3 ms·

I can't tell if this is /s or not..

mikeash 8y ago
Not at all. Russian involvement in Calexit is pretty well supported, just search. They’re out to weaken this country by exploiting existing political fault lines. Supporting a plan to split up our most successful and prosperous state fits right into their MO.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I know who you are (at least as an HN commenter), which is why I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. But when someone says "X is well known, just search", they're usually peddling some complete nonsense that happens to have a web page that Google knows about. The way you phrased that (and didn't actually supply any evidence) trips the BS detector, at least for me. As I said, I give you the benefit of the doubt, because you don't post that way, and I don't think you meant to here. It's just an unfortunate phrasing, but I thought I'd mention it. As to the substance of your statement: Yes, this fits the pattern. But I don't think they care whether they split California or not. Splitting it doesn't change things very much. (Unlike, say, presidential elections. And on that topic, it occurs to me that we got handed an absolutely horrible choice in 2016. Maybe we ought to be looking more closely for interference in the primaries, not just in the general election.) I think the real goal is to create conflict. This is a nice topic to get everybody all wound up about. I think they'll try to amplify that. Whether or not they're behind the proposal, they'll try to rile up both sides. One of the things to watch for is the reasons that are presented for people to become agitated. Since agitprop is not "organic" (for want of a better word), the reasons given for becoming outraged seem a bit... off. Foreign, even. You think, "everyone's freaking out about this, but it doesn't quite resonate with me". That's a hint that it may be manufactured outrage, rather than real.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It’s as easy as googling “calexit Russia” and seeing the parade of sources from reputable outlets. What’s the right phrasing for something like that? Or do I need to source everything?
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      You're right, it is that easy. The first one I found came from the BBC, which is generally regarded as reputable, by almost everybody on both sides of the Red/Blue war: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131 What's the right phrasing? The way you phrased it fit a pattern in my mind. That's not much of a concern if other people don't share that pattern. (Judging by the downvotes, not many do.) To placate me, you might say "just search, and pick a source that you consider reliable" - that eliminates the possibility of some fringe view whose only sources are fringe. But that's me - that works for a sample of one; any further applicability is uncertain. > Or do I need to source everything? That might be the answer. Posts are read more than they are written. If you google it, you save 10 or 1000 readers from having to google it. (Of course, if some of your readers consider BBC to be "fringe" or "part of the deep state" or whatever, the link you choose from the search may not satisfy them...)
      - mikeash 8y ago
        I see what you mean. I’ll keep this in mind.

Not at all. Russian involvement in Calexit is pretty well supported, just search. They’re out to weaken this country by exploiting existing political fault lines. Supporting a plan to split up our most successful and prosperous state fits right into their MO.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I know who you are (at least as an HN commenter), which is why I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. But when someone says "X is well known, just search", they're usually peddling some complete nonsense that happens to have a web page that Google knows about. The way you phrased that (and didn't actually supply any evidence) trips the BS detector, at least for me. As I said, I give you the benefit of the doubt, because you don't post that way, and I don't think you meant to here. It's just an unfortunate phrasing, but I thought I'd mention it. As to the substance of your statement: Yes, this fits the pattern. But I don't think they care whether they split California or not. Splitting it doesn't change things very much. (Unlike, say, presidential elections. And on that topic, it occurs to me that we got handed an absolutely horrible choice in 2016. Maybe we ought to be looking more closely for interference in the primaries, not just in the general election.) I think the real goal is to create conflict. This is a nice topic to get everybody all wound up about. I think they'll try to amplify that. Whether or not they're behind the proposal, they'll try to rile up both sides. One of the things to watch for is the reasons that are presented for people to become agitated. Since agitprop is not "organic" (for want of a better word), the reasons given for becoming outraged seem a bit... off. Foreign, even. You think, "everyone's freaking out about this, but it doesn't quite resonate with me". That's a hint that it may be manufactured outrage, rather than real.
- mikeash 8y ago
  It’s as easy as googling “calexit Russia” and seeing the parade of sources from reputable outlets. What’s the right phrasing for something like that? Or do I need to source everything?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    You're right, it is that easy. The first one I found came from the BBC, which is generally regarded as reputable, by almost everybody on both sides of the Red/Blue war: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131 What's the right phrasing? The way you phrased it fit a pattern in my mind. That's not much of a concern if other people don't share that pattern. (Judging by the downvotes, not many do.) To placate me, you might say "just search, and pick a source that you consider reliable" - that eliminates the possibility of some fringe view whose only sources are fringe. But that's me - that works for a sample of one; any further applicability is uncertain. > Or do I need to source everything? That might be the answer. Posts are read more than they are written. If you google it, you save 10 or 1000 readers from having to google it. (Of course, if some of your readers consider BBC to be "fringe" or "part of the deep state" or whatever, the link you choose from the search may not satisfy them...)
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I see what you mean. I’ll keep this in mind.