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

[Scott]

It actually has multiple definitions of the term, but I think anyone who knows what "ideological" and "opponent" mean can figure out what they mean together.

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

So how does that make us both "ideological opponents" of each other? It makes no sense. You and I are just two guys having a discussion/debate.

I was actually thinking of the definition of ideology and how it doesn't -quite- fit the situation. The thing is, it's still the closest fit. Better (but not something that's really a term) would be -idea- opponent, as in, we disagree on a given idea.

It all comes back to the legitimacy of your source. Me asking you for a better source and you accused me of treating you as my ideological opponent, which you are not. Maybe you have been playing victim the whole time.

That right there is an example of where we are ideological (or idea) opponents. You thinking that rt isn't a good source in this context, and me disagreeing with you.

I think most people would prefer not having the text size jump up and down, but I'll take it over insults. I think we both understand what it means. Your mistake is in thinking that the above Mary Ekaete's definition of an ideological opponent. It's not.

I have re pasted and re pasted and re pasted the same part from the source YOU linked to and yet you continue to ignore the relevant parts. So I felt it is needed to highlight the parts so you can SEE them and not miss them.

Again, you're guilty of assuming I didn't see something you wrote, when in truth I simply didn't feel it was worth responding to.

Then you are saying there is no definition of "ideological opponent"?

No, there are certainly definitions of an ideological opponent. However, as far as I know, no dictionary has come up with one. However, as mentioned above, one can simply look at the definitions of "ideological" and "opponent" and figure out what they'd mean together.

You just wanted to link me to an article that is pretty much about Dunning-Kruger effect?

No, Mary Ekaete's article is about ideological opponents. She makes no mention of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

So let's stop using the retarded term, "ideological opponent", because it makes zero sense.

If there were a better, polite term for someone who one disagrees with on a given subject, I'd be the first to recommend using it. However, I haven't seen such a term, unless you'd be fine with coining the term "idea opponent".

 

[Scott]

You're actually currently guilty of doing something mentioned in Mary Ekaete's article. Specifically, this part:

**
We’ve all been here before. We see them, our ideological opponents. People whose brain cells are so obviously depleted to the point that they believe insanities. The olodos.

Or perhaps their intelligence isn’t the issue. Maybe they have stones where their hearts should be, completely devoid of empathy and compassion. Evil rules their moral compass and it shows in their erroneous opinions.

Or maybe they are just ignorant, their eyes never reading information that you are certain would change their minds. Their lives without the experience that would shift their perspective.

Whatever the case may be, they are wrong. And you know it.
**

Source:
Musings on the “Other Side”: Why Your Ideological Opponents Don’t Think Like You Do | cerebralistic.com

Then again you are saying that your action is suspect if you are really not "unaware".

What action are you referring to?

 

[AProudLefty]

I was actually thinking of the definition of ideology and how it doesn't -quite- fit the situation. The thing is, it's still the closest fit. Better (but not something that's really a term) would be -idea- opponent, as in, we disagree on a given idea.

That's true. This is the idea where I disagree with you.

"America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks"

Nothing's wrong with that disagreement. But yeah you're right, "idea opponent" would be a closer term"

That right there is an example of where we are ideological (or idea) opponents. You thinking that rt isn't a good source in this context, and me disagreeing with you.

Questioning your source does not make you my "ideological opponent".

I am not sure if it is on purpose, but did you miss my example about the CCP source?

No, Mary Ekaete's article is about ideological opponents. She makes no mention of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

She does not have to mention the DKE. Her explanation and examples fit the definition of the DKE.

If there were a better, polite term for someone who one disagrees with on a given subject, I'd be the first to recommend using it. However, I haven't seen such a term, unless you'd be fine with coining the term "idea opponent".

How about "opponent"?

noun
someone who offers opposition

synonyms: adversary, antagonist, opposer, resister

 

[AProudLefty]

What action are you referring to?

The action of being aware of the questionable nature of your source.

 

[Scott]

I was actually thinking of the definition of ideology and how it doesn't -quite- fit the situation. The thing is, it's still the closest fit. Better (but not something that's really a term) would be -idea- opponent, as in, we disagree on a given idea.

That's true. This is the idea where I disagree with you.

"America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks"

Nothing's wrong with that disagreement. But yeah you're right, "idea opponent" would be a closer term"

Glad we agree that idea opponent would be a better term. Perhaps I'll start using that term instead. Anyway, I thought your disagreement was with RT as a good news source. Are you saying you disagree with the title of their article instead?

