4 ms·

Not if shady is being exposed so that fascist can take its place.

by jtode 4y ago

headsoup 4y ago
Who's the fascist you speak of? Is it the government that set up the ministry of truth?
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Can I have link to the ministry of truth website, Google doesn’t seem to return it. Google search is very bad these days.
  - mc32 4y ago
    It’s probably the one that said not to use ivermectin and now say that what they said is that they didn’t recommend it meanwhile all news orgs and social media suppressed any mention of ivermectin and when they did it was to confound it with veterinary medicine.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Right, so there’s no ministry of truth but choices of some media companies to promote government recommendations that turned out to be best to their knowledge and not absolute truth?
      - mc32 4y ago
        No government officials promoted certain narratives which have been proven false and they walk things back and the news doesn’t push back on that. Moreover the government had embeds and was in communication with social media and traditional coordinating what to disseminate and what to suppress. The. You have more dignitaries at the WEF and UN COP saying how wonderful it was that Covid prepared people and provided for better government control…
        mrtksn 4y ago
        So there's no ministry of truth and the US Govt was wrong on some aspects and some of the news organisations didn't pushed back?
        mc32 4y ago
        Oh ok. Obviously Russia and China are not fascist because they have never said they are fascist. Got it; thanks!
        mrtksn 4y ago
        I just don't see how a government body responsible for the public health having an advice for health which is pushed by some of the media counts as ministry of truth.
        notinfuriated 4y ago
        It's already been pointed out to you that when people say "Ministry of Truth", they're referring to the defunct "Disinformation Governance Board" created within the DHS. You chose to ignore that.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        Obviously that's not what mc32 had in his mind
        notinfuriated 4y ago
        Interesting you didn't engage with those other replies then. Why is that?
        mrtksn 4y ago
        When I don't have anything to add, ask or object, I don't engage.
      - naasking 4y ago
        > Right, so there’s no ministry of truth but choices of some media companies to promote government recommendations If you think the government phone-calling people at social media companies flagging specific instances and people for "misinformation" is not a form of intimidation, then you need to familiarize yourself with the legal precedent here.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    The now defunt 'Disinformation Governance Board' obviously.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    They "shut it down" when it became public due to the backlash[0]. But not really, they just started working in secret. Now we have a secret ministry of truth[1] like some nations have secret police. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Bo... [1]https://libertyjusticecenter.org/media/social-media-censorship/ https://libertyjusticecenter.org/media/social-media-censorsh...
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Yes, the disinformation board was actually an attempt to formalize and create some oversight over the ad hoc, unaccountable process that the government has to go through today to pressure media companies to manipulate and censor the public. I prefer it this way. It's better for people to feel like criminals who whiteboard in backrooms how to manipulate public opinion by laundering prior restraint through putting pressure on the incomes of billionaires. Formalization of this process would just be permanent institutionalization, and the US government has shown throughout the 20c to now that a public board won't prevent abuses, abuses will just be routed around the board.
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    Forgive the presentation but here is a vlogger [1] discussing the articles behind the MoT. In summary, there is no link so to speak of. There are leaked DM's. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdjQWuJeVqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdjQWuJeVqE [video]
- sonotathrowaway 4y ago
  Probably Putin - you know, the guy that pays him to not leak Russian documents.
philippejara 4y ago
You mean the fascist that kept bombing a country his own invaded because of "self-defense"? the same one who presided over the biggest government surveillance leak in the entire history, and then made sure to hunt down the leaker into the only place that would provide him safety and now conveniently uses it to discredit him? Or you mean the fascist warhawk that actually started several wars that ravaged the middle-east and passed the patriot act to give the government untold power over its citizens, both with bipartisan support I might add? How can Trump be seen with such disdain in comparison when at worst he's just a more incompetent version of Obama with a social media addiction and republican slant. The NSA scandal was merely a decade ago, george w bush wasn't that far back either, how short are the memories. If anything his unconditional withdraw of all troops in afghanistan is the biggest anti-fascist action the last 3 presidents have done, although this one action certainly doesn't put him above being one given he wasn't even pulling the breaks on their actions beforehand.
- jtode 4y ago
  Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here, but let me try to engage constructively here, by pointing out that your text betrays a complete ignorance of what exactly fascism is and how it acts upon societies it infects. Now if you want to talk about the many times that Democrats and Republicans all had a big lovefest so they could all vote together to invade a country, I'm with you on that, but it's a problem of both parties, as the voting record clearly demonstrates. What's been happening the last decade or so is another thing entirely.
  - philippejara 4y ago
    > Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here Funnily enough, so is yours. What I highlighted pointed towards government becoming increasingly overbearing and ramping up surveillance on its citizens(NSA and patriot act), military extremism(patriot act again and the middle east), paternalism over other cultures(fear that the people would choose the "wrong"side in a country they invaded as an excuse to keep troops or to install proxy governments), and the list goes on. You're at a point that covering true stories like the hunter biden laptop(that now journalists are verifying its authenticity) have made people like glenn greenwald persona non-grata in mainstream journalism circles, while having the intelligence agencies saying it is false. You have people that risked and are paying with their life to make information known to the public demonized because apparently leaking things about the candidate I like is bad, regardless of it being true. You have people asking for oversight for the contributions to Ukraine being labelled as russian assets(ie:enemy of our great state). You have intelligence agencies being labelled as some all knowing benevolent protectors of the populace not even a decade after the NSA leaks. The only thing that could be disguising it is because as it stands mostly the democrats seem to be on this publically, but make no mistake the moment push comes to shove the republicans will also take such position as they had taken before trump, and with thunderous applause from the "bipartisan" population if the current outlook is something to go by. Fascism has been acting on the american society for a long time, Trump just coincidentally showed where the allegiances lied once someone that wasn't a career politician took over, luckily for them the man was an incompetent buffoon with his own laundry list of problems who got assimilated into the machine very fast, even if he would say otherwise. If all of this for you isn't clear signs of fascism and instead trump, who mostly just inherited the actions of his predecessors is(making him just as much as the others I might add), we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Not if shady is being exposed so that fascist can take its place.

