Politics & Stuff

[Fernando 6,454]

17 hours ago, Vesper said:

bullshit

the clear majority of Americans (when all American adults are added in to overall mix, including all ideologies, even hard RWers) support abortion being legal at least up until the 2nd trimester (and in many cases part of the 2nd trimester)

 it is not a human until it has all the pre-requisties of being a human (especially sentientness and viabilty)

potentiality does NOT equal reality, never has, never will

I have logically destroyed your arguments multiple times

also the vast majority support LGBTQ basic rights (like same-sex marriage, and non discrimination laws in employment, housing, etc)

also, fuck your homophobic stance that being LGBTQ is 'Exhibitionism'

your are an open homophobe and can sod right off

seriously, fuck off with your hate campaign against us LGBTQ folk

you are flat out lying when you claim even liberals/LWers who do not support Trump are against these two things (abortion up to a point in time of the preganacy and LGBTQ rights)

their support is in the 80s or even 90s (percentages, depending on what study you choose) for those two issues

and also, EVERY state has passed abortion rights state constitutional amendments when they have been on the ballot, post Dobbs

even in every deep red, RW Republican state that has voted so far on them

you are both a proven, open bigot and a proven liar

your opinions are odious on multiple subjects

and although you are entitled to your own opinions, your are not entitled to your false 'facts'

and you most certainly are NOT entitled to being immune from push-back against your bigotry and your lies

 

Not every woman supports your opinion of abortion. 

Here some woman that done it and have regrets. 

 

[Vesper 28,779]

2 hours ago, Fernando said:

Not every woman supports your opinion of abortion. 

Here some woman that done it and have regrets. 

 

the majority do support my stance, overwhelmingly so in many nations

you can always find exceptions on any subject

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,919]

3 hours ago, Fernando said:

Not every woman supports your opinion of abortion. 

Here some woman that done it and have regrets. 

 

This was an incredibly tough video to get through.

 

I think the key of pro choice is giving people a choice to make for themselves. If a woman doesnt want to have an aboriton, she shouldnt get one, and vice versa.

[DH1988 1,273]

Pages, articles, videos, you name it, a wealth of wasted time by all, it's a woman's body, it's her choice, no matter the circumstance. I tend to stay out of this section because depending which side you sit on people hardly ever come to an agreement due to media pressure and utter bias. The only thing I feel sorry for is the sheer fraud that goes on with the media in general misquoting or misrepresenting, surprising, you name it. Zero trust. As much as people like or dislike the platforms of today, I'm thankful they exist, including Rogan. If we all relied on CNN etc then we'd all be on the Kamala hype (likely to derail) train. I sit firmly in the middle of most topics in life because I simply don't know the facts, I'm not there. I know what I'm told or I read, which often times leans you one way, or the other way, with little fact, and I'm aware there is always the exception to the rule, I've seen some atrocious videos in the last two years, truly. 

America truly has the Midas touch of meddling in global affairs, so much so, they've neglected their own country for so long. If I would vote, I'd vote Trump, do I like him? Does that matter? Ultimately, if I were American, would the country be better off? I believe so, out of the two candidates presented. That's purely if I were American, though from a foreign policy perspective, do I also believe he'd stop the wars? Yes, and I'm definitely a fan of stopping innocent being ending up dead or displaced due to crazed loose politicians.

 

[Vesper 28,779]

1 hour ago, DH1988 said:

Ultimately, if I were American, would the country be better off? I believe so, out of the two candidates presented.

two points why Trump (there are dozens but I will just list 2) would be a disaster for the US

1. His insane tariff regime of 15, 20 per cent or so across the board for imports

2. His putting into action trying to deport 15 to 20 million people, utilising the US military, federal officers, stae and local officers, and also neighbour on neighbour Stasi-like rat-outs.

Both would crush the US economy, and the 2nd would also cause (Trump openly says it will be 'bloody as hell') untold kinetc violence across the US.

[Vesper 28,779]

Scottish comedian Janey Godley dies aged 63

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgxp3x1zx3o

 

 

This is the image that made her famous globally.

 

This is her last post from her deathbed (ovarian cancer).

Edited November 3 by Vesper

[Fernando 6,454]

6 hours ago, Vesper said:

the majority do support my stance, overwhelmingly so in many nations

you can always find exceptions on any subject

True. 

I always said I'm for it but only for rapes and health reasons. 

Other then that as @Sir Mikel OBE mentioned people should be free to choose. So if they want to do it no one should stop them but people should be caution as to the side effects. As many women suffer post traumatic effects. 

[Fernando 6,454]

4 hours ago, Vesper said:

two points why Trump (there are dozens but I will just list 2) would be a disaster for the US

1. His insane tariff regime of 15, 20 per cent or so across the board for imports

2. His putting into action trying to deport 15 to 20 million people, utilising the US military, federal officers, stae and local officers, and also neighbour on neighbour Stasi-like rat-outs.

Both would crush the US economy, and the 2nd would also cause (Trump openly says it will be 'bloody as hell') untold kinetc violence across the US.

These are good points. This is what I wanted to hear from you. Your raw opinion info the negative outcome of a Trump victory. 

The tariff I'm a bit surprised at that. It's like he don't understand that say China gets this tarif the consumer will eventually has to pay...similar to minimum wage going up, the consumer will pay.... Unless you get cheap labor ie immigrants. 

And the second yes I'm against but I see it happening in the southern state not northern. 

[cosmicway 1,323]

Trump cannot deport 15 million.
Even if he has the legal basis to do that he can't.
It's hot air.
It would be an operation beyond Stalin and Mao.
The supporters won't like.

