[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Live Music - R_P - Jun 15, 2019 - 12:05pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Jun 15, 2019 - 11:46am
 
Trump - Lazy8 - Jun 15, 2019 - 11:25am
 
How's the weather? - Proclivities - Jun 15, 2019 - 11:06am
 
New Music - R_P - Jun 15, 2019 - 10:49am
 
President Elizabeth Warren - hayduke2 - Jun 15, 2019 - 10:23am
 
Trump Lies - hayduke2 - Jun 15, 2019 - 8:29am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 14, 2019 - 7:55pm
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Jun 14, 2019 - 6:51pm
 
Photoshop Help please - echols - Jun 14, 2019 - 5:06pm
 
Rock mix miss you - Arc_Light - Jun 14, 2019 - 4:31pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - miamizsun - Jun 14, 2019 - 3:52pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jun 14, 2019 - 3:27pm
 
First World Problems - miamizsun - Jun 14, 2019 - 2:59pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Jun 14, 2019 - 2:47pm
 
Weird sounds - Red_Dragon - Jun 14, 2019 - 11:17am
 
Weight Loss Discussions - westslope - Jun 14, 2019 - 9:21am
 
Things You Thought Today - miamizsun - Jun 14, 2019 - 8:30am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jun 14, 2019 - 8:10am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 14, 2019 - 8:08am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jun 14, 2019 - 6:12am
 
Getting RP in For iPad Mini 2 - BillG - Jun 14, 2019 - 6:06am
 
Basketball, anyone? Hello? Hello? - Proclivities - Jun 14, 2019 - 6:04am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - sunybuny - Jun 14, 2019 - 5:38am
 
war is a racket - islander - Jun 13, 2019 - 9:43pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jun 13, 2019 - 5:39pm
 
Great guitar faces - Red_Dragon - Jun 13, 2019 - 4:26pm
 
Canada - westslope - Jun 13, 2019 - 3:55pm
 
Hockey + Fantasy Hockey - SeriousLee - Jun 13, 2019 - 3:17pm
 
Outstanding Covers - SeriousLee - Jun 13, 2019 - 3:15pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 13, 2019 - 2:52pm
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Jun 13, 2019 - 1:42pm
 
Thought For The Day - oldviolin - Jun 13, 2019 - 1:40pm
 
Brain-Boosting (memory enhancement) - Proclivities - Jun 13, 2019 - 1:34pm
 
Overheard - SeriousLee - Jun 13, 2019 - 1:23pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - SeriousLee - Jun 13, 2019 - 1:17pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Jun 13, 2019 - 12:11pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Jun 13, 2019 - 12:05pm
 
Regarding dogs - oldviolin - Jun 13, 2019 - 11:08am
 
Democratic Party - Red_Dragon - Jun 13, 2019 - 10:06am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Jun 13, 2019 - 10:02am
 
Export rated songs playlist - - Jun 13, 2019 - 8:27am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - black321 - Jun 13, 2019 - 7:19am
 
OUR CATS!! - kurtster - Jun 13, 2019 - 4:35am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 12, 2019 - 2:29pm
 
Bit Rate Resolution in BlueSound? - black321 - Jun 12, 2019 - 2:08pm
 
The russian guy in "Thanks for listening" - BillG - Jun 12, 2019 - 1:52pm
 
Music Videos - sirdroseph - Jun 12, 2019 - 12:28pm
 
Environment - westslope - Jun 12, 2019 - 11:38am
 
Best Song Comments. - sirdroseph - Jun 12, 2019 - 11:34am
 
Why Everything You Believe Is Immoral, Irresponsible, Irr... - oldviolin - Jun 12, 2019 - 10:42am
 
Your Office - Coaxial - Jun 12, 2019 - 9:17am
 
Climate Change - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2019 - 8:06am
 
American Justice - westslope - Jun 12, 2019 - 7:16am
 
Immigration - sirdroseph - Jun 12, 2019 - 6:51am
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - kurtster - Jun 12, 2019 - 6:19am
 
France - oldjack - Jun 12, 2019 - 12:45am
 
Radiohead - R_P - Jun 11, 2019 - 12:05pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Jun 11, 2019 - 11:01am
 
