Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:I am a paid troll (Score 1) 253

by Layzej (#49358947) Attached to: How Professional Russian Trolls Operate
The Heartland institute is paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation about climate change. Popular misinformation sites like WUWT have received $80,000 in a single year. Even as a lowly intern you can get a small piece of the pie. They'll pay you $150/week to comment on relevant blogs, newspaper articles, and social media.

Comment: Re:How propaganda decides wars (Score 1) 253

by quantaman (#49358813) Attached to: How Professional Russian Trolls Operate

So just because the USSR tried to manipulate the peace movement therefore delegitimizes the entire peace movement?

No, not entire — there were sincere pacifists even during WW2 — and not automatically. We need to painfully examine, to what extent the peace movement was compromised by involvement of both USSR and domestic terrorists. You may suspect me of overestimating the enemy's impact, but you are certainly underestimating it.

You're not overestimating the enemy's impact, you're accusing your ideological opponents of being stooges. I'm certain you're not nearly as concerned by the propaganda put out by those who agree with you.

When the US was about to resume shooting in Iraq in 2003, the whole world erupted in the biggest coordinated protest in history — and not by Iraqis, but by outraged Westerners expressing their sympathy.. Where were these peace-loving legions, when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014? What few protests there were, they were largely by Ukrainian expats with very few sympathetic locals in evidence. Why?

Because:
a) People expect a lot more of the US than Russia
b) The US sets international standards, and by invading Iraq it helps legitimize things like Ukraine
c) The US is a Western country, it makes a lot of sense for Westerners to protest it because they have a chance of influencing the politicians. What the hell does Russia care if a bunch of Americans or Canadians come out in protest? And what should Canadians and Americans even protest for, we don't have a lot of leverage.

Because Putin's propaganda machine worked — on the entire spectrum of Western politics, not just the Left as the USSR used to. Rightist Jews in the US were accusing Ukraine's new "junta" of being "nazis", while actual American Nazis called the new government "Jews". Without arguing with each other, but both helped Putin. Most likely, they didn't realize it — but there is no doubt, a there is a group of analysts at FSB attached to each Western opinion-maker. US is a pathetic noob at this.

Wake up and smell "people's power" — and the power of propagandists to manipulate it.

It didn't do squat. Yes there's a few fringe folks who are influenced, but they're pretty insubstantial.

In the EU it might be different, Greece in particular might have a legitimate problem, but in the English speaking West Russian propaganda is a joke.

Comment: Re:How propaganda decides wars (Score 1) 253

by quantaman (#49357249) Attached to: How Professional Russian Trolls Operate

You're talking about the public perception of the war, UN approval forms part of that public perception.

UN's approval or lack thereof, by all appearances, was used to justify the opposition to war later, when the questions like mine here started popping up. I could find no references to UN's decision (or absence of it) as a factor. Could you?

I'm not mining quotes from 60 years ago but it certainly would have affected the perception. Korean was very much a multinational mission, Vietnam was not.

It's possible, but a far more likely factor is the fact they were very different wars at very different times.

Well, I explained, how they were similar — only a few years apart and both in far lands without evident immediate threat to the US.

The Korean war was over in 3 years. In Vietnam the US stepped into a long running conflict which ran a lot longer.

I fail to see, how the length of a conflict affects the justification of it.

Wars become more unpopular the longer they go, that's fairly basic. The public wasn't particularly anti-War at the start of the war, it became that way later on (similar to Iraq).

You've also got media actually showing the home front what the battlefield actually looks like, that's a pretty profound change from previously where media pieces were basically clips from war movies.

Yes. And the fact that media at home chose to concentrate on the negative, instead of praising the troops in general and heralding acts of valor in particular is, in my opinion, explained by (at least, in part) by the enemy's propaganda efforts.

That would be a pretty small part. The moment the media came to the conclusion they could be actual reporters instead of propagandists the friendly propaganda effort was done.

Finally you had a completely different culture in the 60's that was largely based on a rejection of authority

And where, one wonders, did that come from?

From stuff that didn't have much to do with the USSR (though many were undoubtedly interested in leftist ideas).

And where is it now, when questioning authority is not only not patriotic, but racist?

It's only racist when the complainers start blowing dog whistles. As it happens referring to Obama as a community organizer, a job he held for 3 years in his mid-twenties before going onto far more impressive things. That could be just partisan bias, but there's a definite dog whistle quality to it.

You don't need Soviet propaganda to explain the Vietnam peace movement

Well, we know for a fact (an inconvenient one), that USSR and other Communists were behind at least some of the "peace" organizations, such as the venerable World Peace Council.

