being ignorant of the other, but I don't see that anymore in the definitions.). I'm not sure what 'intellectually dishonest' appeal that would be, though.
Ironically, he was actually dismissed by one of his clients with his corporate consulting service because someone complained to HR about a book he had written in the past, and he was deemed not to meet the company's diversity policy... apparently, his views can't be tolerated in a diverse environment, because diverse now means you hold certain exact views and and everything else gets excluded.
fastasleep said: Haha? Are you claiming that these things didn't happen or that they didn't have any effect on the election? Because it's pretty well established now that both were not insignificant factors in the 2016 election.
A bit of both, actually. I'm guessing the hacking was probably some port-scanning, which happens to my websites too.
The social media stuff was such a crazy-small amount of money that if true, the power of Facebook should have us all buying ads! In other words, it was baloney. Facebook was lured in to testify, thinking they were going to make a bundle off the next election if they could talk all the political bozos into their supposed effectiveness. But, they actually got themselves into a situation where the gov't now wants more control over what they are doing. They kinda got burned.
By pretty well established, do you mean the MSM has repeated the baloney a bazillion times? That doesn't make it established.
fastasleep said: I was actually referring presidential and congressional elections, in which case what I said is pretty much true. Voting for nutjobs like Stein or Johnson is literally a waste of a vote. The last third party presidential run that did better than a snowball's chance in hell was Perot, who got under 19% in 1992. We have two third party Senators, one of which is running for President as a Democrat (go figure). State and down ballot races are another story, and better to work on that to build any sort of national momentum towards a viable national third party. From there, you can start working on things like third party ballot access restrictions, debates, building healthy state and national campaign offices and fundraising infrastructure, so forth. Until that happens, anything higher up the ladder is pretty much a fool's errand barring some unicorn candidate, but again, anyone smart enough (see Sanders) will just run Dem/GOP for the reasons mentioned above.
Never say never, but know when your vote has a fighting chance of actually making the difference you want it to, and not work against your own best interests.
I suppose I agree, but then we're screwed.
Both parties seem to be spiraling off the deep-end further each election. At what point will they both become so crazy that people decide they just can't do it any longer? But, I suppose as long as they can keep up the 'us vs them' thing, the masses think they have to support one to avoid the other. If people could start paying a bit more attention to Congress, though, they'd see that isn't the case... peas in a pod on the big stuff.
beowulfschmidt said: In my view, voting for either of the mainstream candidates in the last presidential election would, in fact, have been working against my own bests interests.
Yep, which is why I didn't vote for either. However, in hindsight, the choice would be simple if I had to vote tomorrow. I've learned a lot since then.
fastasleep said: If you live in a swing state, your vote essentially went to whichever mainstream candidate won there. If you live in a definite-red or definite-blue state, your vote did nothing.
Yes, that made my non-voting for either much easier at the time. I knew what the outcome would be for the county/state where my vote would be counted, and that it wouldn't even be slightly close. Yes, if I had lived in one of the close places, I'd have had to ponder it more, but likely would have been who I'd vote for if the election were tomorrow. As I said above, I've learned a lot since then, but it has mostly reinforced where I was then. (Basically, Hillary is even more a neocon than I had known, and Trump hasn't been as bad as I might have feared.)
fastasleep said: He's literally a bigot making an intellectually dishonest appeal for inclusion of his "diverse view". Color me unimpressed.
I'm guessing you read that on some atheist blog or wikipedia page or something?
I guess it is a matter of definitions, as it seems you and those who oppose his views are equally intolerant of his views (if a bigot is someone who isn't tolerant towards opposing views, which seems the modern definition. I always thought it had something to do with intolerance due to being ignorant of the other, but I don't see that anymore in the definitions.). I'm not sure what 'intellectually dishonest' appeal that would be, though.
Ironically, he was actually dismissed by one of his clients with his corporate consulting service because someone complained to HR about a book he had written in the past, and he was deemed not to meet the company's diversity policy... apparently, his views can't be tolerated in a diverse environment, because diverse now means you hold certain exact views and and everything else gets excluded.
I've read about him in a few places in the past, and literally read his own words in which he repeatedly lumps homosexuality with murder, rape, and incest, among many other horrible claims. He's hateful and dishonest and unscientific in his views. He literally said: “the homosexual community and Muslim community [are] joining together” pass laws banning ‘hate speech’ in America in order to bring about “totalitarianism” by “shutting up the opponents.” which is all hateful and patently untrue bullshit. He's intellectually dishonest because he claims he was "fired for his privately-held beliefs" which is also false. He was fired by Bank of America and Cisco from "team building" type jobs because he's publicly a hateful bigot, and as you can maybe extrapolate from this, those companies are diverse in that they employ the exact types people he directs his hatred towards. It's not rocket science.
fastasleep said: Haha? Are you claiming that these things didn't happen or that they didn't have any effect on the election? Because it's pretty well established now that both were not insignificant factors in the 2016 election.
A bit of both, actually. I'm guessing the hacking was probably some port-scanning, which happens to my websites too.
The social media stuff was such a crazy-small amount of money that if true, the power of Facebook should have us all buying ads! In other words, it was baloney. Facebook was lured in to testify, thinking they were going to make a bundle off the next election if they could talk all the political bozos into their supposed effectiveness. But, they actually got themselves into a situation where the gov't now wants more control over what they are doing. They kinda got burned.
By pretty well established, do you mean the MSM has repeated the baloney a bazillion times? That doesn't make it established.
