Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

But that's Mike Pence, doesn't care about people and is competent enough to harm them. Not who I want.

[smjjames]

It sounds just like her style of folksy-sounding nonsense, it you ask me. (too late to guess now, someone put her name in non-SPOILERed text)

I thought the guessing had ended, sorry.

So people have been talking about whether Trump is racist, or overtly racist, or blatantly racist, or pandering to racists, or preferred by racists. I'm not sure what I think, but I know one thing - it doesn't matter.

"What?!" Yep. I don't care if a candidate is a dick (which Trump totally is). It's only their policies (and their image/diplomatic style; they do represent America, and I'd rather not have a war) that matter.

Take, for instance, Jefferson. Jefferson was a dick, AFAIK. He was also pretty damn good at politicking. If we'd thrown him out because he was a dick, we would have lost who knows how much of the Declaration.

Imagine if your favorite candidate was a dick. (Sanders, that veteran woman from Hawaii, dream-candidate who agrees with you on everything, whatever.) What would you say if people screamed "he's/she's a dick!!!" Would you say "it doesn't matter, his/her policies are the absolute best!" I bet you would.

Trump is still an awful president. His policies and image look to be awful, and he's incompetent.

Trump is still an awful person. If he were my friend, I'd get him out of my life posthaste.

But do those two necessarily correlate?

Source that he was a dick to his contemporaries?

Sure, the whole Native American tribe removal from the Louisiana territory makes him a dick to us and definetly to the Native Americans at the time, but you have to look at it in a historical lens.

He was ♫raaaacist as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck♪

(I imagined that part as being sung, so of course I have to do this)

So were a lot of people at the time. Which is what I mean by looking at it from a historical and contemporary to his time lens.

But that's Mike Pence, doesn't care about people and is competent enough to harm them. Not who I want.

Well, he only cares about a certain group of people.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

There is perhaps a correlation between dickishness and awful-politician-ness, but dickishness alone does not justify throwing out a politician. Besides, it's not effective - no Trump supporter cares if we say he's racist.

[misko27]

Now if he was a jerk who was completely unsympathetic towards other people... But was hypercompetent and gets things done. THAT is the Jerk you want as president.

Let me assure you that no, no you do not. At worst, morally myopic towards the needs and desires of people other than the citizens of the United States. That is a form of unsympatheticness that is ok; not good, but potentially very useful. But someone who is just literally a narcissist but without any of the things that keep them in check is quite possibly the worst conceivable choice as President (as well as just being in general one of if not the very worst types of person in existence). Your incredible naivete is staggering here. At best they would merely enrich themselves at the expense of the country and the world, at worst, well, I can imagine a lot of extremely bad things (refusal to surrender power, coups, violence, etc), so your imagination is the limit here. In fact if there is any qualifcation for President that is totally consistent and matters, they must be invested in the interests of this country. Even if they are otherwise a jerk and a nasty person (and probably even more so in that situation), the degree to which their interests and the interests of the country coincide have to be large. Otherwise, I'd easily take an absolute scumbag if they were incompetent over your proposal. I'm actually quite concerned that you even said that to begin with, since it's so self-evidently wrong. It's thinking like this that is the cause of these situations, and you can absolutely quote me on that.

There is perhaps a correlation between dickishness and awful-politician-ness, but dickishness alone does not justify throwing out a politician

I don't understand this at all. I don't believe a politician has to be a good man provided he acts in the interest of the country, and I've even seen and read of politicians who have enriched themselves in office while benefiting their city/country. But I don't understand why this is being brought up in the context of racism. Racism isn't about that at all. It's a question of whether Trump can represent the interests of the people in this country who are not white. I mean if we were a totally homogenous country no one would give a shit whether the President was racist except for diplomats and certain leftists, because it would ultimately be an academic issue over appearances: it is precisely because we are not that it transcends "Oh that makes me a bit uncomfortable" to "He is not fit to serve the people of this country." And that is the only thing anyone should care about.

Besides, it's not effective - no Trump supporter cares if we say he's racist.

