8 ms·

Media propaganda talking points checklist. 1. Iran. Check. 2. Russia. Check. 3. China. Check. 4. Mexican drug cartel. Check. You hit all the propaganda tal

Media propaganda talking points checklist. 1. Iran. Check. 2. Russia. Check. 3. China. Check. 4. Mexican drug cartel. Check. You hit all the propaganda talking points in one comment. Usually such comments stick to one talking point. "China, china, china" or "russia, russia, russia" or ... > Let me say that what the US government is doing wouldn't even be controversial in 99% of the world, including probably 90% of democracies. That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US. > People in other countries are much more clear eyed and pragmatic about these things. Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.

flerchin 3y ago
You're not wrong about the propaganda talking points. >Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world. In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China, and nearly everyone is concerned about Mexican Drug Cartels.
- kodah 3y ago
  We can simultaneously acknowledge that we have an adversarial relationship as a country with Iran, Russia, and China and that it's not an excuse to extract data from the people. I'm not even sure what this crap about Mexico is.
  - flerchin 3y ago
    Yes totally. National adversaries are not an excuse to forgo the Bill of Rights.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      Nobody is forgoing the Bill of Rights. Courts have determined that it is compatible with the Bill of Rights.
      - flerchin 3y ago
        That's an evolving situation, and a plain reading of the 4th amendment makes this whole process look not compatible.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        Legality has nothing to do with any notion of "should".
      - cheeseomlit 3y ago
        Then the courts are wrong, as they often are when it comes to constitutionality. Domestic dragnet surveillance is a very obvious violation of the 4th amendment.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Id be interested in why courts believe that it is not. Is it because it's at the level of signals rather than correlated to people?
        cheeseomlit 3y ago
        Multiple revelations including Snowdens reveal that the data is not uncorrelated/anonymous, if it were I'd imagine it'd be of little use for intelligence purposes. Maybe I am too dismissive/cynical but I don't put much stock in what the courts decide or why on issues like this, they're all under somebody's thumb from what I can tell. They're the same folks that brought us such hits as "corporations are people and money is speech", call me crazy but I don't think they're making their decisions based on high-minded constitutional principles
        janalsncm 3y ago
        In what sense are they “wrong”? You don’t agree with them. But theirs is the final word on the matter until a new court or new law comes around. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights has varied greatly over the last 250 years even though the words have stayed the same. The law isn’t based on our ideas of what it is, the law is based on what is enforced.
    - janalsncm 3y ago
      Historically speaking, it has been the main excuse at every turn. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. People were imprisoned for handing out isolationist pamphlets during WW1 (that’s where we got the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” gem). Germans and Japanese were imprisoned without trial during WW2. The FBI illegally spied on pretty much any domestic political organization (and even infiltrated many of them) from the 50s to the 70s. Now we have pervasive NSA spying on Americans and third parties facilitating the circumvention of any privacy laws we thought we had.
- oilchange 3y ago
  > In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China What's a liberal democracy? Oh you mean our vassals are at odds with the countries we are at odds with? I find that odd. What is the "liberal democracies" problem with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels. Take ireland for example. What's their beef with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels? Oh they have no beef. It's just that they have to follow orders. We say jump and they say how high. Maybe one day, these liberal democracies will be liberated and regain their sovereignty. Hey maybe russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels can help liberate them. The thing about propaganda is how silly it gets.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    It's extremely insulting to call friends and allies vassals.
    - oilchange 3y ago
      The truth hurts. An influential and prominent bureaucrat once said america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Think about it. Isn't it more insulting to call countries you firebombed and nuked "friends and allies". Imagine if china firebombed germany and currently occupies it. Would we not laugh if china called germany their friend and ally? Imagine if russia nuked japan and occupied it. Would we call them besties for life? Edit: You still haven't answered what ireland's problem with iran is? What's ireland's problem with russia and china. And what issues do they have with the mexicans.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        > america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Who said that and where and when did they say it?
    - guerrilla 3y ago
      I think it's extremely insulting to call vassals "friends and allies."
    - 3y ago
birdyrooster 3y ago
Way to be ultimately dismissive and basically call PC a shill and with a smugness that is unnecessary. Different people have different interests and you can’t just ad hominem them as propaganda.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  He expressed the most absolutely brainwashed take on why surveillance is necessary. It's difficult to take him seriously when his talking points couldn't have been written better by any three-letter agency PR department.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Do you have a good reason to be defending obviously bad talking points? In the free marketplace of ideas, this one has evidently been assigned a value less than zero.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Do I need a reason other than curiosity? Asking for a rebuttal that isn't a personal attack is hardly defending. It should be the base level of discussion according to site guidelines.
- anoonmoose 3y ago
  It's a 32-day-old account named after the bad guy from a Star Wars movie. I'd be suspicious of them before even reading the comment, which was fairly bonkers. As for substantive rebuttal of their statements, others have already done it elsewhere in the thread. edit: YIKES https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166300
  - 3y ago
we_never_see_it 3y ago
Russia is an existential threat to our democracy. Surveillance is necessary so no election can interfered by the Russians. Millions of lives have been lost because of an illegal president. We don't want that to happen again.
- oilchange 3y ago
  > Russia is an existential threat to our democracy. Where did I hear this talking point before? Oh that's right. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. https://youtu.be/q_hGKT5FI78?t=52 https://youtu.be/q_hGKT5FI78?t=52
  - JChase2 3y ago
    That's the Sinclair Broadcast Group forcing the news orgs they own to read from the same script. They also had "must run" news segments that include conservative commentary. That doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat to democracy world wide, it just means we have a problem with mega corps owning too much media. I don't think that gives the US an excuse to spy on our own citizens however.
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  Can I have some of your drugs?
shadowgovt 3y ago
> That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US. The US has several problems the rest of the world doesn't. Chronic school shootings, for instance.
janalsncm 3y ago
> That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US. The popular notion of civil rights in America and the historical reality are at odds. Americans have always been spied on, it was just less publicized in the past.