by jtode 4y ago

Not if shady is being exposed so that fascist can take its place.

headsoup 4y ago

Who's the fascist you speak of? Is it the government that set up the ministry of truth?

mrtksn 4y ago
Can I have link to the ministry of truth website, Google doesn’t seem to return it. Google search is very bad these days.
- mc32 4y ago
  It’s probably the one that said not to use ivermectin and now say that what they said is that they didn’t recommend it meanwhile all news orgs and social media suppressed any mention of ivermectin and when they did it was to confound it with veterinary medicine.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Right, so there’s no ministry of truth but choices of some media companies to promote government recommendations that turned out to be best to their knowledge and not absolute truth?
    - mc32 4y ago
      No government officials promoted certain narratives which have been proven false and they walk things back and the news doesn’t push back on that. Moreover the government had embeds and was in communication with social media and traditional coordinating what to disseminate and what to suppress. The. You have more dignitaries at the WEF and UN COP saying how wonderful it was that Covid prepared people and provided for better government control…
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        So there's no ministry of truth and the US Govt was wrong on some aspects and some of the news organisations didn't pushed back?
        mc32 4y ago
        Oh ok. Obviously Russia and China are not fascist because they have never said they are fascist. Got it; thanks!
        mrtksn 4y ago
        I just don't see how a government body responsible for the public health having an advice for health which is pushed by some of the media counts as ministry of truth.
        notinfuriated 4y ago
        It's already been pointed out to you that when people say "Ministry of Truth", they're referring to the defunct "Disinformation Governance Board" created within the DHS. You chose to ignore that.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        Obviously that's not what mc32 had in his mind
        notinfuriated 4y ago
        Interesting you didn't engage with those other replies then. Why is that?
        mrtksn 4y ago
        When I don't have anything to add, ask or object, I don't engage.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > Right, so there’s no ministry of truth but choices of some media companies to promote government recommendations If you think the government phone-calling people at social media companies flagging specific instances and people for "misinformation" is not a form of intimidation, then you need to familiarize yourself with the legal precedent here.
- headsoup 4y ago
  The now defunt 'Disinformation Governance Board' obviously.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  They "shut it down" when it became public due to the backlash[0]. But not really, they just started working in secret. Now we have a secret ministry of truth[1] like some nations have secret police. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Bo... [1]https://libertyjusticecenter.org/media/social-media-censorship/ https://libertyjusticecenter.org/media/social-media-censorsh...
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Yes, the disinformation board was actually an attempt to formalize and create some oversight over the ad hoc, unaccountable process that the government has to go through today to pressure media companies to manipulate and censor the public. I prefer it this way. It's better for people to feel like criminals who whiteboard in backrooms how to manipulate public opinion by laundering prior restraint through putting pressure on the incomes of billionaires. Formalization of this process would just be permanent institutionalization, and the US government has shown throughout the 20c to now that a public board won't prevent abuses, abuses will just be routed around the board.
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  Forgive the presentation but here is a vlogger [1] discussing the articles behind the MoT. In summary, there is no link so to speak of. There are leaked DM's. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdjQWuJeVqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdjQWuJeVqE [video]
sonotathrowaway 4y ago
Probably Putin - you know, the guy that pays him to not leak Russian documents.