[Vesper 28,779]

33 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Trump cannot deport 15 million.
Even if he has the legal basis to do that he can't.
It's hot air.
It would be an operation beyond Stalin and Mao.
The supporters won't like.

If he wins, he will give it a real go.

There are no longer going to be any adults in the room to check his worst desires.

Those types did exist in the administration of his first term, and they did block a lot of his lunatic intiatives.

Same for a lot of non-partisan, career civil servant types who blocked a lot further downstream.

Those will be sacked and replaced by RW lunatic fringe types.

It will happen (or at least truly massive attempts will be made to make it so).

People who keep diminishing the threat potential eminating from Trump getting back into the US Precidency are engaging in normalcy bias, and/or denialism (often wilful), and/or are clinging to a faulty 'American exceptionalism' template (ie the old 'it can never happen here' posturing).

 

They are the new Neville Chamberlains.

 

How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.

on Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland, radio broadcast, 27 September 1938

 

This is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

speech from 10 Downing Street, 30 September 1938

 

This morning, the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by eleven o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

radio broadcast, 3 September 1939

[Vesper 28,779]

Trump Wants to Execute My Friend

The aspiring dictator wants to intimidate us. We can’t let him.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-wants-to-execute-my-friend

By Adam Kinzinger

Nov 01, 2024

IT’S NOT EVERY DAY THE PRESIDENTIAL nominee of a major political party fantasizes out loud about putting your friend in the way of harm and violent death. Yet that’s just what Donald Trump did to Liz Cheney yesterday: “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK?” he said. “And let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

In the context of criticizing Cheney as a warmonger, the recipient of five draft deferments who called America’s war dead “suckers” and “losers” was implying that she was a coward who would be unwilling to face the danger into which she sent others. Cheney is among the bravest people I know, but it’s important to note that Trump wasn’t just musing on her character. He didn’t phrase his thought as a hypothetical—I wonder how she’d feel if—but as an imperative: “Let’s put her.”

This is an ominous sign of an aspiring dictator who has abandoned any remaining notion of responsibility or respect for our democratic norms. Threats against fellow Americans—especially those who have taken courageous stands for truth and constitutional values—represent not only a moral failing but also a dangerous indicator of the direction we’re heading. This is personal for me, not just as a former colleague of Liz Cheney, but as someone who has also faced similar intimidation simply for doing my duty to the American people.

Liz is more than a political figure. She’s a mother, a daughter, a wife, and a friend. Like all of us, she wants to live in a country where her children are safe and where people respect differences of opinion. She deserves to do her work and live her life without fearing for her safety or that of her family. But Trump, standing against American history, sees no difference between disagreement and treason. This is a classic sign of autocratic rule, where leaders wield threats and intimidation against their opponents to quash dissent.

Democracies are delicate. They need nurturing, respect, and accountability. When leaders act with unchecked aggression and a disregard for lawful norms, history shows us that democracies do not just erode slowly—they collapse. From Rome to Weimar Germany, and many others since, democratic societies have crumbled when leaders no longer respect the people they serve. Our country is showing the early warning signs that we, too, may be at risk if we continue down this path.

Autocrats thrive by dividing people, ruling through fear, and eroding the institutions that ensure stability and prosperity. And make no mistake, economies fail under autocratic rule. They become isolated, lacking the confidence of the international community, and eventually, as resources dwindle and leadership becomes consumed with clinging to power, the people suffer. Those in power often gain fabulous wealth, but the people are almost always worse off.

If Trump’s rhetoric becomes the norm—if violence, threats, and intimidation replace dialogue and cooperation—then the future we’re looking at is one that should deeply concern every American, regardless of party. We will find ourselves in a country we no longer recognize, one where citizens are not equal under the law, and where the voices of the people are silenced or scared into submission.

Trump hasn’t killed anyone. He didn’t say he wanted to kill Cheney. But he has encouraged violence before. He has admired dictators for their brutality and aggression against defenseless, often innocent people. He incited an insurrection against the government that took the lives of multiple people. And he has predicated his whole campaign on revenge and retribution against those who oppose him—which, in his mind, is anyone who doesn’t actively support him.

We must reject Trump’s vision for America. For those who think that warnings about the fraying of democracy are hyperbolic or that it “could never happen here,” remember that every country that lost its democracy once thought the same thing.

 

---

Adam Kinzinger represented Illinois as a Republican in the US House of Representatives between 2011 and 2023. He is a lieutenant colonel in the Illinois Air National Guard and author of a Substack newsletter.

[Vesper 28,779]

4 hours ago, Fernando said:

I always said I'm for it but only for rapes and health reasons.

I often see anti-abortion types say they oppose it because it is murder.

BUT

many of them also say they make exceptions

including for pregnacies that are the result of rape and/or incest.

 

Now, IF a person thinks abortion is murder, why would it matter HOW the pregnancy came about?

They (the forced birthers) already said abortion was murder, the murder of a human being.

Following their logic (ie the ones who make exceptions for rape and/or incest), I should be legally ok if I murder any already-born person who was the product of rape and/or incest.

The forced birthers are excusing murder (in this case pre birth) simply because of how the pregnancy came about.

Edited November 4 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,779]

This article is from 8 plus years ago, from 4 months before the 2016 US elections.

The American RW (and many others outside the US) has embraced, in the Age of Trump, the methods delineated below, and has done so with a ferocious passion.

The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model

Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It

Published Jul 11, 2016

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

Since its 2008 incursion into Georgia (if not before), there has been a remarkable evolution in Russia's approach to propaganda. This new approach was on full display during the country's 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It continues to be demonstrated in support of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Syria and in pursuit of nefarious and long-term goals in Russia's “near abroad” and against NATO allies.