You're obviously not paying much attention to this matter. Mueller's indictments outline a budget for the Internet Research Agency in the $25 MILLION range. There are two reports that outline the entire disinformation campaign in which they reached something around 126 MILLION people on Facebook alone, and another 20 million on Instagram, and I don't even know how many with 30,000 posts on Twitter and more on YouTube and elsewhere. It's a staggeringly huge campaign.
fastasleep said: I've read about him in a few places in the past, and literally read his own words in which he repeatedly lumps homosexuality with murder, rape, and incest, among many other horrible claims. He's hateful and dishonest and unscientific in his views. He literally said: “the homosexual community and Muslim community [are] joining together” pass laws banning ‘hate speech’ in America in order to bring about “totalitarianism” by “shutting up the opponents.” which is all hateful and patently untrue bullshit. He's intellectually dishonest because he claims he was "fired for his privately-held beliefs" which is also false. He was fired by Bank of America and Cisco from "team building" type jobs because he's publicly a hateful bigot, and as you can maybe extrapolate from this, those companies are diverse in that they employ the exact types people he directs his hatred towards. It's not rocket science.
I don't suppose context is important?
While I don't know exactly what you're referring to, yes, in Christian (or at least the more conservative side of Christianity) scripture/theology, homosexuality is considered a sin, as are a whole bunch of other things. So, I suppose it is both fair, yet misleading, to say Christians 'lump them all together.' In a way, yes. But, that also doesn't mean they aren't differentiated. But, I guess I'm missing the point as to why that is so horrible. Have you ever run across some of the things various people/groups say about Christians? There is a lot of 'hate' to go around, but that doesn't mean everyone who expresses an opinion you disagree with his hateful.
re: homosexual and Muslim community joining - Again, I don't know the context, but I think it's pretty well recognized that in terms of the left's use of intersectionality as power-play, a whole bunch groups are joining in essence in using that ideology to shut-down people who disagree with them. Maybe totalitarianism is a bit strong, in that it isn't yet the entire government, though governmental power is being used to pull it off.
re: publicly hateful bigot - I guess you'd have to show me an example. I know his views around homosexuality being a sin is considered hateful, but that's just a form of bullying (applying a pejorative term that isn't warranted to pressure).
re: diverse - Well, then they probably also employ people who would agree with Frank. Why is one not accepted in this so-called diversity? I'm willing to be there are some people at BoA or Cisco who have expressed some opinions about Christians that a Christian might find offensive too, if one went searching far enough. Should they be dismissed as well? Wouldn't diversity be including both, rather than getting rid of one or the other?
For what it is worth, I disagree with Frank on a number of theological issues. I don't follow all his work, and I've yet to meet him (beyond a couple online interactions), but I run in circles with several people who know him, and seem to respect him. But, I don't think your characterization of his is very accurate in accordance with anything I've ever heard him say or write.
But, again, I'm not sure how that is relevant to his quote. Isn't this little rant you've been on kind of a ad hominem?
fastasleep said: You're obviously not paying much attention to this matter. Mueller's indictments outline a budget for the Internet Research Agency in the $25 MILLION range. There are two reports that outline the entire disinformation campaign in which they reached something around 126 MILLION people on Facebook alone, and another 20 million on Instagram, and I don't even know how many with 30,000 posts on Twitter and more on YouTube and elsewhere. It's a staggeringly huge campaign.
But, the reason I say it is baloney, is I actually know how un-influential social media ad-buy is in reality. For the amounts of money they spent, there is NO WAY they could have attained the reach or influence that is being claimed. And, there is a LOT of reason to try and pretend how influential all of this is for multiple reasons: 1. The social media companies want you to believe their systems are insanely effective. 2. The gov't is just aching for some reason to have a finger in controlling (or eliminating what they don't like) social media. 3. The Democrats and Hillary want to justify how they possibly lost to Trump. 4. The MSM want to justify how they could have possibly called the election so poorly. 5. They are all hoping to get Trump out.
Even if the reports say exactly what you say they do (which seems to run counter to other articles like the one I linked, and from people who also have claimed to read them... like the host of Congressional Dish, or Adam Curry of No Agenda.... I don't have time to read them), I'm still not sure I'd believe them, as they don't seem to match reality in so many ways (again, effectiveness of social media, applicability of proposed ads to have the influence they are said to, even if the stats were accurate).
fastasleep said: I've read about him in a few places in the past, and literally read his own words in which he repeatedly lumps homosexuality with murder, rape, and incest, among many other horrible claims. He's hateful and dishonest and unscientific in his views. He literally said: “the homosexual community and Muslim community [are] joining together” pass laws banning ‘hate speech’ in America in order to bring about “totalitarianism” by “shutting up the opponents.” which is all hateful and patently untrue bullshit. He's intellectually dishonest because he claims he was "fired for his privately-held beliefs" which is also false. He was fired by Bank of America and Cisco from "team building" type jobs because he's publicly a hateful bigot, and as you can maybe extrapolate from this, those companies are diverse in that they employ the exact types people he directs his hatred towards. It's not rocket science.
I don't suppose context is important?
While I don't know exactly what you're referring to, yes, in Christian (or at least the more conservative side of Christianity) scripture/theology, homosexuality is considered a sin, as are a whole bunch of other things. So, I suppose it is both fair, yet misleading, to say Christians 'lump them all together.' In a way, yes. But, that also doesn't mean they aren't differentiated. But, I guess I'm missing the point as to why that is so horrible. Have you ever run across some of the things various people/groups say about Christians? There is a lot of 'hate' to go around, but that doesn't mean everyone who expresses an opinion you disagree with his hateful.
re: homosexual and Muslim community joining - Again, I don't know the context, but I think it's pretty well recognized that in terms of the left's use of intersectionality as power-play, a whole bunch groups are joining in essence in using that ideology to shut-down people who disagree with them. Maybe totalitarianism is a bit strong, in that it isn't yet the entire government, though governmental power is being used to pull it off.
re: publicly hateful bigot - I guess you'd have to show me an example. I know his views around homosexuality being a sin is considered hateful, but that's just a form of bullying (applying a pejorative term that isn't warranted to pressure).
re: diverse - Well, then they probably also employ people who would agree with Frank. Why is one not accepted in this so-called diversity? I'm willing to be there are some people at BoA or Cisco who have expressed some opinions about Christians that a Christian might find offensive too, if one went searching far enough. Should they be dismissed as well? Wouldn't diversity be including both, rather than getting rid of one or the other?
