He's very slow moving and appears spaced out a lot of the time - I'll be honest, I don't like that he's running, it's a really bad idea to match Trump's enthusiasm with super-low energy frailty. But cropping those people out of the frame and lying about what he was doing is just madness.
The denial of factual evidence is a giant problem here on the far left and the mainstream GOP. It seems that center left is still interested in accepting facts. It feels connected to a rising affinity for authoritarianism in general.
You're right. So what can be done to counter this. It's been found that many people who are Trump haters even when presented with evidence will just proceed on as if nothing were shared with them. It gets depressing. My senate representative sends out daily outright lies. People are not bothering to verify. I went to grad school so I had to learn argumentation and how to research. But so many are not even aware of how to begin.
Disinformation is a drag. But I am capable of telling the difference. I don't need someone else to be the gate keeper of information for me. I wish others could as well.
You say you're capable of telling the difference between truth and lies right after you defended the Dinesh D'Souza documentary that was just proven so fraudulent that even its distributors can no longer defend it. You wrap yourself in your nice cozy blanket of believing what you want most to be true, and I'm happy for you. Stop trying to shut down our fucking universities.
Again I will ask if you can provide some citation. I have not seen any critiques of D'Souza asserting that. But I am perfectly willing to read any credible articles you can cite. If he has committed such I would like to know of it.
Ahahaha! I was accepted to two very competative Ph. D. programs at major research University. I have two Masters degrees. I've held a full time position at a major college. I fully believe in educational institutions. Otherwise I would have to suffer people unable to think critically.
Surrre. Just because you say that doesn't make it so. So according to polls of Iate something like 72% of people are supporting Donald Trump. According to most categorizations those people would be considered right wing. So you are saying all those people prefer falsehood. It that were so we would not be able to even function as a society. There would chaos. And while there is chaos in the streets in cities it is perpetrated by almost always leftist liberals. If you want I can provide citations.
What the eff is "the cult?" Please! Be real!Not everyone entertains your definitions. America is large enough to have regional and cultural differences.
Much of what you say is true but let's not pretend that this is a phomenon that began in 2016.
During the Bush years, the prestige media in the US and, to a lesser extent the UK, peddled unconscioniable lies about, the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Prominent anti-war voices were suppressed (losing shows in literal cancellations, avant la lettre). None of the people who peddled the lies that set the middle east aflame, faced even the lightest professional consequences.
A commitment to truth means admitting when your own side are the liars.
Trump is a gigantic, supperating boil on the face of the American body politic. But he is not, and has never been a Russian agent and, it was deeply and profoundly wrong for the Clinton campaign to launder their flimsy oppo research through the FBI and then pretend that it had nothing to do with them.
A media with a commitment to truth probably wouldn't have bought the lie in the first place but, if it had, by golly it would have raised a stink when it realised it had been duped.
Similarly, the Hunter Biden laptop story. Boy, was that the mother of all October surprises! But it wasn't fake. And it is a serious problem that all those security state officials felt OK parading on TV and saying that, while they couldn't be sure, it certainly felt like a Russian psy-op. For heaven's sake, the FBI didn't even admit that they had the thing. And yet, it was real and no-one faced professional consequences for saying that it wasn't - right before the election.
Project Veritas couldn't hope to pull off a stunt like that.
And when is the right time to have a discussion about the fact that the former vice president's deeply troubled son happened to have an extra-ordinarily well paid no show job on the board of an energy company in a country most Americans couldn't have pointed to on a map on the eve of a conflict that may yet ignite the first ever war between nuclear-armed adversaries. That sure is an almighty coincidence. Maybe one that's even more interesting than the faulty paperwork on his gun licence.
As to the Twitter files, does it bother you even slightly that several government agencies, operating through a network of academic and non-profits, were sending Twitter lists of people whose views should be [cough] de-emphasised? Would it bother you if the Trump era FBI were doing the same thing - to you maybe?
As to Biden wandering off at D-Day. Sure, the editing was selective. But unflattering footage of political candidates goes with the territory - google "Ed Milliband bacon sandwich" sometime. The reason it hurts Biden is because he does look a bit doddery a lot of the time. It used to be accepted political wisdom that candidates should have some sort of charisma. Reagan had it. so did (Bill) Clinton. Bush Jnr could pass the "beer test," Obama had charm and wit in spades. Biden looks halfway embalmed. It's a weakness and people are going to exploit it.
Or do we believe that the Clinton can set Robert Muller on Trump but the Republicans should refrain from... unflattering editing? Is that where we are now? I mean, good luck but it doesn't feel like a winning strategy to me.