In some ways, the current Russian approach to propaganda builds on Soviet Cold War–era techniques, with an emphasis on obfuscation and on getting targets to act in the interests of the propagandist without realizing that they have done so. In other ways, it is completely new and driven by the characteristics of the contemporary information environment. Russia has taken advantage of technology and available media in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War. Its tools and channels now include the Internet, social media, and the evolving landscape of professional and amateur journalism and media outlets.

Distinctive Features of the Contemporary Model for Russian Propaganda

1. High-volume and multichannel
2. Rapid, continuous, and repetitive
3. Lacks commitment to objective reality
4. Lacks commitment to consistency.

We characterize the contemporary Russian model for propaganda as “the firehose of falsehood” because of two of its distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions. In the words of one observer, “[N]ew Russian propaganda entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.

Contemporary Russian propaganda has at least two other distinctive features. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency.

Interestingly, several of these features run directly counter to the conventional wisdom on effective influence and communication from government or defense sources, which traditionally emphasize the importance of truth, credibility, and the avoidance of contradiction. Despite ignoring these traditional principles, Russia seems to have enjoyed some success under its contemporary propaganda model, either through more direct persuasion and influence or by engaging in obfuscation, confusion, and the disruption or diminution of truthful reporting and messaging.

We offer several possible explanations for the effectiveness of Russia's firehose of falsehood. Our observations draw from a concise, but not exhaustive, review of the literature on influence and persuasion, as well as experimental research from the field of psychology. We explore the four identified features of the Russian propaganda model and show how and under what circumstances each might contribute to effectiveness. Many successful aspects of Russian propaganda have surprising foundations in the psychology literature, so we conclude with a brief discussion of possible approaches from the same field for responding to or competing with such an approach.

Russian Propaganda Is High-Volume and Multichannel

Russian propaganda is produced in incredibly large volumes and is broadcast or otherwise distributed via a large number of channels. This propaganda includes text, video, audio, and still imagery propagated via the Internet, social media, satellite television, and traditional radio and television broadcasting. The producers and disseminators include a substantial force of paid Internet “trolls” who also often attack or undermine views or information that runs counter to Russian themes, doing so through online chat rooms, discussion forums, and comments sections on news and other websites. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports that “there are thousands of fake accounts on Twitter, Facebook, LiveJournal, and vKontakte” maintained by Russian propagandists. According to a former paid Russian Internet troll, the trolls are on duty 24 hours a day, in 12-hour shifts, and each has a daily quota of 135 posted comments of at least 200 characters.

All other things being equal, messages received in greater volume and from more sources will be more persuasive.

RT (formerly Russia Today) is one of Russia's primary multimedia news providers. With a budget of more than $300 million per year, it broadcasts in English, French, German, Spanish, Russian, and several Eastern European languages. The channel is particularly popular online, where it claims more than a billion page views. If true, that would make it the most-watched news source on the Internet. In addition to acknowledged Russian sources like RT, there are dozens of proxy news sites presenting Russian propaganda, but with their affiliation with Russia disguised or downplayed.

Experimental research shows that, to achieve success in disseminating propaganda, the variety of sources matters:

• Multiple sources are more persuasive than a single source, especially if those sources contain different arguments that point to the same conclusion.
• Receiving the same or similar message from multiple sources is more persuasive.
• People assume that information from multiple sources is likely to be based on different perspectives and is thus worth greater consideration.

The number and volume of sources also matter:

• Endorsement by a large number of users boosts consumer trust, reliance, and confidence in the information, often with little attention paid to the credibility of those making the endorsements.
• When consumer interest is low, the persuasiveness of a message can depend more on the number of arguments supporting it than on the quality of those arguments.

What Matters in Producing and Disseminating High-Volume, Multichannel Propaganda?

• Variety of sources
• Number and volume of sources
• The views of others, especially the views of those who are similiar to the message recipient.

Finally, the views of others matter, especially if the message comes from a source that shares characteristics with the recipient:

• Communications from groups to which the recipient belongs are more likely to be perceived as credible. The same applies when the source is perceived as similar to the recipient. If a propaganda channel is (or purports to be) from a group the recipient identifies with, it is more likely to be persuasive.
• Credibility can be social; that is, people are more likely to perceive a source as credible if others perceive the source as credible. This effect is even stronger when there is not enough information available to assess the trustworthiness of the source.
• When information volume is low, recipients tend to favor experts, but when information volume is high, recipients tend to favor information from other users.
• In online forums, comments attacking a proponent's expertise or trustworthiness diminish credibility and decrease the likelihood that readers will take action based on what they have read.

The experimental psychology literature suggests that, all other things being equal, messages received in greater volume and from more sources will be more persuasive. Quantity does indeed have a quality all its own. High volume can deliver other benefits that are relevant in the Russian propaganda context. First, high volume can consume the attention and other available bandwidth of potential audiences, drowning out competing messages. Second, high volume can overwhelm competing messages in a flood of disagreement. Third, multiple channels increase the chances that target audiences are exposed to the message. Fourth, receiving a message via multiple modes and from multiple sources increases the message's perceived credibility, especially if a disseminating source is one with which an audience member identifies.