For what it is worth, I disagree with Frank on a number of theological issues. I don't follow all his work, and I've yet to meet him (beyond a couple online interactions), but I run in circles with several people who know him, and seem to respect him. But, I don't think your characterization of his is very accurate in accordance with anything I've ever heard him say or write.
But, again, I'm not sure how that is relevant to his quote. Isn't this little rant you've been on kind of a ad hominem?
I'm taking issue with the guy who claims to be persecuted for his "diverse views" in which he persecutes others is somehow a "diverse view". It's literally the opposite.
If you don't understand how equating homosexuality with murder, rape, and incest is hate speech, I can't help you understand any this any better.
fastasleep said: You're obviously not paying much attention to this matter. Mueller's indictments outline a budget for the Internet Research Agency in the $25 MILLION range. There are two reports that outline the entire disinformation campaign in which they reached something around 126 MILLION people on Facebook alone, and another 20 million on Instagram, and I don't even know how many with 30,000 posts on Twitter and more on YouTube and elsewhere. It's a staggeringly huge campaign.
But, the reason I say it is baloney, is I actually know how un-influential social media ad-buy is in reality. For the amounts of money they spent, there is NO WAY they could have attained the reach or influence that is being claimed. And, there is a LOT of reason to try and pretend how influential all of this is for multiple reasons: 1. The social media companies want you to believe their systems are insanely effective. 2. The gov't is just aching for some reason to have a finger in controlling (or eliminating what they don't like) social media. 3. The Democrats and Hillary want to justify how they possibly lost to Trump. 4. The MSM want to justify how they could have possibly called the election so poorly. 5. They are all hoping to get Trump out.
Even if the reports say exactly what you say they do (which seems to run counter to other articles like the one I linked, and from people who also have claimed to read them... like the host of Congressional Dish, or Adam Curry of No Agenda.... I don't have time to read them), I'm still not sure I'd believe them, as they don't seem to match reality in so many ways (again, effectiveness of social media, applicability of proposed ads to have the influence they are said to, even if the stats were accurate).
Sorry, I call baloney.
I just can't with you Fake News types. Is everything in the Washington Post fake to you? The WaPo piece was literally a summary of these non-partisan studies, it's not an opinion piece. I only included it because it had a summary and figured you couldn't be bothered to read the actual studies (or even the synopsis contained in the links to either) to get a sense of what they're all about. And once again, it has little to do with the amount they spent on advertising — that was one small part of a massive $25 Million disinformation and influence campaign by the Russians.
1. Social media is absolutely effective, I don't know what you're even talking about here. 2. These reports were generated outside organizations, not government. (??) 3. These reports are non-partisan, and were ordered by the REPUBLICAN-LED Senate Intelligence Committee 4. There's literally nothing to do with the MSM here, you're just drifting back into Fake News territory instead of looking at the facts 5. Anyone living in reality should be wanting Trump out by now for myriad reasons, but that's not the point of ANY of this
I dunno, that Nation article seems awfully dismissive to me — to deny that there was zero to little effect from this incredibly massive campaign by foreign actors given everything we know at this point is quite frankly insane to me. To be clear, that's an opinion piece by Aaron Maté, who if you look at his other writings, is clearly in denial about the entire Russia investigation in general. Color me surprised.
fastasleep said: I'm taking issue with the guy who claims to be persecuted for his "diverse views" in which he persecutes others is somehow a "diverse view". It's literally the opposite.
If you don't understand how equating homosexuality with murder, rape, and incest is hate speech, I can't help you understand any this any better.
I think we're equivocating on terms a bunch here...
How is someone publishing their views (in the context of their religion, no less) that someone doesn't like or agree with, the same as complaining to HR to get someone fired/dismissed? I'm not sure I'd call them both persecution, exactly.
So, lets say I work at some company and discover that a Muslim wrote some book saying Christians are going to hell. Being a Christian, I'm offended by this, so I complain to HR and HR fires them for non-compliance with their diversity policy. Would you say that is fair?
re: equating - Again with the equivocation. Yes, theologically, all are sin so put one in relationship trouble with God. But, they obviously aren't all equal in terms of impact/outcome. I don't think I know anyone unable to make such distinction, aside from people trying to use it like this.
fastasleep said: I just can't with you Fake News types. Is everything in the Washington Post fake to you? ... To be clear, that's an opinion piece by Aaron Maté, who if you look at his other writings, is clearly in denial about the entire Russia investigation in general. Color me surprised.
No, of course not, just like everything in Bloomberg isn't fake news. But, that one article certainly was, and I think this one is too. Whether the people at WaPo actually realize it or not, who knows? All I know is that WaPo gets caught several times each week with fake or deceptive stories... and I don't have enough time to fact-check them all. I was just providing a counter-view. I don't have time to read all the reports. I've already heard from one podcaster I trust (see below) who did (though not sure about the latest ones).
The problem is that there has been misreporting since the start with this Russia-gate thing, and it isn't just conservatives who think so. There is a lot of want for things to be bad between the USA and Russia, and to damage Trump... so for all the old-school Congress types, this is a win-win. I don't expect any of it to be credible. The Republican neocons are as bad as the Democrat neocons.
