America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[AProudLefty]

In post #165, you say you read the linked article above. Which means that at this point, you should know that being someone's ideological opponent simply means that you disagree with someone on a given subject. No need to be a "Russian asset".

It is not about disagreement (which is healthy). It is about assuming that the other person does not know what you know.

"Ideological opponent" is just a fancy and smart sounding (ironically) phrase of the Dunning-Kruger effect both experience..

 

[Scott]

While it's true that just about anyone can create a blog online, there -are- qualified journalists on the internet, and there are some places where such qualified journalists congregate. I believe Scheerpost is a good example.

I personally try to avoid insulting terms like that- furthermore, in the scale of intelligent life forms on earth, humans are pretty up on the scale. I think a better term would low information people, which I'm borrowing from the term "low information voters", which became a popular term back in the 1990s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter

The solution in my view is to do one's part to help inform people with solid evidence on important issues of the day.

If you were actually trying to inform others, shouldn't you first inform yourself and not resort to posting propaganda as if it is true information?

I have yet to see a post of yours that validates your claim that I am posting "propaganda".

 

[Scott]

The RT article's main points were from the american publication The Intercept, which I retroactively linked to in the opening post. Had I realized that before starting this thread, I probably would have just sourced that article and all this discussion about RT wouldn't have even happened.

Being able to complain about censorship doesn't mean there isn't censorship.

I never claimed that there wasn't censorship in Russia.

For someone that claims they are informed, you certainly aren't very informed. You would have realized The Intercept was the source of the RT article if you had actually read the RT article.

Not true. I did read the article. What I didn't do on the first pass was click on all the links in the article. Once I clicked on the first one, I found the Intercept article which was clearly the source of much of the RT article's information.

 

[Scott]

I think the idea that it would affected the election results is based on pure partisan speculation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532

Your article is good in terms of what Zuckerberg said in regards to the Hunter Biden laptop story, but it provides no evidence that the story couldn't have affected the election results.

You have provided no evidence it would have affected the election results.

I haven't provided any -hard- evidence that it would have affected the election results, but I don't think it's much of a leap to see how knowledge that many if not all of the allegations made in the New York Post article on Hunter Biden's laptop story were true could have affected Joe Biden's election run.

Donald Trump's tax returns might have affected the election returns and we didn't see those.

That's true.

The problem with the Hunter laptop story is that there was no way for any news service to verify it as required by journalistic standards.

It's one thing to say that a story hasn't been verified, quite another to claim that it's false.

The only one with the laptop was Rudy and he didn't allow anyone to do a technical analysis to see if it had been tampered with. Ultimately the released emails don't show corruption by Joe Biden. They allow propagandists to make absurd claims that they do when the reality is that they don't have evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Since no credible news service was reporting on the Hunter laptop, the story did have all the tells of a Russian propaganda campaign so Facebook had every reason to not let it become rife on their service.

The source was apparently the New York Post. I certainly don't read it on a regular basis, but they seem to have had some good stories recently, especially considering they're a mainstream news source, which is so filled with propaganda that I rarely read it.

 

[Scott]

Your article is good in terms of what Zuckerberg said in regards to the Hunter Biden laptop story, but it provides no evidence that the story couldn't have affected the election results.

There is no evidence whether it could have affected the election.

I'd agree that there is no -hard- evidence that it could have affected the election, but as I just told PRS (Poor Richard Saunders), it doesn't take much of a leap to consider that had the mainstream media been so quick to label it disinformation and instead put more energy into investigating its veracity, it may well have.

 

[Scott]

Absolutely hilarious, a literal state-run Russian mouthpiece ranting about a 'Ministry of Truth'

As I've pointed out since posting the opening post, most of the information comes not from RT, but from its main source, the American publication The Intercept. I retroactively ilnked to it in the opening post (it's the very first link in the excerpt from RT).

As to RT being a "state run Russian mouthpiece", it's certainly state run, but I've found that the articles in it don't always concord with what I believe would be official Kremlin stances.

 

[Scott]

I am questioning your trust in the U.S. government's claim that it is trying to prevent Russian disinformation.

You seem to be filled with credulity when it comes to Russia and then don't apply the same standard to the US. What evidence do you have of the US preventing facts from US citizens being posted on social media?