Russian Propaganda Is Rapid, Continuous, and Repetitive

Contemporary Russian propaganda is continuous and very responsive to events. Due to their lack of commitment to objective reality (discussed later), Russian propagandists do not need to wait to check facts or verify claims; they just disseminate an interpretation of emergent events that appears to best favor their themes and objectives. This allows them to be remarkably responsive and nimble, often broadcasting the first “news” of events (and, with similar frequency, the first news of nonevents, or things that have not actually happened). They will also repeat and recycle disinformation. The January 14, 2016, edition of Weekly Disinformation Review reported the reemergence of several previously debunked Russian propaganda stories, including that Polish President Andrzej Duda was insisting that Ukraine return former Polish territory, that Islamic State fighters were joining pro-Ukrainian forces, and that there was a Western-backed coup in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital.

Sometimes, Russian propaganda is picked up and rebroadcast by legitimate news outlets; more frequently, social media repeats the themes, messages, or falsehoods introduced by one of Russia’s many dissemination channels. For example, German news sources rebroadcast Russian disinformation about atrocities in Ukraine in early 2014, and Russian disinformation about EU plans to deny visas to young Ukrainian men was repeated with such frequency in Ukrainian media that the Ukrainian general staff felt compelled to post a rebuttal.

Why Is Rapid, Continuous, and Repetitive Propaganda Successful?

• First impressions are very resilient.
• Repetition leads to familiarity, and familiarity leads to acceptance.

The experimental psychology literature tells us that first impressions are very resilient: An individual is more likely to accept the first information received on a topic and then favor this information when faced with conflicting messages. Furthermore, repetition leads to familiarity, and familiarity leads to acceptance:

• Repeated exposure to a statement has been shown to increase its acceptance as true.
• The “illusory truth effect” is well documented, whereby people rate statements as more truthful, valid, and believable when they have encountered those statements previously than when they are new statements.
• When people are less interested in a topic, they are more likely to accept familiarity brought about by repetition as an indicator that the information (repeated to the point of familiarity) is correct.
• When processing information, consumers may save time and energy by using a frequency heuristic, that is, favoring information they have heard more frequently.
• Even with preposterous stories and urban legends, those who have heard them multiple times are more likely to believe that they are true.
• If an individual is already familiar with an argument or claim (has seen it before, for example), they process it less carefully, often failing to discriminate weak arguments from strong arguments.

Russian propaganda has the agility to be first, which affords propagandists the opportunity to create the first impression. Then, the combination of high-volume, multichannel, and continuous messaging makes Russian themes more likely to be familiar to their audiences, which gives them a boost in terms of perceived credibility, expertise, and trustworthiness.

Russian Propaganda Makes No Commitment to Objective Reality

It may come as little surprise that the psychology literature supports the persuasive potential of high-volume, diverse channels and sources, along with rapidity and repetition. These aspects of Russian propaganda make intuitive sense. One would expect any influence effort to enjoy greater success if it is backed by a willingness to invest in additional volume and channels and if its architects find ways to increase the frequency and responsiveness of messages. This next characteristic, however, flies in the face of intuition and conventional wisdom, which can be paraphrased as “The truth always wins.”

Contemporary Russian propaganda makes little or no commitment to the truth. This is not to say that all of it is false. Quite the contrary: It often contains a significant fraction of the truth. Sometimes, however, events reported in Russian propaganda are wholly manufactured, like the 2014 social media campaign to create panic about an explosion and chemical plume in St. Mary's Parish, Louisiana, that never happened. Russian propaganda has relied on manufactured evidence—often photographic. Some of these images are easily exposed as fake due to poor photo editing, such as discrepancies of scale, or the availability of the original (pre-altered) image. Russian propagandists have been caught hiring actors to portray victims of manufactured atrocities or crimes for news reports (as was the case when Viktoria Schmidt pretended to have been attacked by Syrian refugees in Germany for Russian's Zvezda TV network), or faking on-scene news reporting (as shown in a leaked video in which “reporter” Maria Katasonova is revealed to be in a darkened room with explosion sounds playing in the background rather than on a battlefield in Donetsk when a light is switched on during the recording).

Contemporary Russian propaganda makes little or no commitment to the truth. This flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that the truth always wins.

In addition to manufacturing information, Russian propagandists often manufacture sources. Russian news channels, such as RT and Sputnik News, are more like a blend of infotainment and disinformation than fact-checked journalism, though their formats intentionally take the appearance of proper news programs. Russian news channels and other forms of media also misquote credible sources or cite a more credible source as the origin of a selected falsehood. For example, RT stated that blogger Brown Moses (a staunch critic of Syria's Assad regime whose real name is Eliot Higgins) had provided analysis of footage suggesting that chemical weapon attacks on August 21, 2013, had been perpetrated by Syrian rebels. In fact, Higgins's analysis concluded that the Syrian government was responsible for the attacks and that the footage had been faked to shift the blame.¹⁸ Similarly, several scholars and journalists, including Edward Lucas, Luke Harding, and Don Jensen, have reported that books that they did not write—and containing views clearly contrary to their own—had been published in Russian under their names. “The Kremlin's spin machine wants to portray Russia as a besieged fortress surrounded by malevolent outsiders,” said Lucas of his misattributed volume, How the West Lost to Putin.

Why might this disinformation be effective? First, people are often cognitively lazy. Due to information overload (especially on the Internet), they use a number of different heuristics and shortcuts to determine whether new information is trustworthy. Second, people are often poor at discriminating true information from false information—or remembering that they have done so previously. The following are a few examples from the literature:

• In a phenomenon known as the “sleeper effect,” low-credibility sources manifest greater persuasive impact with the passage of time. While people make initial assessments of the credibility of a source, in remembering, information is often dissociated from its source. Thus, information from a questionable source may be remembered as true, with the source forgotten.
• Information that is initially assumed valid but is later retracted or proven false can continue to shape people's memory and influence their reasoning.
• Even when people are aware that some sources (such as political campaign rhetoric) have the potential to contain misinformation, they still show a poor ability to discriminate between information that is false and information that is correct.