What is Humanity's best invention? - Proclivities - Jun 11, 2019 - 7:42am
 
Movement in the doom groove - Proclivities - Jun 11, 2019 - 6:58am
 
Afghanistan - black321 - Jun 11, 2019 - 6:56am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 11, 2019 - 1:20am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - kurtster - Jun 10, 2019 - 11:57pm
 
WikiLeaks - R_P - Jun 10, 2019 - 4:54pm
 
So... what's been happening here lately? - kcar - Jun 10, 2019 - 4:03pm
 
Cooking for Friends.... - Proclivities - Jun 10, 2019 - 9:56am
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Jun 10, 2019 - 6:10am
 
ROMANIA - rok_tm80 - Jun 10, 2019 - 5:27am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Jun 9, 2019 - 6:27pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - SeriousLee - Jun 9, 2019 - 3:35pm
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Jun 9, 2019 - 2:19pm
 
Play the Blues - sirdroseph - Jun 9, 2019 - 6:37am
 
The war on funk is over! - rhahl - Jun 8, 2019 - 10:52am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - triskele - Jun 8, 2019 - 10:12am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 630, 631, 632  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 15, 2019 - 11:25am

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
hmm,  couple of thoughts:

I think we can all agree that the ideal is to have a free flow and complete transparency of information. In this ideal situation, everyone can say what they want and everyone can refute what they want. In this case the actions of a foreign power pales into significance, relativized by all the other noise out there.

However, the situation changes when you don't have a free market of ideas, when various institutions have a monopoly on the tools used to disseminate and communicate information. Also if you do not have a population that has learned the basic tools of critical thinking, you also run the risk of undue influence being exerted by shady forces/government manipulation etc.
(this can also be on the part of the domestic government, not just foreign governments). Just look at the power/influence of various religious organizations throughout history. It deteriorates rapidly when the truth is hidden, when political agendas are not disclosed and people purport to be something they are not.

Of course the best defense against all of this is having a free population composed of individuals who have learnt the basics of critical thinking and who are heathy and wealthy enough not to have their votes bought. It also necessitates freedom of the press and security from being persecuted on grounds of faith or political alignment. Unfortunately, these are hardly given truths. We are lucky enough to live in countries we they seem natural. But they are anything but.

Indeed, the natural state of humans seems to be living under tyranny, and maintaining liberty requires constant effort. It takes determined opposition to those who would return us there.

Not least to those whose pretext is "I'm all in favor of free speech but..."
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 15, 2019 - 8:59am

hmm,  couple of thoughts:

I think we can all agree that the ideal is to have a free flow and complete transparency of information. In this ideal situation, everyone can say what they want and everyone can refute what they want. In this case the actions of a foreign power pales into significance, relativized by all the other noise out there.

However, the situation changes when you don't have a free market of ideas, when various institutions have a monopoly on the tools used to disseminate and communicate information. Also if you do not have a population that has learned the basic tools of critical thinking, you also run the risk of undue influence being exerted by shady forces/government manipulation etc.
(this can also be on the part of the domestic government, not just foreign governments). Just look at the power/influence of various religious organizations throughout history. It deteriorates rapidly when the truth is hidden, when political agendas are not disclosed and people purport to be something they are not.

Of course the best defense against all of this is having a free population composed of individuals who have learnt the basics of critical thinking and who are heathy and wealthy enough not to have their votes bought. It also necessitates freedom of the press and security from being persecuted on grounds of faith or political alignment. Unfortunately, these are hardly given truths. We are lucky enough to live in countries we they seem natural. But they are anything but.


R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 1:33pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
R_P wrote:
 The article doesn't talk about "the need to protect" or any similar straw recommendations that you're offering. It addresses your assertion that "we don't meddle." You do.

The article implicitly defines engaging in propaganda as "intervening" (it uses that term interchangeably with "meddling"). In fact, it conflates even stating an opinion on the desirability of an election outcome or withholding foreign aid as a consequence of an election as "intervening"—conflating these with funding a campaign or (in the case of the 2004 Ukraine election) poisoning a candidate.

