4 ms·

It is a pity you have to put the big disclosure at the top of your comment. But our media have made things very binary black and white. Not buying into the 're

It is a pity you have to put the big disclosure at the top of your comment. But our media have made things very binary black and white. Not buying into the 'red scare' means that in the eyes of some you must be a Trump supporter. This is a failure of critical thinking and far too many people fall into this trap, thereby perpetuating things like 'RussiaGate' when it no longer makes sense to do so. The suspicions won't die down amongst those that have been sat in front of their televisions feeding their imaginations with 'RussiaGate'. To them 'it happened but it could not be proven'. Their suspicions are still confirmed. There is also a failure to take people at their word when it could be prudent to do so in this world of politics and lying. People have motivation for lying and people have motivation for being honest. The leadership in Russia - Putin, Lavrov and others - have stated why it is that they have not secretly foisted Trump on the American people. But those that don't listen don't want to take them for their word on that. Fundamentally the Kremlin see other nations as having national interests and, in the case of America, they have no need to care about who sits in the Oval Office as the national interests will be the same. The Pentagon isn't going to go away, the need for oil isn't going to go away, the need for the world to be using the dollar as the world currency isn't going to go away. American capitalism is always going to be what it is. American national interests are a constant as far as Russia is concerned. They cannot expect some external change, they have to be self-reliant and foster their own good relationships with traditional partners. The Russian leadership have also stated why it is not in their interest to put 'their man' in the Oval Office. It is not due to any standards of conduct it is simpler than that. Thinking two moves ahead, what legitimacy would a puppet President hold, how long would he/she last and how would Russia be treated should the American people find out? The Kremlin have thought this out. However, explaining to someone that the Russians are not motivated to influence the American elections also falls under the 'instant disclaimer'. 'So you must be a Putin fan?' is the expectation for proffering this explainer. But it is not about that, it is about understanding motivation and the Russian leadership are not motivated to influence American elections in some super-sneaky way. There is a failure by the press that have pursued RussiaGate to empathise and understand others, whether they be the people that voted for Trump, the Russians, the Democrat machine or even themselves. It is because of this that you are correct, the press will not reform. It is not in their culture and they don't have the mindset to do so.

alchemism 8y ago
While I respect your opinions of the press, I must also rhetorically ask, “Are you sure you want to be taking these men at their word?” https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/some-clues/cid/1669915 https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/some-clues/cid/1669915
- Theodores 8y ago
  I am not trying to cause a flamewar here. Or to go off down on any rabbit holes. Even the most odious of people can be taken at their word about some things. The heroin addict in the village might not be responsible for every burglary in the village even if they are responsible for 95% of them. In England we have a tradition that people are innocent until proven guilty. RussiaGate and whatever happened in your linked story very much falls under that category.
  - salawat 8y ago
    My neighbor tells me they never let their dog defecate in my yard. Guess what? With not even that much effort I can find out that their dog is outside and unattended most of the day. (Means/Opportunity) I can infer they don't like to leash the dog, due to the frequency the dog can be found roaming the neighborhood. (Motive) I've seem the neighbors unattended dog defecate in other neighbors yards. (Precedent) I've even had to walk it home a couple of times as well. (more precedent) I COULD go through the trouble of setting up a bunch of cameras to catch it red pawed as it were, however, that's kind of a moot point, because I know the neighbor has the means, motive, opportunity, and a history of prior behavior. This is not only a preponderance of evidence, but in the absence of someone else's dog traipsing through my property, this could even be legally considered beyond a reasonable doubt. After reading your various replies, I just want to leave you with a word of caution: not everyone is worth trusting, even in the absence of direct proof. Especially if you can collect a preponderance of evidence that suggests that an action isn't outside their expected behavioral envelope. The biggest problem we face isn't a problem of unreliable sources, but a crisis of ease of manufacture of the blatantly untrue combined with an asymmetrical distribution of the necessary skills/tools to refute. We're still well equipped to deal with this type of situation, but it requires an elevated level of skepticism until we solve the problem of information provenance. If there is one thing we have, going for us, however, it is a large store of information recorded from times before misinformation was so trivially distributed and manufactured to work from, and the wherewithal to reason from it. Trust, I think, is going to develop into a completely different beast in the 21st century from what it was in the 20th.

alchemism 8y ago

While I respect your opinions of the press, I must also rhetorically ask, “Are you sure you want to be taking these men at their word?” https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/some-clues/cid/1669915 https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/some-clues/cid/1669915

Theodores 8y ago
I am not trying to cause a flamewar here. Or to go off down on any rabbit holes. Even the most odious of people can be taken at their word about some things. The heroin addict in the village might not be responsible for every burglary in the village even if they are responsible for 95% of them. In England we have a tradition that people are innocent until proven guilty. RussiaGate and whatever happened in your linked story very much falls under that category.
- salawat 8y ago
  My neighbor tells me they never let their dog defecate in my yard. Guess what? With not even that much effort I can find out that their dog is outside and unattended most of the day. (Means/Opportunity) I can infer they don't like to leash the dog, due to the frequency the dog can be found roaming the neighborhood. (Motive) I've seem the neighbors unattended dog defecate in other neighbors yards. (Precedent) I've even had to walk it home a couple of times as well. (more precedent) I COULD go through the trouble of setting up a bunch of cameras to catch it red pawed as it were, however, that's kind of a moot point, because I know the neighbor has the means, motive, opportunity, and a history of prior behavior. This is not only a preponderance of evidence, but in the absence of someone else's dog traipsing through my property, this could even be legally considered beyond a reasonable doubt. After reading your various replies, I just want to leave you with a word of caution: not everyone is worth trusting, even in the absence of direct proof. Especially if you can collect a preponderance of evidence that suggests that an action isn't outside their expected behavioral envelope. The biggest problem we face isn't a problem of unreliable sources, but a crisis of ease of manufacture of the blatantly untrue combined with an asymmetrical distribution of the necessary skills/tools to refute. We're still well equipped to deal with this type of situation, but it requires an elevated level of skepticism until we solve the problem of information provenance. If there is one thing we have, going for us, however, it is a large store of information recorded from times before misinformation was so trivially distributed and manufactured to work from, and the wherewithal to reason from it. Trust, I think, is going to develop into a completely different beast in the 21st century from what it was in the 20th.