As for social media, no it isn't nearly as powerful as claimed. If it were, I'd be running social media for companies and be a millionaire. The last time I ran the numbers based on the testimony, it was $0.36 CPM. Sorry, BS. The Zuck was just hoping all the stupid politicians would throw all their money his way next election, rather than to TV, etc.
And, let's say it were even true. Are people so stupid that seeing some divisive ad changed how they would vote? Most people can't be swayed on how they will vote no matter what you show or tell them. And, it wasn't like the choices weren't super-clear in 2016. Neocon or semi-anti-globalist. I think enough people were just sick of same-ol' same-'ol and decided to give an effectively 3rd party a chance (running on the Republican ticket). First woman president wasn't compelling enough to outweigh neocon. Not rocket science.
fastasleep said: I'm taking issue with the guy who claims to be persecuted for his "diverse views" in which he persecutes others is somehow a "diverse view". It's literally the opposite.
If you don't understand how equating homosexuality with murder, rape, and incest is hate speech, I can't help you understand any this any better.
I think we're equivocating on terms a bunch here...
How is someone publishing their views (in the context of their religion, no less) that someone doesn't like or agree with, the same as complaining to HR to get someone fired/dismissed? I'm not sure I'd call them both persecution, exactly.
So, lets say I work at some company and discover that a Muslim wrote some book saying Christians are going to hell. Being a Christian, I'm offended by this, so I complain to HR and HR fires them for non-compliance with their diversity policy. Would you say that is fair?
re: equating - Again with the equivocation. Yes, theologically, all are sin so put one in relationship trouble with God. But, they obviously aren't all equal in terms of impact/outcome. I don't think I know anyone unable to make such distinction, aside from people trying to use it like this.
Just saying, he was fired from Cisco and BofA for whatever reasons they felt were fit — perhaps to protect their own brand reputation or their employees or both. Aside from that, I think we're digging a hole here, so let's drop it.
fastasleep said: I just can't with you Fake News types. Is everything in the Washington Post fake to you? ... To be clear, that's an opinion piece by Aaron Maté, who if you look at his other writings, is clearly in denial about the entire Russia investigation in general. Color me surprised.
No, of course not, just like everything in Bloomberg isn't fake news. But, that one article certainly was, and I think this one is too. Whether the people at WaPo actually realize it or not, who knows? All I know is that WaPo gets caught several times each week with fake or deceptive stories... and I don't have enough time to fact-check them all. I was just providing a counter-view. I don't have time to read all the reports. I've already heard from one podcaster I trust (see below) who did (though not sure about the latest ones).
The problem is that there has been misreporting since the start with this Russia-gate thing, and it isn't just conservatives who think so. There is a lot of want for things to be bad between the USA and Russia, and to damage Trump... so for all the old-school Congress types, this is a win-win. I don't expect any of it to be credible. The Republican neocons are as bad as the Democrat neocons.
As for social media, no it isn't nearly as powerful as claimed. If it were, I'd be running social media for companies and be a millionaire. The last time I ran the numbers based on the testimony, it was $0.36 CPM. Sorry, BS. The Zuck was just hoping all the stupid politicians would throw all their money his way next election, rather than to TV, etc.
And, let's say it were even true. Are people so stupid that seeing some divisive ad changed how they would vote? Most people can't be swayed on how they will vote no matter what you show or tell them. And, it wasn't like the choices weren't super-clear in 2016. Neocon or semi-anti-globalist. I think enough people were just sick of same-ol' same-'ol and decided to give an effectively 3rd party a chance (running on the Republican ticket). First woman president wasn't compelling enough to outweigh neocon. Not rocket science.
Again, the WaPo article is a summary of the two reports — it's not an opinion piece, and there's nothing factually incorrect here — it's literally summarizing the reports, and everything links back to those. You can skip WaPo altogether and read the two reports, or their respective summaries you reach when you first click through to them, to get a sense of where the information is coming from. And again, these are non-partisan research groups commissioned by a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee.
And again, it's not even mostly about Facebook ads. The reports are full of data about how people interacted with and shared viral non-ad content, reaching hundreds of millions of people. I've SEEN this content shared on social media by both people I know and what appear to be fake accounts run by (likely Russian) trolls. They organized real actual rallies and counter protest events where hundreds or thousands of people actually showed up! You cannot read these reports or even skim them and come away with "yeah social media isn't really effective so this is fake news" response unless you're completely burying your head in the sand and ignoring cold hard facts. Look at the indictments from Mueller already! There are filings in all of those that outline the extent to Russian military intelligence officer involvement and their budget for this massive campaign, again USD $25 Million. Incredible that you can ignore all this actual real world data and go with your gut feelings on this. I understand the rest of what you're saying but to say this wasn't a factor at all is ridiculous on its face.
fastasleep said: Just saying, he was fired from Cisco and BofA for whatever reasons they felt were fit — perhaps to protect their own brand reputation or their employees or both. Aside from that, I think we're digging a hole here, so let's drop it.
Yeah, I think you nailed it there (emphasis added, mine). But yes, even Frank has stated such... that as companies, it is their right to do so. He's just pointing out the irony.
fastasleep said: Again, the WaPo article is a summary of the two reports — it's not an opinion piece, and there's nothing factually incorrect here — it's literally summarizing the reports, and everything links back to those. You can skip WaPo altogether and read the two reports, or their respective summaries you reach when you first click through to them, to get a sense of where the information is coming from. And again, these are non-partisan research groups commissioned by a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee.
