4 ms·

Only a complete fool believes that Russia was able to influence the US elections with a few thousand dollars worth of Twitter ads. The Russian narrative exists

Only a complete fool believes that Russia was able to influence the US elections with a few thousand dollars worth of Twitter ads. The Russian narrative exists to create a distraction in the form of an external enemy for the establishment. It is a completely ridiculous narrative for anyone that has a brain. Obama interfered with the Brexit vote when he told the Brits that if they voted for Brexit, they would need to go to the back of the queue.

evgen 8y ago
Only a complete fool believes that it was only a few thousand dollars worth of Twitter ads, or that Russian interference is some sort of fake bogeyman created to distract people. The threat is real and part of the threat are willing accomplices such as yourself.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > The threat is real and part of the threat are willing accomplices such as yourself. You realize this kind of behavior, accusing others of being traitors for doubting your narrative, is textbook propaganda behavior? It's also really odd behavior considering you didn't even back up your first claim, saying "there's more than only Twitter ads" without saying what "more" adds literally nothing to the discussion. Nobody is doubting that "Russian interference" exists, what many people are doubting is how much influence it actually had on Trump being elected or Trump's daily business in general. Because the narrative that Russia is to blame for everything from Brexit, Trump getting elected to the resurgence of nationalist sentiments is just that: A narrative designed to build the perfect bogeyman. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time#Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time#Summary
  - Udik 8y ago
    Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I'll post here a portion of the page because I think it's incredibly insightful: > Anne Morelli has summarized and systematized the contents of Ponsonby's classic in "ten commandments of propaganda": 1- We do not want war. 2- The opposite party alone is guilty of war. 3- The enemy is the face of the devil. 4- We defend a noble cause, not our own interest. 5- The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary. 6- The enemy uses forbidden weapons. 7- We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous. 8- Artists and intellectuals back our cause. 9- Our cause is sacred. 10- All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
    - freeflight 8y ago
      I should have added a general recommendation for the book itself, because it's an extremely interesting and eye-opening read. Negative national stereotypes have always existed, but during WWI whole governments put in organized efforts to purposefully paint these stereotypes. Usually, most people think of Hitler and WWII when talking about "propaganda war", but WWI already had plenty of that going on, on all involved sides.
  - Theodores 8y ago
    > Nobody is doubting that "Russian interference" exists Well, I for one doubt it. The reason being that I have listened to the words that the Russian President had to say on the matter, as translated by a Youtuber (Inessa S) who gets a few quid from Patreon subscribers rather than as filtered into soundbites by Western media who get a few quid from the arms-trade. Sometimes you have to listen to what people say and the explanations that they provide for their behaviour. Sometimes listening may involve reading subtitles. Listening is different to assuming and going along with what other people tell you to think. The Russian President is an extremely smart thinker and as he saw it, even if meddling was possible, this would not help matters further down the road. Russian reputation in the wider international community would be undermined whatever the outcome had interference gone on. This would undermine whomever they 'interfered with' to get elected. This is the key reason why there was no 'interference'. Although nobody including the Russian President knew the outcome of the U.S. election until it happened, it was clear to people in Moscow that Trump suited the mood of the times and that he did have genuine and popular support despite the many obnoxious things he said and had done. It was also clear to them that Trump and 37% of Republican voters had a lot of respect for the Russian President whilst that Clinton woman was a hater towards Russia. So, coming from a nation that is better at chess, the Russian President really had no incentive to meddle. To believe otherwise is foolish thinking and to misunderstand the multi-lateral world based on the rule of law that Moscow wants for the world. There is no 'they influenced it a bit', Moscow stayed out of it, neutral. The shoe is actually on the other foot when you go down the rabbit hole of what 'Cambridge Analytica' was all about.
    - freeflight 8y ago
      I just don't think the Russian government, and it's intelligence services in general, are as much of a monolith, as they are being painted as. Even your comment makes it look like Putin is personally responsible and in oversight, of literally every single thing going on in Russia. Which is usually a narrative used to make him personally responsible for literally everything negative Russia as a state does. I'm not a fan of either of those two, governments and countries, especially of that size, are way too big and complex to run them in such a direct "in person" style.
- wruza 8y ago
  Assuming that the threat is real and one of the big/influential countries does that, what’s the solution? The secondary media space, i.e. non-tv-radio which are expensively licensed and controlled, is open to the influence, to categorizing, labelling and other ranking by its nature. The main force there is popularity and small money (compared to e.g. military). Is it the “aggressor” that should change or the media space that is so vulnerable now? You’re basically put down all the [mind] defenses and then complain that it was influenced. It will, dude, if not by politicians, then by advertisers and other trick dealers. That’s all theoretic since I don’t believe that government forces are vulnerable at all. As I understand, it is just a new convenient “evil axis” to fight against. Even if you assume that Trump was heavily supported by russians, then it means that US democracy had only one viable candidate on last elections and half of the US politics were basically bought. That’s in my opinion either nonsense, or the end of US democracy.

