I thanked an anti American Norwegian bigot on Facebook and got warned

Amazing isn't it? Both sides behaving in essentially the same fashion just waving bumperstickers of thoughtless crap, divisiveness and ignorance. And neither side facing up to their own hypocrisy.

I'd agree with either strategy if its motivation was like mine. Do unto others as they do unto others. I do it deliberately and with intellectual malice aforethought just like the scum and haters I confront. Hell I even call out dems sometimes for their nonsense, but I focus on the subject of my bigotries and that makes fascist racist right wing scum my largest target.

 

That assumes they have the critical thinking skills and rudimentary knowledge in which to do so.

So calling out russian troll feed content is a service to them to compensate for that lack. It doesn't address the content, merely points to its source and its alignment with the disinformation campaign's major objective - increase political and social divisiveness.

 

OK, how wealthy are the blacks and so called browns? There are correct ways to accumulate wealth and wrong ways. Being in a position to go on trial and to prison is not a good way to end up wealthy.

I would hardly mention blacks or brown except to the Democrats in congress, those are the victim groups.

Imagine you get shot at, beaten and robbed and you abused the victim by living. Amazing thought process by Democrats. (victim is black or brown)

 

Ridiculous. I can just see him in the program management meetings discussing how to create functionality that will provide people with the tools to humiliate people.

Actually "unintended consequences" to both positive and negative effect has been a feature of every major technological advancement. Users have a way of using technologies in ways that its inventors never ever thought of, let alone consider.

History does inform if one reads it.

 

Hm. Target of the meme aside, it sounds a hell of a lot like what right wingers regularly post and share on social media about liberals, Muslims and select foreign countries.

Sounds like you can't take your own medicine?

 

Fedbook.

 

I totally am aware of the composition of the radical fascist right AND the composition of bigoted conservatives, both is religious an secular segments who hate fascists as much as the next intelligent human.

OTOH, the fact you think that the "democratic religious gang" is fascist and "we republicans aren't" is a facile dismissal that has little to no relation to facts but is emotionally satisfying to you, shouts your own bias to the world.

 

Norwegian college students do get free university. Overseas, or they can stay home.
I know two of them. Meanwhile Trump is spreading fear, loathing and intolerance on
an international level. He's hateful, and he loves being hated back. Anything
for attention. Get used to it.

 

So why aren't you paying royalities like a good little capitalist conservative would do? Or does stealing make its taste sweeter?

 

Get a new playbook. The one you operate from:
has become self-parody.

 

correct its not. Seems one's social environment is inconsequential to the ability to "accumulate wealth". I believe you actually mean accumulate "riches". I for instance measure wealth in terms of health, love, respect and friendship. The results entirely predicated on the kind of man I am and the way in which I lead my life.

As for righting wrong ways. How many alkies do you know that stopped drinking and sobered up without any help? How many decided to seek that help because of a life crisis? Going to jail in america is providing novice criminals with a phd in crime, more often than not - recidivism is outragous among certain demographic groups.

Nodoubt there are true black and brown and green scumbag criminal sociopaths and perverts amongst every population that merit no help whatsoever. I take the view that to serve the needs of the vastly larger group of economically and socially challenged population at the price of enabling a few scumbags is an acceptable level of loss. Generals make the same trade offs in every combat plan so why when the same concept is applied to other areas, its always these "losses" that defines the program as governmental malfeasance?

Can't seem to identify the point you are trying to make. Care to clarify please?

 

I appreciate your honesty, but fear that the human problem is insoluble.

 

But this is an ad hominem approach, attacking the source rather than the content.

The content's fair game, but the source...

 

they never can.

 

I have to conclude that you have no clue what foreign leaders say about the west? Just because it's not reported to you, and is not in English, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen ... ALL THE TIME.

How could one nation be so solipsist!

 

You think I think he'd be so blatant?

Not politic and not necessary, as his own blog entry (his self-recorded HISTORY) from the original days tells us who he is, and what his motives.

But yes, unintended consequences always - as previously noted.

This doesn't make Zuckerberg anything less than a sociopath.

 

Let me get this straight, if I may. You were cautioned by FB for your relatively polite response to a stream of invective?

Am I dreaming?

 

The point isn't about medicine, but speech.

Free speech: a good thing, or only a good thing when you agree with it?

 

My heavens - he's like Hillary, but more entertaining?

 

Yes its the fallacy of questioning the source. That does not necessarily dismiss its validity, especially in this context and considering brandolini's maxim.

And when the source is the source of a belligerent foreign power's disinformation assault, shining a spotlight on the mechanism is ENTIRELY valid and can be effective.

When you are an unwitting victim of foreign manipulation don't you think you should at least be made aware that you are a victim?

I realise that freedom of speech also means freedom to ignore the truth and the malicious intent of the sources of that speech. But it doesn't restrict others from pointing it out to them.

I consider calling out troll net content as a public service in defense of national security. Not as a violation of freedom of speech and thought.

 

Indeed - when you create a mythical "they," you can make "them" out to be as demonic as you like.

In the meantime, our own mirrors reflect the difficult and complicated truth.

 

This might explain why we are unable to have rational discussions. They become impossible when we operate from completely different definitions for words.

 

The content is either valid or it isn't.

This belligerent foreign power stuff sounds like something out of the McCarthy era.

And I don't mean Eugene.

 

Oooh. Your reading list is informative.

The application of what you learned is substantively flawed.

Maybe a re-read is in order?

 

That is always a problem in every discussion. For instance when I say radical racist facist right wing. Many "conservatives" who are also bigots get their back up because they think their alignment means I'm lumping them into that gaggle of scumbaggery, despite my expressed acknowledgement that they are a different segment of trumpian support. Imagine that.

Its like the term "liberal". I am a classic liberal, but there are precious few on the right that knows that being a classic liberal also means support for a small efficient government.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress. Liberalism was also influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that governments exist to protect individuals from each other. In 19th- and 20th-century America, the values of classical liberalism became dominant in both major political parties. The term is sometimes used broadly to refer to all forms of liberalism prior to the 20th century. Conservatives and libertarians often invoke classical liberalism to mean a fundamental belief in minimal government.