Familiar themes or messages can be appealing even if these themes and messages are false. Information that connects with group identities or familiar narratives—or that arouses emotion—can be particularly persuasive. The literature describes the effects of this approach:

• Someone is more likely to accept information when it is consistent with other messages that the person believes to be true.
• People suffer from “confirmation bias”: They view news and opinions that confirm existing beliefs as more credible than other news and opinions, regardless of the quality of the arguments.
• Someone who is already misinformed (that is, believes something that is not true) is less likely to accept evidence that goes against those misinformed beliefs.
• People whose peer group is affected by an event are much more likely to accept conspiracy theories about that event.
• Stories or accounts that create emotional arousal in the recipient (e.g., disgust, fear, happiness) are much more likely to be passed on, whether they are true or not.
• Angry messages are more persuasive to angry audiences.

False statements are more likely to be accepted if backed by evidence, even if that evidence is false:

• The presence of evidence can override the effects of source credibility on perceived veracity of statements.
• In courtroom simulations, witnesses who provide more details—even trivial details—are judged to be more credible.

How Does Propaganda Undercut Perceptions of Reality?

• People are poor judges of true versus false information—and they do not necessarily remember that particular information was false.
• Information overload leads people to take shortcuts in determining the trustworthiness of messages.
• Familiar themes or messages can be appealing even if they are false.
• Statements are more likely to be accepted if backed by evidence, even if that evidence is false.
• Peripheral cues—such as an appearance of objectivity—can increase the credibility of propaganda.

Finally, source credibility is often assessed based on “peripheral cues,” which may or may not conform to the reality of the situation. A broadcast that looks like a news broadcast, even if it is actually a propaganda broadcast, may be accorded the same degree of credibility as an actual news broadcast. Findings from the field of psychology show how peripheral cues can increase the credibility of propaganda:

• Peripheral cues, such as the appearance of expertise or the format of information, lead people to accept—with little reflection—that the information comes from a credible source.
• Expertise and trustworthiness are the two primary dimensions of credibility, and these qualities may be evaluated based on visual cues, such as format, appearance, or simple claims of expertise.
• Online news sites are perceived as more credible than other online formats, regardless of the veracity of the content.

The Russian firehose of falsehood takes advantage of all five of these factors. A certain proportion of falsehood in Russian propaganda may just be accepted by audiences because they do not recognize it as false or because various cues lead them to assign it greater credibility than they should. This proportion actually increases over time, with people forgetting that they have rejected certain offered “facts.” The proportion of falsehoods accepted increases even more when the disinformation is consistent with narratives or preconceptions held by various audiences. Where evidence is presented or seemingly credible sources disseminate the falsehoods, the messages are even more likely to be accepted. This is why Russian faux-news propaganda channels, such as RT and Sputnik, are so insidious. Visually, they look like news programs, and the persons appearing on them are represented as journalists and experts, making audience members much more likely to ascribe credibility to the misinformation these sources are disseminating.

Russian Propaganda Is Not Committed to Consistency

The final distinctive characteristic of Russian propaganda is that it is not committed to consistency. First, different propaganda media do not necessarily broadcast the exact same themes or messages. Second, different channels do not necessarily broadcast the same account of contested events. Third, different channels or representatives show no fear of “changing their tune.” If one falsehood or misrepresentation is exposed or is not well received, the propagandists will discard it and move on to a new (though not necessarily more plausible) explanation. One example of such behavior is the string of accounts offered for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Russian sources have offered numerous theories about how the aircraft came to be shot down and by whom, very few of which are plausible. Lack of commitment to consistency is also apparent in statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin. For example, he first denied that the “little green men” in Crimea were Russian soldiers but later admitted that they were. Similarly, he at first denied any desire to see Crimea join Russia, but then he admitted that that had been his plan all along.

Again, this flies in the face of the conventional wisdom on influence and persuasion. If sources are not consistent, how can they be credible? If they are not credible, how can they be influential? Research suggests that inconsistency can have deleterious effects on persuasion—for example, when recipients make an effort to scrutinize inconsistent messages from the same source. However, the literature in experimental psychology also shows that audiences can overlook contradictions under certain circumstances:

• Contradictions can prompt a desire to understand why a shift in opinion or messages occurred. When a seemingly strong argument for a shift is provided or assumed (e.g., more thought is given or more information is obtained), the new message can have a greater persuasive impact.
• When a source appears to have considered different perspectives, consumer attitudinal confidence is greater. A source who changes his or her opinion or message may be perceived as having given greater consideration to the topic, thereby influencing recipient confidence in the newest message.

How Can Propaganda Succeed While Disseminating Contradicting Messages?

• Research suggests that inconsistency has a deleterious effect on persuasion, but audiences overlook contradictions under certain circumstances, such as a convincing reason for a shift in opinion.
• Potential losses in credibility due to inconsistency can be offset by synergies with other characteristics of propaganda success, such as effective peripheral cues.

Potential losses in credibility due to inconsistency are potentially offset by synergies with other characteristics of contemporary propaganda. As noted earlier in the discussion of multiple channels, the presentation of multiple arguments by multiple sources is more persuasive than either the presentation of multiple arguments by one source or the presentation of one argument by multiple sources. These losses can also be offset by peripheral cues that enforce perceptions of credibility, trustworthiness, or legitimacy. Even if a channel or individual propagandist changes accounts of events from one day to the next, viewers are likely to evaluate the credibility of the new account without giving too much weight to the prior, “mistaken” account, provided that there are peripheral cues suggesting the source is credible.