And again, it's not even mostly about Facebook ads. The reports are full of data about how people interacted with and shared viral non-ad content, reaching hundreds of millions of people. I've SEEN this content shared on social media by both people I know and what appear to be fake accounts run by (likely Russian) trolls. They organized real actual rallies and counter protest events where hundreds or thousands of people actually showed up! You cannot read these reports or even skim them and come away with "yeah social media isn't really effective so this is fake news" response unless you're completely burying your head in the sand and ignoring cold hard facts. Look at the indictments from Mueller already! There are filings in all of those that outline the extent to Russian military intelligence officer involvement and their budget for this massive campaign, again USD $25 Million. Incredible that you can ignore all this actual real world data and go with your gut feelings on this. I understand the rest of what you're saying but to say this wasn't a factor at all is ridiculous on its face.
It doesn't matter much if it is an opinion piece or not, depending on what it is reporting on. I guess what matters is if those reports are accurate, and whether the WaPo article accurately covers it or not (which seemed to be the contention of that other article I posted). Since I haven't read the reports, I don't know.
But, I'm skeptical of the reports based on the wildly inaccurate media coverage running up to them, and it matters little about "non-partisan research groups commissioned by a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee" as Congress is so darned corrupt, that report will say whatever it needs to to accomplish whatever purposes they want to accomplish.
And, I'm not saying social media has no impact and that people don't share stuff, factual or not. I've also seen it many times as well, Russian-trolls or not. I remember doing dozens of hours of my own research after Charlottesville, for example, and noting how most of the MSM coverage on it everyone was sharing was fake. So, I'm sure it goes both ways.... and btw, the US gov't sinks millions of dollars into propaganda (in the USA, and probably billions trying to do what Russia is being accused of, around the world), so even if true about Russia-gate, I'm not sure what the big deal is.
What I'm saying is that given how bad the results of social media ad-buy actually are - given the tiny amounts of money involved - the claimed impact is blow up by orders of magnitude. And, even if effective, Trump and Hillary (especially Hillary) spent way, way more on similar avenues. So, why weren't their ad-buy effective? It's a narrative to try and explain what happened in 2016 without having to face the reality of why Trump really won, and Hillary really lost.
fastasleep said: Just saying, he was fired from Cisco and BofA for whatever reasons they felt were fit — perhaps to protect their own brand reputation or their employees or both. Aside from that, I think we're digging a hole here, so let's drop it.
Yeah, I think you nailed it there (emphasis added, mine). But yes, even Frank has stated such... that as companies, it is their right to do so. He's just pointing out the irony.
fastasleep said: Again, the WaPo article is a summary of the two reports — it's not an opinion piece, and there's nothing factually incorrect here — it's literally summarizing the reports, and everything links back to those. You can skip WaPo altogether and read the two reports, or their respective summaries you reach when you first click through to them, to get a sense of where the information is coming from. And again, these are non-partisan research groups commissioned by a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee.
And again, it's not even mostly about Facebook ads. The reports are full of data about how people interacted with and shared viral non-ad content, reaching hundreds of millions of people. I've SEEN this content shared on social media by both people I know and what appear to be fake accounts run by (likely Russian) trolls. They organized real actual rallies and counter protest events where hundreds or thousands of people actually showed up! You cannot read these reports or even skim them and come away with "yeah social media isn't really effective so this is fake news" response unless you're completely burying your head in the sand and ignoring cold hard facts. Look at the indictments from Mueller already! There are filings in all of those that outline the extent to Russian military intelligence officer involvement and their budget for this massive campaign, again USD $25 Million. Incredible that you can ignore all this actual real world data and go with your gut feelings on this. I understand the rest of what you're saying but to say this wasn't a factor at all is ridiculous on its face.
It doesn't matter much if it is an opinion piece or not, depending on what it is reporting on. I guess what matters is if those reports are accurate, and whether the WaPo article accurately covers it or not (which seemed to be the contention of that other article I posted). Since I haven't read the reports, I don't know.
But, I'm skeptical of the reports based on the wildly inaccurate media coverage running up to them, and it matters little about "non-partisan research groups commissioned by a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee" as Congress is so darned corrupt, that report will say whatever it needs to to accomplish whatever purposes they want to accomplish.
And, I'm not saying social media has no impact and that people don't share stuff, factual or not. I've also seen it many times as well, Russian-trolls or not. I remember doing dozens of hours of my own research after Charlottesville, for example, and noting how most of the MSM coverage on it everyone was sharing was fake. So, I'm sure it goes both ways.... and btw, the US gov't sinks millions of dollars into propaganda (in the USA, and probably billions trying to do what Russia is being accused of, around the world), so even if true about Russia-gate, I'm not sure what the big deal is.
What I'm saying is that given how bad the results of social media ad-buy actually are - given the tiny amounts of money involved - the claimed impact is blow up by orders of magnitude. And, even if effective, Trump and Hillary (especially Hillary) spent way, way more on similar avenues. So, why weren't their ad-buy effective? It's a narrative to try and explain what happened in 2016 without having to face the reality of why Trump really won, and Hillary really lost.
I appreciate your skepticism despite my disagreements with you. I’m fairly certain your opinion would shift if you read the reports, to some degree. The truth as usual is likely somewhere in the middle.
Comments
Using their billions to bully? The problem is they aren't just going after so-called 'hate groups' but going after anyone who disagrees with the ideology they subscribe to, calling them hate groups whether or not there is any hate involved. And, that's a real problem because the groups who follow their lists don't seem to make any distinction either, which can (and has) resulted in dangerous and violent outcomes.
Well, no, I don't think they are just opinions. If they were, there would be no 'right' to stand up for in the first place. But, my issue is more with the Nineteen Eighty-Four manner of just labeling something as 'right' or 'being on the right side of history' in rhetorical-method without showing up for the actual debate. It's typically just a power-play.
Well, no, because the liberals don't think the things the conservatives are pointing at are wrong in the first place. Whereas, the liberal seems to think the conservatives are pushing for things both think are wrong, but the conservative just wants to get away with it.
