Politics 2020

[Lexx]

21 hours ago, BruceVC said:

You do know that Austria is considered part of Germany by most people? Austrian dialect is basically the same and you guys have very close history and friendship ? 

Who are these people? Personally I've never heard of that outside of WW2 history stuff.

I'd also argue that the language is more close to that of Bavaria, and bavarian accent is already quite odd at times. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Lexx

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Bruce's views are exactly those you'd expect from a white South African banker. The dude trolls like long lines behind a fleet of Chinese tuna boats denuding the Pacific but him being terrified of anything even close to 'violent left wing anarchists' on the streets is and has always been 100% consistent.

eg his views are also absolutely consistent with those he has expressed about more local issues like the Marikana massacre.

This assessment of my views is very inaccurate and seems to be some some sort of outdated stereotype similar to thinking " white, male privilege " is the only reason for any example of inequality or success in our modern age 

I am not going to respond to this in any detail because even though I do like you, my disagreements with you are not personal, I dont mind what opinion you have of me but you are always welcome to ask me any question about my views

I dont want to seem to be inconsistent in responding which is why I do respond to members like Gromnir, shady and Elerond 

But I was going to explain the reality of the Marikana massacre despite my view above  because it is uniquely a SA reality and was created due to what happens when you allow violence to be acceptable in large, union protests. This type of union protest is unique to SA and not really similar to  other protests we see globally like BLM  so any lessons you could gain from what happened at Marikana I cant see any other country needing to worry about it?

But I need a break and I have to work now so I can maybe explain it tomorrow if you want to understand the events that lead to that terrible day ? 

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Who are these people? Personally I've never heard of that outside of WW2 history stuff.

I'd also argue that the language is more close to that of Bavaria, and bavarian accent is already quite odd at times. 

Yes I was just teasing, most people who dont live in the EU wouldnt understand the normal  cultural nuances and complexities in differences between countries like Austria and Germany

So for South Africans who go on skiing holidays we tend to think of Austria and Germany as very similar despite the cultural differences  

 

[Skarpen]

9 hours ago, Gromnir said:

ccording to skarp_one, blm is "looting in the name of junkie that overdosed in police presence." your own tortured words makes apparent that the justification for unconstitutional and illegal use o' force by the government to suppress blm is 'cause you disapprove o' the motivations o' blm

This is a weird accusation as I did point out that in my original statement. Your question was why people approve HK and not BLM. The answer is because of motivations of those protests.

I didn't say anything about legality or US government response to them as both HK protests and BLM looting are illegal. However people will support HK fighting for independence and not BLM who fight for the right to loot.

And no amount of flashy titled videos (that are not supported by the info in the video) posted by chinese shill media is gonna change that view.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Skarpen

[Skarpen]

And this is how the Ministry of Truth was formed:

[Guard Dog]

8 hours ago, KaineParker said:

I recall us having a similar conversation before where you conceded that government control (in the form of police enforcing property and laws I believe) was necessary for your ideology to work. Does that mean there is nothing "libertarian" about the US Libertarian Party and (most of) its fellow travelers?

Leftisim has a pretty loose definition. From YOUR definition yes, it works. Under some variations of leftisim private property does nit even exist. 

[Guard Dog]

OK, I STILL do not get how misninformation on social media is a threat to democracy.  The elctions are still happening on November 3. Democracy is the act of voting. Not outcomes dicated by dumb f--k voters who don't know that everything on social media should be presumed false until proven otherwise. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

OK, I STILL do not get how misninformation on social media is a threat to democracy.  The elctions are still happening on November 3. Democracy is the act of voting. Not outcomes dicated by dumb f--k voters who don't know that everything on social media should be presumed false until proven otherwise. 

Fidel has elections didn't he? Were those democratic?

[Darkpriest]

1 minute ago, Achilles said:

Fidel has elections didn't he? Were those democratic?

There is a differenc in the fraud on the counting ballots like Fiedel or Lukaszenko, and voters being dumb and voting with their feels instead of brain... 

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, Darkpriest said:

There is a differenc in the fraud on the counting ballots like Fiedel or Lukaszenko, and voters being dumb and voting with their feels instead of brain...