Is Biden really the best the Dems can do? Because, if he isn't and, if Trump is half as bad as the Dems say he is, then shouldn't Biden have stepped aside for the better candidate? Didn't we watch this movie in 2016?
My point is, we've never had much regard for political trruth per se. What we maybe used to have was a habit of treating all the falsehoods with the same rigour.
What distinguishes the present is not so much the increase in falsehood per se as the increase in hypocrisy.
That is what divides society into its two spheres of alternative facts. If each side exposes each other's lies whilst ignoring their own then we get nowhere. Fake news indeed.
To paraphrase (I think) Umberto Eco, if we are forced to choose between truth and revolution, we should choose truth. Even if it's unpalatable.
If you don't want to admit the lies on your side then you've made your choice. Good luck
“…A couple of months ago in an interview for Time [Trump] sweepingly discounted all official crime statistics across the country, from the FBI down to the Esmerelda County Precinct, as being fake numbers if they showed a decrease in crime under Biden. Just as a flat-out holy decree. Even if this were the truth he would have no way of knowing the secret real numbers, but he claims that knowledge nonetheless…”
I saw the video. And no one immediately answered back, and said. “No, that’s not true. These statistics are not fake. They are real. Saying they are not is the real fake.”
I wish you had not included this sentence in your essay: "Whenever you hear a politician or an ideologue speak, you need to keep that in mind, and treat every word of their communication to you as fabricated in its entirety, even when some parts of it are true."
It paints both parties with the same brush, when in fact you cite only the political right as offenders in this piece. I don't think it's an accurate statement when applied to (for example) President Biden, Jamie Raskin, or many other politicians.
While I agree with most of your arguments, I don't think such both-sidesism is true or helpful. It achieves the very purpose of disinformation: sowing distrust in all political dialogue and in our political system.
I think that the political right is engaged in a different kind of project here, in terms of leaning into lying as a deliberate proactive strategy, but I also don't think it makes any sense to claim that Biden or the Democrats or anyone else really can just be trusted.
We still need to hold both sides accountable. If one side adheres more to verifiable facts and strategic honesty better than the other then it means we're doing a pretty good job holding them accountable so they keep that incentive. One of the major reasons the right can just lean all the way into deception and misinformation and rhetorical trickery is because they haven't been held accountable. Their base will just believe them. We can't fall into that trap.
The comment beginning "So you honestly..." is replying to Dee Dee bizarre assertions that 70% of Americans are dangerous cult members. Which belief is just sad.
So you honestly believe everyone who supports Donald Trump is an active "cult member"? You believe like 71% of the U. S. population secretly belongs to a cult of a right wing dangerous group? Wow. I honest to God feel bad for you. If I conversely believed the same things, I would think all leftist Democrats belonged to dangerous communist George Soros funded cults that riot in the streets to sow treason. But I don't. I am capable of recognizing many of the liberals who would vote for such a failed representative as Biden are just scared people who are easily duped by mainstream media.
This is an exceptionally long article composed of almost nothing but opinion. You make all kinds of nasty statements and fail to back them up with any evidence. For example, you make claims about various people but you usually do not provide any examples of them committing the act you condemn them for. In addition you word your opinions as if they are proven facts. You make claims about D' nesh Desuza but provide very little to back up your claims. I'm sorry but in the end this makes you come off as just another loud mouth Rachel Maddow, someone who blathers opinion all over the place and then Puffs them self up thinking now they can look at everyone smugly because they "said lots of bad stuff. "
Bullshit. I just found distinctions of truth being associated with non Trumpers highly amusing. Have you ever watched congressional hearings? Watched Stacy Plasket or Marcia Fe8nayein Toby blatantly lie and manipulate truths in an attempt to assert an untruth? It is an exercise in disbelief. For example, at one of the few hearings that Michael Shellenburger and Matt Taibi testified, Marcia made allusions questioning whether Matt was a real journalist. This was such a ridiculous ploy because he has won many awards and recognitions for his journalistic endeavors. It just made her look ridiculous. I was attempting to say that that... Oh shoot what is his name? Needed to back up what he was saying with evidence, rather than just acting like saying it makes it true. He was manifesting the very processes he was accusing others of doing.
Great observations, but truthfully scary. Thanks for this post.
You article is spot on, but IMO even having a person in the frame with Biden he still appears to wonder from the group.
He's very slow moving and appears spaced out a lot of the time - I'll be honest, I don't like that he's running, it's a really bad idea to match Trump's enthusiasm with super-low energy frailty. But cropping those people out of the frame and lying about what he was doing is just madness.
It’s ignorance.
And you have this. Shame.
The denial of factual evidence is a giant problem here on the far left and the mainstream GOP. It seems that center left is still interested in accepting facts. It feels connected to a rising affinity for authoritarianism in general.
You're right. So what can be done to counter this. It's been found that many people who are Trump haters even when presented with evidence will just proceed on as if nothing were shared with them. It gets depressing. My senate representative sends out daily outright lies. People are not bothering to verify. I went to grad school so I had to learn argumentation and how to research. But so many are not even aware of how to begin.
I haven't yet read the article because I am morbidly fascinated by that wallpaper of Trump orifice. Thanks?
Disinformation is a drag. But I am capable of telling the difference. I don't need someone else to be the gate keeper of information for me. I wish others could as well.
You say you're capable of telling the difference between truth and lies right after you defended the Dinesh D'Souza documentary that was just proven so fraudulent that even its distributors can no longer defend it. You wrap yourself in your nice cozy blanket of believing what you want most to be true, and I'm happy for you. Stop trying to shut down our fucking universities.
Again I will ask if you can provide some citation. I have not seen any critiques of D'Souza asserting that. But I am perfectly willing to read any credible articles you can cite. If he has committed such I would like to know of it.
Ahahaha! I was accepted to two very competative Ph. D. programs at major research University. I have two Masters degrees. I've held a full time position at a major college. I fully believe in educational institutions. Otherwise I would have to suffer people unable to think critically.
Somehow I doubt it. The right wing doesn’t like the truth. Easy to find remarkably easy to remember. But you giddy up.
Surrre. Just because you say that doesn't make it so. So according to polls of Iate something like 72% of people are supporting Donald Trump. According to most categorizations those people would be considered right wing. So you are saying all those people prefer falsehood. It that were so we would not be able to even function as a society. There would chaos. And while there is chaos in the streets in cities it is perpetrated by almost always leftist liberals. If you want I can provide citations.
Yes the cult can’t though. They are the dangerous ones. I can find truth too but they can’t.
What the eff is "the cult?" Please! Be real!Not everyone entertains your definitions. America is large enough to have regional and cultural differences.
Much of what you say is true but let's not pretend that this is a phomenon that began in 2016.
During the Bush years, the prestige media in the US and, to a lesser extent the UK, peddled unconscioniable lies about, the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Prominent anti-war voices were suppressed (losing shows in literal cancellations, avant la lettre). None of the people who peddled the lies that set the middle east aflame, faced even the lightest professional consequences.
A commitment to truth means admitting when your own side are the liars.
Trump is a gigantic, supperating boil on the face of the American body politic. But he is not, and has never been a Russian agent and, it was deeply and profoundly wrong for the Clinton campaign to launder their flimsy oppo research through the FBI and then pretend that it had nothing to do with them.
A media with a commitment to truth probably wouldn't have bought the lie in the first place but, if it had, by golly it would have raised a stink when it realised it had been duped.
Similarly, the Hunter Biden laptop story. Boy, was that the mother of all October surprises! But it wasn't fake. And it is a serious problem that all those security state officials felt OK parading on TV and saying that, while they couldn't be sure, it certainly felt like a Russian psy-op. For heaven's sake, the FBI didn't even admit that they had the thing. And yet, it was real and no-one faced professional consequences for saying that it wasn't - right before the election.
Project Veritas couldn't hope to pull off a stunt like that.
And when is the right time to have a discussion about the fact that the former vice president's deeply troubled son happened to have an extra-ordinarily well paid no show job on the board of an energy company in a country most Americans couldn't have pointed to on a map on the eve of a conflict that may yet ignite the first ever war between nuclear-armed adversaries. That sure is an almighty coincidence. Maybe one that's even more interesting than the faulty paperwork on his gun licence.
As to the Twitter files, does it bother you even slightly that several government agencies, operating through a network of academic and non-profits, were sending Twitter lists of people whose views should be [cough] de-emphasised? Would it bother you if the Trump era FBI were doing the same thing - to you maybe?
As to Biden wandering off at D-Day. Sure, the editing was selective. But unflattering footage of political candidates goes with the territory - google "Ed Milliband bacon sandwich" sometime. The reason it hurts Biden is because he does look a bit doddery a lot of the time. It used to be accepted political wisdom that candidates should have some sort of charisma. Reagan had it. so did (Bill) Clinton. Bush Jnr could pass the "beer test," Obama had charm and wit in spades. Biden looks halfway embalmed. It's a weakness and people are going to exploit it.
Or do we believe that the Clinton can set Robert Muller on Trump but the Republicans should refrain from... unflattering editing? Is that where we are now? I mean, good luck but it doesn't feel like a winning strategy to me.
