[gonehome]

CRT specifically may be largely junk (I think it is), but the parent comment is not correct.

Trump's "Zero Tolerance" immigration policy intentionally separated mothers and their children at the border with the intent being deterrence. Cruelty was the intended goal of that policy to dissuade people from coming to the border. Previously adults and children would only be separated if border patrol suspected abuse (child trafficking).

Some children have yet to be reunited with their parents (and may never be) because the Trump administration failed to keep records (and frankly didn't care).

The "remain in mexico" policy was intended to prevent those crossing the border to be able to exercise their legal right to claim asylum.

Immigration policy is complex, dealing with desperate people fleeing their country to enter the US is not easy. That doesn't make the Trump administration policy equivalent to the difficulties Biden is experiencing on the border. Intent and policy decisions matter.

This is one specific example, but there are many others.

[CountDrewku]

You realize there are thousands of children being housed without their parents currently right? That's a direct result of Biden making it appear that anyone can just walk right across the border now because he's so friendly and supportive of illegal immigration. In my opinion that's much worse than Trump dissuading people from the start. People are dying and Biden has incited a mass immigration crisis.

Regardless of that specific issue this is the main problem with "bad information". I and many people do not agree with your assessment and I also don't agree you have the right to say definitively what Biden is doing is better and then brainwash our children into believing it by declaring it disinformation when they don't agree.

This quote from the article is enough for me to know it's not about disinformation at all but more about pushing an agenda: "The U.S. intelligence community found that in both the 2020 and 2016 elections, Russia employed a range of online methods in an attempt to help former President Donald Trump, and undermine his Democratic rivals, Hillary Clinton and President Biden." Trump was cleared by the FBI and that investigation returned no evidence to support this. It's equivalent to declaring the election was stolen in 2020 but again we see it's not an issue since it comes from the "chosen" side.

[gonehome]

Obama was coined the “deporter in chief” while in office and Biden has similarly said he will deport people who cross the border illegally.

The difference is in intentional cruelty and the policy around how you deal with the problem. Housing minors that crossed without parents is not the same as forcibly and intentionally separating parents and children.

Immigration crisis causes are complex and have to do with the state of countries south of the US. You’d probably agree that Trump’s rhetoric didn’t incite “the caravan” yet they came anyway. Biden’s rhetoric against border crossing has been strict, he’s just not going to violate their rights.

Russia did have a preference for Trump and worked to help him (as detailed in the FBI’s report with lots of evidence to support this). Trump’s actions did not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, but they did rise to the level of obstruction of justice (also detailed in the report), but ultimately that’s a determination that must be made by Congress to whom the report deferred.

This was a decision made based on an interpretation of fairness based on the OLC opinion (basically that it’d be wrong to assert guilt when you can’t charge). So it was left to Congress to interpret.

[CountDrewku]

You're avoiding my main point and discussing individual subjective stances.

[gonehome]

When your main point is about determining the validity of information - the specifics are relevant. Specific examples give some ground work to build up priors around accuracy beyond just themselves too.

This doesn't excuse CRT related nonsense which should be similarly thrown out, but it doesn't validate Trump support nonsense either. The specifics matter because otherwise it's just tribal politicking.

The examples you used are not subjective stances - it's possible to learn what the truth is if you're trying to understand it (and aren't just driven by motivated reasoning to defend your specific tribe).

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom...

[CountDrewku]

>This doesn't excuse CRT related nonsense which should be similarly thrown out, but it doesn't validate Trump support nonsense either.

And again since you're still avoiding the main issue with defining what exactly "disinformation" is... who gets to decide this and what criteria makes it disinformation is?

A large portion of the population doesn't think CRT is disinformation at all so you don't get to just decide to throw it out. A lot of schools are treating it and aspects of transgenderism as fact. Thinking any of this 'digital literacy' will be based on proven facts is pure ignorance.