SCOTUS stops the election interference....cold!

I have heard of what the klan USED to do… back when they were democrats. With the shift in political winds, when they became supposedly aligned more with republicans, they seem to have lost their teeth. I suspect they’re now more of a bogeyman to whip up the base with fear. As mentioned in an earlier conversation, the left has no monopoly on this tactic either. Both parties use it. Since they continue to do so, I suspect it must be effective. No I don’t have sources to cite to prove this. I’ll have to check with my flat-earther buddies. They have the inside track on everything.

 

Darn it! I’ve been discovered for the master propagandist and mesmerist that I am. Oh crap! Now I’ve brought up Mesmer. Here comes the history recitation (complete with sources) of Mesmer, hypnotism, animal magnetism, etc..

 

...

 

I agree with you. I dislike the deliberate spreading of mis-information.
I agree that to say something and to make it count it must be proven/backed up, by the person saying it.
However, I wonder where the line should be drawn between someone spreading their genuinely held thought and one spreading mis-information.

Like I said, for me, it's about it being backed up by the person saying it or by the reader triangulating relevant info sources.
Of course there will always be those who believe what they read and subscribe to false prophets.
We can't fix stupid. If I read more than one post by someone who isn't backing up what they say or which I already know to be true, I ignore them.
I won't tolerate rubbish and will be selective about whom I read stuff from.

 

Please forgive me for ranting. Some "Judge" in Lousiana, ruled that an embryo conceived in a petrie dish at a artificial insemination clinic is a human being, and to destroy said embryo is murder even if it was frozen and stored for years. I think that he was voted out in the recent election.

 

Ok. So this time, for some reason, I actually looked at the links you pasted in the above. For clarity, I just looked at the information in the link itself. I did not open them to read them. I suspect you can easily recognize that those are very biased/slanted. Almost all journalism/news seems to be.

Unfortunately, way back when I used to care enough to read academic journals or individual studies, I came to the conclusion that the !science!, be it social or, especially, pharmaceutical, seemed to almost always favor those who funded it. To be fair, I was approaching these items with a heavy statistics/econometrics background. The real world is never so clean as the ideal statistical experimental models. But the lack of proper controls, the tiny sample sizes, selective measurements, and the questionable and non-reproducible data were egregious.

So rather than some “q-anon” disinformation, it has been academic and other life experiences that have made me suspicious of disseminated information. I weigh incoming info against my experience and prior info. I ask “who profits” and how, if at all, would this affect me. All of this is what causes me to discount or dismiss much incoming info. “Rational ignorance”? Ok. Heavy on the rational, I would argue.

 

...

 

Maybe. But your reliance on the accuracy and honesty of those interpreting the shadows on the cave wall, when their past performance brings both into question, is what then, since you’re fond of labels and categorizations?

 

...

 

So for “retrumplicans”, (cute by the way, is that one your own?) Catholics are now in and the Jews are in the doghouse? What of blacks? As a largely Christian demographic, are they now honorary members of this rebranded, Christian nationalist, klan?

 

...

 

...

 

Ok. Well, politics and bedfellows I suppose. You seem so deep into the history and current details of these groups and their ideas that I’m left wondering if this is part of your profession or if you just have far more time on your hands to pursue this subject and more than a bit of a fixation.

I think quite poorly them and ANY other racial or identity group that seem to spring up like weeds from time to time but I don’t waste time and energy learning the intricacies of their beliefs and organization. They seek unequal power and privilege for themselves and their kind. Like all organizations, as long as their leaders and officers gain some of the above for themselves, they will persist.

As to the verboten turner diaries; I read that one way back in college because I was a voracious reader, thirsty for all and any information and ideas, and because that book was deemed taboo and therefore all the more intriguing. I remember thinking that it was like the racist’s version of Ayn Rand: a poor story plot to serve as the author’s vehicle for their feverish diatribes. It seemed even more one-sided and delusional than Rand. I remember thinking something along the lines of, “I wonder if these neo nazi folks masturbate to this shit?”

Then, many years later, came the summer of “firey but mostly peaceful protests”. Differential enforcement of laws by DAs with agendas other than law enforcement. Lockdowns/social isolation for the law abiding. “Bail reform”. Rioting in the name of social justice and free big screen tvs and luxury goods. Shaming and kneeling for the sin of whiteness. And so on. Somewhere in that mess I thought, “Holy crap. That nut job may have seen something in our society well before any sane person could have.”

 

...

 

Imagine being so entrapped in a bubble as to cite "media matters" as a credible source.

 

Ok, before moving onto the rest I thought I should mention this; were I of the same political beliefs as you, I would not mention the turner diaries. Back when it was written, and even later when I read it, it was easy to dismiss for what it seemed to be. Since the summer of 2020 however, new readers may find some of the events, behavoirs, and attitudes that the author portrayed in a not-to-distant distopian future to have been somewhat prescient. That could lend credibility to his other ideas.

Moving on. Ah yes, “maga is a threat to democracy”. So much so that the voting public must not be allowed to vote for it, right? Even us middle of the roaders have come to notice that anything that is not left of center is “a threat to democracy”. Just like any country that doesn’t want to trade in US dollars or let in our resource companies to exploit their resources, must then be made “safe for democracy”, right? The game is only fair if you win? Anything right of Bernie is nazism, and we’re not entirely sure about Bernie, either.

What’s more of a threat to democracy; untraceable electronic and mail-in ballots or requiring you prove your identity to vote? Is expecting people to have the basic life competency to procure their birth certificate or social security card or drivers license or passport just so very racist? If you really believe any racial demographic lacks this basic skill… good god, do I really have to point out how contradictory this view is?

 

...

 

I said scapegoating was a human tendency. I did not defend it.

 

Which amounts to, “my sides fact checkers are more accurate and honest than your sides fact checkers, so nya-nya na nya-nya.”