Fox is part of the MSM.

The direct evidence probably comes after you accept the things that you already know. There isn't really such a thing as direct evidence--only narrative and worldview. That isn't something that is changed by direct evidence unless your mind is super flexible and most aren't. So instead one has to chip away at the foundations before a person can accept a new idea. It's the theory of cognitive dissonance.
And post above this one illustrates that. You know the media manipulates people and you know why they do it, but you still want to hold Fox/Tucker as being outside of that system.

Also as an aside--divide and rule is better than divide and conquer there. And it even has its own wiki page

I think the bolded is the central issue here. I think it is important that you do keep these separate. I don't mind if you want to view this as a spectrum, but it is not a continuous one - there is a clear difference in what kind of framing is acceptable between a straight news article and Tucker Carlson (or Rachel Maddow). A lot of media criticism seems to consist of pointing out that news reporting is biased in various ways, and on that basis treating it as if it were no different from the partisan press or opinion journalism. This is clearly false.

To some extent we are talking about different things here. I'm arguing that if you want to be informed about what is going on in the world, the best way to do so is by relying on the press. You are arguing that the effects of the media on public opinion are not random, but rather are best understood as a form of government and ruling class propaganda.

I'm pretty skeptical of this claim, because in my own areas of deeper knowledge about politics, the government is usually unable to effectively control media narratives and because claims about the "ruling class" are generally meaningless post hoc rationalizations. My experience with the press (I ran press for a few months for a local political campaign) is that reporters and editors are more interested in the popularity of their stories than anything else. Sometimes that aligns with government goals, sometimes not.

This is a fine example of a post that sounds intellectual but is actually complete nonsense.

No it isn't?

I guess time will tell. In general, I don't find the analogy to genetics to be particularly compelling. And I find the notion that Trump is a slave to a meme (i.e., that he lacks agency) to be preposterous.

This seems like a pretty big goalpost shift, but in the spirit of charitability I will let it go.

The concept of human agency is a very interesting one, and possibly deserving of its own thread at some point.

Bolded is a fair point but any goalpost shift was unintentional on my part. The problem was the word choice in my original post. Rather than implying that your post was faux-intellectual nonsense, I should have just said that I thought it was wrong.

Have to be careful about memes having purpose or being distinct from the person in the way you suggest (we are in part made of our memes just as we're in part made by bacteria in our gut) but the recognition of lack of agency is true and denied/ignored far too much. Nothing like a complete lack of agency but significantly less than 100% agency.

I'm sure various media has a lot to be criticized for, but a person doing the criticizing does not look very good if he / she thinks Trump is a believable person.

I mean, he can't be. And you don't even need a purely subjective approach to establish that. If you lay down his tweets in chronological order he repeatedly contradicts himself or changes stories to something that makes previous statements ludicrous. It is not an exercise I recommend if you want to feel sane, but it's there for public record for anyone who wants to wade through it.

And even if I think you have to be naive as heck to believe that he does not actively lie constantly, that is actually irrelevant to the debate on whether he is believable. If he walks around contradicting himself constantly, he is not believable, irrespective if he thinks he is telling the truth.

When i said i believed Trump it was in reference to Trump and the media actually being at odds. And this was almost three years now during the campaign. Anybody who wants to pat themselves on the back now for not falling for this likely has their own set of delusions they still need to grapple with.

Okay, fair enough. My apologies for misunderstanding.

It still depends on context. Like if you think the media and Trump are at odds because they have some hidden agenda/conspiracy going on and want to bring him down or destroy him, then you're in crazy town along with him and his supporters.

But, if you think being at odds is because the media operates in a position of objective truth where words have actual meanings and Trump lives in a fantasy world of his own making, then yes, there may be some hope for you.

Neither of those things. I don't believe they are at odds. I consider Trump to be more or less a media creation who has benefitted the media tremendously and not by chance either. I think the animosity you see from the media towards Trump and vice-versa is mostly for public consumption and doesn't accurately reflect their relationship.

Basically how it works is if it appears on TV and we are told that it is real, then we will believe it. There is a lot more to it than that, but in a nutshell that describes it.

My memes have agency.

**** your meme

In the news today as getting this information is a part of Roger Stone's defense.

That twitter handle is special.

Yes. I am quite interested as to the “proof” team Mueller had in determining the Russians hacked the DNC server and were the source of the wiki leak data. I am 100% certain it didn’t come from the CIA/NSA. The fact the source of this material is subject to discovery in the Stone case would mean that classified data is “discoverable” if the Mueller source is the CIA/NSA.

While we’re on this subject the indictments of the Russians that was made earlier in this thread isn’t “proof” of anything as team Mueller knew that the Russians indicted would never stand trial in the USA.

100% certain because...you have seen some evidence?

Or 100% certain because you want it to be true?

Welp in the court filing that the link points to team Mueller explicitly states that their conclusion is based on a draft copy of a redacted CrowdStrike report. Team Mueller also claims in the filing that they aren’t required to prove the Russians hacked the DNC server being the Wikileaks source in the Stone case. CrowdStrike is a cyber security firm the DNC hired to determine what happened. The DNC denied access to the FBI to perform the analysis. These are all facts and they’re not in dispute.

Now it is pretty clear why the DNC might prefer a firm like CrowdStrike vs the FBI. It is also quite clear that team Mueller based their determination on the redacted CrowdStrike report. Whether that alone would stand up in a trial of Russian hackers seems pretty far fetched to me without CrowdStrike actually having to testify. The redacted version is probably proprietary DNC info. Of course team Mueller knew that the indictments of the Russians would never result in trials because they were never would be extradited.

Whether the Stone defense team has a valid legal argument is a tbd. What I would like to see is the determination by team Mueller stand up to the adversarial process in a court of law. Don’t know if we’ll get that in the Stone case. Probably not but maybe.


Regarding classified info and discovery. One of the reasons that the GWB wanted to try Gitmo detainees in military tribunals instead of US criminal courts was that the defendants discovery options were more limited in a tribunal. FWIW the US govt is not up for providing classified info that is discoverable in criminal cases.
Why are you opposed to having the team Mueller conclusions undergo the adversarial process in a court of law anyway?

No idea what you're referring to. Stone's lawyers requesting redacted information is somehow proof Mueller is "explicitly stating" that his entire investigation was merely based on a report by Crowdstrike and therefore a sham?

Makes sense. Like Trump's flunkies in the collusion issue, if you're guilty of lying to authorities (or obstruction) to cover up a crime that didn't actually happen you're still guilty of lying to authorities.

That is absolutely not true. Likely you've been duped by the older conspiracy theory (which Trump perpetuated) that since the FBI didn't get access to the physical servers it means they just took Crowdstrike's word for it and didn't do any actual work. That's debunked here: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z...hack-explained

I mean I wouldn't take it for granted that actually innocent people would be so unwilling to stand trial and for their government to be so unwilling to deliver them. Gonna just apply the old Occam's Razor and assume that the Russians in question are fugitives because they're actually guilty.

Also I failed to follow my earlier advice and actually read the Techno Fog links and court documents and tried to get a handle of the arguments before discovering all the retweets of standard alt-right garbage.

Its also really silly to present the "Crowdstrike had redacted reports" as some sort of gotcha when your endgame is just claim Mueller is making everything up anyway. Presumably he could just do the same regardless of how open Crowdstrike was.

Donnie the dove and the right wing media are trying their best to drag us into a war with Iran

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk