Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GW Hayduke

  1. My gramps sure as shit wouldn't be whining about being called a name on a message board. It is ok to be a gaping victim and whine about name calling on a message board because the other side thinks about ways to address wealth inequality? What is wrong with you?
  2. Holy fucking shit. My grandpa served during WWII and was a top notch man's man. Dude built his house with his own hands. He passed what he knew down to his grandkids. He was a true reflection of one of our greatest generations. I am so fucking glad he is no longer around to see how "conservative" Americans have turned into such gaping pussies. You are concerned about being called names? You are concerned about being misunderstood? Are you fucking for real? Please tell me you are being sarcastic and just trolling. Please! And people are upvoting your weakass shit. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Seriously. Where did all of this victimhood come from? Do you ever look in the mirror and think to yourself, "Oh my god! I am giant pussy!" Have you ever pondered on why you turned out this way? Was it the way you were raised? Did mommy tell you that you were always right? Is it the cable news show you watch nightly? Maybe the social media you consume? Whatever happened, please share so we can dissect and understand so that our children don't turn into giant gaping pussies.
  3. If he ends up running for governor, does he have to show his birth certificate?
  4. Ok. Thanks for providing. The accusation against fauci is that he lied to congress by saying he didn’t know the origin when he actually did know. The source you provided indicates scientist said the virus looked potentially engendered, but then a few months later published a paper saying the virus was not engineered. That interesting stuff but isn’t evidence he lied, from my understanding.
  5. Your claim was that Fauci stated to congress that he didn’t know the origin but that the emails prove he did know and that he was lying. At least, that was what it seemed you were claiming. I didn’t see that claim supported by the NY post article. Can you point where? Did it link the subject email, but I missed it?
  6. This is the second time I’ve asked for sources about various accusations. Both times the response is hand wave. You conspiracy theory guys suck at conspiracy theories.
  7. Do you have a source for this?
  8. It is possible you've cracked this thing wide open. I'm thinking of the Pelican Brief. It would be in your interest to lay low for a while. Paste this isn't a word document on a secure laptop. Then add sources. Get back to us if they haven't gotten you by then.
  9. Wow man. At first glance, this looks crazy as shit. Are all of these facts readily known by people here? Do you have any sources? Where were you first exposed to these ideas and this narrative? I'm not saying this isn't true, but feels a bit batshit without context or support.
  10. I see that Fox News headlines are indicating some in the GOP are calling for Fauci's firing. I see a lot of the folks in here fired up that something scandalous has happened. I appreciate folks including images of emails. I read this thread and didn't see anything. What am I missing? This feels similar to all the DNC and hillary email drops that were perceived as negative for Hillary and Dems.
  11. I agree with the idea that some brains are broken in that they have developed cravings for dopamine, which keep them looking for libtard ownage within their restricted information bubble. Deprogramming is the correct term to use. I don't think it is hopeless but I do think hard action is required to stop the expansion of propaganda and then to reverse it. It would require protecting people from being susceptible to propaganda, destroying the tools and systems used by propagandists - driving them into the shadows, and getting people to expand their information bubbles.
  12. I don't think anyone should consider killing 74 million trump voters. However, I think we should seriously consider the complete and utter annihilation of the tools, systems, and funding mechanisms that promote propaganda within the US.
  13. Of course. That narrative fits for them. It doesn't make it true though. Just because one thinks both sides are the same, doesn't mean that both sides are in fact the same. Propaganda exists to some degree everywhere, everyone is susceptible in some degree to propaganda, and everyone is to some degree in an information bubble; however, only one side is substantially captured in an alternative reality flooded with conspiracy theories and magical thinking. Only one side believes in the Big Lie. Only one side (28%) believes government is controlled by a cabal of pedophile cannibals. Only one side is overly acceptable to doublethink - the Jan 6th insurrections were antifa and also just tourists, voter fraud was rampant and overturned elections but the GOP's statewide successes were legitimate.
