[pavlov]

It's good to remember that the previous American president also waged a war against every media outlet he didn't like by claiming they were "fake news." It's the same authoritarianism in different stages.

And if you think nobody in America wants to jail journalists and media CEOs, go look at any forum with a substantial amount of Republicans talking freely.

[throwaway5752]

The backchannels were Manafort/Kilimnik, Michael Flynn/Kislyak, and more. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-... is a digestible background. That is just the US - most European countries have analogues, as do key Asian, African, and South American countries.

The are not separate phenomenon at different stages, they are a global, coordinated group. They were coordinated by the massive cash flows coordinated by a small group in Russia. The use coordinated tactics, in concert with each other.

[pohl]

Yes, it's the same trans-national crime syndicate. It's the same war, even – it's just recently became kinetic. Amazing the ROI that Vlad got from TFG.

[areyousure]

In case anyone is curious, it appears that ROI = "return on investment", Vlad = Vladimir Putin, and TFG = "the former guy" = Donald Trump. It appears to be the ~4th time the latter abbreviation has been used on this site.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27920739

[koshergweilo]

Thanks for the translation. I'm pretty new to HN, is mentioning Putin or Trump by name a surefire way to get banned or something?

[nix23]

>surefire way to get banned or something

No, but people like to self-censor sometimes ;)

[EtherTyper]

Or for a more concrete example, look at how both Republicans and Democrats are treating Julian Assange. Investigative journalism and whistleblowing are under attack by all political factions and by the justice system, today. We cannot treat anti-free-press authoritarianism in the West as an "early stage" or tomorrow's problem.

[shagmin]

Chelsea Manning may be a better comparison since the US actually sentenced her, but even then that was about a leak with classified information rather than just punishing the press for being critical of the government. And she was arrested and served time (7 years?) and then got out, while coming out as transgendered (imagine going through that in Russian prison). It's not ideal, but it could be taken as an example of how much better it is in the US also.

[ashwagary]

Whistleblowers are not safe anymore, government abuse is being protected.

[smegger001]

Anymore? when were they ever safe? When has anyone in a position of power ever paid more than lip service to protecting whistle blower

[ComradePhil]

The facts that whistleblowers are as well-known as they are, shows that whistleblowers are safer than they have ever been in history.

[ashwagary]

This statement is fair but it only somewhat applies to a few famous whistleblowers.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-sup...

> In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack.

> Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer.

If this is true then he is not a journalist.

[labawi]

If that is the height of his crimes, then it's no comparison to the extent US (or whomever) went to frame him for: sexual assault (coerced charges), fabricated hacking conspiracy (from a protected pedofile at that), or just about anything.

Note that even in the quoted allegations he pretty much didn't actually even do much at all. I don't know Assange, but I don't have doubts about who to side with.

[csee]

There's no equivalence here. Russia has assassinated about 50 journalists under Putin and imprisoned/beaten many more. They have a very tight stranglehold on press freedom.

But yes, we need to take it extremely seriously in the West and fight against any and all encroachments so that we don't slide further towards authoritarianism. Recent trends have been concerning.

[MemesAndBooze]

Do you have a list of the names of those 50 killed?

[goodoldneon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...

[bastardoperator]

How are they treating him considering he's still in the UK?

[rovolo]

A difference is that Assange/Manning had to be spreading something true to be charged, whereas this targets anything "false".

[sonotathrowaway]

I wish people would stop trying to remake Assange into a journalist, he’s not, Pompeo was correct when he called Wikileaks an intelligence agency.

It’s especially sad trying to cite him in this context, as we already know that he censors and threatens whistleblowers who ask him to publish documents on Putin.

Coincidentally enough, he has signed a contract with Russian state tv for his own tv show. He’s also been confronted about these facts and doesn’t bother denying any of it.

[malfist]

Julian Assange isn't a journalist though. He was a contractor trusted with protected information which he then publicized. There's a big difference between a journalist finding and publishing information, and a mole in our government sharing our secrets with people.

And that's ignoring the whole rape thing with Assange.

[scatters]

You're confusing Snowden with Assange. (And probably forgetting the role of Manning.)

[ashwagary]

My understanding is the fake rape charges were dropped. I expect it could've been an attempt at character assassination by certain governments with a long history of this kind of attack.