It all comes back to the legitimacy of your source. Me asking you for a better source and you accused me of treating you as my ideological opponent, which you are not.

That right there is an example of where we are ideological (or idea) opponents. You thinking that rt isn't a good source in this context, and me disagreeing with you.

Questioning your source does not make you my "ideological opponent".

You did more than question my source, you asked for a better one. In this case, I felt that RT's article was a perfectly good source. Thus, we are ideological, or idea opponents on the subject of RT as a good news source.

I am not sure if it is on purpose, but did you miss my example about the CCP source?

Not only did I note miss it, I actually responded to it in post 258:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ust-rebranded-RT/page18&p=5385899#post5385899

No, Mary Ekaete's article is about ideological opponents. She makes no mention of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

She does not have to mention the DKE. Her explanation and examples fit the definition of the DKE.

She certainly does mention examples that could describe the DKE. However, those examples are meant to exemplify pitfalls in arguing with ideological opponents. She is not using them to define what an ideological opponent is.

If there were a better, polite term for someone who one disagrees with on a given subject, I'd be the first to recommend using it. However, I haven't seen such a term, unless you'd be fine with coining the term "idea opponent".

How about "opponent"?

noun
someone who offers opposition

synonyms: adversary, antagonist, opposer, resister

Doable, but rather vague. It could be used for 2 soldiers on different sides of a battlefield as well. Perhaps debating opponent would work.

 

[Scott]

The action of being aware of the questionable nature of your source.

We have yet to agree that RT is a questionable source on this subject. You are simply assuming that you are right, which is precisely one of the pitfalls one can make with one's ideological (or debating) opponent that Mary Akaete gets into in her article.

 

[AProudLefty]

Glad we agree that idea opponent would be a better term. Perhaps I'll start using that term instead. Anyway, I thought your disagreement was with RT as a good news source. Are you saying you disagree with the title of their article instead?

I disagree with your title (your premise).

I question the source that supposedly support your premise.

I disagree with you that the "Ministry of Truth" has always been here and has not changed since April 27, 2022.

You did more than question my source, you asked for a better one. In this case, I felt that RT's article was a perfectly good source. Thus, we are ideological, or idea opponents on the subject of RT as a good news source.

RT is a known Russia controlled state media that spread propaganda, which can be and already been verified. It may occasionally report full truths.

The article you linked to used "The Intercept" as their source, which is suspect as well.

Not only did I note miss it, I actually responded to it in post 258:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ust-rebranded-RT/page18&p=5385899#post5385899

Oh yes oops I did miss that one.

But you do get the gist of my point. CGTN is state controlled by China. You'd be right to question the source I provide to you. That wouldn't make me your ideological opponent.

Doable, but rather vague. It could be used for 2 soldiers on different sides of a battlefield as well. Perhaps debating opponent would work.

LOL there you go.

In my mind, two ideological opponents would be two people whose ideologies and politics are polar opposite of each other.

For example, pro-lifers and pro-choicers.

Extreme example: Communists and Fascists.

 

[AProudLefty]

We have yet to agree that RT is a questionable source on this subject. You are simply assuming that you are right, which is precisely one of the pitfalls one can make with one's ideological (or debating) opponent that Mary Akaete gets into in her article.

I do not assume I am right. I am being cautious. I am careful as not to fall into the pitfall of accepting a propaganda.

As I have stated, a state controlled news media can be right from time to time.

 

[Scott]

I disagree with your title (your premise).

Why?

I question the source that supposedly support your premise.

I imagine you're referring to the RT article. However, as I've mentioned in this thread previously, the RT article isn't really the source. When I originally created this thread, I wasn't aware that the origin of much if not all of the information from the RT article was actually from an article from The Intercept. Did you read that article? If not, it's here:

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

I disagree with you that the "Ministry of Truth" has always been here and has not changed since April 27, 2022.

