Many of them won’t even see it, but will believe it. Remember the woman who said she heard that there were photos on Twitter proving the pro-Trump stickers on the pipe-bombers van were photoshopped.
And she can tell because she’s seenheard about a lot of things on Twitter in her time
Caution for simulation.
No, it’s definitely intentional. And while it’s cynical and corrupt as fuck, it’s not stupid. I think it can be said they are very smart, in a way. The way is, as the video I posted above describes, an actual Soviet propaganda technique called “hypernormalisation,” which is not intended to convince anyone, really, of a false reality. Rather, it eventually leads to the very destruction of any knowable “truths” at all. THIS is the goal.
I strongly encourage people to watch the Adam Curtis doc I posted above. It is the only analysis of the administration that makes sense. It is also, I warn, a bit disturbing, potentially. But still essential viewing.
That would be a bit of a push. She reached for a mic. There isn’t anything assaulty in any of that interaction.
And I’d be pretty hesitant to wish for prosecution of some 20 year old college student who looked incredibly uncomfortable with the situation. The fact that the White House sent a fucking intern to do that is a good portion of what’s so scummy about it. Frankly I’m surprised they didn’t throw that young woman under the bus.
And there you go.
I also tend to think Trump likes the optics if a bunch of good looking, young, female interns hanging out in the briefing room. Creeps gonna creep.
Right and it doesn’t even matter if his base knows it to be a lie. They don’t care. All they care about is he’s sticking it to the libs. To a certain extent lies that do that are better. The angry response is what they like to see.
Can this include Jared, perhaps exiting 666 Fifth Avenue?
Did you actually expect that this is what life in the early 21st Century would offer, though? I certainly never did, but then again I grew up using modems and reading cyberpunk novels, so the notion of something as odd as Dorkwad Trump being President of the USA actually makes a certain kind of trippy sense.
I didn’t support any of Trump’s actions, at the press conference or anywhere else. My post was a simple comment about Acosta and one moment at the press conference.
If I told you how I grew up it’d bring the whole thread down. But let’s just say I didn’t have high hopes… just wanted to get by and die without feeling too much from the hell around me. Ya’ know… typical childhood. No I’ve always known that I’ll live and die without getting what I wanted, or most of the time without even knowing what I wanted. Still sad though… no romantic dystopia here, just tragedy.
Mark my words, the trick to this realm is realizing that it’s not the tra-la-la happy dappy experiences that rack you up the most XP. It’s all about the struggle! And not letting it break you, and learning from it, and still walking away from the shit of it all with a smile on your face, as best you can. That’s the trifecta XP multiplier shit right there.
Isn’t it interesting that the founders were the ones that made the first amendment. That is, the same people who wrote the constitution thought it needed to be updated less than two decades later. It’s almost like they thought it needed to be updated regularly to stay relevant.
To turn off the sarcasm, I’ve been thinking about the founders. They decided to enshrine the right to free speech for everyone in the constitution, but they didn’t decide to enshrine the right to vote there.
Now if a bunch of rich men get together and decide one thing if for everyone, and another is for just them, which of those two things should we guess they think of as more important?
I don’t think the founders ensured free speech in the first amendment because it was the most important or most powerful right. If they had really thought it was a source of great power they would have kept it for themselves.
Interesting thing is that the founders wrote a fuck ton about exactly what they intended with each bit of the Constitution, why they made each compromise they did, how they wished each aspect to be applied. And which bits were most important. So we don’t really need to wonder about much in that regard. We can read about it in their personal documents. And the many things they published for the public specifically to explain their intent.
IIRC the right to vote isn’t specifically called out in the Constitution because it’s implied heavily by all the shit outlining citizenship. And that right was sufficiently ensconced in English common law not to require being laid out specifically. Especially since they were trying to esconse then current British voting rights, rather than even dreaming of universal sufferage. The right to vote pre exists the Constitution, and since they weren’t so much as extending it as applying it to themselves. It wasn’t considered neccisary to specifcally define it any more than they did.
It’s easy to be cynical these days, but this does not properly capture, in my opinion, the nuances of the founders, who weren’t, at all, a single, unified group. I like to think Ben Franklin was a genuinely cool dude, even if some of his views would probably be repugnant to us. Just like some of our views will be repugnant to people 250 years from now. “You threw away HOW MUCH SHIT and burned HOW MUCH CO2? Oh my GOD!!!”
OTOH, it’s important to remember that the founders were not representative of the people of their times; they were representative of the colonial aristocracy, who were no less obnoxious than the 1% of today.
Madison was an overt plutocrat who conspired against democracy; Jefferson was a rapist; Washington was a slaveholder; Adams followed the Bill of Rights with the Alien & Sedition Acts.
Here’s a high-quality explanation of how the Prison Planet video was doctored, and the difference it makes to the human eye.
Madison was an overt plutocrat who conspired against democracy; Jefferson was a rapist; Washington was a slaveholder; Adams followed the Bill of Rights with the Alien & Sedition Acts.
Yep, exactly. Why it’s almost as if people are comprised of many different views and attitudes, some of them noble, some abhorrent. There’s literally only one perfect person I’ve ever known to exist who was exactly what they seemed to be at face value. And Fred Rogers has passed on, so we’re left with everyone else. A lot of imperfect folks, some of them reveling in the power their imperfections give them, some of them trying to do the right thing in spite of those imperfections (and I freely acknowledge I’m biased as to what I think “the right thing” is, for I, too, am imperfect).
When it’s the BBC, the lines are a little more blurred.
You may well be right. It certainly appears to be the only rational explanation and it fits with all the other attacks on the media.
I was thinking of modifying the video beyond simply cutting it (those frightening videos where some smart algorithm can make Obama appear to say whatever you want), but you make a valid point. Something as crude as clever cutting is actually incredibly effective. A couple of years ago I would have laughed at the very concept of ‘post truth’.
I would like to say there’s a huge difference between a news source fabricating evidence to support their agenda, and the fucking government doing it.
You might consider what made the BBC think this was a good thing to do. Or maybe who. This was a dark time in the UK, ripples of which still play out today.