Hmm, what countries are those? I suppose you're going to list some capitalistic based places with a higher level of social programs? And... those utopias, if I'm understanding correctly, are starting to unravel a bit too these days, as they are no longer homogeneous cultures mostly resting on highly Christian-influenced principals.
Jesus was a hardcore socialist? Maybe you can explain that one to me.
But, I'm a bit with you on the confusion over conservatism. I'm even with you on some of the forms of corrupted Christianity wedded with government and the Conservative label. I think the ones that tick me off the most are the neocons (which is why I opposed Hillary so vehemently).
Doing a quick definition search, I come up with, "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion" which is a bit close to what I see as real conservatism. Or, maybe to put it in the negative, we don't think the past has nothing to teach us, and that any kind of move away from the past is progressive. We also don't oppose change/innovation, but can be cautious about it.
Then, of course, there is the aspect of 'traditional' views of how culture should operate in terms kings, queens, position, etc. and economics... and I suppose in that regard, I'm a classic liberal. (So, I'd probably say that Liberal/liberal are almost as mucked up categories in the USA, especially.)
OK, I'm sure there are such people, but not in the circles I run in. I'm happy with renewables, but they just aren't even close to being up to the task. Germany's system isn't working, and most of the successful renewables are building nuke plants. Meanwhile, people in the USA are freaking out over getting people to buy electric vehicles when over 1/4 of greenhouse gasses come from electricity. I'm not sure you're actually understanding the scale of the problem.
And... while I'm sure the oil companies have been involved in all sorts of nefarious things, I'm not sure you are understanding the scale of money being pumped into Global Warming fight either... we're talking $trillions.
If a civil discussion could be had, I'm all for that. I'm also for taking reasonable action on things we're pretty sure about (and about the outcome of the actions). What I'm against, is the hysteria, political games, propaganda, and shutting down and dissent. When I see that stuff, I get skeptical quickly, even if I know nothing about the subject. Then, when I dig in a bit and see good arguments on both sides, but one side is being silenced... that pushes me in their favor. Then, when I see how the projections are being fudged, with only the most extreme outcomes being emphasized. Or, when I see reality not aligning with the projections. Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical. (Of course, I'm still in that 97%, as the bar is so low.)
Wow... that was... 'articulate'?!?!? LOL
Yes, I'm well aware that gay people have been bullied. I've stood up for gay friends who've been bullied. But, that doesn't mean turnabout is fair play.
And, yes, absolutely personal rights vs societal impact. Parental rights, for example, are already being impacted. People's rights to hold their beliefs and live in accordance with them have been impacted (cf. Brendan Eich, or some of the 'cake baking' lawsuits, for a small start).
But, as we run this experiment, the real question is how these moves will ultimately impact marriage and family, which are the foundation of society. No fault divorce was the biggest impact, but no longer being able to even define with a marriage or family is, won't be without long-term impact. The effects are already starting to show up in some of the census data where such things are tracked (like Canada).
And, I guess I would suggest you back off your rhetoric a bit there, and invest some time in actual study. If you think you've really nailed Christianity with your silly diatribe above, you've only shown your ignorance to someone who is actually trained in the subject.
Hey, it's a good quote, even if your description where slightly accurate, which it isn't.
I suppose, so long as we just toss out any reasonable word definitions and such.
I hope so, but don't really see it. The few newcomers I've seen have mostly just made a splash as being world-class idiots who can't think at all. But, hopefully there are other more reasonable and learned minds taking over. But, nearly all of the existing ones were bad-news, regardless of political affiliation.
Context is also important... the science of the time was that African people weren't as fully human as European people. So, obviously (on that thinking) they wouldn't necessarily have the same rights. So, they weren't necessarily being as inconsistent as they look through our lens. Humanity has a long history of dehumanizing some 'other' and then treating them differently. We have our own modern-day equivalents.
Somewhat true, in that a lot of people were pissed off about the DNC shenanigans. But, I think even without that, enough of them realized that Hillary is really a neocon in liberal clothing, that they wouldn't have voted for her. Most of the Progressives I know, hate Hillary.
As for Russia, Comey, etc... that's mostly baloney propaganda made up to justify Hillary's loss in the minds of the MSM who still can't believe it.
Haha? Are you claiming that these things didn't happen or that they didn't have any effect on the election? Because it's pretty well established now that both were not insignificant factors in the 2016 election.
I was actually referring presidential and congressional elections, in which case what I said is pretty much true. Voting for nutjobs like Stein or Johnson is literally a waste of a vote. The last third party presidential run that did better than a snowball's chance in hell was Perot, who got under 19% in 1992. We have two third party Senators, one of which is running for President as a Democrat (go figure). State and down ballot races are another story, and better to work on that to build any sort of national momentum towards a viable national third party. From there, you can start working on things like third party ballot access restrictions, debates, building healthy state and national campaign offices and fundraising infrastructure, so forth. Until that happens, anything higher up the ladder is pretty much a fool's errand barring some unicorn candidate, but again, anyone smart enough (see Sanders) will just run Dem/GOP for the reasons mentioned above.
Never say never, but know when your vote has a fighting chance of actually making the difference you want it to, and not work against your own best interests.
I guess it is a matter of definitions, as it seems you and those who oppose his views are equally intolerant of his views (if a bigot is someone who isn't tolerant towards opposing views, which seems the modern definition. I always thought it had something to do with intolerance due to being ignorant of the other, but I don't see that anymore in the definitions.). I'm not sure what 'intellectually dishonest' appeal that would be, though.
Ironically, he was actually dismissed by one of his clients with his corporate consulting service because someone complained to HR about a book he had written in the past, and he was deemed not to meet the company's diversity policy... apparently, his views can't be tolerated in a diverse environment, because diverse now means you hold certain exact views and and everything else gets excluded.
