6 ms·

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

by axiosgunnar 6y ago

madeofpalk 6y ago
As long as the enemy has an actual valid claim.
ceejayoz 6y ago
The core doctrine of US foreign policy.
permo-w 6y ago
Not when it’s the Daily Mail. I don’t like Google either, but the mail is an absolutely drain on society, and in my opinion has done much, much worse than Google ever has Yeah google suppresses competition, and shamelessly sells your data, but they aren’t deliberately and carefully peddling hate and dog-whistle racism. Their business model isn’t literally to corrupt people’s minds, addict them to controversy and clastic words and profit from that. They don’t directly benefit from a less-educated society Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis
- simonh 6y ago
  “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”. Not a headline that aged well, even in the relatively short term.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    ""At this next vital election Britain's survival as a Great Power will depend on the existence of a well-organised Party of the Right, ready to take over responsibility for national affairs with the same directness of purpose and energy of method as Mussolini and Hitler have displayed.... That is why I say Hurrah for the Blackshirts! ... Hundreds of thousands of young British men and women would like to see their own country develop that spirit of patriotic pride and service which has transformed Germany and Italy. They cannot do better than seek out the nearest branch of the Blackshirts and make themselves acquainted with their aims and plans." 1st Lord Rothermere, The Daily Mail (15th January, 1934) https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm
    - janeroe 6y ago
      You can find numerous quotes by British and American politicians of the time approving Hitler or Stalin. E.g. Churchill praises Hitler in his 1935 book (after the purge of up to 1000 people in 1934). Roosevelt and his wife's enchantment with Stalin is another example.
      - vidarh 6y ago
        That's hardly justification. Plenty also condemned them.
- yostrovs 6y ago
  What about organizations like CNN, that spend months and sometimes years on conspiracy theories, only to move on to the next one when the previous turns out to be false? Here's for reference an example: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-about-officer https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-a...
  - treeman79 6y ago
    It’s been getting harder to find references like these online. Stories I’ve read about can not be found anymore. It’s like someone is messing with the search results to only give one political viewpoint. On the plus side it’s fun learning about what your not supposed to know by seeing the fact checkers disprove a story I hadn’t yet heard about. So convenient that the refutation ranks higher.
  - onedognight 6y ago
    The article you refer to exaggerates its first claim so disingenuously that I won’t bother to read the rest. It claims: > The New York Times on January 8 published an emotionally gut-wrenching but complete fiction that never had any evidence — that Officer Sicknick's skull was savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump mob until he died While the referenced (archived) NYT article says: > At some point in the chaos [...] he was struck with a fire extinguisher and > He returned to his division office and collapsed, There is no cause of death claimed by the NYT. No “bashing until he died” claimed. For background, that at least one rioter (Sanford) threw a fire extinguisher and hit three cops in the head (two wearing helmets) is alleged by the FBI based video evidence[1]. [1] https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Robert%20Sanford%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Robert%...
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Was the NYT article edited after the fact? That happens fairly often. I remember having to calm my gf down after she was so upset by the news that someone had their head bashed in with a fire extinguisher. It was definitely reported, and definitely false.
- varispeed 6y ago
  > Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis Google supports China though, and that's not too far removed. You know people back then didn't believe that Germans ran camps despite all the evidence. It seems like the same thing is happening now - there is evidence of camps in China, but people happily buy products because it is cheap and companies wipe their faces and continue to do business there. You know in the 30s IBM has provided the infrastructure to run those camps. So you are making a bold claim here.
  - blinding-streak 6y ago
    Curious, how does "Google support China?"
    - varispeed 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China
      - blinding-streak 6y ago
        Not seeing anything about support in there, what are you seeing?
        jpttsn 6y ago
        You’re looking for words, not actions?
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        I think they're looking for actual indications of support, not "they launched in China and got blocked by the government".
  - permo-w 6y ago
    There’s a big difference between releasing articles in direct support of the people and the ideology, and operating your business in that country. You mention IBM. That’s just one example. The US as a whole benefited enormously from selling weapons, vehicles and fuel to both sides of WW2. By your logic, the entire US economy since the war might as well have written persuasive articles in support of the Nazis. It’s basically nonsense
- rchaud 6y ago
  > Their business model isn’t literally to corrupt people’s minds, addict them to controversy and clastic words and profit from that. Ever heard of the Youtube alt-right rabbit hole? Google absolutely profits from hateful, extremist content.
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    yet any attempt to counteract that (natural human) perversion of the platform they provide, and an angry mob forms and yells "censorship" and "anti trust"
  - permo-w 6y ago
    They profit from it, sure, but it’s not them creating the content. Google are the people selling printing presses. The Daily Mail, Prager U, that little Speedy Gonzalez Jewish prick, and Alex Jones are the ones making the content. That’s the difference
    - rchaud 6y ago
      That is demonstrably wrong. Google is not a printing press provider, they are a bookstore. Printing press manufacturers do not provide book recommendations. Youtube does, 24/7, for every single customer walking through its doors.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less." - Schlock Mercenary Maxim #29