Some interesting excerpts The Intercept's article:

**
Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who is also running for Senate, discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.

[snip]

There is also a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use. At the time of writing, the “content request system” at facebook.com/xtakedowns/login is still live. DHS and Meta, the parent company of Facebook, did not respond to a request for comment. The FBI declined to comment.

[snip]

How disinformation is defined by the government has not been clearly articulated, and the inherently subjective nature of what constitutes disinformation provides a broad opening for DHS officials to make politically motivated determinations about what constitutes dangerous speech.
**

Source:
Truth Cops - Leaked Documents Outline DHS's Plans to Police Disinformation | The Intercept

 

[Scott]

I find it particularly ironic that you'd link to the source of another state controlled media outlet, in this case the BBC. There's plenty of propaganda to go around:

How the BBC Spreads Lies: How to read propaganda | thesaker.is

Given the amount of propaganda on all sides, I think it makes sense to listen to all sides.

The BBC is a state controlled media outlet? Would you care to provide some evidence to support that claim?

Sure, but you may dismiss the information because of the source, which is RT. The article was posted in March 2021, well before Russia's military operation in Ukraine. Here we go:

**
New documents raise serious questions about how well-deserved British state broadcaster BBC’s 'unimpeachable' reputation is, and also what impact its relationship with the UK government has on its supposedly ‘impartial’ output.

Within a tranche of secret UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) papers, recently leaked by hacktivist collective Anonymous, are files indicating that BBC Media Action (BBCMA) – the outlets ‘charitable’ arm – plays a central role in Whitehall-funded and directed psyops initiatives targeted at Russia.

American journalist Max Blumenthal has comprehensively exposed how, at the FCDO’s behest, BBCMA covertly cultivated Russian journalists, established influence networks within and outside Russia, and promoted pro-Whitehall, anti-Moscow propaganda in Russian-speaking areas.
**

Full article:
BBC secrets revealed: Leaked files indicate UK state media engaged in anti-Moscow information warfare operations in Eastern Europe | RT

 

[Hawkeye10]

I've found that 'woke' has become a term so broad that it has become almost meaningless. However, I think we can agree that the government's strong involvement in censorship vis a vis their newly minted "Ministry of Truth" vehicle is a detriment to society.

WOKE is the project of remaking man into something fit for UTOPIA through force, as is taught at the Universities, especially the Ivy's.

It is mental illness and abuse.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I already responded to that post in post #95. You responded to that in turn in post #115, I responded to that one in post #141, you responded back in post #148, I responded back in post #174 and your final response so far is in post #176. I'm currently on this post of yours (Post #167), should get to to 176 soon enough.

Then why did you ask for my evidence since you already had it?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I have yet to see a post of yours that validates your claim that I am posting "propaganda".

The RT article is propaganda. You used it as your source. Do you deny using it? Do you want to claim RT has nothing to do with the Russian government? Do you want to claim that government disinformation is propaganda.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I haven't provided any -hard- evidence that it would have affected the election results, but I don't think it's much of a leap to see how knowledge that many if not all of the allegations made in the New York Post article on Hunter Biden's laptop story were true could have affected Joe Biden's election run.

What specific allegations do you think would have affected the outcome of the election. The allegations were for the most part ridiculous and not supported by any facts and still aren't supported by facts today.
The fact that Joe Biden's son did drugs is hardly a reflection on Joe anymore than the allegations that Don Jr does coke is a reflection on Don Sr.

That's true.



It's one thing to say that a story hasn't been verified, quite another to claim that it's false.

Who claimed it was false. It had all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign. That didn't make it false and it also didn't make it true. It made it so other news services couldn't verify it. The FBI didn't tell FB to pull all references to the story. FB made the decision on their own to limit its reach based on the FBI giving a generic warning about Russian disinformation.

By the way, most of the Biden laptop still can't be verified. The tech experts that have looked at it say the hard drive is a mess and has been modified multiple times so they can't say with certainty that most of the stuff on it was on the computer when Biden left it at a computer repair store.

The source was apparently the New York Post. I certainly don't read it on a regular basis, but they seem to have had some good stories recently, especially considering they're a mainstream news source, which is so filled with propaganda that I rarely read it.