Wrong but not for the obvious reason. You said no one cares. That's quite clearly untrue. I'd say a fair number do care, but either they don't like liberals and thus disregard them, don't believe liberals in general, or are racist themselves. Nonetheless I'd say there is a portion who do care, and just straight up don't believe he is racist and believe that what is said about him is overblown.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

There is perhaps a correlation between dickishness and awful-politician-ness, but dickishness alone does not justify throwing out a politician

I don't understand this at all. I don't believe a politician has to be a good man provided he acts in the interest of the country, and I've even seen and read of politicians who have enriched themselves in office while benefiting their city/country. But I don't understand why this is being brought up in the context of racism. Racism isn't about that at all. It's a question of whether Trump can represent the interests of the people in this country who are not white. I mean if we were a totally homogenous country no one would give a shit whether the President was racist except for diplomats and certain leftists, because it would ultimately be an academic issue over appearances: it is precisely because we are not that it transcends "Oh that makes me a bit uncomfortable" to "He is not fit to serve the people of this country." And that is the only thing anyone should care about.

...ah, because in my social circles, I've mostly heard "augh, Trump is so awful, he's nasty and he's rude and he's mean" and I'm so fucking tired of it, and this was my response to everyone who thinks that nastiness makes a President bad, except in retrospect I should have told it to them, not here.

Besides, it's not effective - no Trump supporter cares if we say he's racist.

Wrong but not for the obvious reason. You said no one cares. That's quite clearly untrue. I'd say a fair number do care, but either they don't like liberals and thus disregard them, don't believe liberals in general, or are racist themselves. Nonetheless I'd say there is a portion who do care, and just straight up don't believe he is racist and believe that what is said about him is overblown.

So if we want to effectively convince people that Trump is a Bad Hombre... we show that his actions indicate that he will enact racist policy, right? And assuage feelings of "overblown" by... how does one do that?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

@MSH: Come on, he's not the first president or politician to ream and complain about the media. The rest I agree with you on though.

No, but he is the first President to gather media heads in a room with him, shout at them all, and basically threaten libel suits unless they give him positive coverage.

What grand fucking irony, that after eight years of "the liberal elite media won't report on Obama", we now have a President critical of the media such that he's trying to subvert and control them.

[smjjames]

Besides, it's not effective - no Trump supporter cares if we say he's racist.

Wrong but not for the obvious reason. You said no one cares. That's quite clearly untrue. I'd say a fair number do care, but either they don't like liberals and thus disregard them, don't believe liberals in general, or are racist themselves. Nonetheless I'd say there is a portion who do care, and just straight up don't believe he is racist and believe that what is said about him is overblown.

So if we want to effectively convince people that Trump is a Bad Hombre... we show that his actions indicate that he will enact racist policy, right? And assuage feelings of "overblown" by... how does one do that?

Maybe starting with what he actually does while in office? Pretty much everybody is in a holding pattern to see what he'll do. Though not all Democrats are waiting and are trying to take initiative now, to the protests of Republicans saying 'wait until he's actually inaugurated will you?'

I'm trying to say that he has only done words and via his VP and cabinet picks (and also his past actions, but we're talking about right now), but he hasn't actually done anything as President yet.

Personally, his chance technically starts on inauguration, but he isn't doing great so far.

[Max™]

I haven't read much written by Palin and I do admittedly tend to revert to the far superior Tina Fey version, but the real takeaway of that quote is this: Sarah "Golly Gosh is that Russia" Palin is trying to be the voice of reason here.

How far do we need to go before whoever is running the simulation notices they dozed off and leaned their elbow on the "crazy as shit" slider and pushed it all the way to maximum?

[Baffler]

As a break from arguing about why Trump is terrible, here's something congress is doing that might be terrible.

Spoiler: Relevant Text (click to show/hide)

(1) ACTIVE MEASURES BY RUSSIA TO EXERT COVERT INFLUENCE.—The term “active measures by Russia to exert covert influence” means activities intended to influence a person or government that are carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly, including the following:

(A) Establishment or funding of a front group.

(B) Covert broadcasting.

(C) Media manipulation.

(D) Disinformation and forgeries.

