Wake up and smell the facism!

[grzegorz]

And as if that isn't enough for you to believe that no one's "trolling" days are numbered then I offer you this.

Russia military acknowledges new branch: info warfare troops - ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... e-45652381

The internet is the new battlefield mate.

The next time you guys decide to give me your umpteenth lecture on titles from your high horses take a minute and read the article from the previous page and go lecture these billion dollar marketing firms and Google and Facebook and Twitter and the Russians because my titles are nothing in comparison to what they are doing.
Good times!

[Giles]

Grzegorz, I for my part didn’t mean to come over high-horsey. I see and respect your passion.

What I think it boils down to is this: There has always been misinformation, propaganda, brazen lying and so on. But previously it tended to be that if lies were exposed, claimed facts shown to be incorrect and arguments shown to be nonsense in logical terms, then this would by fairly general consensus weaken or destroy the position of those propagating the untruths.

Now we have a time when many factions, groups, political parties and even states are trying to erode the importance/value of demonstrable truth or checkable facts in themselves. Either by swamping the information consumer with many different variants of ‘the truth’, ranging from the possibly credible to the farcical, so that fatigue and indifference set in (e.g. Russia). Or by promoting the principle “It doesn’t matter if it’s actually true, what’s important is that you and I feel it’s true. Or feel that it should be true.” (e.g. Trump and cohorts, UKIP in Britain, AfD in Germany etc.). Through repeated application of such strategies, first public discourse and opinion and then democratic decision making can become weakened and (even) easier to manipulate.

Gut feelings, prejudices and so on have always been a major factor in the political arena but could at least be balanced out, and sometimes overcome, by reasoned argument and demonstrable facts. The most dangerous thing about the post-truth factions is that over time they may “win” not by “winning arguments” in the normal sense of the term, but instead by creating an environment where “winning an argument” or even “having a good argument” becomes irrelevant. This is a situation that would suit some people and groups just fine because, by caring less and having greater cynicism, they will tend to win on this playing field. That’s why I think it’s important to play the long game and keep aiming a little higher in terms of argumentation, not to contribute to creating this non-fact environment, and instead to promote the chance that the pendulum can swing back again.

[grzegorz]

In that we case we will have to agree to disagree because if you don't see legalized discrimination based on national origin which the Trump adminit is pushing for in terms of immigration, including those who have already been vetted to come to the US for years as a form or rise of a fascist police state then we have nothing further to discuss.

Besides instead of this thread being some type of construction conversation mostly it has been is people discussing the title with one even calling it trolling all the while the title is from a former thread from EF eight years ago which was a play the slogan used by the Tea party in describing the first days of the Obama presidency, wake up and smell the socialism.

[Michael]

Greg, you were just telling me a couple of months ago not to read clickbait articles, which is fine, but no high horses, please.

[grzegorz]

Fair enough, point taken Michael.

[RobP3]

Much better to stay as precise as possible, and also to keep other arguments and labels in reserve in case things get (even) worse. Although it can be really tempting to counter fear- or hate-driven, illogical, distorted arguments (or simply claims) with a dose of their own medicine, I don't think it pays off. By continuing to "go high", or at least 'higher' than the populists, one can seem weaker in the short term but I think it's stronger in the long term. The more one gets into emotion-driven point scoring instead of a fact- and logic-driven exchange (which doesn't preclude emotion), the more the 'alternative-facters' ultimately win because the whole discourse sinks down to their level.

And here endeth the sermon for today...

Well said. Of course, the emotional buttons are entirely what trolls. click-baiters, faux-outragers and all the others are going for. It produces a lot of noise but, in the real world, very little heat. I see it as desperation, they know their days are numbered

Their days are numbered? LOL! Slim chance of that. The internet played a huge role in both Brexit and Trump and not to mention my title got you and Giles on here, which again was a tip the hat to Klonk's thread with a similar title 8 years ago when Obama took office. Again I would love to return to a fact based political system but it isn't going to happen any time soon at least not in the USA.

I was really responding to Giles, in relation to how things are in the UK. Yes, we see a lot of Facebook activity, probably plenty of fake profiles, posting memes, etc. Yet the largest "alt right" party here, UKIP, just failed to win another by-election. They have one MP at the moment. Parties like the BNP can't even keep their deposit in elections. They all hooked onto Brexit and desperately tried to make it a left-right issue. Outside of that, they have very little purchase.

When you look at the support base for those parties it tends to be a certain demographic, age-wise. When I speak to young people I hear virtually zero of the kind of views expressed by that older generation, particularly when it comes to issues of race and sexuality.

So I'm not saying there's no need to be relaxed or unaware, but FB and YT have a way of acting as a big megaphone for very small groups of people. In the meantime, the 99% of us continue to live and work quite happily in "no go areas" and all the rest of it.

[grzegorz]

Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, I agree and see where you are coming from. In fact if you get a chance to read some of the article on the previous page Facebook has become a powerful weapon for the Trump administration. From our profiles to the likes we click they can pin down people's demographics and figure out who is most likely to vote Trump. I believe this is also why Trump sends out mixed messages that is to see how his base reacts and decide accordingly.