Is there a difference? In both cases the vote is being manipulated.

Is an election still democratic when the vote is being manipulated? "Dumb" (to use your term) is one thing. Coercion is another.

[Darkpriest]

Just now, Achilles said:

Is there a difference? In both cases the vote is being manipulated.

Is an election still democratic when the vote is being manipulated? "Dumb" (to use your term) is one thing. Coercion is another.

You know that there is no politician talking truth? How is this more of manipulation than radio broadcast or leaflets of the past? Does the channel of communication suddenly change the content of it? 

Campaigners always, i mean ALWAYS exaggerated, misinformed, polarized, lied, gave information in a certain framework and perspective to fit their narrative... 

 

There is no better way to identify a fool than to make him or her talk... 

 

If your brain is incapable of recognizing that, then perhaps the joke ia on you? 

Or do you suddenly feel superior to others so you can decide what they should see and what they shouldn't? 

 

Don't they have their own brain? 

[Guest]

I'd suggest reading up on voter manipulation and voter suppression. You appear to be under-informed.

This might be a good start

[Skarpen]

40 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

OK, I STILL do not get how misninformation on social media is a threat to democracy.  The elctions are still happening on November 3. Democracy is the act of voting. Not outcomes dicated by dumb f--k voters who don't know that everything on social media should be presumed false until proven otherwise. 

It's not about misinformation. It's about controlling what information is allowed to be published.

12 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Is there a difference? In both cases the vote is being manipulated.

Is an election still democratic when the vote is being manipulated? "Dumb" (to use your term) is one thing. Coercion is another.

And what's your definition of manipulation in this case? If its availability of false information or opinions then no election ever was democratic.

[Darkpriest]

6 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I'd suggest reading up on voter manipulation and voter suppression. You appear to be under-informed.

This might be a good start

So your idea for too much power of social media actors is to give them even more power to filter and surpress flow of information? 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:

So your idea for too much power of social media actors is to give them even more power to filter and surpress flow of information? 

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm guessing that English isn't your primary language and I suspect that there might be a bit of a language barrier here.

To clarify: my argument is that social media needs to have less power, not more. That they not be permitted to hide behind their "we're just a platform and couldn't possibly be held responsible for content" antics. Lastly, I think it's be great if we brought back the equal time rule and extended it to all media, social or otherwise.

[Darkpriest]

1 minute ago, Achilles said:

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm guessing that English isn't your primary language and I suspect that there might be a bit of a language barrier here.

To clarify: my argument is that social media needs to have less power, not more. That they not be permitted to hide behind their "we're just a platform and couldn't possibly be held responsible for content" antics. Lastly, I think it's be great if we brought back the equal time rule and extended it to all media, social or otherwise.

I got confused as on a one hand you say that there is some great problem with democracy, because people can target adds to the demographics they want to vote for them and that somehow dishonest adds now have some more negative impact than dishonest adds of the past - add control, then on the other hand you want equal time rule. The only thing that changed is that you can have better information on where your potential audience is. 

I would agree that social media should change their platform crap and be held responsible, if they have editorial process and decide what you should see and what you should not see (and there was no court order to remove something) . I would not change that though, if they would indeed remain a platform and just give the place for others to speak and then the authors of the content should be liable for any "offense" in a civil court

[Guest]

No, I said there's a problem with the current state of our democracy because the vote is being manipulated. Again, you appear to be under-informed on the issue and I recommend more reading.

Marketing is one thing. Manipulation is another. You are either confused re: the extent to which the latter is happening or you're conflating the two.

[BruceVC]

37 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Fidel has elections didn't he? Were those democratic?'

Im confused by your point and how this applies to what GD is suggesting, Im sure he is saying that this fairly common  view that exists in the USA that says " fake news through social media is destroying our societies  due to xxx " has not so far  lead to  the collapse of our Democratic  institutions " 

But then you bring up Cuba and the undemocratic rule of Fidel as an example of how countries can be broken or failed but they never were Democracies ?