While the psychology literature suggests that the Russian propaganda enterprise suffers little when channels are inconsistent with each other, or when a single channel is internally inconsistent, it is unclear how inconsistency accumulates for a single prominent figure. While inconsistent accounts by different propagandist on RT, for example, might be excused as the views of different journalists or changes due to updated information, the fabrications of Vladimir Putin have been unambiguously attributed to him, which cannot be good for his personal credibility. Of course, perhaps many people have a low baseline expectation of the veracity of statements by politicians and world leaders. To the extent that this is the case, Putin's fabrications, though more egregious than the routine, might be perceived as just more of what is expected from politicians in general and might not constrain his future influence potential.

What Can Be Done to Counter the Firehose of Falsehood?

Experimental research in psychology suggests that the features of the contemporary Russian propaganda model have the potential to be highly effective. Even those features that run counter to conventional wisdom on effective influence (e.g., the importance of veracity and consistency) receive some support in the literature.

If the Russian approach to propaganda is effective, then what can be done about it? We conclude with a few thoughts about how NATO, the United States, or other opponents of the firehose of falsehood might better compete. The first step is to recognize that this is a nontrivial challenge. Indeed, the very factors that make the firehose of falsehood effective also make it quite difficult to counter: For example, the high volume and multitude of channels for Russian propaganda offer proportionately limited yield if one channel is taken off the air (or offline) or if a single misleading voice is discredited. The persuasive benefits that Russian propagandists gain from presenting the first version of events (which then must be dislodged by true accounts at much greater effort) could be removed if the true accounts were instead presented first. But while credible and professional journalists are still checking their facts, the Russian firehose of falsehood is already flowing: It takes less time to make up facts than it does to verify them.

We are not optimistic about the effectiveness of traditional counterpropaganda efforts. Certainly, some effort must be made to point out falsehoods and inconsistencies, but the same psychological evidence that shows how falsehood and inconsistency gain traction also tells us that retractions and refutations are seldom effective. Especially after a significant amount of time has passed, people will have trouble recalling which information they have received is the disinformation and which is the truth. Put simply, our first suggestion is don't expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth.

To the extent that efforts to directly counter or refute Russian propaganda are necessary, there are some best practices available—also drawn from the field of psychology—that can and should be employed. Three factors have been shown to increase the (limited) effectiveness of retractions and refutations: (1) warnings at the time of initial exposure to misinformation, (2) repetition of the retraction or refutation, and (3) corrections that provide an alternative story to help fill the resulting gap in understanding when false “facts” are removed.

Forewarning is perhaps more effective than retractions or refutation of propaganda that has already been received. The research suggests two possible avenues:

• Propagandists gain advantage by offering the first impression, which is hard to overcome. If, however, potential audiences have already been primed with correct information, the disinformation finds itself in the same role as a retraction or refutation: disadvantaged relative to what is already known.
• When people resist persuasion or influence, that act reinforces their preexisting beliefs. It may be more productive to highlight the ways in which Russian propagandists attempt to manipulate audiences, rather than fighting the specific manipulations.

In practice, getting in front of misinformation and raising awareness of misinformation might involve more robust and more widely publicized efforts to “out” Russian propaganda sources and the nature of their efforts. Alternatively, it could take the form of sanctions, fines, or other barriers against the practice of propaganda under the guise of journalism. The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, has sanctioned RT for biased or misleading programs, but more is needed. Our second suggestion is to find ways to help put raincoats on those at whom the firehose of falsehood is being directed.

Don't expect to counter Russia's firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth. Instead, put raincoats on those at whom the firehose is aimed.

Another possibility is to focus on countering the effects of Russian propaganda, rather than the propaganda itself. The propagandists are working to accomplish something. The goal may be a change in attitudes, behaviors, or both. Identify those desired effects and then work to counter the effects that run contrary to your goals. For example, suppose the goal of a set of Russian propaganda products is to undermine the willingness of citizens in NATO countries to respond to Russian aggression. Rather than trying to block, refute, or undermine the propaganda, focus instead on countering its objective. This could be accomplished through efforts to, for example, boost support for a response to Russian aggression, promote solidarity and identity with threatened NATO partners, or reaffirm international commitments.

Thinking about the problem in this way leads to several positive developments. It encourages prioritization: Do not worry so much about countering propaganda that contributes to effects that are not of concern. This view also opens up the aperture. Rather than just trying to counter disinformation with other information, it might be possible to thwart desired effects with other capabilities—or to simply apply information efforts to redirecting behaviors or attitudes without ever directly engaging with the propaganda. That leads to our third suggestion: Don't direct your flow of information directly back at the firehose of falsehood; instead, point your stream at whatever the firehose is aimed at, and try to push that audience in more productive directions.

That metaphor and mindset leads us to our fourth suggestion for responding to Russian propaganda: Compete! If Russian propaganda aims to achieve certain effects, it can be countered by preventing or diminishing those effects. Yet, the tools of the Russian propagandists may not be available due to resource constraints or policy, legal, or ethical barriers. Although it may be difficult or impossible to directly refute Russian propaganda, both NATO and the United States have a range of capabilities to inform, influence, and persuade selected target audiences. Increase the flow of persuasive information and start to compete, seeking to generate effects that support U.S. and NATO objectives.

Our fifth and final suggestion for addressing the challenge of Russian propaganda is to use various technical means to turn off (or turn down) the flow. If the firehose of falsehood is being employed as part of active hostilities, or if counterpropaganda efforts escalate to include the use of a wider range of information warfare capabilities, then jamming, corrupting, degrading, destroying, usurping, or otherwise interfering with the ability of the propagandists to broadcast and disseminate their messages could diminish the impact of their efforts. Anything from aggressive enforcement of terms of service agreements with Internet providers and social media services to electronic warfare or cyberspace operations could lower the volume—and the impact—of Russian propaganda.

