6 ms·

I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the

I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?

protomyth 10y ago
I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic. Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours. Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.
- geofft 10y ago
  Are you saying you have friends and relatives being paid by Soros?
- untog 10y ago
  To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?
    - untog 10y ago
      > Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing. The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        http://kfyr.iheart.com http://kfyr.iheart.com is the radio - they don't have transcripts as far as I can see - I will look when I have time and after I decide if I really want to spend more time on it. At this point we have a flood coming, and the likelihood that no one will want to do business on any of the reservations. Frankly, when you know people and have relatives on both sides and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar really doesn't make me want to bother anymore. People forget the problems we are having with rail transport and one of the other tribes being dragged out of poverty because of the oil. I still love my relatives doing the protesting, but they would have been better served if the tribe had bother to do its paperwork years ago. I don't know about those other things.
        untog 10y ago
        > and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar I'm sorry, but that's what happens when you make accusations without any evidence. If your relatives are telling you that George Soros is funding protests, ask them why they think that. Or don't - I know what relatives can be like - but don't blankly repeat their claims when you know you do not possess any evidence to back up the assertion.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Forget about the media. I would love to get into the paid protest game. Not for me, personally, but I know a few people with reasonably flexible work/school schedules and some sign-painting skills, who could really use another source of income. So how exactly does one get paid for attending a protest? What's the going rate? Is there a bonus for being shown on television or getting arrested? Will any chant phrases be provided beforehand, or are they ad hoc? Will they get a 1099, or is it cash under the table? If the hypothesis is that some protesters are paid, wouldn't it be prudent to at least test that hypothesis by trying to get paid for doing one yourself? [Edit:] I have seen multiple instances, from multiple sources, where people are claiming that protesters are literally being paid with actual dollars--not in warm fuzzies or in social justice scrip, but actual spendable cash. They will respond to a crowd photo by saying, "That must have cost [Soros|The Koch Bros.|Murdoch|Redstone|The Illuminati] a few million." I am aware that organizing events costs money, but they seem to think that every individual in the photograph actually got a check for showing up.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      You're caricaturing the actual dynamic of astroturfing. The individual protesters only ever get paid in mere goodfeels. If you want actual cash, you'd have to either work your way up the organizing chain or independently consult and convert dollars into "outreach" more efficiently than your colleagues.
- tallanvor 10y ago
  Can you point to any legitimate source that says George Soros is funding the protests? Or are you suggesting real news outlets are purposefully not reporting this?
- kristopolous 10y ago
  That's a sham to discredit legitimate dissent. People are doing immense and terrible sacrifices. The constant propaganda technique is to trivialize the nobility of the actors as if they're paid shills. No evidence needed - just a slander and move on. Such PR hoodwink tactics by big energy are disgraceful. Stop falling for it.
- mindslight 10y ago
  I know you're getting downvoted to #FFF, but you would you mind expanding on the purported business motives behind this? I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that advocacy campaigns are useful idiots being steered by business interests (and that if you don't see who's doing the steering, then you're likely being steered). But I am also sympathetic to the neoliberal idea that financial alchemists can be on the side of good, profiting from pushing then riding the market into a better local optimum. And so tossing out "Soros" just triggers my redgroupthink detector - his funding itself wouldn't invalidate the protest (if this were the case, then neither side has any moral authority), but the actual cui bono could.
  - MK999 10y ago
    If oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      If the pipeline makes the end-to-end cost more effective (which is the only reason pipelines get built; they aren't gratuitous or altruistic ventures by the forms building them), it decreases the minimum market price at which oil will even be extracted from the field it serves. So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will sit in the ground.
      - mindslight 10y ago
        Giving GP the benefit of the doubt means interpreting the comment as "Much oil that currently moves by rail will move by the pipeline", which is valid. Still that seems like a relatively small business interest, relative to the overwhelming behemoth implied by "astroturfing". The presence of some amount of self-interested business funding cannot invalidate the legitimacy of a point of view, or there would be no such thing as a legitimate point of view. So what I look for is a severe power disparity between the two sides which would swamp the smaller side's point of view. In this situation, that seems like the oil companies and the legible-business-interest preference of state and federal governments. Railroads being on the opposing side doesn't really alter my appraisal of that balance. But I'd be interested in hearing the involvement of a larger entity that I've missed.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. I didn't see OP claim that there weren't "real" protesters, only that some were paid.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  Given that (paid) journalists covering the event have been charged as protesters, implying that at least law enforcement lumps the journalists in with the protesters -- there is no doubt a way to support the claim that "at least one 'protester' is paid". The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Sure, but don't we hear the same "propaganda" every time any group gathers anywhere? If it's not Soros, it's the Kochs; if it's not unions, it's the Russians: whatever boogieman gets you going. In future, can't we just take it as read that some percentage of any group is paid to be there and some higher percentage is accused by someone else of being paid to be there? Is it something we have to worry about?
    - breatheoften 10y ago
      Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda. An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education. Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint should be challenged when false because these claims spread and make it easier to normalize this kind of democracy eroding response from representatives. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087
      - 10y ago

protomyth 10y ago

I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic. Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours. Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.