The article doesn't explicitly pass judgement on this practice, but  does it have to? "Meddling" is a normative term with inherently negative implications. (...)
 
The word "meddle" is used exactly once in the article. As the title suggests, it prefers to talk about "electoral interventions" and the types of interventions that occur (incl. whether they are overt/covert). Indeed, some or most are at odds with your (self-interested) narrow definition, but that's hardly a surprise.

I could also hypothesize about your ideological motives, but it's really not all that relevant.
hayduke2

hayduke2 Avatar

Location: Southampton, NY
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 1:05pm

Bush Ethics Lawyer Says It's 'Cowardly' That House Won't Impeach Trump | HuffPost
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 12:58pm

R_P wrote:
 The article doesn't talk about "the need to protect" or any similar straw recommendations that you're offering. It addresses your assertion that "we don't meddle." You do.

The article implicitly defines engaging in propaganda as "intervening" (it uses that term interchangeably with "meddling"). In fact, it conflates even stating an opinion on the desirability of an election outcome or withholding foreign aid as a consequence of an election with "intervening"—conflating these with funding a campaign or (in the case of the 2004 Ukraine election) poisoning a candidate.

The article doesn't explicitly pass judgement on this practice, but  does it have to? "Meddling" is a normative term with inherently negative implications.

We're also discussing this in a years-old context: if something is done by an entity that can be called (by any stretch of the definition) "America" we can expect you to disapprove of it.

And with that history as a guide I can also expect a response that is concise, pithy, snide...and content-free.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 11:32am



 Lazy8 wrote:
islander wrote:
My solution is to vote for better people. It's novel, but maybe it will catch on.

What does this solve, exactly?

Leaving the reins of power in place but commanded by someone who promises—cross his or her heart—not to misuse them just postpones the issue, either until the next administration or later in the term when the polls are down and scandals are brewing and we really need to rally the public around some Enemy.

I'm not really sure about your qualifiers here either. It's not that e-mails were hacked, or that bad things were said in them it's that a foreign power tried to meddle in our election (yes, I know we do it too - still wrong).   It does seem more problematic when we have an elected leader (the big one) who is saying "yeah sure, I'd do it", when it's pretty clearly not allowed. This isn't just digging dirt, this is soliciting help from someone who is likely an enemy.  If the shoe were on the other party, you can be sure there would be outrage a plenty.

This gets really tedious, but I'm not going to concede the vocabulary (and thus the argument) so easily.

We do not meddle in elections in other countries. We do not steal/stuff ballot boxes, do not change vote totals after their cast, do not prevent foreigners from voting in their own elections. Further, no foreign power has done this to us. That's what meddling in an election looks like.

Informing the electorate—propaganda, if you'd rather—is a normal, even essential part of a free and fair election. Restrictions on what anyone can say during or about an election are restrictions on what the electorate may hear. We are subjected to propaganda from all quarters. It's up to us as voters to assess it, weigh its credibility, and decide what to do about it. Proposing to protect us from that reveals a monstrous conceit: that you (or whoever you want to designate as the political speech censors) know how to do that for us better than we do ourselves.

From where will these enlightened beings come? The same population you don't trust with the information in the first place? How do you dare trust them to vote at all? And if indeed you don't why should they trust you to pick who gets to speak to them?

To the extent we have allowed this paradigm—that if we can just silence the right people our elections will bring forth enlightened statesmen who will lead us to the promised land—to take root in our own political system...shame on us. Its existence is not its own justification.

I know the bloviating and puffed-up outrage is mostly performative, sour grapes about a lost election. If a foreign power (or some hated minority in our own midst) wants to say something about an election there is no way to stop them short of some complete top-down control of all communication. North Korea, for instance, is completely free of foreign influence in its elections. They aren't any kind of model to emulate.

If you have something else in mind say so, but in the three years since the wrong power-mad oligarch won an election I have seen nothing proposed but ham-fisted attempts to censor (sorry—regulate) online speech.


meddling/ˈmed(ə)liNG/
Noun
  1. intrusive or unwarranted interference.
 

I'm pretty comfortable saying that we do meddle in others elections.  