(E) Funding agents of influence.

(F) Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.

(G) Assassinations.

(H) Terrorist acts.

(e) Duties.—The duties of the committee established by subsection (b) shall be as follows:

(1) To counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence, including by exposing falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies.

(2) Such other duties as the President may designate for purposes of this section.

Is this an attempt at chilling free speech under the guise of 'cracking down on fake news?' How much influence over US news reporting does Russia actually have? I think it's not a whole fucking lot, if any at all.

[smjjames]

As a break from arguing about why Trump is terrible, here's something congress is doing that might be terrible.

Spoiler: Relevant Text (click to show/hide)

(1) ACTIVE MEASURES BY RUSSIA TO EXERT COVERT INFLUENCE.—The term “active measures by Russia to exert covert influence” means activities intended to influence a person or government that are carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly, including the following:

(A) Establishment or funding of a front group.

(B) Covert broadcasting.

(C) Media manipulation.

(D) Disinformation and forgeries.

(E) Funding agents of influence.

(F) Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.

(G) Assassinations.

(H) Terrorist acts.

(e) Duties.—The duties of the committee established by subsection (b) shall be as follows:

(1) To counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence, including by exposing falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies.

(2) Such other duties as the President may designate for purposes of this section.

Is this an attempt at chilling free speech under the guise of 'cracking down on fake news?' How much influence over US news reporting does Russia actually have? I think it's not a whole fucking lot, if any at all.

Sounds more like counter-espionage and counter-propoganda, which is no different from a Cold War stance. The real worrying part would be the "(2) Such other duties as the President may designate for purposes of this section." bit. Seems like too much potential power given to the President, who would be Trump. At least there doesn't seem to be any checks against that one.

I've seen some quite interesting things written lately about how this 'fake news' bollocks is potentially the first step toward creating what could ultimately be a Ministry of Truth analogue. Very worrying.

Was there a 'Ministry of Truth' analogue during the Cold War? Sounds like just a return to Cold War levels of counter-espionage and counter-propoganda.

I also thought while reading it that it sounded a bit McCarthyesque.

[Baffler]

Sounds more like counter-espionage and counter-propoganda, which is no different from a Cold War stance. The real worrying part would be the "(2) Such other duties as the President may designate for purposes of this section." bit. Seems like too much potential power given to the President, who would be Trump. At least there doesn't seem to be any checks against that one.

But we don't need a war footing. The Soviet Union may have been an actual threat, but the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union. I'll come right out and say that it's mostly a bogeyman to help justify the expansion of the surveillance state, like they're doing with this thing right now. It's not like intelligence agencies don't already have ample funds, infrastructure, and jurisdiction for spotting foreign subversion of the type the committee this bill establishes and funds is supposed to. Hell, they never actually lost most of the powers granted to them over the latter half of the 20^th century, and their funding didn't exactly dry up either.

[misko27]

On a general basis it's not totally insane given Russian moves and advances in the area of narrative shaping, and I would hope that the government takes that all very seriously, especially under a Trump Administration, but given that it's Congress that is involved, it's hard to believe that they won't mess it up.

Is this an attempt at chilling free speech under the guise of 'cracking down on fake news?' How much influence over US news reporting does Russia actually have? I think it's not a whole fucking lot, if any at all.

Actually re-reading the relevant text now it doesn't seem to be referring to Russian acts directly against the US, since unless I'm woefully uninformed, there haven't been any Russian terrorist attacks or assassinations on US soil or against US citizens recently and that appears to be the focus of this committee. And unless Congress is establishing a Minitruth in other countries, which I doubt (and which is, of course, the jurisdiction of the omnipresent CIA or M16, depending on your locale and the precise blend of conspiracy theory), I don't think that that is what this is about.

As it stands it reads more like a move to a cold-war-lite footing than the forewarnings of a government takeover of the media. I'm sure there's much in the Intelligence Authorization Act 2017 that would make privacy advocates quiver in their boots, but I don't think that this is it.

Seems like too much potential power given to the President, who would be Trump. At least there doesn't seem to be any checks against that one.

