Russian skepticism

[gracchus]

@agger_modspil

The brief clip with Greenwald from Fox was indeed nod very informative, my bad.

Perhaps you might consider the fact that it’s not the only uninformative and irrelevant link you’ve had to post in this thread to support your argument.

@agger_modspil

This is a better and more thorough rendition of his arguments:

He’s basically making the same strawman argument that you are, agreeing with the interviewer’s contention that:

this story provides a shortcut both retrospectively and prospectively, in the sense that it offers an explanation that doesn’t involve Hillary Clinton’s failings for why Drumpf won, and prospectively, it offers a shortcut to getting Drumpf out of office short of defeating him at the ballot box.

I challenge you to find one liberal or progressive regular on this site that hasn’t to one degree or another criticised Clinton’s and the DNC’s failings or who is resting all their hopes on impeachment and shrugging off the election of 2020 (or 2018). Just one. We’ll wait.

@agger_modspil

I did not, at the time, find such a comment off-topic or irrelevant.

As explained, it was “whataboutism”. Now you seem to have moved on to strawmen.

@agger_modspil

Indeed, I find the faux outrage that anyone would dream of meddling in other people’s elections quite frustrating.

The very real outrage in this case is about current and illegal meddling in American elections by Russia on behalf of an administration that seemingly approves of it. Despite your implication, that does not mean people here were somehow supportive of how the American government (and, more specifically, neoCons) enabled the looting under Yeltsin that set the stage for Putin’s kleptocracy.

In addition to my earlier challenge, find one liberal or progressive regular on this site who is unaware of or approves American meddling in elections throughout history.

@agger_modspil

But, then there’s the question of proportions - the trolley armies creating false instagram accounts with 25 followers are not likely to accomplish a whole deal.

Then you don’t understand much about PR, black propaganda, disinformation, or the concept of force multipliers. Social media has provided Russia with a very cost-effective wedge to widen an existing rift in the American electorate.

Given the fact that Dolt-45 won the election not on the basis of the national popular vote but on the electoral college votes of two swing states (both sites of failure on Clinton’s part) which had very tight popular races you’d be surprised how much a highly targeted propaganda effort like this can accomplish. It was a lucky roll of the cost-effective dice for Putin.

@agger_modspil

So, I was frustrated by the faux outrage and the hyperbole.

On whose part? Be specific this time.

@agger_modspil

But I do think, following your comment […] that the majority of this community is actually wiser than that.

Based on your last two comments in this thread I am forced to continue to doubt the sincerity of that comment.

As I responded to an actual pro-Putin trolley in an earlier thread:

@gracchus

keep in mind that this comment forum is frequented by educated journalists, historians, political scientists, economists, technologists, scientists, etc. who follow current affairs. Some of us are very familiar with Russian and East European affairs.

As such we demand a little more intellectual rigour from commenters than other sites do. When you make an extraordinary claim (or implication) here I can guarantee you that someone will ask you to back it up with a citation from a reputable source.

In addition to “reputable” I’d add “relevant” and “not prone to fallacies” to the criteria regarding sources.