3 ms·

People on the right care a lot about Biden's crimes (either of them). They also care a lot about things that aren't crimes but show them in negative light. Just

by smsm42 3y ago

People on the right care a lot about Biden's crimes (either of them). They also care a lot about things that aren't crimes but show them in negative light. Just as exactly the same is true about people on the left with regard to right wing politicians. And of course journalists are an active part of that. All that "our heroic intelligence professionals against their filthy traitorous spies" is good for movies, but doesn't hold up to any serious scrutiny. Veritas does on the right the same thing many do on the left - and you can call it "journalism" or you can call "journalism" only reprinting press releases and leaks from political operators, but finding and publishing negative information about politicians is how democracy works. And it can't work any other way - if there is nobody who does that, because all the press is more concerned about partisan cohesion, and is willing to lie and hide information for the benefit of the party, then informed democracy is impossible. And democracy where the information is controlled by the politicians is not a democracy at all - it's just a simulacrum.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pstuart 3y ago
> People on the right care a lot about Biden's crimes (either of them). Really? Do they care about the crime itself or just who committed it? Do they think that crimes don't matter when their side does it? I'm fine with prosecuting Biden(s) for any legitimate crimes. I'm also more than fine with doing the same for his predecessor and every one else in office. Can you say the same?
- smsm42 3y ago
  "Legitimate" does a lot of work here.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    There are accusations against Biden that have not yet been shown to be true in court or in committee. Do you only care if it's Joe Biden as the accused or do you care about the corruption implied by it?
    - smsm42 3y ago
      Wait, so you are saying "I'll support prosecuting Biden, but only if he's already been successfully prosecuted in court"? That's one brave commitment right here. Or you envision a situation where Biden's accusations are shown true by the court, but he's still not prosecuted - and in that case, your brave voice would be necessary to support correcting the situation? I hope our legal system, with all its flaws, is not as far gone as to just refuse to prosecute a person that has already been proven guilty, just because. Though to be honest, seeing the details of Hunter's deal, I can see where you may be coming from. > Do you only care if it's Joe Biden as the accused or do you care about the corruption implied by it? I care about both, naturally. So should everybody. I care that a person committed crimes of corruption, and I care that the same person has been occupying the post of VP of the United States, and now occupies the post of the President of the United States (of course, for persons that did not occupy such posts, I still care for the former, the latter just makes it so much worse). Of course, the detail that his name begins with "Bi" and ends with "den" is purely coincidental, neither me nor anybody else (including maybe his personal enemies?) cares about this. To the measure that anybody cares, his personality is completely irrelevant, his position and his crimes are both relevant. And the combination of the position and the crimes enhances this relevancy - it's one thing when a night guard on a used tire recycling plant is corrupt, another thing when it's the President.
      - pstuart 3y ago
        The willful mis-stating/misunderstanding is impressive. My point is that I'm for the laws to be applied evenly. It's clear that Hunter was trading on the appearance of access to his father (which is slimy but not necessarily illegal if the elder Biden did not engage at that level. All those words and no acknowledgement of who else might be worthy of investigation, because that's the whole point of this affair -- whataboutism and misdirection. Continuing this dialog with you is no different than trying to reason with an anti-vaxxer or a religious zealot, so we'll leave it at this and you can walk away "winning" the discussion because I forfeit this game. Congratulations!
pstuart 3y ago
What Veritas does consistently is to alter material to misrepresent its subjects. That's called lying and fraud. If the idea of democracy is to have a "marketplace of ideas" let's definitely do that. Let's examine policy and the data supporting or refuting it. But counterfeit data should not be part of it. > And democracy where the information is controlled by the politicians is not a democracy at all - it's just a simulacrum. I'm not sure where this comes into play. We are awash in information and now suffering from disinformation campaigns (straight out of KGB, comrade). The government doesn't seem to be stopping you from consuming Fox, NewsMax, The Daily Caller, etc.
- smsm42 3y ago
  > What Veritas does consistently is to alter material to misrepresent its subjects. That's called lying and fraud. Only if you call editing the videos - which literally every other news outlet does, nobody publishes full unedited raw footage in the reports, it's just not how it is done - "altering material". Otherwise, Veritas publishes exactly what their subjects said or wrote or otherwise did. > But counterfeit data should not be part of it. Except Veritas didn't counterfeit anything. On the contrary, as we now know, the diary that FBI attacked them over was entirely genuine - and they still didn't use it, btw. On the other hand, only in the recent years we have witnessed a number of cases where false (and as we now know, with the advance knowledge of their falsity) statements were published about the veracity of certain data, and various accusations of foreign interference and such were thrown around, including by very prominent mass media, and so far I did not hear anybody even apologizing for that, let alone excluded from the "marketplace of ideas", despite those acts of counterfeiting. I wonder why is that. Maybe because the exclusion power is wielded by their friends, and their counterfeits help those friends stay in power? > We are awash in information and now suffering from disinformation campaigns (straight out of KGB, comrade) And the same people who are managing these disinformation campaigns are claiming people who trying to get information past them are illegitimate, not real journalists and thus deserve suppression at the hands of law enforcement (because the First Amendment has the little known "y'all folks realize this all is only for real journalists, right?" clause). They are the ones who purport to "fight disinformation" and claim extraordinary powers of speech control to do that. A regime where such powers exist are not democracy - at least not any that is worth of the name. > The government doesn't seem to be stopping you from consuming Fox, NewsMax, The Daily Caller, etc. They are trying (so far by pressuring social networks and other distribution channels to suppress them) but so far they are failing. The First Amendment is pretty strong still, thanks Founding Fathers. But nothing is impossible in politics, and with enough effort it can be - and is being - eroded and ultimately destroyed. In countries where there's no such strong protections, it is plausible that we will witness this within a decade or sooner.