[sonotathrowaway]

America should have just threatened to murder him like Putin did. Maybe then he would’ve worked for the US, instead of signing a tv deal with Putin.

[ashwagary]

Stealing 10 years of his life and freedom is basically slow murder and torture. Whataboutism is unwarranted, the US is overreaching.

[waffleiron]

Not just America, in the EU right now:

In Czechia up to 1 year for publicly supporting Russia (two people already detained): https://www.praguemorning.cz/expressing-support-for-russia-o...

In Slovakia, supporting [Russian] war propaganda 10 to 25 years: https://spravy.rtvs.sk/2022/02/za-podporu-vojnovej-propagand...

EU banned RT and Sputnik:

"It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed"

[frabbit]

Wow! That should be the real headline story. "Western" (w.t.f. does that mean?) state destroys freedom of speech in order to save it from Russia.

[dTal]

Those channels were toxic propaganda, psyops designed to divide and weaken Russia's enemies. Such things are never tolerated in war. I do think this is a period in human history where we're going to have to let go of some naive notions pertaining to "freedom of speech".

[frabbit]

> Those channels were toxic propaganda, psyops designed to divide and weaken Russia's enemies.

How do you know that if you can't see them? And if you have been looking at them and have made a judgement why can't other people do the same?

> Such things are never tolerated in war.

Wait, what?! The Czech Republic is at war with Russia?

> this is a period in human history where we're going to have to let go of some naive notions pertaining to "freedom of speech".

And replace it with a sophisticated, jesuitical understanding? I'd prefer if you were honest and just said you do not believe in Free Speech.

[JAlexoid]

Expressing support for war or denying genocide is indeed illegal in many countries.

RT and Sputnik are literally Russian government entities.

[BitwiseFool]

"Fake News" comes in many forms. Hyperbole and playing fast and loose with words like "waged a war" plays into this. The media has NEVER been particularly friendly to the President. Even George Washington himself lamented how the press was slandering his administration with falsehoods.

What did this war look like? What actions did the government actually take to fight journalists covering POTUS unfavorably? Because I just remember an incredible amount of pearl clutching by journalists about how dangerous it is to say bad things about the press and how democracy would die in darkness if their credibility was questioned. It never actually stopped them from continuing act the same way.

[peeters]

I think it's useful to distinguish between what a President says, and what he uses his executive powers to do. As far as what he did, I think the most impactful was probably drastically reducing press briefings in which the free press can directly challenge the administration.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/trump-vs-media-freedom-of-press-d...

[signatoremo]

It’s also good to remember that Donald Trump is no longer the president, all of the fake news that he didn’t like still made it to the public, and none of the journalists he didn’t like are in jail, or killed.

Now that is out of the way, should we switch our focus back to how Russia suppress any domestic news about the ongoing Ukriane war? Or “special operation” as it’s only allowed to be called?

[ch4s3]

That's not really a good comparison. Being an asshole to journalists if really different than putting them in jail for their reporting. The difference here is that some Republicans who have no power to actually do that talk shit about doing it, but Putin actually jails a lot of journalists.

[jmull]

It's pretty weird this comment is downvoted to being greyed out at the moment.

As if it's wrong to point out that tweeting and a 15 year jail sentence are not equivalent.

I can't understand what this means... are there really Russian vote-bots here or something?

[JAlexoid]

Yes. This whole comments section is full of very specific posters.

There's a clear intent to derail and muffle.

Welcome to the world of Russian digital propaganda machine.

They even have puppet accounts arguing with each other, as was discovered by Russian media.

[ch4s3]

I get it to some extent. People really hate Trump, and I understand that and largely agree. I think it can be threatening to people when their identity is wrapped up in really heated partisanship to have an attack on their enemies questioned. It's only human to want to rally around something and have a hated outsider. And Trump truly is a bag of shit, he just wasn't as bad on this one narrow thing as newspapers and cable news might want you to think.

[pmcollins]

clearly, yes

[klyrs]

Meanwhile, on page 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30541671

[ch4s3]

What do you want me to say? They shouldn't be doing that and anyone involved should be booted out of government. I've long argued that most of the really awful shit done by the US domestically is perpetrated by local governments. They're still not going to be able to successfully prosecute any journalists.

