5 ms·
It's a loaded term to insinuate that the cause or POV is using less-than-transparent mechanisms to garner a desired reaction. I've got no problem with political
by 6stringmerc 11y ago
It's a loaded term to insinuate that the cause or POV is using less-than-transparent mechanisms to garner a desired reaction. I've got no problem with political discourse, or even espousing controversial ideological proposals. That's all natural and healthy.
What I dislike is using tactics to frame one side of a narrative as impervious to criticism, which in this case, seems to be the desired outcome from the entity providing $$$.
- oh_sigh 11y agoHow would it be impervious to criticism? It seems like these people are going around looking for statements that are incorrect about her and correcting them.
- WalterSear 11y agoThese people are going around looking for statements that are "incorrect" about her and "correcting" them. And, despite the obvious shadiness, they are coordinating the process in ways that would be illegal in other media, simply because the laws haven't kept up with society.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoThey are being paid to "correct" them by the person who has a vested interest in how the "corrections" portray the facts, linguistically. Let's toss out a hypothetical example: Fact: Hillary Clinton is being investigated regarding her use of a private email server. Fact via "Correction": Republicans have instigated an investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for political gain. See what I'm alluding to? If not, then okay, but I don't think I can get much more granular.
- tamana 11y agoCan you give a non-hypothetical example?
- WalterSear 11y agoThe hypothetical part was that somewhere, out there, someone is posting this. Obviously, we don't have the actual posts, just the money trail that paid for them.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoNot at this time; apparently the operation is just getting started according to this documentation. If the group does their job well, then - partially kidding here - there should be a representative coming by relatively soon to correct my perception of what the group is motivated to do and how it looks in real life. As in, the burden of transparency isn't on my suspicion, but rather in their actions. To correct my suspicion, they should have no trouble showing all the cases of non-propaganda-resembling "corrections" they've performed. Then there'd be no reason for a person like me to suspect gamesmanship in the endeavor.