4 ms·

>both extremes Oh come on

by antris 1y ago

marginalia_nu 1y ago
We know this is a thing from the Mueller report. The Russians had their hands in everything from LGBT and black advocacy groups to the Tea Party movement.
- rcxdude 1y ago
  Indeed. Amplify the most divisive messages. Anyone planning advocacy for anything nowadays has to figure out how to deal with the worst messengers for their cause getting the biggest platforms.
- jijijijij 1y ago
  I think we're also witnessing influence a meta level deeper, where accelerationists' stochastic terrorism ideologically seeks social rift and chaos, directly. Individual acts won't be explainable by a grand conspiracy, but rather I presume these communities are fed and pushed to birth random acts of terror with ambiguous or misleading messaging. Quite frankly, I think too many cooks are benefiting from outrage and disarray. Look at the Charlie Kirk case, where "respectable" reports of "transgender ideology" inscribed on bullet casings spread immediately, although that's been a complete fabrication, which was later redacted. How vile a thing to do, for any supposedly journalistic platform. That's not bots, it's people who are to blame. I don't even think, it's much instructed, but rather sociopathic individuals/groups seeing opportunity for a minuscule gain, even if it's destroying the social fabric in the process.
  - sigwinch 1y ago
    Those “repeatable” reports were leaked directly from the two podcasters who run the FBI.
- danaris 1y ago
  They did—but their purpose was 100% to lend support to the American right wing. I think it's fairly disingenuous to characterize that as "fanning the flames on both sides of the political spectrum."
  - marginalia_nu 1y ago
    They actually simultaneously were promoting the Bernie Sanders campaign. Seems likely these candidates were chosen as the ostensibly most divisive and disruptive elements in American politics.
spookie 1y ago
This is what happens in the EU, even more noticeable since 2021. Hell, it's basically the horseshoe theory put into practice. In some subjects similar ideas are supported by both extremes, mostly just for political gain in the moment. You know, populists are like that. Take a look at France. That's what has been happening since political interests took over the gilets jaunes protest (which didn't really end in 2020, mind you), and continues to this day in one way or another. (Edit: clarify, and add context)
- orwin 1y ago
  In This case, gp should change to 'all extremes'. The extreme center is a thing. Boulanger is the origin, but he has adept, the most known in the Anglo world is probably Blair, but the closest ideologically is Macron (just read 'how democracy dies' if you aren't convinced yet, or read about 'retenue institutionnelle' if you want to dog into the concept of democracy more deeply).
  - marginalia_nu 1y ago
    There are no doubt many ways one can define what is and isn't extreme. The definition of extreme I apply is in the context of the comment I made is something like political viewpoints or groups on the outside or on the fringes of the political establishment. Figures like Macron or Blair may be or have been extreme in some regards, but not in this one.
  - spookie 1y ago
    Retenue institutionelle is in fact dangerous. But let's be honest, if you are hinting at that time Macron used anti-obstruction of parliament measures to combat the stupid high number of ammendements the opposition proposed [1], I don't know what to say. Seemed like the only case where one _should_ use such measures. Either way, point stands that by fuelling appeasement to both extremes via bots in social networks, a state actor can destabilize a country much more effectively. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/cuisines-assemblee/2020/02/19/reforme-des-retraites-les-armes-anti-obstruction/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/cuisines-assemblee/2020/02/19/re...

>both extremes Oh come on

by antris 1y ago

>both extremes Oh come on

We know this is a thing from the Mueller report. The Russians had their hands in everything from LGBT and black advocacy groups to the Tea Party movement.

rcxdude 1y ago
Indeed. Amplify the most divisive messages. Anyone planning advocacy for anything nowadays has to figure out how to deal with the worst messengers for their cause getting the biggest platforms.
jijijijij 1y ago
I think we're also witnessing influence a meta level deeper, where accelerationists' stochastic terrorism ideologically seeks social rift and chaos, directly. Individual acts won't be explainable by a grand conspiracy, but rather I presume these communities are fed and pushed to birth random acts of terror with ambiguous or misleading messaging. Quite frankly, I think too many cooks are benefiting from outrage and disarray. Look at the Charlie Kirk case, where "respectable" reports of "transgender ideology" inscribed on bullet casings spread immediately, although that's been a complete fabrication, which was later redacted. How vile a thing to do, for any supposedly journalistic platform. That's not bots, it's people who are to blame. I don't even think, it's much instructed, but rather sociopathic individuals/groups seeing opportunity for a minuscule gain, even if it's destroying the social fabric in the process.
- sigwinch 1y ago
  Those “repeatable” reports were leaked directly from the two podcasters who run the FBI.
danaris 1y ago
They did—but their purpose was 100% to lend support to the American right wing. I think it's fairly disingenuous to characterize that as "fanning the flames on both sides of the political spectrum."
- marginalia_nu 1y ago
  They actually simultaneously were promoting the Bernie Sanders campaign. Seems likely these candidates were chosen as the ostensibly most divisive and disruptive elements in American politics.

spookie 1y ago

This is what happens in the EU, even more noticeable since 2021. Hell, it's basically the horseshoe theory put into practice. In some subjects similar ideas are supported by both extremes, mostly just for political gain in the moment. You know, populists are like that. Take a look at France. That's what has been happening since political interests took over the gilets jaunes protest (which didn't really end in 2020, mind you), and continues to this day in one way or another. (Edit: clarify, and add context)

orwin 1y ago
In This case, gp should change to 'all extremes'. The extreme center is a thing. Boulanger is the origin, but he has adept, the most known in the Anglo world is probably Blair, but the closest ideologically is Macron (just read 'how democracy dies' if you aren't convinced yet, or read about 'retenue institutionnelle' if you want to dog into the concept of democracy more deeply).
- marginalia_nu 1y ago
  There are no doubt many ways one can define what is and isn't extreme. The definition of extreme I apply is in the context of the comment I made is something like political viewpoints or groups on the outside or on the fringes of the political establishment. Figures like Macron or Blair may be or have been extreme in some regards, but not in this one.
- spookie 1y ago
  Retenue institutionelle is in fact dangerous. But let's be honest, if you are hinting at that time Macron used anti-obstruction of parliament measures to combat the stupid high number of ammendements the opposition proposed [1], I don't know what to say. Seemed like the only case where one _should_ use such measures. Either way, point stands that by fuelling appeasement to both extremes via bots in social networks, a state actor can destabilize a country much more effectively. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/cuisines-assemblee/2020/02/19/reforme-des-retraites-les-armes-anti-obstruction/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/cuisines-assemblee/2020/02/19/re...