A bit of both, actually. I'm guessing the hacking was probably some port-scanning, which happens to my websites too.
The social media stuff was such a crazy-small amount of money that if true, the power of Facebook should have us all buying ads! In other words, it was baloney. Facebook was lured in to testify, thinking they were going to make a bundle off the next election if they could talk all the political bozos into their supposed effectiveness. But, they actually got themselves into a situation where the gov't now wants more control over what they are doing. They kinda got burned.
By pretty well established, do you mean the MSM has repeated the baloney a bazillion times? That doesn't make it established.
I suppose I agree, but then we're screwed.
Both parties seem to be spiraling off the deep-end further each election. At what point will they both become so crazy that people decide they just can't do it any longer? But, I suppose as long as they can keep up the 'us vs them' thing, the masses think they have to support one to avoid the other. If people could start paying a bit more attention to Congress, though, they'd see that isn't the case... peas in a pod on the big stuff.
Yep, which is why I didn't vote for either. However, in hindsight, the choice would be simple if I had to vote tomorrow. I've learned a lot since then.
Yes, that made my non-voting for either much easier at the time. I knew what the outcome would be for the county/state where my vote would be counted, and that it wouldn't even be slightly close. Yes, if I had lived in one of the close places, I'd have had to ponder it more, but likely would have been who I'd vote for if the election were tomorrow. As I said above, I've learned a lot since then, but it has mostly reinforced where I was then. (Basically, Hillary is even more a neocon than I had known, and Trump hasn't been as bad as I might have feared.)
You're obviously not paying much attention to this matter. Mueller's indictments outline a budget for the Internet Research Agency in the $25 MILLION range. There are two reports that outline the entire disinformation campaign in which they reached something around 126 MILLION people on Facebook alone, and another 20 million on Instagram, and I don't even know how many with 30,000 posts on Twitter and more on YouTube and elsewhere. It's a staggeringly huge campaign.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/
The reports I mentioned, much of which I've actually read, outline all of this in great detail. There's nothing "crazy small" about any of this:
46 pages:
https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/12/The-IRA-Social-Media-and-Political-Polarization.pdf
101 pages:
https://disinformationreport.blob.core.windows.net/disinformation-report/NewKnowledge-Disinformation-Report-Whitepaper.pdf
There's your "baloney".
While I don't know exactly what you're referring to, yes, in Christian (or at least the more conservative side of Christianity) scripture/theology, homosexuality is considered a sin, as are a whole bunch of other things. So, I suppose it is both fair, yet misleading, to say Christians 'lump them all together.' In a way, yes. But, that also doesn't mean they aren't differentiated. But, I guess I'm missing the point as to why that is so horrible. Have you ever run across some of the things various people/groups say about Christians? There is a lot of 'hate' to go around, but that doesn't mean everyone who expresses an opinion you disagree with his hateful.
re: homosexual and Muslim community joining - Again, I don't know the context, but I think it's pretty well recognized that in terms of the left's use of intersectionality as power-play, a whole bunch groups are joining in essence in using that ideology to shut-down people who disagree with them. Maybe totalitarianism is a bit strong, in that it isn't yet the entire government, though governmental power is being used to pull it off.
re: publicly hateful bigot - I guess you'd have to show me an example. I know his views around homosexuality being a sin is considered hateful, but that's just a form of bullying (applying a pejorative term that isn't warranted to pressure).
re: diverse - Well, then they probably also employ people who would agree with Frank. Why is one not accepted in this so-called diversity? I'm willing to be there are some people at BoA or Cisco who have expressed some opinions about Christians that a Christian might find offensive too, if one went searching far enough. Should they be dismissed as well? Wouldn't diversity be including both, rather than getting rid of one or the other?
For what it is worth, I disagree with Frank on a number of theological issues. I don't follow all his work, and I've yet to meet him (beyond a couple online interactions), but I run in circles with several people who know him, and seem to respect him. But, I don't think your characterization of his is very accurate in accordance with anything I've ever heard him say or write.
But, again, I'm not sure how that is relevant to his quote. Isn't this little rant you've been on kind of a ad hominem?
WaPo? (I'm not sure they have any more credibility with a conservative, than Bloomberg does in these forums.)
Anyway, here's another take: https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/
But, the reason I say it is baloney, is I actually know how un-influential social media ad-buy is in reality. For the amounts of money they spent, there is NO WAY they could have attained the reach or influence that is being claimed. And, there is a LOT of reason to try and pretend how influential all of this is for multiple reasons:
1. The social media companies want you to believe their systems are insanely effective.
2. The gov't is just aching for some reason to have a finger in controlling (or eliminating what they don't like) social media.
3. The Democrats and Hillary want to justify how they possibly lost to Trump.
4. The MSM want to justify how they could have possibly called the election so poorly.
5. They are all hoping to get Trump out.
Even if the reports say exactly what you say they do (which seems to run counter to other articles like the one I linked, and from people who also have claimed to read them... like the host of Congressional Dish, or Adam Curry of No Agenda.... I don't have time to read them), I'm still not sure I'd believe them, as they don't seem to match reality in so many ways (again, effectiveness of social media, applicability of proposed ads to have the influence they are said to, even if the stats were accurate).
Sorry, I call baloney.
If you don't understand how equating homosexuality with murder, rape, and incest is hate speech, I can't help you understand any this any better.
I just can't with you Fake News types. Is everything in the Washington Post fake to you? The WaPo piece was literally a summary of these non-partisan studies, it's not an opinion piece. I only included it because it had a summary and figured you couldn't be bothered to read the actual studies (or even the synopsis contained in the links to either) to get a sense of what they're all about. And once again, it has little to do with the amount they spent on advertising — that was one small part of a massive $25 Million disinformation and influence campaign by the Russians.