The practice is still ongoing — an establishment calling itself "anti-war", for example, is calling for international approval of Russia's invasion into and annexation of Crimea — do you think, they would've approved of Kosovo or Kurdistan voting to become a United States' 51st state? Is it really over-the-board to wonder, if, perhaps, this Justin Raimondo is manipulated by Kremlin — whether he even knows it or not?

So just because the USSR tried to manipulate the peace movement therefore delegitimizes the entire peace movement? And an 'anti-war' organization that virtually no one on the left listens to or agrees with is evidence of that fact?

Israel is certainly trying to sway US public opinion, does that make you a puppet of some Jewish lobby? (for the record I say no)

Comment: Re:How propaganda decides wars (Score 1) 253

by quantaman (#49355405) Attached to: How Professional Russian Trolls Operate

Compare our invasion of Korea with that of Vietnam only a few years later. Before you say "Korea was UN-approved" — no, that's a lame excuse. Stalin boycotted UN at the time action on Korea was decided, but by the time of Vietnam USSR has changed its approach. That's all.

So what? You're talking about the public perception of the war, UN approval forms part of that public perception.

In both cases American military was sent to fight in remote lands against people, who didn't threaten America directly in any way — for fear of the domino effect of Communism. In both cases the fighting was heavy and numerous war-crimes have taken place.

And yet, there was no domestic opposition to the Korean war — virtually none. No protests against the draft, no accusations of returning soldiers being "baby-killers". John Kerry, for example, has gained more political capital for opposing the war (and returning his medals), than for fighting in it (for an entire 4 months).

Vietnam was widely considered a national shame long before the war was lost. Meanwhile the only source of any negativity about the Korean war in mass culture was the M*A*S*H series.

Why was the domestic reaction to the two wars so drastically different? The theory of propagandists controlled and funded (with or without their own knowledge) by the USSR would explain the known facts.

It's possible, but a far more likely factor is the fact they were very different wars at very different times.

The Korean war was over in 3 years. In Vietnam the US stepped into a long running conflict which ran a lot longer.

The US was also coming straight out of WWII, so the idea that you should deal with belligerent countries pro-actively sounded like a really good idea and provided a great narrative, the communist threat would have also seemed less intractable since you didn't have to deal with Nuclear arms race.

You've also got media actually showing the home front what the battlefield actually looks like, that's a pretty profound change from previously where media pieces were basically clips from war movies.

Finally you had a completely different culture in the 60's that was largely based on a rejection of authority, do you think that was going to mix well with the military?

You don't need Soviet propaganda to explain the Vietnam peace movement, the known facts are explained by the known facts.

+ - One Professional Russian Troll Tells All->

Submitted by SecState
SecState (667211) writes "Hundreds of full-time, well-paid trolls operate thousands of fake accounts to fill social media sites and comments threads with pro-Kremlin propaganda. A St. Petersburg blogger spent two months working 12-hour shifts in a "troll factory," targeting forums of Russian municipal websites. In an interview, he describes how he worked in teams with two other trolls to create false "debates" about Russian and international politics, with pro-Putin views always scoring the winning point. Of course, with the U.S. government invoking "state secrets" to dismiss a defamation case against the supposedly independent advocacy group United Against a Nuclear Iran, Americans also need to be asking how far is too far when it comes to masked government propaganda."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:BBC not to blame here, Clarkson is (Score 1) 633

by quantaman (#49348497) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Evidence seems to indicate it for one. If he's such a horrible person, why is that he self reported the incident? Somebody who is horrible enough that simply being around them is enough to "goad" them, doesn't seem like the sort that would later take a step back and go "hmmm, that was really stupid of me. I should notify that this event happened". They'd more likely not see any issue with what they did and just carry on.

It could also be that they he it would get reported anyway and wanted to get his version in first, he may have even thought they were in the right.

When I heard of this my thought was of Jion Ghomeshi, a CBC radio host who is being charged with multiple sexual assaults for a long pattern of behaviour. Before things broke the thing that got him fired was him showing a video to management with the belief that it would clear him, instead management realized the stuff on the video was sexual assault and fired him.

Comment: Re:BBC not to blame here, Clarkson is (Score 1) 633

by quantaman (#49345867) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Are you familiar with the term "The straw that broke the camels back"? It is tied to the notion that one seemingly insignificant event caused a catastrophic result. The BBC and the producers had been riding him for a very long time about being "proper" so as not to offend certain groups. This ran counter to what made him so entertaining. He spoke his mind and said what a lot of us would say if we weren't forced to be proper in mixed company. I didn't agree with half the things he said but I usually found what he said to be humorous. None of us know what transpired in the exchange between Clarkson and the producer but I suspect the producer had been goading him prior to this encounter and Clarkson simply snapped. Clarkson's no saint but he's also not petty and I choose to believe there was something deeper going on that led up to this.