Is that what you saying? If so I dont see how the 2 are connected because the USA and its issue around abuse of social media wont crash or destroy anything unless government acts on it which  is highly unlikely 

But fake news didnt cause the economic or societal problems in Cuba...there economy has been weak and problematic since Fidel came to power and  they implemented a form of socialism and economic policy   that had no logical or economic way to actually  grow or sustain any economy ...it wasnt fake news but pseudo-economics and that means you  are trying to create your own understanding of critical financial metrics that somehow will allow economic growth and sustainability 

What am I missing with your view ?

 

[Darkpriest]

7 minutes ago, Achilles said:

No, I said there's a problem with the current state of our democracy because the vote is being manipulated. Again, you appear to be under-informed on the issue and I recommend more reading.

Marketing is one thing. Manipulation is another. You are either confused re: the extent to which the latter is happening or you're conflating the two.

How is this manipulation happening? Does someone get into someone elses head with some remote and control their action? 

For me, it seems that you are trying to put an "equals" mark between someone saying some stupid stuff to another person and the recipient of some msg being forced to act against their own will to do something he would rather not do. 

That for me, this is a dangerous premise. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Darkpriest

[BruceVC]

15 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I got confused as on a one hand you say that there is some great problem with democracy, because people can target adds to the demographics they want to vote for them and that somehow dishonest adds now have some more negative impact than dishonest adds of the past - add control, then on the other hand you want equal time rule. The only thing that changed is that you can have better information on where your potential audience is. 

I would agree that social media should change their platform crap and be held responsible, if they have editorial process and decide what you should see and what you should not see (and there was no court order to remove something) . I would not change that though, if they would indeed remain a platform and just give the place for others to speak and then the authors of the content should be liable for any "offense" in a civil court

Its not you, I am also confused but Achilles should clarify now .... its very rare I am confused by his points 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:

How is this manipulation happening? Does someone get into someone elses head with some remote and control their action? 

For me, it seems that you are trying to put an "equals" mark between someone saying some stupid stuff to another person and the recipient of some msg being forced to act against their own will to do something he would rather not do. 

That for me, this is a dangerous premise. 

You are using this definition of the word, "manipulate":

Quote

to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner

I am using this one:

Quote

to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

If I can gather enough data on you to craft a tailored message that will result in you acting in a way that I want you to, then inundate you with that message, at some point there's a pretty good chance that you'll end up doing what I want while thinking it your idea.

For the third time, if you aren't aware that this is happening, you need to do more homework.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

What am I missing with your view ?

I asked four questions. I'd start by answering any of the last three (the first one was rhetorical).

[Darkpriest]

2 minutes ago, Achilles said:

You are using this definition of the word, "manipulate":

I am using this one:

If I can gather enough data on you to craft a tailored message that will result in you acting in a way that I want you to, then inundate you with that message, at some point there's a pretty good chance that you'll end up doing what I want while thinking it your idea.

For the third time, if you aren't aware that this is happening, you need to do more homework.

Using the latter definition, would mean that every voter in the past, who acted differently on his own will but due to incorrect information or partial information displayed by any politicians campaign, would then mean the election has been manipulated. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:

Using the latter definition, would mean that every voter in the past, who acted differently on his own will but due to incorrect information or partial information displayed by any politicians campaign, would then mean the election has been manipulated. 

 

I can't tell if you're being intentionally hyperbolic so that you can troll or if you're just a bit obtuse.

The technology, its reach, and its scope have only come into existence in the recent past. That is why this particular technology is a unique threat now.

The tools to persuade have always existed. The tools to tailor and target specific messages at specific audiences have not.

And with that, I honestly do think you're intentionally wasting my time now. The last word is yours.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

Is there a difference? In both cases the vote is being manipulated.

Is an election still democratic when the vote is being manipulated? "Dumb" (to use your term) is one thing. Coercion is another.

But Cuba is a one party state, people dont vote there in any meaningful way so social media is meaningless.....you cant manipulate a system like a vote where there is only one party to vote for?

But Belarus is different example of a deeply flawed Democratic outcome because in Belarus you had legitimate opposition parties and people voted for them but the actual counting of these votes was ignored  so when they announced the " results " they lied about who voted for who and claimed Lukaszenko was the winner

But fake news on social media is not the reason these elections are false or undermined