  14. The question seems to be: why has a substantial percent of the US population been captured by misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories, and magical thinking? IMO the answer includes the below three elements. - People susceptible to propaganda: Segments of our population were educated before social media and the internet and do not have a grounded understanding of how to digest and process information put in front of them. There is also the low educated who weren't able to pick up the needed critical thinking skills and media skills. They do not understand the methods of weaponized propaganda. They do not understand they are in an information bubble. - Weaponized propaganda: The GOP and right wing powers are well funded. They have the ability to craft narratives and push those narratives with a high degree of effect. Their narratives are pushed by right wing leaders and echoed throughout the information landscape, including talk radio, cable news, twitter, facebook, youtube, podcasts, reddit, and religious groups. These narratives use fear-based identity politics (immigration, race, socialism) and wedge issues (abortion, guns) to tap into people's genetic predisposition towards tribalism. Algorithms, social media, and personalized advertising amplify this effect. Think Cambridge Analytica. Troll farms pushing these narratives through social media have been a thing for years. Foreign actors also play a role in funding and pushing these narratives. The "vast right-wing conspiracy" directed at the Clintons is an early elementary example of this. - Information bubbles: People allow themselves to only be exposed to information that supports their preexisting ideas. People experience positive brain chemistry when presented things supporting their beliefs. It is hard and uncomfortable to be challenged; thus, it is easier to avoid counter information than it is to consume and critically consider. Information sources link each other giving the false impression that ideas are widely supported or accurate. Certain search algorithms exist (youtube) that push people deeper into rabbit holes. A succinct answer is probably something like the right uses weaponized propaganda to control people susceptible to propaganda and place them within media bubbles that then result in large populations being within alternative realities.
  15. Solid question. Someone should explore the overlap between those who believe Qanon's conspiracy theories (15% of Americans) and those who believe Russia didn't meddle in the 2016 election to elect Trump (IDK the percent but there are few folks who fit that bill in this thread). If we addressed whatever the causes underlying those beliefs, the US would be much better.
  16. I think one of the reasons folks sometimes make assumptions about celebrities is because the audience is exposed to them in ways that feel human, even though it is just their job and they are acting, it still feels that way. We see them in emotional moments and get a connection to them. After that, it is probably felt/assumed they have human like traits that tend left on the political spectrum. I see you mentioned earlier that you don’t discuss politics. I recommend you at least read about it to stay informed while diversifying your media consumption. For national happenings, I’m a fan of the Newshour by PBS. It’s presented in video, and it’s free, online, and well produced. It has none of the spin or exaggeration of cable news, so it might feel a bit boring. For Texas happenings I recommend the Texas Tribune.
  17. I would sweat it. I would try and delete the one nazi shirt pic if possible.
  18. You had indicated that Shady's take on news coverage resonated with you. I was pointing out western journalism was addressing the alleged unsavory aspects of the journalist and why I believed they covered it the way they did in that piece. I apologize for any hostility to anyone including Shady. Ideally any hostility would have been toward positions and sources of information, but I'm sure I was personal at some point. I doubt it would add value to label anyone a propagandist. I'm more interested in where he got some of his information and how he formed some of his opinions. Initially, I saw a flood of unsupported facts weaved into a narrative that seemed to generally fit something that could be considered pro-russian. As I read it all in some detail, it became clear that a lot of the information he was presenting wasn't too relevant or surprising. A lot of it was about the journalist having ties to the west, that he was involved in protecting Ukraine from the Russians, and that there is a ukrainian militia with an inappropriate number of supremacists. I think the more controversial stuff was with linking the journalist to fascism. I was a bit uncomfortable not knowing where much of his information was coming from. Some of his initially stated sources didn't really turn out. Rather than the soldiers pic coming from the journalist's own FB feed, it came from a random russian woman on russia's versions of FB. The UN report didn't say what he said it said. Not really that big a deal IMO and mostly harmless. He also dropped the doctored picture of the journalist in a nazi shirt, which was kind of a big deal. At this point I'm assuming it was doctored and the product of a propagandist. He wouldn't tell me where he got it. I couldn't find it by searching google. The shirt pic was critical because it was the only actual real tie between the journalist and fascism.