I believe someone mentioned in this thread that the U.S. has never had a Ministry called "The Ministry of Truth", and that is certainly true. The RT article mentioned a Ministry of Truth, but it had single quotes around the term. I believe you know that it's simply an allusion to George Orwell's Ministry of Truth from his book, 1984. What the DHS -did- create on April 27, 2022 was the Disinformation Governance Board. 3 weeks later, it was officially shuttered. But while the DGB was officially shuttered, the DHS simply transferred its functions over to the newly created Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. Thus, while the U.S. has never had an official "Ministry of Truth", and probably never will given the dark nature of said organization in George Orwell's 1984 book, the nature of the DGB, whose functions have since been transferred over to CISA, strongly suggests that the U.S. certainly has a Ministry of Truth in spirit.

You did more than question my source, you asked for a better one. In this case, I felt that RT's article was a perfectly good source. Thus, we are ideological, or idea opponents on the subject of RT as a good news source.

RT is a known Russia controlled state media that spread propaganda, which can be and already been verified.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

It may occasionally report full truths.

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, I've found it to be a -far- more reliable source of information over western mainstream media.

The article you linked to used "The Intercept" as their source, which is suspect as well.

According to who, you?

Not only did I note miss it, I actually responded to it in post 258:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ust-rebranded-RT/page18&p=5385899#post5385899

Oh yes oops I did miss that one.

.

But you do get the gist of my point. CGTN is state controlled by China. You'd be right to question the source I provide to you. That wouldn't make me your ideological opponent.

It would when it came to that particular source. Keep in mind that i'm considering the term ideological opponent in the sense that Mary Ekaete was using it, which was essentially when someone disagrees with you on a given subject, which in this case would be the quality of a given source. But it may be better to use the term debating opponent.

Doable, but rather vague. It could be used for 2 soldiers on different sides of a battlefield as well. Perhaps debating opponent would work.

LOL there you go.

In my mind, two ideological opponents would be two people whose ideologies and politics are polar opposite of each other.

For example, pro-lifers and pro-choicers.

Extreme example: Communists and Fascists.

I agree that that may be a better way to define it. As you pointed out, ideologies are defined as sets of doctrines or ideas, rather than individual ones. Communism and Fascism would be good examples. I'm not sure that pro lifers vs. pro choicers would be a good one, as that really seems to only emcompass one particular issue, rather than a set.

 

[Scott]

Then again you are saying that your action is suspect if you are really not "unaware".

What action are you referring to?

The action of being aware of the questionable nature of your source.

We have yet to agree that RT is a questionable source on this subject. You are simply assuming that you are right, which is precisely one of the pitfalls one can make with one's ideological (or debating) opponent that Mary Akaete gets into in her article.

I do not assume I am right. I am being cautious. I am careful as not to fall into the pitfall of accepting a propaganda.

As I have stated, a state controlled news media can be right from time to time.

Saying that RT is a questionable media source is a stance that we don't share, at least when it comes to the war in Ukraine. RT is hardly the only state financed news outlet. The U.S. has its NPR, the U.K. has its BBC, and Canada has its CBC. And honestly, I've seen no indication that the mainstream corporate media is better. As a matter of fact, I suspect it's frequently worse.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1595930882489331712

 

[Hawkeye10]

Why?



I imagine you're referring to the RT article. However, as I've mentioned in this thread previously, the RT article isn't really the source. When I originally created this thread, I wasn't aware that the origin of much if not all of the information from the RT article was actually from an article from The Intercept. Did you read that article? If not, it's here:

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




I believe someone mentioned in this thread that the U.S. has never had a Ministry called "The Ministry of Truth", and that is certainly true. The RT article mentioned a Ministry of Truth, but it had single quotes around the term. I believe you know that it's simply an allusion to George Orwell's Ministry of Truth from his book, 1984. What the DHS -did- create on April 27, 2022 was the Disinformation Governance Board. 3 weeks later, it was officially shuttered. But while the DGB was officially shuttered, the DHS simply transferred its functions over to the newly created Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. Thus, while the U.S. has never had an official "Ministry of Truth", and probably never will given the dark nature of said organization in George Orwell's 1984 book, the nature of the DGB, whose functions have since been transferred over to CISA, strongly suggests that the U.S. certainly has a Ministry of Truth in spirit.



Do you have any evidence to support this claim?



When it comes to the war in Ukraine, I've found it to be a -far- more reliable source of information over western mainstream media.



According to who, you?



.



It would when it came to that particular source. Keep in mind that i'm considering the term ideological opponent in the sense that Mary Ekaete was using it, which was essentially when someone disagrees with you on a given subject, which in this case would be the quality of a given source. But it may be better to use the term debating opponent.