by smsm42 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pstuart 3y ago

> People on the right care a lot about Biden's crimes (either of them). Really? Do they care about the crime itself or just who committed it? Do they think that crimes don't matter when their side does it? I'm fine with prosecuting Biden(s) for any legitimate crimes. I'm also more than fine with doing the same for his predecessor and every one else in office. Can you say the same?

smsm42 3y ago
"Legitimate" does a lot of work here.
- pstuart 3y ago
  There are accusations against Biden that have not yet been shown to be true in court or in committee. Do you only care if it's Joe Biden as the accused or do you care about the corruption implied by it?
  - smsm42 3y ago
    Wait, so you are saying "I'll support prosecuting Biden, but only if he's already been successfully prosecuted in court"? That's one brave commitment right here. Or you envision a situation where Biden's accusations are shown true by the court, but he's still not prosecuted - and in that case, your brave voice would be necessary to support correcting the situation? I hope our legal system, with all its flaws, is not as far gone as to just refuse to prosecute a person that has already been proven guilty, just because. Though to be honest, seeing the details of Hunter's deal, I can see where you may be coming from. > Do you only care if it's Joe Biden as the accused or do you care about the corruption implied by it? I care about both, naturally. So should everybody. I care that a person committed crimes of corruption, and I care that the same person has been occupying the post of VP of the United States, and now occupies the post of the President of the United States (of course, for persons that did not occupy such posts, I still care for the former, the latter just makes it so much worse). Of course, the detail that his name begins with "Bi" and ends with "den" is purely coincidental, neither me nor anybody else (including maybe his personal enemies?) cares about this. To the measure that anybody cares, his personality is completely irrelevant, his position and his crimes are both relevant. And the combination of the position and the crimes enhances this relevancy - it's one thing when a night guard on a used tire recycling plant is corrupt, another thing when it's the President.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      The willful mis-stating/misunderstanding is impressive. My point is that I'm for the laws to be applied evenly. It's clear that Hunter was trading on the appearance of access to his father (which is slimy but not necessarily illegal if the elder Biden did not engage at that level. All those words and no acknowledgement of who else might be worthy of investigation, because that's the whole point of this affair -- whataboutism and misdirection. Continuing this dialog with you is no different than trying to reason with an anti-vaxxer or a religious zealot, so we'll leave it at this and you can walk away "winning" the discussion because I forfeit this game. Congratulations!

pstuart 3y ago

What Veritas does consistently is to alter material to misrepresent its subjects. That's called lying and fraud. If the idea of democracy is to have a "marketplace of ideas" let's definitely do that. Let's examine policy and the data supporting or refuting it. But counterfeit data should not be part of it. > And democracy where the information is controlled by the politicians is not a democracy at all - it's just a simulacrum. I'm not sure where this comes into play. We are awash in information and now suffering from disinformation campaigns (straight out of KGB, comrade). The government doesn't seem to be stopping you from consuming Fox, NewsMax, The Daily Caller, etc.

smsm42 3y ago
> What Veritas does consistently is to alter material to misrepresent its subjects. That's called lying and fraud. Only if you call editing the videos - which literally every other news outlet does, nobody publishes full unedited raw footage in the reports, it's just not how it is done - "altering material". Otherwise, Veritas publishes exactly what their subjects said or wrote or otherwise did. > But counterfeit data should not be part of it. Except Veritas didn't counterfeit anything. On the contrary, as we now know, the diary that FBI attacked them over was entirely genuine - and they still didn't use it, btw. On the other hand, only in the recent years we have witnessed a number of cases where false (and as we now know, with the advance knowledge of their falsity) statements were published about the veracity of certain data, and various accusations of foreign interference and such were thrown around, including by very prominent mass media, and so far I did not hear anybody even apologizing for that, let alone excluded from the "marketplace of ideas", despite those acts of counterfeiting. I wonder why is that. Maybe because the exclusion power is wielded by their friends, and their counterfeits help those friends stay in power? > We are awash in information and now suffering from disinformation campaigns (straight out of KGB, comrade) And the same people who are managing these disinformation campaigns are claiming people who trying to get information past them are illegitimate, not real journalists and thus deserve suppression at the hands of law enforcement (because the First Amendment has the little known "y'all folks realize this all is only for real journalists, right?" clause). They are the ones who purport to "fight disinformation" and claim extraordinary powers of speech control to do that. A regime where such powers exist are not democracy - at least not any that is worth of the name. > The government doesn't seem to be stopping you from consuming Fox, NewsMax, The Daily Caller, etc. They are trying (so far by pressuring social networks and other distribution channels to suppress them) but so far they are failing. The First Amendment is pretty strong still, thanks Founding Fathers. But nothing is impossible in politics, and with enough effort it can be - and is being - eroded and ultimately destroyed. In countries where there's no such strong protections, it is plausible that we will witness this within a decade or sooner.