evgen 8y ago

Only a complete fool believes that it was only a few thousand dollars worth of Twitter ads, or that Russian interference is some sort of fake bogeyman created to distract people. The threat is real and part of the threat are willing accomplices such as yourself.

freeflight 8y ago
> The threat is real and part of the threat are willing accomplices such as yourself. You realize this kind of behavior, accusing others of being traitors for doubting your narrative, is textbook propaganda behavior? It's also really odd behavior considering you didn't even back up your first claim, saying "there's more than only Twitter ads" without saying what "more" adds literally nothing to the discussion. Nobody is doubting that "Russian interference" exists, what many people are doubting is how much influence it actually had on Trump being elected or Trump's daily business in general. Because the narrative that Russia is to blame for everything from Brexit, Trump getting elected to the resurgence of nationalist sentiments is just that: A narrative designed to build the perfect bogeyman. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time#Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsehood_in_War-Time#Summary
- Udik 8y ago
  Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I'll post here a portion of the page because I think it's incredibly insightful: > Anne Morelli has summarized and systematized the contents of Ponsonby's classic in "ten commandments of propaganda": 1- We do not want war. 2- The opposite party alone is guilty of war. 3- The enemy is the face of the devil. 4- We defend a noble cause, not our own interest. 5- The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary. 6- The enemy uses forbidden weapons. 7- We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous. 8- Artists and intellectuals back our cause. 9- Our cause is sacred. 10- All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    I should have added a general recommendation for the book itself, because it's an extremely interesting and eye-opening read. Negative national stereotypes have always existed, but during WWI whole governments put in organized efforts to purposefully paint these stereotypes. Usually, most people think of Hitler and WWII when talking about "propaganda war", but WWI already had plenty of that going on, on all involved sides.
- Theodores 8y ago
  > Nobody is doubting that "Russian interference" exists Well, I for one doubt it. The reason being that I have listened to the words that the Russian President had to say on the matter, as translated by a Youtuber (Inessa S) who gets a few quid from Patreon subscribers rather than as filtered into soundbites by Western media who get a few quid from the arms-trade. Sometimes you have to listen to what people say and the explanations that they provide for their behaviour. Sometimes listening may involve reading subtitles. Listening is different to assuming and going along with what other people tell you to think. The Russian President is an extremely smart thinker and as he saw it, even if meddling was possible, this would not help matters further down the road. Russian reputation in the wider international community would be undermined whatever the outcome had interference gone on. This would undermine whomever they 'interfered with' to get elected. This is the key reason why there was no 'interference'. Although nobody including the Russian President knew the outcome of the U.S. election until it happened, it was clear to people in Moscow that Trump suited the mood of the times and that he did have genuine and popular support despite the many obnoxious things he said and had done. It was also clear to them that Trump and 37% of Republican voters had a lot of respect for the Russian President whilst that Clinton woman was a hater towards Russia. So, coming from a nation that is better at chess, the Russian President really had no incentive to meddle. To believe otherwise is foolish thinking and to misunderstand the multi-lateral world based on the rule of law that Moscow wants for the world. There is no 'they influenced it a bit', Moscow stayed out of it, neutral. The shoe is actually on the other foot when you go down the rabbit hole of what 'Cambridge Analytica' was all about.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    I just don't think the Russian government, and it's intelligence services in general, are as much of a monolith, as they are being painted as. Even your comment makes it look like Putin is personally responsible and in oversight, of literally every single thing going on in Russia. Which is usually a narrative used to make him personally responsible for literally everything negative Russia as a state does. I'm not a fan of either of those two, governments and countries, especially of that size, are way too big and complex to run them in such a direct "in person" style.
wruza 8y ago
Assuming that the threat is real and one of the big/influential countries does that, what’s the solution? The secondary media space, i.e. non-tv-radio which are expensively licensed and controlled, is open to the influence, to categorizing, labelling and other ranking by its nature. The main force there is popularity and small money (compared to e.g. military). Is it the “aggressor” that should change or the media space that is so vulnerable now? You’re basically put down all the [mind] defenses and then complain that it was influenced. It will, dude, if not by politicians, then by advertisers and other trick dealers. That’s all theoretic since I don’t believe that government forces are vulnerable at all. As I understand, it is just a new convenient “evil axis” to fight against. Even if you assume that Trump was heavily supported by russians, then it means that US democracy had only one viable candidate on last elections and half of the US politics were basically bought. That’s in my opinion either nonsense, or the end of US democracy.