I'm also pretty comfortable saying that it's not just 'providing transparency', especially when only dirt on one side gets revealed, and when the source material is the product of a crime.  Also I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that actively soliciting the assistance of a foreign nation state is a crime here (not sure about other countries, and I'd love to see who is on Juan Guaidós speed dial... Yes, still wrong). 



Sure, my method isn't particularly effective, but I'd argue that given our current results neither is the ever popular "less evil choice".  I've always been a fan of ballots over bullets, but on our current trajectory I wonder how long that idea will hold popularity. I see several near term scenarios where it really breaks down.  Maybe some real death and destruction is what it will take to get people to enlightenment. 

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 10:41am

 Lazy8 wrote:
R_P wrote:
Where did I make this argument?

...you did read the article you posted as a response, right?
 
The article doesn't talk about "the need to protect" or any similar straw recommendations that you're offering. It addresses your assertion that "we don't meddle." You do.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 10:28am

R_P wrote:
Where did I make this argument?

...you did read the article you posted as a response, right?
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 9:53am

 Lazy8 wrote:
R_P wrote:

(...) Your argument is fashionable—that people need to be protected from speech by the wrong people, in this case foreigners.  (...)
 
Where did I make this argument?
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 9:50am

R_P wrote:

We're not just arguing semantics. I made my case, and you aren't addressing it.

Your argument is fashionable—that people need to be protected from speech by the wrong people, in this case foreigners.

I could point out the irony of a Dutch/Canadian holding forth on this, but really you're making my point: You're wrong. You're a foreigner, trying to influence our elections. You frequently supply misleading or false information about our country and our politics.

And I welcome your contribution.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 9:33am

 Lazy8 wrote:
We do not meddle in elections in other countries. We do not steal/stuff ballot boxes, do not change vote totals after their cast, do not prevent foreigners from voting in their own elections. Further, no foreign power has done this to us. That's what meddling in an election looks like.
 
Only according to your definition.

When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 9:20am

Had me thinking again.  That is a crucial distinction on what constitutes meddling in a general election.

Thanks Lazy8.  

Good luck with persuading your fellow Americans.  
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 8:47am

islander wrote:
My solution is to vote for better people. It's novel, but maybe it will catch on.

What does this solve, exactly?

Leaving the reins of power in place but commanded by someone who promises—cross his or her heart—not to misuse them just postpones the issue, either until the next administration or later in the term when the polls are down and scandals are brewing and we really need to rally the public around some Enemy.

I'm not really sure about your qualifiers here either. It's not that e-mails were hacked, or that bad things were said in them it's that a foreign power tried to meddle in our election (yes, I know we do it too - still wrong).   It does seem more problematic when we have an elected leader (the big one) who is saying "yeah sure, I'd do it", when it's pretty clearly not allowed. This isn't just digging dirt, this is soliciting help from someone who is likely an enemy.  If the shoe were on the other party, you can be sure there would be outrage a plenty.

This gets really tedious, but I'm not going to concede the vocabulary (and thus the argument) so easily.

We do not meddle in elections in other countries. We do not steal/stuff ballot boxes, do not change vote totals after their cast, do not prevent foreigners from voting in their own elections. Further, no foreign power has done this to us. That's what meddling in an election looks like.

Informing the electorate—propaganda, if you'd rather—is a normal, even essential part of a free and fair election. Restrictions on what anyone can say during or about an election are restrictions on what the electorate may hear. We are subjected to propaganda from all quarters. It's up to us as voters to assess it, weigh its credibility, and decide what to do about it. Proposing to protect us from that reveals a monstrous conceit: that you (or whoever you want to designate as the political speech censors) know how to do that for us better than we do ourselves.

From where will these enlightened beings come? The same population you don't trust with the information in the first place? How do you dare trust them to vote at all? And if indeed you don't why should they trust you to pick who gets to speak to them?

To the extent we have allowed this paradigm—that if we can just silence the right people our elections will bring forth enlightened statesmen who will lead us to the promised land—to take root in our own political system...shame on us. Its existence is not its own justification.