[Vesper 28,779]

[Vesper 28,779]

Trump wants Herschel Walker in charge of missile defence.

No, I’m not kidding:

 

an article from 2022

he lost the 2022 Georgia US Senate race discussed here

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/10/4/23387712/herschel-walker-georgia-senate-raphael-warnock

Republicans have had a public and private lament over the past few months: Given the headwinds Democrats are facing, the party would be further ahead in key Senate races had GOP primary voters nominated different candidates. Those voters gave them Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Blake Masters in Arizona, and J.D. Vance in Ohio, all of whom beat out more mainstream Republicans and all of whom are locked in tight struggles with Democratic opponents in swing states.

With the ongoing revelations he’s faced, however, Herschel Walker is perhaps the prime example of the GOP’s candidate-quality problem.

On Wednesday, Walker was attacked — again — for being a hypocrite on the issue of abortion after a second woman claimed he’d pressured her into getting the procedure and drove her to obtain one in 1993. This allegation follows that of another woman who told The Daily Beast in early October that Walker helped pay for her abortion in 2009.

Both women said they spoke out due to Walker’s inconsistency on the subject: He’s long taken a hard-line stance on abortion, previously stating that he’d back an abortion ban without exceptions, though he’s since softened that position. Walker has flatly denied both allegations, calling the newest claim “foolishness.”

The latest abortion allegation is in addition to a series of bombshells that have emerged about Walker throughout the campaign. While his football celebrity and Donald Trump’s encouragement were enough to win his primary, he’s had a troubled history that included policy gaffes and a number of domestic violence allegations.

Georgia is a particularly bad place for Republicans to have a bad candidate. As Republicans stare down a competitive map to retake Senate control, their hopes of flipping seats rest on states like Nevada and Georgia, which have seen narrower polling margins. Walker’s myriad issues are now weighing him down in a place that should be otherwise gettable for the party. While other Republicans, like Gov. Brian Kemp and lieutenant governor nominee Burt Jones, have consistently led in the polls, Walker has recently trailed Democratic incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock.

It’s far from clear that Walker’s baggage will be decisive in the race. According to FiveThirtyEight, Warnock saw some slight gains in polling after the Daily Beast story came out in early October, though polls remain tight. Partisanship runs deep in Georgia, and Republican voters showed with their Trump support in recent years that they are willing to overlook personal hypocrisy for a GOP win.

“Walker’s vague, sometimes incoherent answers on policy questions, his history of domestic violence — these are all things that make him a less-than-ideal candidate,” says Emory University political scientist Andra Gillespie. “If the Republican nominee had been the state agriculture commissioner, I suspect that the race would still be competitive, but he might have been performing in the vicinity of Brian Kemp.”

The revelations about Walker, briefly explained

Questions about whether Herschel Walker was prepared for a campaign began even before he jumped into the Republican primary, when Trump was encouraging him to join the race.

“I know national Republican leaders who spoke to him and expressed skepticism about his ability to run a campaign and raise funds,” says Ralph Reed, a friend of Walker’s and former chair of the Georgia Republican Party, who argues that those critiques “underestimated” Walker’s ability to win. As of late October, Walker and Warnock are within the margin of error of one another in FiveThirtyEight’s polling aggregator.

Broadly, news reports about Walker have underscored hypocrisy on issues like abortion as well as his critiques of absentee fathers, raising questions about his consistency and commitment to socially conservative policies. Additionally, domestic violence and stalking allegations have pointed to concerns about his character and past treatment of romantic partners and family members.

Some of the issues that have emerged:

Domestic violence and stalking allegations: Walker has faced domestic violence allegations from multiple women, including two he was allegedly romantically involved with. Grossman, his ex-wife, has accused him of threatening to kill her on two occasions, once while he held a gun to her head and once holding a razor to her throat. A judge had previously granted a protective order to Grossman, noting that Walker posed “a clear and present danger of family violence.”

Walker has not denied these incidents but said he does not recall them, pointing to his struggles with mental health and dissociative identity disorder, which can include memory loss as a symptom. As PolitiFact notes, Walker has not been arrested or charged with a crime.

Walker and Grossman have both spoken about these allegations prior to the campaign in interviews with ABC and CNN in 2008. Walker has also written about the challenges he’s faced with dissociative identity disorder in a 2008 book, which describes the potential for violent thoughts. “He has owned up, apologized, gotten treatment and since dedicated his life to sharing his story to help others,” the campaign said in a statement to PolitiFact about past incidents of domestic violence.

Another woman that Walker was involved with has also accused him of threatening to kill her, while a third woman has accused him of stalking her, both allegations that his campaign denied to PolitiFact. In his Twitter thread, Walker’s son Christian Walker also referenced threats of violence that he and his mother, Grossman, faced, alleging that his father “threatened to kill us, and had us move over 6 times in 6 months running from [his] violence.”

On the Democratic side, Warnock has faced allegations of domestic violence from his ex-wife, Ouleye Ndoye, as well. Previously, she accused him of running over her foot during an argument, which he has denied. PolitiFact notes that medical professionals did not see injuries to Ndoye’s foot at the time.

Past actions on abortion: The Daily Beast story alleges that Walker covered the cost of a former girlfriend’s abortion in 2009 when they were dating, something that was not previously publicly known. As proof, she provided a receipt for the procedure, a photo of a check signed by Walker, and a “get well” card that was sent at the time. The same woman also told The New York Times that Walker pressured her to get a second abortion.

