OK - so there may be some new techniques for spreading propaganda but the concept of fake news is itself fake news.
Identifying your opponents' propaganda in this way is useful because it casts doubt over everything they say and helps to reinforce your own fake news.
It's not an accident that the moment the fake news accusation was levelled at Trump he fired it straight back and made it seem
The internet has brought a power that none had truly understood until very recently. Sure, we all knew about the power to share information, and the power to market to a larger audience. But the power to overthrow governments and spread so much disinformation that no one even knows what the truth is anymore?
Arguably what has happened is that the power to spread disinformation is no longer the monopoly of a smallgroup of press barons.
I watched the right wing press in the UK (mostly but not entirely Murdoch owned) keep Thatcher in power for a decade against the will of the people.
More recently May was nearly undermined by the internet wne she thought she had a sure fire Thatcher style landslide.
When you say "no one knows what the truth is" what you actually mean is that no one can agree on which lie to believe anymore. We never knew the truth.
I find it ironic that when Trump used the predictable "condemn violence on all sides" many of the people who called him out for it are exactly the same people who don't hesitate to use that line themselves whenever one of their favoured groups does something wrong.
he did basically say "As Christians we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys like those in North Korea"
So how is that any different than "As Muslims we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys like those Americans"?
Except that the Bible really doesn't say that, it says "love your enemies".
What he said is at best a tenous logical deduction from the bible and seems to correspond to the Catholic "just war Theory". Your interpretation is not a fair summary of what he said.
The so called "just war" theory was worked out some 3 or 4 centuries after the new Testament was written. It was a response to the new fact that Christians were now in the unfamiliar position of having civil power. Once you ARE the civil authority you have to accept that there will be times when violence will be necessary to maintain order.
A quick summary of the "just war theory is the following
The action must be morally good, or indifferent, as to object, motive and circumstances.
The bad effect(s) may only be tolerated, not directly willed.
The good effect must be caused at least as directly as the bad.
The good effect(s) must be proportionate to compensate for the bad effect(s).
It isn't possible from the brief clip to be certain but he could have been saying "according to the just war principles it would be OK fo attack N. Korea" which certainly doesn't amount to saying "As Christians we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys"
and is very different from the Islamic version that you quote.
I think CS Lewis put the objections to this most eloquently:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
There are surely people still alive who had their language beaten out of them at an Indian school.
Native Americans are a very different case from present day immigrants - remember THEY were the indigenous people WE were the immigrants. The people who should have assimilated were the european immigrants.
There is always a duty on the incomers to respect the way of life of their hosts and to make concessions to it - not the other way around.
The fact that the european colonists in the Americas failed utterly completely and abysmally in this still doesn't invalidate the principle when they are the established community.
And if you really like to criticize wrong doings, why don't you focus in your own country and actually TAKE ACTION and change things in your country first before giving opinions about others?
One can take the view that the elites of all countries to some extent form a conspiracy against the rest of us.
to paraphrase a famous quote
First it happened in China - but I wasn't Chinese so i didn't bother about it.
Then it happened in Pakistan - but I wasn't Pakistani so I didn't think I had the right to protest about it.
Then It happened in Germany... etc etc
...
...
The it happened in my own country - so I protested and my government said "every other country in the world does it so we have to follow suit- just accept it like everyone else does.
Americans seem to have an annoying feeling for that pesky freedom of speech.
The enemy in 2001 was clearly the group that killed 2000+ people in New York etc on September 11, and the ideology that inspired them and has carried out 30,000+ fatal attacks since.
Way to misunderstand - and then come up with a platitude.
When the government refused to name the enemy accurately in 2001 they effectively made everyone into an enemy - because when you don't know who the enemy is then you have to treat everyone as a potential enemy. So yes - the US government is now your enemy so you are sort of right - but I doubt that you understand the logic - or have a clue how to fix it.
On the post: Deputy Who Rear-Ended Driver At 104 MPH Had Horrendous Service Record, Received Almost Zero Discipline
Re: Re: "Disarm the public"
We're Americans, and we have Guns, and we love them! Really
A high rate of gun death is also very american.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729
You may like being American I like being alive!
On the post: FBI Terrorism Sting Nets Paranoid Schizophrenic Previously Found Incompetent By A State Court
Re: Re: Re: Isn't putting someone at risk in harms way a felony?
Just cause someone is crazy doesn't mean they can't hurt you.
But it DOES mean that the most appropriate way to deal with them is different from the way you deal with criminals or (genuine) terrorists.
And - in the end - getting the most appropriate treatment is the best way to prevent tragedies like the one you describe.
On the post: Moving On From Obviously Fake News To Plausibly Fake News Sites
What is really new?
Identifying your opponents' propaganda in this way is useful because it casts doubt over everything they say and helps to reinforce your own fake news.
It's not an accident that the moment the fake news accusation was levelled at Trump he fired it straight back and made it seem
On the post: Moving On From Obviously Fake News To Plausibly Fake News Sites
As if..
I offer you the Zinoviev Letter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re:
The internet has brought a power that none had truly understood until very recently. Sure, we all knew about the power to share information, and the power to market to a larger audience. But the power to overthrow governments and spread so much disinformation that no one even knows what the truth is anymore?