geofft 10y ago
Are you saying you have friends and relatives being paid by Soros?
untog 10y ago
To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.
- protomyth 10y ago
  What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?
  - untog 10y ago
    > Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing. The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      http://kfyr.iheart.com http://kfyr.iheart.com is the radio - they don't have transcripts as far as I can see - I will look when I have time and after I decide if I really want to spend more time on it. At this point we have a flood coming, and the likelihood that no one will want to do business on any of the reservations. Frankly, when you know people and have relatives on both sides and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar really doesn't make me want to bother anymore. People forget the problems we are having with rail transport and one of the other tribes being dragged out of poverty because of the oil. I still love my relatives doing the protesting, but they would have been better served if the tribe had bother to do its paperwork years ago. I don't know about those other things.
      - untog 10y ago
        > and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar I'm sorry, but that's what happens when you make accusations without any evidence. If your relatives are telling you that George Soros is funding protests, ask them why they think that. Or don't - I know what relatives can be like - but don't blankly repeat their claims when you know you do not possess any evidence to back up the assertion.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Forget about the media. I would love to get into the paid protest game. Not for me, personally, but I know a few people with reasonably flexible work/school schedules and some sign-painting skills, who could really use another source of income. So how exactly does one get paid for attending a protest? What's the going rate? Is there a bonus for being shown on television or getting arrested? Will any chant phrases be provided beforehand, or are they ad hoc? Will they get a 1099, or is it cash under the table? If the hypothesis is that some protesters are paid, wouldn't it be prudent to at least test that hypothesis by trying to get paid for doing one yourself? [Edit:] I have seen multiple instances, from multiple sources, where people are claiming that protesters are literally being paid with actual dollars--not in warm fuzzies or in social justice scrip, but actual spendable cash. They will respond to a crowd photo by saying, "That must have cost [Soros|The Koch Bros.|Murdoch|Redstone|The Illuminati] a few million." I am aware that organizing events costs money, but they seem to think that every individual in the photograph actually got a check for showing up.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    You're caricaturing the actual dynamic of astroturfing. The individual protesters only ever get paid in mere goodfeels. If you want actual cash, you'd have to either work your way up the organizing chain or independently consult and convert dollars into "outreach" more efficiently than your colleagues.
tallanvor 10y ago
Can you point to any legitimate source that says George Soros is funding the protests? Or are you suggesting real news outlets are purposefully not reporting this?
kristopolous 10y ago
That's a sham to discredit legitimate dissent. People are doing immense and terrible sacrifices. The constant propaganda technique is to trivialize the nobility of the actors as if they're paid shills. No evidence needed - just a slander and move on. Such PR hoodwink tactics by big energy are disgraceful. Stop falling for it.
mindslight 10y ago
I know you're getting downvoted to #FFF, but you would you mind expanding on the purported business motives behind this? I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that advocacy campaigns are useful idiots being steered by business interests (and that if you don't see who's doing the steering, then you're likely being steered). But I am also sympathetic to the neoliberal idea that financial alchemists can be on the side of good, profiting from pushing then riding the market into a better local optimum. And so tossing out "Soros" just triggers my redgroupthink detector - his funding itself wouldn't invalidate the protest (if this were the case, then neither side has any moral authority), but the actual cui bono could.
- MK999 10y ago
  If oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    If the pipeline makes the end-to-end cost more effective (which is the only reason pipelines get built; they aren't gratuitous or altruistic ventures by the forms building them), it decreases the minimum market price at which oil will even be extracted from the field it serves. So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will sit in the ground.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      Giving GP the benefit of the doubt means interpreting the comment as "Much oil that currently moves by rail will move by the pipeline", which is valid. Still that seems like a relatively small business interest, relative to the overwhelming behemoth implied by "astroturfing". The presence of some amount of self-interested business funding cannot invalidate the legitimacy of a point of view, or there would be no such thing as a legitimate point of view. So what I look for is a severe power disparity between the two sides which would swamp the smaller side's point of view. In this situation, that seems like the oil companies and the legible-business-interest preference of state and federal governments. Railroads being on the opposing side doesn't really alter my appraisal of that balance. But I'd be interested in hearing the involvement of a larger entity that I've missed.

forgetsusername 10y ago

>I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. I didn't see OP claim that there weren't "real" protesters, only that some were paid.

breatheoften 10y ago
Given that (paid) journalists covering the event have been charged as protesters, implying that at least law enforcement lumps the journalists in with the protesters -- there is no doubt a way to support the claim that "at least one 'protester' is paid". The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Sure, but don't we hear the same "propaganda" every time any group gathers anywhere? If it's not Soros, it's the Kochs; if it's not unions, it's the Russians: whatever boogieman gets you going. In future, can't we just take it as read that some percentage of any group is paid to be there and some higher percentage is accused by someone else of being paid to be there? Is it something we have to worry about?
  - breatheoften 10y ago
    Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda. An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education. Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint should be challenged when false because these claims spread and make it easier to normalize this kind of democracy eroding response from representatives. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087
    - 10y ago