I agree that that may be a better way to define it. As you pointed out, ideologies are defined as sets of doctrines or ideas, rather than individual ones. Communism and Fascism would be good examples. I'm not sure that pro lifers vs. pro choicers would be a good one, as that really seems to only emcompass one particular issue, rather than a set.

Your posting style is exhausting. You would need to be very very right to be worth the work.

 

[Scott]

Your posting style is exhausting. You would need to be very very right to be worth the work.

Lol . I think it's good to keep in mind that the post you quoted was for A Proud Lefty, not to you. We've been going on in this way for a while now. You may note that he posts in pretty much the same way to my posts.

 

[AProudLefty]

Saying that RT is a questionable media source is a stance that we don't share

It is not a stance. It is what has been verified. As with my example of the China stated controlled news media, you'd question the source. It has been verified to be a source of propaganda.

, at least when it comes to the war in Ukraine. RT is hardly the only state financed news outlet. The U.S. has its NPR, the U.K. has its BBC, and Canada has its CBC. And honestly, I've seen no indication that the mainstream corporate media is better. As a matter of fact, I suspect it's frequently worse.

Well since you mentioned Ukraine, it is hard to tell what's the truth and what's falsehoods coming out of there. Wars are always like that.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As I mentioned in another post, RT's article is a summary of The Intercept's findings, not an exhaustive review. As such, it's only natural that they'd leave some things out. As to your claim that they used exaggeration, I believe you're saying this solely because of the fact that it focused on the leaks and not on other ways the Intercept got information. Considering the fact that The Intercept's subtitle only mentioned the leaks, however, I think one might consider The Intercept somewhat misleading in that respect as well, and I've seen no evidence that The Intercept receives any Russian government funding.




Your NPR link doesn't state it's not federally funded. Wikipedia explicity states that it does receive federal funds:
**
According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB;[47] in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources.[48]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding_in_the_2000s

Your BBC link also makes no mention of it not being government funded. Wikipedia also makes it quite clear that their revenues are based almost entirely on government funding via a tv licensing fee:
**
The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £154.50 per year per household since April 2019.[120] [snip] The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue




You haven't shown that they've put out any disinformation so far.

You seem to be unable to read competently. NPR is not CPB. NPR is not local public radio. NPR gets no direct federal funding according to your wikipedia source.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding

Then if you were really interested in being informed you would look at the actual financials for NPR where they list no federal funding in their revenues.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

People paying a fee is not government funding when it comes to the BBC. The government sets how much the BBC can charge customers and has a law that prevents theft. That is not government funding. That is government preventing a monopoly from charging huge fees.

I have shown they put out disinformation. The fact that you keep claiming they didn't points to you not being "informed" like you claim to be. It points to you being a Russian troll pretending to be informed when clearly you are not. A summary that leaves out many things in order to paint a picture of the US creating a ministry of truth would be propaganda and not a "summary."

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Phoenyx isn't my legal name, but you still converse with me. Is Poor Richard Saunders yours?




First of all, the article isn't even labelled as an opinion. Secondly, the article includes many sources which it links to. I only included 3 here, but it has many more.



You could be doing that right now. How about we stick to the logic and evidence that the author in question presented instead of going off on platitudes?



You are quick to attack a source you don't like as "propaganda", but severely lacking when it comes to providing evidence for your stance.

I don't consider you a valid source for facts. I presume you don't consider me a valid source for facts. Conversing with someone is not the same thing as claiming without any other evidence that what they are posting is factual and the complete truth. The fact that the author is not using his real name should show that it isn't a valid news source and therefore is opinion. The fact that I don't use my real name would point to me not being a valid news source.
I would never use you as a source of facts in order to reach my conclusions. I would consider you a fool if you used me as a source for what is happening in Ukraine or Russia. And yet you are willing to use a source that doesn't use their real name and is not edited by a competent editor to ensure that the piece contains facts. Your argument is that it isn't labeled as an opinion. Does something have to be labeled as an opinion before you can figure out is is one? That would point to you being credulous and not very discerning when it comes to telling facts from fiction.

I am not quick to attack a source as propaganda. I am skeptical of sources and check their "facts" with other sources that I consider reputable. For instance, I don't rely on misinterpretations of what is on wikipedia when I consider whether NPR is government funded or not. I don't rely on your obvious attempt to ignore what was in wiki and I don't rely on wiki itself. I go to the sources that wiki uses if possible to confirm that wiki is telling the truth.