Arguably what has happened is that the power to spread disinformation is no longer the monopoly of a smallgroup of press barons.
I watched the right wing press in the UK (mostly but not entirely Murdoch owned) keep Thatcher in power for a decade against the will of the people.
More recently May was nearly undermined by the internet wne she thought she had a sure fire Thatcher style landslide.
When you say "no one knows what the truth is" what you actually mean is that no one can agree on which lie to believe anymore. We never knew the truth.
On the post: Defending Hateful Speech Is Unpleasant But Essential, Even When Violence Is The End Result
Re: Re: Re: Just like a horse shoe
On the post: Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?
Re: Re:
he did basically say "As Christians we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys like those in North Korea"
So how is that any different than "As Muslims we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys like those Americans"?
Except that the Bible really doesn't say that, it says "love your enemies".
What he said is at best a tenous logical deduction from the bible and seems to correspond to the Catholic "just war Theory". Your interpretation is not a fair summary of what he said.
The so called "just war" theory was worked out some 3 or 4 centuries after the new Testament was written. It was a response to the new fact that Christians were now in the unfamiliar position of having civil power. Once you ARE the civil authority you have to accept that there will be times when violence will be necessary to maintain order.
A quick summary of the "just war theory is the following
(found here as part of an interesting discussion on this issue: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/combatants-non-combatants-double-effect )
The action must be morally good, or indifferent, as to object, motive and circumstances.
It isn't possible from the brief clip to be certain but he could have been saying "according to the just war principles it would be OK fo attack N. Korea" which certainly doesn't amount to saying "As Christians we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys"
and is very different from the Islamic version that you quote.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
More to the point the photo is only of interest if the monkey took it. If he took it it has no special value.
SO Slater loses either way. If he took the picture then he has the copyright - but the picture is just another picture of a monkey.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Moving On
Most hurtfully, he's stopped taking pictures. '
Slater - or the monkey?
On the post: Sex History Educational Site Wants To Know If It's Going To Be Bricked Up Behind UK's Porn Wall
Re: Re: Re:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
On the post: Winnipeg Man Has Vanity Plate Referencing Star Trek Recalled Over Complaints Of How Racist It Is
Re: Kill the Indian, save the man
There are surely people still alive who had their language beaten out of them at an Indian school.
Native Americans are a very different case from present day immigrants - remember THEY were the indigenous people WE were the immigrants. The people who should have assimilated were the european immigrants.
There is always a duty on the incomers to respect the way of life of their hosts and to make concessions to it - not the other way around.
The fact that the european colonists in the Americas failed utterly completely and abysmally in this still doesn't invalidate the principle when they are the established community.
On the post: Winnipeg Man Has Vanity Plate Referencing Star Trek Recalled Over Complaints Of How Racist It Is
Re: It's about the meme
I don't consider it a "win" for me if you are not included. It's not a "win" for you if I'm left without a reasonable voice.
How does this work if one of the parties is actually the Borg...?
On the post: FBI Informant Helped Out In Terrorism Stings While Running A 'Stranded Traveler' Scam
Re: my Dad was a stranded traveler's scam victim
Of course the side effect of these scams is that if you really are stranded abroad there is now nothing you can do about it.
On the post: Top European Court To Consider If EU Countries Can Censor The Global Internet
Re: Parallel Construction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIv96reVlAE
On the post: Researchers Say Chinese Government Now Censoring Images In One-To-One Chat
Re: Re: Re:
And if you really like to criticize wrong doings, why don't you focus in your own country and actually TAKE ACTION and change things in your country first before giving opinions about others?
One can take the view that the elites of all countries to some extent form a conspiracy against the rest of us.
to paraphrase a famous quote
First it happened in China - but I wasn't Chinese so i didn't bother about it.
Then it happened in Pakistan - but I wasn't Pakistani so I didn't think I had the right to protest about it.
Then It happened in Germany... etc etc
...
...
The it happened in my own country - so I protested and my government said "every other country in the world does it so we have to follow suit- just accept it like everyone else does.
On the post: DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Name the enemy
Additionally :
Muslims have tried to overturn and/or match these stats and have failed miserably
You can read the story here:
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/loonwatch-list.aspx
On the post: DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Name the enemy
And how many fatal attacks have Christians carried out since then? Answer: a lot more.
Answer actually close to zero.
My 30,000+ attacks are documented here: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
and verifeid by the BBC and found to be an underestimate.
Remember these are all attacks carried out in the name of the religion explicitly.
I doubt that you can justify your statement with references.
On the post: DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling
Re: Re: Name the enemy
Americans seem to have an annoying feeling for that pesky freedom of speech.
The enemy in 2001 was clearly the group that killed 2000+ people in New York etc on September 11, and the ideology that inspired them and has carried out 30,000+ fatal attacks since.
As the old saying goes - "Sticks and stones..."
On the post: DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling
Re: Re: Name the enemy
Way to misunderstand - and then come up with a platitude.
When the government refused to name the enemy accurately in 2001 they effectively made everyone into an enemy - because when you don't know who the enemy is then you have to treat everyone as a potential enemy. So yes - the US government is now your enemy so you are sort of right - but I doubt that you understand the logic - or have a clue how to fix it.
On the post: DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling
Re: Re: Worked with names, why not faces?
Next >>