Given Trump is pro-Russia and this committee's explicit purpose is countering Russian influence I have serious doubts that Trump will be empowering it anytime soon. If Russia was still the Soviet Union, or there was any mention of "Communist" or "Leftist" in it, I might recommend concern, but as it stands I doubt anyone is going to accuse Russia of being communist, and without that it would take a hell of a lot of bullshit to turn "countering Russia" into "suppressing the liberal media" (and I doubt Trump is going to use this to suppress Breitbart and Fox News either).

I'll come right out and say that it's mostly a bogeyman to help justify the expansion of the surveillance state, like they're doing with this thing right now. It's not like intelligence agencies don't already have ample funds, infrastructure, and jurisdiction for spotting foreign subversion of the type the committee this bill establishes and funds is supposed to. Hell, they never actually lost most of the powers granted to them over the latter half of the 20^th century, and their funding didn't exactly dry up either.

Until you can clearly identify precisely where freedom of media in the US is threatened by this I shall remain unconvinced. Unless you come out and tell me you are worried that RT's US affiliate is going to be under surveillance, I don't see where the threat is, and given that RT is an extension of the Russian Government, I hope that with all that useless surveillance the US does they actually are surveying them of all people.

[Loud Whispers]

Yeah Russian media power was pretty decent when they were setting up RT and Sputnik and such, now that they've run for so long they're turning into establishment media in their own right. Given that they're mouthpieces for Kremlin, it seems sensible for the USA to step up its counternarrative efforts - which will leave people squashed between Whitehouse and Kremlin media

[smjjames]

I agree with misko that in light of Russia's activities recently, it's pretty reasonable.

Seems like too much potential power given to the President, who would be Trump. At least there doesn't seem to be any checks against that one.

Given Trump is pro-Russia and this committee's explicit purpose is countering Russian influence I have serious doubts that Trump will be empowering it anytime soon. If Russia was still the Soviet Union, or there was any mention of "Communist" or "Leftist" in it, I might recommend concern, but as it stands I doubt anyone is going to accuse Russia of being communist, and without that it would take a hell of a lot of bullshit to turn "countering Russia" into "suppressing the liberal media" (and I doubt Trump is going to use this to suppress Breitbart and Fox News either).

I wouldn't count him out in not doing something with it and twisting it to his own ends, just applying a healthy dose of suspicion and skeptism towards it.

Mainly it just looks troubling without any obvious checks on the power of the President to do something with that as it pertains to the First Amendment.

Yeah Russian media power was pretty decent when they were setting up RT and Sputnik and such, now that they've run for so long they're turning into establishment media in their own right. Given that they're mouthpieces for Kremlin, it seems sensible for the USA to step up its counternarrative efforts - which will leave people squashed between Whitehouse and Kremlin media

I imagine that the US did the same thing during the Cold War with the counternarrative efforts, so, it's not exactly new.

[Reelya]

Actually, it was a standard tactic to plant stories in other country's media via CIA agents. That way, news articles from those countries can then be repeated in the US media as external fact, when they were in fact backhanded State Media from the USA. When you lack official state media, nations get creative in how they spread stories.

So sometimes when a nation propagandizes in another country's media the target is not that country: it's their own population. e.g. Russians can now read the American media, along with Russian media. So to get fellow Russians to believe something you could either

(1) pressure local media to run the story. But this way makes it completely transparent that it's a pro-government piece.

(2) feed the story to some external media source. Your fellow Russians are more likely to believe this is objective information that hasn't been crafted by the FSB.

Actually, that sort of thing wasn't common from the USSR. First, they didn't really give a shit what anyone else thought, so why propagandize to e.g. Americans? And second, they had a monopoly on publishing in the USSR, so they controlled not only the truth, but the entire conversation: the two sides of any debate would be framed however the Soviet government wanted them to be framed, which controls how people think and debate topics. So propaganda was overt in Russia and had no need of subtlety: believe or die, pick one.

Modern Russia, they no longer have overt state media. By that I mean, no more monopoly. So they have to work with proxies and discredit non-proxies in a way they didn't before.