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

[Scott]

I think you're giving people way too much credit.

In what way?

You think they act in their own self-interest.

Not always. I think they -think- they act in their own self interest, but that doesn't mean they always do. This is actually one of the points brought up in regards to low information voters. Quoting from Wikipedia's low information voter article:

**
Voting correctly

Related to the concept of a low information voter, voting correctly is a concept from political psychology that refers to a vote decision "that is the same as the choice which would have been made under conditions of full information."[12] Measurements of correct votes are used to determine how accurate low information voters are at determining the candidate or party that best represents the voters' interests.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter#Voting_correctly

 

[Scott]

As I just told A Proud Lefty, what you're doing right now is what I call 'asking your ideological opponent to make your case for you'. You are the one making the claim that the RT piece is propaganda. As such, the burden of evidence falls on you, not me. This is an online forum, you can ofcourse refuse to provide any evidence. But that would affect your credibility, not mine.

I already did provide evidence when I refuted with specific points.

Link to where you did this then.

 

[Scott]

You can read a list of the RT articles that are misleading or full of disinformation.. You can confirm it yourself.

What you're doing above is what I like to call asking your ideological opponent to do your homework for you. You are the one making the claim that Wikipedia's statement is true. It's up to you to show evidence for your claim.

I have no "ideological opponent".

Yes, you do. I would be one such individual, at least when it comes to RT. I just read a very interesting article on the subject of ideological opponents that you may find interesting:

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

 

[AProudLefty]

Yes, you do. I would be one such individual, at least when it comes to RT. I just read a very interesting article on the subject of ideological opponents that you may find interesting:

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

No you are not unless you, yourself, are actually a Russian asset, in which it would mean you are my "ideological" enemy.

 

[AProudLefty]

Yes, you do. I would be one such individual, at least when it comes to RT. I just read a very interesting article on the subject of ideological opponents that you may find interesting:

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

BTW I read that article. Yes it is very interesting. Since I am barely awake since it's early in the morning, I am unable to recall another name for the phenomenon. Two things came to my mind are: Dunning-Kruger effect and illusionary superiority.

Will talk more about this later.

 

[saltydancin]

Its well past time for you to educate yourself on how the Revolution operates.

Most likely those crooks on Capital Hill crusade - jihad master race swelling of Islamidiotocracy suicidal super ego Mohammed pedophilia claiming saving grace self anointing themselves as a Christian Nation practicing Christiananality pedophilia of Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcements master plan diatribe one wants to be a cop after a WW II Mengele "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations as SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 tautology that Washington, D.C. born USA citizens discussing Washington, D.C. sports teams over lunch want to be Islam while their under color of law sociopsyhcopathilogical homicidal human farming "serve the Pope or die" more perfect union with Islam "death to the infidels" renders their national religion health care plan patriot act as saving grace.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Link to where you did this then.

Try my post #49. When you can prove any of my points are false then we can discuss. Classic propaganda takes truths and then exaggerates or leaves out parts of the truth in order to make a narrative that leans a particular direction. I pointed to 8 things in only the first 2 sentences that show the RT piece to be propaganda.

In case you can't find it here is a link.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...moved-just-rebranded-RT&p=5364518#post5364518

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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. Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang clearly don't work for RT. It took me 2 seconds to find the original source after I read that sentence. Being informed means not taking any one source at its word but instead trying to find original sources.

Did you read the Mueller Report or did you just rely on news sources for what was in it? If you didn't read the entire report then you shouldn't go around telling others you are trying to keep them informed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Good points.




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

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. 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.

 

[Flash]

Good points.

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. However, our knowledge about voting behavior tells us those who regularly vote for one party (or against the other) are not going to change their mind because of one unconfirmed story about the son of a candidate. Negative stories about Biden or Trump did not change the minds of their supporters in 2016 or 2020. Obviously, the story did not hurt the Democrats in 2022.

Most people could not even describe what Joe or Hunter Biden did that was illegal other than some vague accusation about money and China.

 

[saltydancin]

I mean that our abusers have a method....they push hard and relentlessly up to the point that they get a lot of resistance, then they back off slightly and wait a little bit, then they push hard again till they get a lot of resistance, and so on. Because people tend to be dumb and with short attention spans this generally works to get the WOKE what they want. They also lie constantly about what they are doing, keeping people confused as best they can, keeping people stupid. Few people ever learn, which is why America keeps getting worse.

That perpetual national religion holy trinity different versions of pedophilia like those shell games slight of hand artists ply on marks with as those Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement protecting & serving Islamidiotocracy Mohammed pedophilia more perfect union to West Nazi Germany Virginia thieving National Archives US Constitution Bill of Rights - old glory - old testament - absentee voting ballots arsonists under color of law pedophilia granted "serve the Pope or die" BIcentennial standing by SCOTUS Rehnquist supreme swastika up Uranus pedophilia as "one nation under God with equal justice under law" "man is God" suicidal super ego beyond the pleasure principle sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming Peter Principle pyramid scheme survival of the fittest fascists Arab health care plan patriot act crusade - jihad.

 

[Gondwanaland]

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

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

 

[Scott]

Hmmm. The US government is trying to prevent Russian disinformation from being spread on US social media.

You seem to be quite the trusting soul when it comes to claims made by the U.S. government. Something for you to consider- might it be possible that the U.S. government might not be telling you the truth?

I am using the definition of disinformation.

I am not questioning your definition of disinformation. I am questioning your trust in the U.S. government's claim that it is trying to prevent Russian disinformation.

 

[Scott]

I can certainly agree with you that RT is a Russian owned and operated news outlet. Prior to the war in Ukraine, I wasn't reading it at all. Once the war started, so did my reading of it. The reason is simple- I like hearing to -both- sides of a story, and it's hard to get the Russian side of the story from western media outlets.

So you only started reading it after RT registered in the US as a foreign agent and admitted that they are controlled by the Russian government?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41991683

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.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I am not questioning your definition of disinformation. 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?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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?



When the BBC does a story on the UN human rights commission report that isn't propaganda. That is simply reporting. Anyone can go to the UN report and see if they told lies about what was in the report. The problem you have on this is you take the opinion of one person and then try to present it as proving the BBC prints propaganda. Your credulity is pretty easy to get if someone says something that you seem to think proves your point.

You seem to completely ignore the first sentence in your link.

Propaganda frequently masquerades as ‘news’. A ‘news’ narrative’s relevant background needs to be understood, in order for the reader or hearer to be able to understand anything of the truth, from the propaganda, rather than be fooled by it

That looks like a great explanation of why the RT story should be seen as propaganda.

 

[Scott]

Its well past time for you to educate yourself on how the Revolution operates.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

I mean that our abusers have a method....they push hard and relentlessly up to the point that they get a lot of resistance, then they back off slightly and wait a little bit, then they push hard again till they get a lot of resistance, and so on. Because people tend to be dumb and with short attention spans this generally works to get the WOKE what they want. They also lie constantly about what they are doing, keeping people confused as best they can, keeping people stupid. Few people ever learn, which is why America keeps getting worse.

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.

 

[Scott]

I have no "ideological opponent".

Yes, you do. I would be one such individual, at least when it comes to RT. I just read a very interesting article on the subject of ideological opponents that you may find interesting:

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

No you are not unless you, yourself, are actually a Russian asset, in which it would mean you are my "ideological" enemy.

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".

 

[Scott]

I already did provide evidence when I refuted with specific points.

Link to where you did this then.

Try my post #49.

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.