philippejara 4y ago

You mean the fascist that kept bombing a country his own invaded because of "self-defense"? the same one who presided over the biggest government surveillance leak in the entire history, and then made sure to hunt down the leaker into the only place that would provide him safety and now conveniently uses it to discredit him? Or you mean the fascist warhawk that actually started several wars that ravaged the middle-east and passed the patriot act to give the government untold power over its citizens, both with bipartisan support I might add? How can Trump be seen with such disdain in comparison when at worst he's just a more incompetent version of Obama with a social media addiction and republican slant. The NSA scandal was merely a decade ago, george w bush wasn't that far back either, how short are the memories. If anything his unconditional withdraw of all troops in afghanistan is the biggest anti-fascist action the last 3 presidents have done, although this one action certainly doesn't put him above being one given he wasn't even pulling the breaks on their actions beforehand.

jtode 4y ago
Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here, but let me try to engage constructively here, by pointing out that your text betrays a complete ignorance of what exactly fascism is and how it acts upon societies it infects. Now if you want to talk about the many times that Democrats and Republicans all had a big lovefest so they could all vote together to invade a country, I'm with you on that, but it's a problem of both parties, as the voting record clearly demonstrates. What's been happening the last decade or so is another thing entirely.
- philippejara 4y ago
  > Your text is already faded enough that you must be clear that a lot of folks don't agree with your sentiment here Funnily enough, so is yours. What I highlighted pointed towards government becoming increasingly overbearing and ramping up surveillance on its citizens(NSA and patriot act), military extremism(patriot act again and the middle east), paternalism over other cultures(fear that the people would choose the "wrong"side in a country they invaded as an excuse to keep troops or to install proxy governments), and the list goes on. You're at a point that covering true stories like the hunter biden laptop(that now journalists are verifying its authenticity) have made people like glenn greenwald persona non-grata in mainstream journalism circles, while having the intelligence agencies saying it is false. You have people that risked and are paying with their life to make information known to the public demonized because apparently leaking things about the candidate I like is bad, regardless of it being true. You have people asking for oversight for the contributions to Ukraine being labelled as russian assets(ie:enemy of our great state). You have intelligence agencies being labelled as some all knowing benevolent protectors of the populace not even a decade after the NSA leaks. The only thing that could be disguising it is because as it stands mostly the democrats seem to be on this publically, but make no mistake the moment push comes to shove the republicans will also take such position as they had taken before trump, and with thunderous applause from the "bipartisan" population if the current outlook is something to go by. Fascism has been acting on the american society for a long time, Trump just coincidentally showed where the allegiances lied once someone that wasn't a career politician took over, luckily for them the man was an incompetent buffoon with his own laundry list of problems who got assimilated into the machine very fast, even if he would say otherwise. If all of this for you isn't clear signs of fascism and instead trump, who mostly just inherited the actions of his predecessors is(making him just as much as the others I might add), we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.