1. Social media is absolutely effective, I don't know what you're even talking about here.
2. These reports were generated outside organizations, not government. (??)
3. These reports are non-partisan, and were ordered by the REPUBLICAN-LED Senate Intelligence Committee
4. There's literally nothing to do with the MSM here, you're just drifting back into Fake News territory instead of looking at the facts
5. Anyone living in reality should be wanting Trump out by now for myriad reasons, but that's not the point of ANY of this
I dunno, that Nation article seems awfully dismissive to me — to deny that there was zero to little effect from this incredibly massive campaign by foreign actors given everything we know at this point is quite frankly insane to me. To be clear, that's an opinion piece by Aaron Maté, who if you look at his other writings, is clearly in denial about the entire Russia investigation in general. Color me surprised.
How is someone publishing their views (in the context of their religion, no less) that someone doesn't like or agree with, the same as complaining to HR to get someone fired/dismissed? I'm not sure I'd call them both persecution, exactly.
So, lets say I work at some company and discover that a Muslim wrote some book saying Christians are going to hell. Being a Christian, I'm offended by this, so I complain to HR and HR fires them for non-compliance with their diversity policy. Would you say that is fair?
re: equating - Again with the equivocation. Yes, theologically, all are sin so put one in relationship trouble with God. But, they obviously aren't all equal in terms of impact/outcome. I don't think I know anyone unable to make such distinction, aside from people trying to use it like this.
No, of course not, just like everything in Bloomberg isn't fake news. But, that one article certainly was, and I think this one is too. Whether the people at WaPo actually realize it or not, who knows? All I know is that WaPo gets caught several times each week with fake or deceptive stories... and I don't have enough time to fact-check them all. I was just providing a counter-view. I don't have time to read all the reports. I've already heard from one podcaster I trust (see below) who did (though not sure about the latest ones).
The problem is that there has been misreporting since the start with this Russia-gate thing, and it isn't just conservatives who think so. There is a lot of want for things to be bad between the USA and Russia, and to damage Trump... so for all the old-school Congress types, this is a win-win. I don't expect any of it to be credible. The Republican neocons are as bad as the Democrat neocons.
Here are a couple good podcast episodes for a backgrounder on US/Russia relations of late... (and the host is a liberal-progressive Bernie supporter):
https://congressionaldish.com/cd167-combating-russia-ndaa-2018-live/
https://congressionaldish.com/cd168-nuclear-desperation/
As for social media, no it isn't nearly as powerful as claimed. If it were, I'd be running social media for companies and be a millionaire. The last time I ran the numbers based on the testimony, it was $0.36 CPM. Sorry, BS. The Zuck was just hoping all the stupid politicians would throw all their money his way next election, rather than to TV, etc.
And, let's say it were even true. Are people so stupid that seeing some divisive ad changed how they would vote? Most people can't be swayed on how they will vote no matter what you show or tell them. And, it wasn't like the choices weren't super-clear in 2016. Neocon or semi-anti-globalist. I think enough people were just sick of same-ol' same-'ol and decided to give an effectively 3rd party a chance (running on the Republican ticket). First woman president wasn't compelling enough to outweigh neocon. Not rocket science.
Again, the WaPo article is a summary of the two reports — it's not an opinion piece, and there's nothing factually incorrect here — it's literally summarizing the reports, and everything links back to those. You can skip WaPo altogether and read the two reports, or their respective summaries you reach when you first click through to them, to get a sense of where the information is coming from. And again, these are non-partisan research groups commissioned by a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee.
And again, it's not even mostly about Facebook ads. The reports are full of data about how people interacted with and shared viral non-ad content, reaching hundreds of millions of people. I've SEEN this content shared on social media by both people I know and what appear to be fake accounts run by (likely Russian) trolls. They organized real actual rallies and counter protest events where hundreds or thousands of people actually showed up! You cannot read these reports or even skim them and come away with "yeah social media isn't really effective so this is fake news" response unless you're completely burying your head in the sand and ignoring cold hard facts. Look at the indictments from Mueller already! There are filings in all of those that outline the extent to Russian military intelligence officer involvement and their budget for this massive campaign, again USD $25 Million. Incredible that you can ignore all this actual real world data and go with your gut feelings on this. I understand the rest of what you're saying but to say this wasn't a factor at all is ridiculous on its face.
It doesn't matter much if it is an opinion piece or not, depending on what it is reporting on. I guess what matters is if those reports are accurate, and whether the WaPo article accurately covers it or not (which seemed to be the contention of that other article I posted). Since I haven't read the reports, I don't know.
But, I'm skeptical of the reports based on the wildly inaccurate media coverage running up to them, and it matters little about "non-partisan research groups commissioned by a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee" as Congress is so darned corrupt, that report will say whatever it needs to to accomplish whatever purposes they want to accomplish.
And, I'm not saying social media has no impact and that people don't share stuff, factual or not. I've also seen it many times as well, Russian-trolls or not. I remember doing dozens of hours of my own research after Charlottesville, for example, and noting how most of the MSM coverage on it everyone was sharing was fake. So, I'm sure it goes both ways.... and btw, the US gov't sinks millions of dollars into propaganda (in the USA, and probably billions trying to do what Russia is being accused of, around the world), so even if true about Russia-gate, I'm not sure what the big deal is.
What I'm saying is that given how bad the results of social media ad-buy actually are - given the tiny amounts of money involved - the claimed impact is blow up by orders of magnitude. And, even if effective, Trump and Hillary (especially Hillary) spent way, way more on similar avenues. So, why weren't their ad-buy effective? It's a narrative to try and explain what happened in 2016 without having to face the reality of why Trump really won, and Hillary really lost.