Is Biden really the best the Dems can do? Because, if he isn't and, if Trump is half as bad as the Dems say he is, then shouldn't Biden have stepped aside for the better candidate? Didn't we watch this movie in 2016?
My point is, we've never had much regard for political trruth per se. What we maybe used to have was a habit of treating all the falsehoods with the same rigour.
What distinguishes the present is not so much the increase in falsehood per se as the increase in hypocrisy.
That is what divides society into its two spheres of alternative facts. If each side exposes each other's lies whilst ignoring their own then we get nowhere. Fake news indeed.
To paraphrase (I think) Umberto Eco, if we are forced to choose between truth and revolution, we should choose truth. Even if it's unpalatable.
If you don't want to admit the lies on your side then you've made your choice. Good luck
“…A couple of months ago in an interview for Time [Trump] sweepingly discounted all official crime statistics across the country, from the FBI down to the Esmerelda County Precinct, as being fake numbers if they showed a decrease in crime under Biden. Just as a flat-out holy decree. Even if this were the truth he would have no way of knowing the secret real numbers, but he claims that knowledge nonetheless…”
I saw the video. And no one immediately answered back, and said. “No, that’s not true. These statistics are not fake. They are real. Saying they are not is the real fake.”
No one said this.
They just let it ride, the way they always do.
That’s why the lie message is winning.
I wish you had not included this sentence in your essay: "Whenever you hear a politician or an ideologue speak, you need to keep that in mind, and treat every word of their communication to you as fabricated in its entirety, even when some parts of it are true."
It paints both parties with the same brush, when in fact you cite only the political right as offenders in this piece. I don't think it's an accurate statement when applied to (for example) President Biden, Jamie Raskin, or many other politicians.
While I agree with most of your arguments, I don't think such both-sidesism is true or helpful. It achieves the very purpose of disinformation: sowing distrust in all political dialogue and in our political system.
I think that the political right is engaged in a different kind of project here, in terms of leaning into lying as a deliberate proactive strategy, but I also don't think it makes any sense to claim that Biden or the Democrats or anyone else really can just be trusted.
We still need to hold both sides accountable. If one side adheres more to verifiable facts and strategic honesty better than the other then it means we're doing a pretty good job holding them accountable so they keep that incentive. One of the major reasons the right can just lean all the way into deception and misinformation and rhetorical trickery is because they haven't been held accountable. Their base will just believe them. We can't fall into that trap.
The comment beginning "So you honestly..." is replying to Dee Dee bizarre assertions that 70% of Americans are dangerous cult members. Which belief is just sad.
So you honestly believe everyone who supports Donald Trump is an active "cult member"? You believe like 71% of the U. S. population secretly belongs to a cult of a right wing dangerous group? Wow. I honest to God feel bad for you. If I conversely believed the same things, I would think all leftist Democrats belonged to dangerous communist George Soros funded cults that riot in the streets to sow treason. But I don't. I am capable of recognizing many of the liberals who would vote for such a failed representative as Biden are just scared people who are easily duped by mainstream media.
that picture, the stuff of nightmares
If the mouth is flapping the lies are
Alive. Now it’s gibberish lies.
This is an exceptionally long article composed of almost nothing but opinion. You make all kinds of nasty statements and fail to back them up with any evidence. For example, you make claims about various people but you usually do not provide any examples of them committing the act you condemn them for. In addition you word your opinions as if they are proven facts. You make claims about D' nesh Desuza but provide very little to back up your claims. I'm sorry but in the end this makes you come off as just another loud mouth Rachel Maddow, someone who blathers opinion all over the place and then Puffs them self up thinking now they can look at everyone smugly because they "said lots of bad stuff. "
ok
He’s just Another right wing whining cult member is all 🤦🏼♀️
Ikr...Being against disinformation... tut...!
And you have this. You aren’t bringing your best. batshit fucking crazy. If you can’t find the truth then you are as bad.
Your long comment and opinion is noted. 🤣
Caz, Thank you for the acknowledgement.
You didn't even read the first paragraph.
Bullshit. I just found distinctions of truth being associated with non Trumpers highly amusing. Have you ever watched congressional hearings? Watched Stacy Plasket or Marcia Fe8nayein Toby blatantly lie and manipulate truths in an attempt to assert an untruth? It is an exercise in disbelief. For example, at one of the few hearings that Michael Shellenburger and Matt Taibi testified, Marcia made allusions questioning whether Matt was a real journalist. This was such a ridiculous ploy because he has won many awards and recognitions for his journalistic endeavors. It just made her look ridiculous. I was attempting to say that that... Oh shoot what is his name? Needed to back up what he was saying with evidence, rather than just acting like saying it makes it true. He was manifesting the very processes he was accusing others of doing.
You didn't read it.