I have already provided my reasons for why I think RT is propaganda when I pointed out how they gave their story a slant that wasn't in the original source. Your refusal to accept that or explain it away speaks volumes about your own credulity.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Saying that RT is a questionable media source is a stance that we don't share, at least when it comes to the war in Ukraine. RT is hardly the only state financed news outlet. The U.S. has its NPR, the U.K. has its BBC, and Canada has its CBC. And honestly, I've seen no indication that the mainstream corporate media is better. As a matter of fact, I suspect it's frequently worse.

Please provide evidence that NPR is owned by the US government. Provide evidence that the US government controls what and how NPR reports on stories.
Please provide evidence that the BBC is owned by the British government. Provide evidence that the British government controls what and how the BBC reports on stories.
Please provide evidence that the CBC is owned by the Canadian government. Provide evidence that the Canadian government controls what and how the CBC reports on stories.
RT was required to register as a foreign agent under FARA because it is owned/controlled by the Russian government. BBC and CBC have not been required to register.

You have made a specious claim that NPR, BBC and CBC are state controlled. There is no evidence supporting that claim.

 

[Scott]

Saying that RT is a questionable media source is a stance that we don't share, at least when it comes to the war in Ukraine.

It is not a stance. It is what has been verified.

Link to where it has been verified then.

As with my example of the China stated controlled news media, you'd question the source. It has been verified to be a source of propaganda.

I certainly don't agree with every article on RT, but then the same could be said for pretty much any mainstream media publication. What RT definitely does -not- have is an anti Russian bias.

Saying that RT is a questionable media source is a stance that we don't share, at least when it comes to the war in Ukraine. RT is hardly the only state financed news outlet. The U.S. has its NPR, the U.K. has its BBC, and Canada has its CBC. And honestly, I've seen no indication that the mainstream corporate media is better. As a matter of fact, I suspect it's frequently worse.

Well since you mentioned Ukraine, it is hard to tell what's the truth and what's falsehoods coming out of there. Wars are always like that.

Agreed, to some extent. However, I believe that with enough careful study, one can start figuring out the truth. At the beginning of the war, I didn't know what to think myself. But that changed as I continued to learn.

 

[Jarod]

Found an article I found quite interesting on RT that was published yesterday detailing the rebranding of the U.S.'s "Disinformation Governance Board" into the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. An excerpt from RT's article is below...

**
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks

Leaked documents reveal the ‘paused’ ‘Disinformation Governance Board’’ is back online

The US Department of Homeland Security is secretly ramping up its efforts to censor and suppress information it considers dangerous - in other words, it's focussed on inconvenient, but true, facts. A body originally created to defend Americans from terror is now threatening free speech everywhere online - and doing so with the active help of major tech firms.

This is all revealed in leaked documents obtained by journalists Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang. Perhaps the most worrying papers are those that show that the highly controversial and widely condemned DHS (or “Disinformation Governance Board”) – and the serious threat it poses to free speech – hasn't gone anywhere.
**

Full article:
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks | RT

Is there something wrong with the government having a way to evaluate the truth of information put out by foreign adversaries?

 

[Paradoxical]

I am brand new here but not to debate. I found this site through this thread, which is quite an eye-opener. I am currently in the process of checking out this NEW Truth Ministry which will take lots more time because I generally don't rush to judgment. But what I have found so far is that it is stacked with not just average liberals, but extreme far-left ones who hate Trump and by extension, anyone who supports him, ie. conservatives.

In answer to the post above, it is a flat-out LIE that Russia interfered with our elections by hacking the DNC computers. The lie was exposed and the DNC made it appear their computers were hacked but that wasn't possible. As to Russia posting there is little evidence of that either and the best anyone can find is that they posted some nonsense on Twitter and it was against both Trump and Hillary.

Humans are lied to all the time by our own government and information is withheld. The Hunter laptop being one and recently Chris Wray says the whistleblowers are wrong that the FBI is targeting and getting rid of conservatives. To every question, he says he cannot comment.

So, to Jarod, who is it that decides if a post is from a foreign government and the post is incorrect? The people on this new commission The FBI? Why should we trust known liars that set up Trump for Russian collusion and people like Schiff who lied repeatedly or the spy Swalwell. The PEOPLE should decide what is false and not allow idiots in government who are controlling is to do that.