Walker had previously taken one of the hardest-line stances on abortion of any Republican candidate, expressing his support for a ban that does not include exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. “I just can’t with the hypocrisy anymore,” the woman, who requested anonymity to protect her privacy, told the Daily Beast. Walker later softened his position on the issue, noting that he would support exceptions included in Georgia’s six-week abortion ban.

A second anonymous woman has also said that Walker pressured her to get an abortion and drove her to the clinic when she became pregnant in the 1990s. This second allegation was announced via a virtual press conference led by attorney Gloria Allred in late October.

“We don’t need people in the US Senate who profess one thing and do another,” the woman said.

Walker has flatly denied both reports.

Comments on absentee fathers: In the past, Walker has criticized absentee fathers, though multiple news reports have now suggested that he has at least one child he does not see. In addition to his adult son, Christian, Walker has three children he didn’t acknowledge publicly before they were reported on, including at least one he appeared to play little role in raising, according to the Daily Beast. “I support them all and love them all. I’ve never denied my children,” Walker has previously said. Another Daily Beast report described how Walker had lied to his campaign about the existence of his children, suggesting that some of his own staffers viewed him as a liability.

Misrepresentation of past achievements: Walker has faced questions over exaggerations about his achievements and record, including about his graduation from the University of Georgia, his experience in law enforcement, the scale of his food business, and the charitable donations made by his company. Walker left the University of Georgia in his junior year in order to play football professionally. He also stated that he had worked in law enforcement, when there is not a clear record of that. In a debate with Warnock, Walker took out a fake honorary deputy badge, which he has been showcasing on the campaign trail as well.

Past claims he’s made about the size of his business and the amount of money it was donating to charities also have little evidence backing them up.

Policy gaffes: There are several comments Walker has made that have spurred questions about his policy experience. He previously argued that “clean air” from the US floated to China and defeated the purpose of investments to address such pollution, a statement that’s counter to scientific evidence. Additionally, he suggested that inflation was a women’s issue because “they’ve got to buy groceries,” a statement that prompted pushback for its sexist framing.

Voter concerns about Walker have been evident in polling: An October Quinnipiac survey found that 50 percent of Georgia respondents said they had a favorable opinion of Warnock, while just 39 percent felt the same about Walker.

 

Edited November 4 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,779]

                                                   

The Editorial Board

Vote to End the Trump Era.

You already know Donald Trump. 

He is unfit to lead. 

Watch him. 

Listen to those who know him best. 

He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. 

He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences.

Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos.

He lies without limit.

If he’s re-elected, the G.O.P. won’t restrain him.

Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. 

He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations.

He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers.

Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats.

Americans should demand better.

Vote.

 

Edited November 4 by Vesper

[cosmicway 1,323]

4 hours ago, Vesper said:

If he wins, he will give it a real go.

There are no longer going to be any adults in the room to check his worst desires.

Those types did exist in the administration of his first term, and they did block a lot of his lunatic intiatives.

Same for a lot of non-partisan, career civil servant types who blocked a lot further downstream.

Those will be sacked and replaced by RW lunatic fringe types.

It will happen (or at least truly massive attempts will be made to make it so).

People who keep diminishing the threat potential eminating from Trump getting back into the US Precidency are engaging in normalcy bias, and/or denialism (often wilful), and/or are clinging to a faulty 'American exceptionalism' template (ie the old 'it can never happen here' posturing).

 

They are the new Neville Chamberlains.

 

How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.

on Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland, radio broadcast, 27 September 1938

 

This is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

speech from 10 Downing Street, 30 September 1938

 

This morning, the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by eleven o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

radio broadcast, 3 September 1939

I read somewhere -I 'm not sure it is true- that Robespierre when asked about the reign of terror he said "what are you talking about ? I 'm the one who stopped it !".
He said that the terror committee planned some 70,000 beheadings and he managed to stop about half of them.
I doubt this was said in the day of the famous events in the national convention, which ended with his beheading as he did n't have time.
If he actually said that it must have been to his friend Saint Juste or to somebody else the days before.

This kind of thing is usual though.
In 1979 when Margaret Thatched was elected the rank and file expected her to arrest all the Indians and Pakistanis and send them away in a boat.
She did n't do it.

Always the rank and file wants to see more heads rolling on the floor than the leadership.

What you say is therefore possible but I doubt it.
I believe Trump will be inviting some new sexy starlets to the White House and he won't be bothering about these things.

However I regard him as the Pepe Grillo of American politics.
He should be polling 19%, not 47-48%.
But the dems have identified themselves with wokism and they have no business to do that, elevating him to prominence.
 

[cosmicway 1,323]

 

Donald Trump says he's equally Greek as Giannis Antetokoumpo

 

https://basketnews.com/news-214082-donald-trump-says-hes-equally-greek-as-giannis-antetokounmpo.html

Giannis Antetokoumpo is a famous basket ball player playing in the NBA and the national team of Greece.
He is Greek, born in Athens, been to the army, but he is black - his parents were Nigerian then naturalized.

There is an old racist taunt about him that he is not Greek - because of his colour.
Various crazy or half crazy extremist racist individuals repeat that from time to time in Greek tv programs, on the internet.
But it's not some kind of big international controversy.

Now Trump decided to pick on him saying "he 's a great player but he is as Greek as I am !".
Barack Obama called him to order.

It's strange.
Obviously his advisers asked him to say that.
Are there Greek-Americans of this kind of ideology he wants to attract ?
Most Greek-Americans I know are dems but I have also met one or two Trumpies.