flerchin 3y ago

You're not wrong about the propaganda talking points. >Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world. In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China, and nearly everyone is concerned about Mexican Drug Cartels.

kodah 3y ago
We can simultaneously acknowledge that we have an adversarial relationship as a country with Iran, Russia, and China and that it's not an excuse to extract data from the people. I'm not even sure what this crap about Mexico is.
- flerchin 3y ago
  Yes totally. National adversaries are not an excuse to forgo the Bill of Rights.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Nobody is forgoing the Bill of Rights. Courts have determined that it is compatible with the Bill of Rights.
    - flerchin 3y ago
      That's an evolving situation, and a plain reading of the 4th amendment makes this whole process look not compatible.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Legality has nothing to do with any notion of "should".
    - cheeseomlit 3y ago
      Then the courts are wrong, as they often are when it comes to constitutionality. Domestic dragnet surveillance is a very obvious violation of the 4th amendment.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Id be interested in why courts believe that it is not. Is it because it's at the level of signals rather than correlated to people?
        cheeseomlit 3y ago
        Multiple revelations including Snowdens reveal that the data is not uncorrelated/anonymous, if it were I'd imagine it'd be of little use for intelligence purposes. Maybe I am too dismissive/cynical but I don't put much stock in what the courts decide or why on issues like this, they're all under somebody's thumb from what I can tell. They're the same folks that brought us such hits as "corporations are people and money is speech", call me crazy but I don't think they're making their decisions based on high-minded constitutional principles
      - janalsncm 3y ago
        In what sense are they “wrong”? You don’t agree with them. But theirs is the final word on the matter until a new court or new law comes around. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights has varied greatly over the last 250 years even though the words have stayed the same. The law isn’t based on our ideas of what it is, the law is based on what is enforced.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    Historically speaking, it has been the main excuse at every turn. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. People were imprisoned for handing out isolationist pamphlets during WW1 (that’s where we got the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” gem). Germans and Japanese were imprisoned without trial during WW2. The FBI illegally spied on pretty much any domestic political organization (and even infiltrated many of them) from the 50s to the 70s. Now we have pervasive NSA spying on Americans and third parties facilitating the circumvention of any privacy laws we thought we had.
oilchange 3y ago
> In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China What's a liberal democracy? Oh you mean our vassals are at odds with the countries we are at odds with? I find that odd. What is the "liberal democracies" problem with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels. Take ireland for example. What's their beef with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels? Oh they have no beef. It's just that they have to follow orders. We say jump and they say how high. Maybe one day, these liberal democracies will be liberated and regain their sovereignty. Hey maybe russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels can help liberate them. The thing about propaganda is how silly it gets.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  It's extremely insulting to call friends and allies vassals.
  - oilchange 3y ago
    The truth hurts. An influential and prominent bureaucrat once said america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Think about it. Isn't it more insulting to call countries you firebombed and nuked "friends and allies". Imagine if china firebombed germany and currently occupies it. Would we not laugh if china called germany their friend and ally? Imagine if russia nuked japan and occupied it. Would we call them besties for life? Edit: You still haven't answered what ireland's problem with iran is? What's ireland's problem with russia and china. And what issues do they have with the mexicans.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      > america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Who said that and where and when did they say it?
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    I think it's extremely insulting to call vassals "friends and allies."
  - 3y ago

birdyrooster 3y ago

Way to be ultimately dismissive and basically call PC a shill and with a smugness that is unnecessary. Different people have different interests and you can’t just ad hominem them as propaganda.

valianteffort 3y ago
He expressed the most absolutely brainwashed take on why surveillance is necessary. It's difficult to take him seriously when his talking points couldn't have been written better by any three-letter agency PR department.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Do you have a good reason to be defending obviously bad talking points? In the free marketplace of ideas, this one has evidently been assigned a value less than zero.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      Do I need a reason other than curiosity? Asking for a rebuttal that isn't a personal attack is hardly defending. It should be the base level of discussion according to site guidelines.
anoonmoose 3y ago
It's a 32-day-old account named after the bad guy from a Star Wars movie. I'd be suspicious of them before even reading the comment, which was fairly bonkers. As for substantive rebuttal of their statements, others have already done it elsewhere in the thread. edit: YIKES https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166300
- 3y ago

we_never_see_it 3y ago

Russia is an existential threat to our democracy. Surveillance is necessary so no election can interfered by the Russians. Millions of lives have been lost because of an illegal president. We don't want that to happen again.

oilchange 3y ago
> Russia is an existential threat to our democracy. Where did I hear this talking point before? Oh that's right. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. https://youtu.be/q_hGKT5FI78?t=52 https://youtu.be/q_hGKT5FI78?t=52
- JChase2 3y ago
  That's the Sinclair Broadcast Group forcing the news orgs they own to read from the same script. They also had "must run" news segments that include conservative commentary. That doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat to democracy world wide, it just means we have a problem with mega corps owning too much media. I don't think that gives the US an excuse to spy on our own citizens however.
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
Can I have some of your drugs?

shadowgovt 3y ago

> That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US. The US has several problems the rest of the world doesn't. Chronic school shootings, for instance.

janalsncm 3y ago

> That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US. The popular notion of civil rights in America and the historical reality are at odds. Americans have always been spied on, it was just less publicized in the past.