  19. I get that we should all be weary of news sources, coverage, and narratives, but I just want to note that the BBC article I've provided a couple times was straight forward in disclosing the situation between the journalist and Azov. IMO since the BBC doesn't seem to feel the guy is a fascist or was ever part of a fascist group, they just cover it from the angle of how pro-Lukashenko press was covering. From what I've seen throughout this thread, there is no evidence this guy should be labeled as a "fascist" or "neo-nazi," and thus his very loose ties to a group that has some limited ties to fascism is largely irrelevant to the immediate incident. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57239521
  20. The good news is that you are finally providing sources. The bad news is they either don't say what you think they say or they don't add anything new that wasn't already captured on their wiki page I shared earlier. IMO this is legit muddying up the waters. It isn't clear how your first source, the UN report on human rights issues, is documenting that the "UN is condemning" Azov as "extreme right." The group is mentioned 4 times in passing, zero times in the executive summary, and zero times in the conclusions and recommendations. They clearly make zero conclusions about that group and at no time did the UN "condemn as extreme right." Your second source from the ADL does disclose Azov has members who are white supremacists and labels them as a "a Ukrainian extremist group and militia." That is also all disclosed in the wiki entry I provided earlier. Your third source is a question asked by a czech politician and member of the communist party and has zero relevance to anything. Your forth source doesn't add anything new. We've already established that there are white supremacists in their ranks and that should do a better job of regulating that in their group - it is the same issue noted as why the US paused funding to the group. That isn't a quote from the subject journalist. That is a quote from a ukrainian politician that was once part of Azov. It is established that there are white supremacists in Ukraine. We've established there are some in Azov. There are some in Ukrainian military. So what? Are you still talking about a random ukranian politician and not the subject journalist? What do you think this establishes that hasn't been established long ago? That is another piece about a single person in Azov. That isn't new. Thanks for being straight forward about the t-shirt pic. The reason that is of issue is because that piece of evidence is the only real direct link between the journalist and any sort of actual real fascist type thought or action. Everything else you have presented is just second degree ties of arguable strength. None of that is news or in dispute. Should I link the BBC article again. We are all on the same page with everything you have provided. Nothing is new or surprising to the conversation. It all seems to be about muddying up the waters. The situation isn't about Azov - except for those attempting to tie the imprisoned journalist down as a fascist - i.e., muddy the waters so people's hearts might feel both sides are same. Literally no else gives a shit about Azov at this moment.
  21. I think Lukashenko's press and Shady Ray's narrative is clearly to muddy the waters until we in the west begin to feel both sides are the same. Shady Ray's primary beef is that western press doesn't label the journalist as a fascist. His whole two degree relationship narrative is intended to establish the kid is a fascist.*** If we feel he is just another fascist, then why should we care if he is improperly imprisoned? Which sounds better, imprisoning a dissenter/journalist or imprisoning just another fascist? The language barrier combined with potentially seedy social media sources does cause confusion as you mention. IMO when an entire narrative is composed of potentially seedy social media sources sprinkled in with some unsourced odd claims (like the journalist never published pics that showed Azoz as negative) along with unsourced irrelevant claims (like the journalist worked for a group that received US funding), major red flags go up for me. *** of critical importance IMO is that none of his evidence is that this guy did any fascist type actions or has every expressed any fascist type speech. There is no evidence that this guy promoted ideals that the jews should be slaughtered, that whites are superior, or any sort of actual real hate speech. Nothing is directly tied to the journalist. All the evidence is about his supposed "links to" or "ties with" others.
  22. Also, you had previously stated the soldiers pic was from his own FB feed. How do you know it was from his own feed? The russian FB link is apparently for a random russian chick named Irina. I'm not that familiar with how FB operates or how russian FB operates.
×
×
  • Create New...