Or the person outspoken and abrasive television was even more outspoken and abrasive in person, why assume producer had it coming at all? With the right kind of people you "goad" them simply by being around them long enough.

It doesn't matter if they're the star of a show or an executive, if you break the rules there's consequences.

+ - "Founder" of Greenpeace says pesticides are safe to drink.-> 1

Submitted by Layzej
Layzej (1976930) writes ""Founder of Greenpeace" Patrick Moore, who was reported here last week denying the physics of anthropogenic climate change on behalf of the Heartland Institute, is now claiming that the pesticide glysophate is safe for Argentinians to drink. "You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you" he stated. "It is not dangerous to humans". Although when pressed he refused to take a sip, he did state "I know it wouldn't hurt me"."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:eliminate extra sugar (Score 1) 491

by Magius_AR (#49331249) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

This means that your "nutritious" smoothie has the equivalent of 4 teaspoons of sugar, so I am not sure that you have a full grasp on the nutrition aspect.

To be fair, that smoothie is loaded with fiber, particularly from the banana. Sugar aside, having a stomach full of fiber goes a long way towards staving off hunger and ultimately cutting calories.

Comment: Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985 (Score 1) 573

by quantaman (#49317401) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

You misremember.

Southern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Southern Republicans, and Northern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Northern Republicans. But Southern Democrats were opposed to civil rights as compared to Northern Republicans, and since there were a lot of Southern Democrats there were a lot of anti-civil rights Democrats.

No, this is false. In fact, during the Civil Rights movement, the majority of those in congress who voted in favor of reforms were Republicans.

I can't speak to all the civil rights legislation, but as to the civil rights act itself you just ignored my entire point (and you were still wrong). Look at the vote totals:

        Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
        Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

        Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
        Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

Being a libertarian myself, I agree with that viewpoint, but it has nothing to do with racism. If I owned a business, I wouldn't deny service over race. But I would deny it to a gangbanger who comes in with baggy clothes hanging so low that you can see the brown stains on his whitey tighties.

Of course that has nothing to do with the era in question. If that person was white they'd probably get the service, but if they were black no matter how dignified they were they'd be denied service (or at least forced to wait behind the white person for service). Even if the owner themselves wasn't racist they'd have to discriminate or the prominent white folk in the community would single them out.

How do you approach that issue as a libertarian? Community groups forcing business owners to discriminate if they want to stay in business.

However, the three presidential elections afterwards, none of the southern electorates went to Republicans. The first for that to happen (other than goldwater) was Richard Nixon, who took basically the entire nation (including left wing havens New York and California.)

You might want to read this, which consults several historians and has sources:

http://freeplanetickettonorthk...

That article doesn't really disprove my point. No one claims that every Dixiecrat changed their party registration overnight, people are incredibly reluctant to change political identity and the first ones to do so will be the new ones entering the system. And I don't care about Goldwater as an anecdote, but if you were voting against civil rights for racist reasons (either personal or political) wouldn't you couch your vote in some better principal?

But to claim it has nothing to do with civil rights and racism is to be incredibly obtuse. The change started with the civil rights act, the south still has a lot of racism and civil rights issues, and the Republican party still has a lot of issues with civil rights and racism.

Comment: Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985 (Score 1) 573

by quantaman (#49312297) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

Can we talk about how the right endlessly defended slavery?

Take John C. Calhoun [wikipedia.org]: "he became a greater proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade".

What does this have to do with today's right?

It's relevant since there's still a lot of racism on the right and even some who defend slavery as something that wasn't so bad.

John C Calhoun was part of the same party that Obama is now part of. And no, the parties didn't switch spectrum, rather all of them have changed their stances on certain subjects. Remember it was still the Democrats that were largely opposed to civil rights during the 50's and 60's (for example, it was a Democrat governor who called in the national guard to keep black students out of Central High School in Arkansas.)

You misremember.

Southern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Southern Republicans, and Northern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Northern Republicans. But Southern Democrats were opposed to civil rights as compared to Northern Republicans, and since there were a lot of Southern Democrats there were a lot of anti-civil rights Democrats.

The Democratic party chose to make a stand on civil rights, since then the South has belonged to Republicans.

The biggest change a lot of people refer to happened during the 80's under the Raegan. Prior to Raegan, Democrats were staunchly opposed to communism (Kennedy and Johnson for example) and somehow the modern Democrat party moved away from that hard line stance

We're apparently talking about different Democratic parties.

It is masked but always present. I don't know who built to it. It came before the first kernel.

Working...