On top of that in areas and demographics where people were not likely to vote for Trump the mission was to discourage people from voting for Hillary. So Hillary's video about Super Predators was sold to young African-Americans or to people with lots of African-American friends via Facebook in the rust belt States to get them not to vote for Hillary and it helped Trump win. Not only that even the Young Turks jumped on board.

https://youtu.be/8k4nmRZx9nc

People can make their own conclusions. No where in her speech did she mentioned African-Americans. Yet when emotions run high people don't bother to check these things or the fact that they were trying to reduce crime in African-American communities, something like the Young Turks video alone is enough to do the job and make the connections for a lot of people.

The internet is a battlefield and although Trump will eventually be out whereas Brexit would likely last for decades I will certainly continue to speak out and do what the powers that be are doing to us...online.

Thanks for the constructive dialogue.

[BruceP]

Hard to have a discussion with a meme. Context, veracity of the message/implication, laziness of the user and a host of other obstacles disconnect the viewer from the person that posted it. It can't be appreciated for anything other than a surrogate for someone's own thoughts and opinions. Memes don't move a discussion forward unless the person who created the memes is involved in the discussion.

[grzegorz]

You are entitled to your opinion Bruce but isn't going to stop me from doing what I do whether it is titles or memes or videos or jokes or discussions.

[grzegorz]

In fact I thought this was pretty funny.

And my view.

Enough said.

[BruceP]

Fair enough, Greg

"Fascism", though, is something worth discussing. History frames it negatively, but the historical importance of fascism in its various manifestations can be appreciated for the contributions it has made to the advancement of societies within nations which were factious enough to provide the fertile ground that specific and particular forms of fascism needed in order to flourish in the first place.

We can do that without memes

[grzegorz]

Now we are getting somewhere!

[Steve James]

Well, one could say that history frames nazism negatively, but it led to many technological advancements. Of course, history is written by people, and their readers interpret and reinterpret what was written. But, "fascism" was adopted as a nom-de-plume by Mussolini's "fascisti." The Romans weren't fascist, they just (like the Etruscans before them) used the "fasces" (bundle of sticks with an axe) as the symbol of governmental power and empire. Mussolini's Italian fascism did not result in any particular technological or social advancements. Certainly, nothing compared to the German nazi regime.

Afa the connection between empires (in general) and the spread of technological advancement, that is absolutely true. However, it is as true of India, China and Japan as it is of any western civilization. Moreover, until recently, most European nations were monarchical. We know that the first to break that chain (unless we count the Swiss Confederacy) was the United States, which was based on a slave economy, like Rome and unlike Italy. Actually, the plantation states were more like ancient Greece --or Greek "democracy," -- and political power was dependent on economic power (property possession).

If fascism (as it is generally understood) were just a political system with some flaws but many benefits, people wouldn't try so hard to distance themselves from being called fascist. But, imo, that debate is a waste because no one would want to be among the group singled out. People have long argued that America benefited from the slave system (as did the ancient empires). No one's going to sign up to be a slave, though, especially then. Personally, I'd go back to any period in time, as long as I got to be king .

[grzegorz]

Another meme but completely on point.



Why is it that this administration cries out State's rights for toilet laws but not for marijuana laws?

They say that these pipelines will create jobs what about the marijuana industry?

I also noticed when I posted a Breitbart article on legal marijuana hurting the profits of the drug cartels that the conversation ended.

[BruceP]

Personally, I'd go back to any period in time, as long as I got to be king .

Only as long as I can move to Canada. No...wait

Yeah, Steve. Technological advancement has been an incidental benefit for the most part - but what a price to have been paid! I was thinking more along the lines of societal evolution under fascism and how the lost and the losers of that process shaped the narrative oftentimes in equal standing with those whose 'side' prevailed.

I'm not an educated man. Nor am I all that well informed, so this rabbit hole is pretty shallow over here. I may bow out and just read along if this thread takes off.

I read John Reed's, Ten Days That Shook The World, a bunch of years ago so I can kind of appreciate how things shook out after Nick got greased. It was a crazy read at any rate.

Fast forward 40 years or so;

Krushchev understood the purpose 'fascism' served, and its historical significance, and importance, in transforming Russia from a backward nation to an industrialized and united country. He understood its necessity and utility in making that leap. Lenin asked, and Stalin answered when a man was needed for particularly nasty actions to be carried out - nobody else wanted the unpleasant task of putting their flesh or name to the work of Collectivization, Kulakization, securing agricultural productivity, etc...Trotsky, Bukharin, et al were silent when calls to duty such as those were made. Nobody else had the patriotic fervor to be willing to get their hands that dirty. Lenin created just the monster Russia needed to fulfill his vision. And then the monster turned on him before dragging Russia, kicking and screaming at first, and then in fearful silence, into the 20th century.