So you don't read the mainstream news because it is filled with propaganda but you read RT because it is filled with propaganda? You do have a credulity that you insist on revealing.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Sure, but you may dismiss the information because of the source, which is RT. The article was posted in March 2021, well before Russia's military operation in Ukraine. Here we go:

**
New documents raise serious questions about how well-deserved British state broadcaster BBC’s 'unimpeachable' reputation is, and also what impact its relationship with the UK government has on its supposedly ‘impartial’ output.

Within a tranche of secret UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) papers, recently leaked by hacktivist collective Anonymous, are files indicating that BBC Media Action (BBCMA) – the outlets ‘charitable’ arm – plays a central role in Whitehall-funded and directed psyops initiatives targeted at Russia.

American journalist Max Blumenthal has comprehensively exposed how, at the FCDO’s behest, BBCMA covertly cultivated Russian journalists, established influence networks within and outside Russia, and promoted pro-Whitehall, anti-Moscow propaganda in Russian-speaking areas.
**

Full article:
BBC secrets revealed: Leaked files indicate UK state media engaged in anti-Moscow information warfare operations in Eastern Europe | RT

So I ask you for evidence to support your claim that the BBC is state controlled and you deflect to stories that in no way show that the BBC is state controlled. Do you see the problem with your claim and the fact that you made it without evidence and now rather than retracting it you try to deflect?

 

[Scott]

In post #165, you say you read the linked article above. Which means that at this point, you should know that being someone's ideological opponent simply means that you disagree with someone on a given subject. No need to be a "Russian asset".

It is not about disagreement (which is healthy). It is about assuming that the other person does not know what you know.

"Ideological opponent" is just a fancy and smart sounding (ironically) phrase of the Dunning-Kruger effect both experience..

I took a look at Wikipedia's definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it seems to be something very different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[Scott]

WOKE is the project of remaking man into something fit for UTOPIA through force, as is taught at the Universities, especially the Ivy's.

It is mental illness and abuse.

Decided to do a bit of research of this. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term certainly sounds good:

**
aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

That certainly -sounds- good.

 

[AProudLefty]

I took a look at Wikipedia's definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it seems to be something very different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

No it is not different.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias (cited in that article you linked to) whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.[/I]

In the article you linked to the first time about the "ideological opponents", the arguer assumes that the other person have no clue or is being ignorant and the arguer knows better and thinks he knows something they don't or understand.

Again, the "Ideological opponent" phenomenon is just a fancy words for DKE. It's pretty similar, if not the same.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Decided to do a bit of research of this. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term certainly sounds good:

**
aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

That certainly -sounds- good.

BullShit.

 

[Hawkeye10]

"WOKE appears to me to be revenge against God for the crime of being, it is the classic Cain and Abel story"
Jordan Peterson.

It is also a yearning for UTOPIA, which is driven by a combination of ignorance and mental illness.

 

[Flash]

I'd agree that there is no -hard- evidence that it could have affected the election, but as I just told PRS (Poor Richard Saunders), it doesn't take much of a leap to consider that had the mainstream media been so quick to label it disinformation and instead put more energy into investigating its veracity, it may well have.

I doubt serious any loyal Democrats or Trump haters are going to change their vote because of something Hunter Biden did. At the time that laptop information was released there was no evidence Joe Biden did anything wrong--only speculation--and that is still true.

In the 2016 election many negative stories appeared about Trump's personal life and it did not stop loyal Republicans or Trump supporters from voting for him.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I doubt serious any loyal Democrats or Trump haters are going to change their vote because of something Hunter Biden did. At the time that laptop information was released there was no evidence Joe Biden did anything wrong--only speculation--and that is still true.

In the 2016 election many negative stories appeared about Trump's personal life and it did not stop loyal Republicans or Trump supporters from voting for him.

Given that Joke has repeatedly and forcefully stated he had nothing to do with his son's business dealings but has been seen in photos with his son and his son's business associates, and that Bagman's business partners say Joke was involved intimately with his son's business deals, it's likely that it won't take much digging to turn up some very inconvenient truths that will damage Joke severely.