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

madeofpalk 6y ago

As long as the enemy has an actual valid claim.

ceejayoz 6y ago

The core doctrine of US foreign policy.

permo-w 6y ago

Not when it’s the Daily Mail. I don’t like Google either, but the mail is an absolutely drain on society, and in my opinion has done much, much worse than Google ever has Yeah google suppresses competition, and shamelessly sells your data, but they aren’t deliberately and carefully peddling hate and dog-whistle racism. Their business model isn’t literally to corrupt people’s minds, addict them to controversy and clastic words and profit from that. They don’t directly benefit from a less-educated society Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis

simonh 6y ago
“Hurrah for the Blackshirts”. Not a headline that aged well, even in the relatively short term.
- arethuza 6y ago
  ""At this next vital election Britain's survival as a Great Power will depend on the existence of a well-organised Party of the Right, ready to take over responsibility for national affairs with the same directness of purpose and energy of method as Mussolini and Hitler have displayed.... That is why I say Hurrah for the Blackshirts! ... Hundreds of thousands of young British men and women would like to see their own country develop that spirit of patriotic pride and service which has transformed Germany and Italy. They cannot do better than seek out the nearest branch of the Blackshirts and make themselves acquainted with their aims and plans." 1st Lord Rothermere, The Daily Mail (15th January, 1934) https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm
  - janeroe 6y ago
    You can find numerous quotes by British and American politicians of the time approving Hitler or Stalin. E.g. Churchill praises Hitler in his 1935 book (after the purge of up to 1000 people in 1934). Roosevelt and his wife's enchantment with Stalin is another example.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      That's hardly justification. Plenty also condemned them.
yostrovs 6y ago
What about organizations like CNN, that spend months and sometimes years on conspiracy theories, only to move on to the next one when the previous turns out to be false? Here's for reference an example: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-about-officer https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-a...
- treeman79 6y ago
  It’s been getting harder to find references like these online. Stories I’ve read about can not be found anymore. It’s like someone is messing with the search results to only give one political viewpoint. On the plus side it’s fun learning about what your not supposed to know by seeing the fact checkers disprove a story I hadn’t yet heard about. So convenient that the refutation ranks higher.
- onedognight 6y ago
  The article you refer to exaggerates its first claim so disingenuously that I won’t bother to read the rest. It claims: > The New York Times on January 8 published an emotionally gut-wrenching but complete fiction that never had any evidence — that Officer Sicknick's skull was savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump mob until he died While the referenced (archived) NYT article says: > At some point in the chaos [...] he was struck with a fire extinguisher and > He returned to his division office and collapsed, There is no cause of death claimed by the NYT. No “bashing until he died” claimed. For background, that at least one rioter (Sanford) threw a fire extinguisher and hit three cops in the head (two wearing helmets) is alleged by the FBI based video evidence[1]. [1] https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Robert%20Sanford%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Robert%...
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Was the NYT article edited after the fact? That happens fairly often. I remember having to calm my gf down after she was so upset by the news that someone had their head bashed in with a fire extinguisher. It was definitely reported, and definitely false.
varispeed 6y ago
> Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis Google supports China though, and that's not too far removed. You know people back then didn't believe that Germans ran camps despite all the evidence. It seems like the same thing is happening now - there is evidence of camps in China, but people happily buy products because it is cheap and companies wipe their faces and continue to do business there. You know in the 30s IBM has provided the infrastructure to run those camps. So you are making a bold claim here.
- blinding-streak 6y ago
  Curious, how does "Google support China?"
  - varispeed 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China
    - blinding-streak 6y ago
      Not seeing anything about support in there, what are you seeing?
      - jpttsn 6y ago
        You’re looking for words, not actions?
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        I think they're looking for actual indications of support, not "they launched in China and got blocked by the government".
- permo-w 6y ago
  There’s a big difference between releasing articles in direct support of the people and the ideology, and operating your business in that country. You mention IBM. That’s just one example. The US as a whole benefited enormously from selling weapons, vehicles and fuel to both sides of WW2. By your logic, the entire US economy since the war might as well have written persuasive articles in support of the Nazis. It’s basically nonsense
rchaud 6y ago
> Their business model isn’t literally to corrupt people’s minds, addict them to controversy and clastic words and profit from that. Ever heard of the Youtube alt-right rabbit hole? Google absolutely profits from hateful, extremist content.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  yet any attempt to counteract that (natural human) perversion of the platform they provide, and an angry mob forms and yells "censorship" and "anti trust"
- permo-w 6y ago
  They profit from it, sure, but it’s not them creating the content. Google are the people selling printing presses. The Daily Mail, Prager U, that little Speedy Gonzalez Jewish prick, and Alex Jones are the ones making the content. That’s the difference
  - rchaud 6y ago
    That is demonstrably wrong. Google is not a printing press provider, they are a bookstore. Printing press manufacturers do not provide book recommendations. Youtube does, 24/7, for every single customer walking through its doors.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less." - Schlock Mercenary Maxim #29