I know the bloviating and puffed-up outrage is mostly performative, sour grapes about a lost election. If a foreign power (or some hated minority in our own midst) wants to say something about an election there is no way to stop them short of some complete top-down control of all communication. North Korea, for instance, is completely free of foreign influence in its elections. They aren't any kind of model to emulate.

If you have something else in mind say so, but in the three years since the wrong power-mad oligarch won an election I have seen nothing proposed but ham-fisted attempts to censor (sorry—regulate) online speech.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 6:05am

 islander wrote:


My solution is to vote for better people. It's novel, but maybe it will catch on.

I'm not really sure about your qualifiers here either. It's not that e-mails were hacked, or that bad things were said in them it's that a foreign power tried to meddle in our election (yes, I know we do it too - still wrong).   It does seem more problematic when we have an elected leader (the big one) who is saying "yeah sure, I'd do it", when it's pretty clearly not allowed. This isn't just digging dirt, this is soliciting help from someone who is likely an enemy.  If the shoe were on the other party, you can be sure there would be outrage a plenty.
 
I like your idea, but the goddam parties have a monopoly on who we get to choose. I'd love to see a system wherein parties don't exist and all elections are publicly funded, but... hahahaha
hayduke2

hayduke2 Avatar

Location: Southampton, NY
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 5:25am

{#Drool}Rainbow vomit splootch for tRump on his birthday, Happy bone-spurs to the fat crook


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2019 - 4:17am

 islander wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:


If all this bothers you feel free to propose a solution. I haven't heard one yet, not in the 3 years since y'all lost an election, but knock yourselves out.

*While there was much outrage over the leaks no one ever denied the veracity of what was leaked.
**Yeah, sure, be outraged about having email hacked. I'm outraged about it too, it's just that my outrage isn't selective as to who's doing it or to which political party. The NSA reading my email bothers me just as much as the Russians. I channel my outrage into secure passwords and effective countermeasures.
 
My solution is to vote for better people. It's novel, but maybe it will catch on.

I'm not really sure about your qualifiers here either. It's not that e-mails were hacked, or that bad things were said in them it's that a foreign power tried to meddle in our election (yes, I know we do it too - still wrong).   It does seem more problematic when we have an elected leader (the big one) who is saying "yeah sure, I'd do it", when it's pretty clearly not allowed. This isn't just digging dirt, this is soliciting help from someone who is likely an enemy.  If the shoe were on the other party, you can be sure there would be outrage a plenty.
 
As long as there is a 2 party duopoly that solution is irrelevant and therein lies the rub.{#Frustrated}
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 13, 2019 - 9:42pm



 Lazy8 wrote:


If all this bothers you feel free to propose a solution. I haven't heard one yet, not in the 3 years since y'all lost an election, but knock yourselves out.

*While there was much outrage over the leaks no one ever denied the veracity of what was leaked.
**Yeah, sure, be outraged about having email hacked. I'm outraged about it too, it's just that my outrage isn't selective as to who's doing it or to which political party. The NSA reading my email bothers me just as much as the Russians. I channel my outrage into secure passwords and effective countermeasures.
 
My solution is to vote for better people. It's novel, but maybe it will catch on.

I'm not really sure about your qualifiers here either. It's not that e-mails were hacked, or that bad things were said in them it's that a foreign power tried to meddle in our election (yes, I know we do it too - still wrong).   It does seem more problematic when we have an elected leader (the big one) who is saying "yeah sure, I'd do it", when it's pretty clearly not allowed. This isn't just digging dirt, this is soliciting help from someone who is likely an enemy.  If the shoe were on the other party, you can be sure there would be outrage a plenty.

BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar

Location: planting flowers


Posted: Jun 13, 2019 - 9:20pm

 islander wrote:


I can't believe the number of people arguing that dirt on a candidate is not  a 'thing of value'.   

 
Wait for it....
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 13, 2019 - 9:08pm



 BlueHeronDruid wrote:


Evidently a novel concept to a certain family.
 

I can't believe the number of people arguing that dirt on a candidate is not  a 'thing of value'.   
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 13, 2019 - 6:47pm

 BlueHeronDruid wrote:


Evidently a novel concept to a certain family.

 
Thank you.
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 630, 631, 632  Next