[frabbit]

That's okay. We can always play with semantic definitions of what it means to be a journalist -- and lock Julian Assange up without trial.

[ch4s3]

Assange should be let go, what's happened to him has been awful. But that's the result of the Obama administration's policy and is literally 1 person vs. the eradication of all independent press in an entire nation. We should free Assange and condemn Russia jailing at least 293 journalists right now.

[frabbit]

Completely in agreement. But it's important to note that we have more power over what happens to Assange than we do over Russia.

Empty condemnation of Russia while we simultaneously prosecute the publisher of information which helps us decide whether we are behaving in an immoral manner is not merely hypocritical: it's corrosive of the fundamentals of our society.

Right now the Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians that we murdered and the Yemenis that we are helping murder make condemnation of the Russians not just odd, but erodes all possibility of working in a fairer world.

[ch4s3]

You can walk and chew gum at the same time as the expression goes. I've written to representatives specifically about cutting off arms and intelligence to the Saudi effort in Yemen, and as I said I'm against prosecuting Assange.

However bringing up Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria (where Russia is inflaming the situation too), and Yemen is whataboutism. The discussion was about Russia's shitty record on press freedom.

But if we are trying to dig into the current conflict, the US hasn't invaded anyone for territorial expansion in a long fucking time. Russia has recently invaded Ukraine three times, Chechnya twice, and Georgia.

[frabbit]

I don't care if the US "invaded anyone for territorial expansion" or did it for shits'n'giggles. It has done all the above and more which weakens any chance that calls for democracy, international order, peace, stability and trade can work.

The US is deeply disruptive to any of that happening because it opens the door to the MiniMe despots being able to claim that spending stupid amounts of GDP on weapons and having a "strong leader" is the only thing which will see them safe from being invaded "not for territorial expansion" during a "long fucking time".

That's why it is appropriate, relevant and not simply whataboutism.

Russia and other states are worse than the USA because they need to be in order to claw their way up the dungheap piled up by US foreign policy. And there is little inherent in US norms or culture which would prevent similar anti-democratic and anti-liberal punishments. To back to the OP: these are all shades of authoritarianism and we see calls all over the media and this very forum in favor of censorship, war and other stupidities.

Don't kid yourself, this isn't whataboutism, it's the very subject under discussion: Russia is violating international agreements and norms and in part this is because the USA has shat all over those for a very long time.

[cromd]

I don't think they're saying that Republicans are currently doing what Putin is currently doing. They said some people want to jail journalists, and you seem to be agreeing by saying those people "talk shit" about jailing journalists. Maybe one could say that talk is harmless, but I think most would challenge that.

[ch4s3]

My claims is that the phrase "the previous American president also waged a war against every media outlet" is overblown nonsense. There are a mere handful of marginal Republican nobodies who support this stuff and we saw for 4 years that the courts are happy to slap down any US politician makes big constitutional missteps.

[klyrs]

No, that phrase isn't 100% true. Trump didn't wage war on Brietbart, OAN, and the like. Only "mainstream media" like CNN and even Fox when they reported what he called "fake news," actually facts he didn't like.

[ch4s3]

> During the BLM protests, there were hundreds of assaults and detentions of members of the press, along with an enhanced surveillance apparatus. That these actions didn't go through the strictest official channels doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Trump's commentary on the violence against the press: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/media/trump-velshi-msnbc-shot...

I agree that local police assaulting journalists is awful, they should be fired and prosecuted. And I'm aware that Trump made some dumb ass comments praising that shit, but it doesn't constitute a war on the press. You're talking about some isolated disparate instances perpetrated by unrelated local police departments during a summer of protests and riots. That isn't an act of the executive branch of the federal government. The US doesn't have a strong presidential system like say for example France. The us president has virtually 0 control over any individual police departments other than threatening to yank some drug war funding.

There do exist levers the executive branch could pull to attack the press, e.g. via the FCC or by having the DOJ prosecute sources. The Trump admin didn't do those things despite all of his bluster. He basically ended the policy of aggressively prosecuting leakers and spent all day engaging with the media. Sure he's a shit bag who did crimes, but the war on the press stuff is overblown.

[klyrs]

> The Trump admin didn't do those things despite all of his bluster.

Yes, it's an administrative motte & bailey. Police support, individual and organizational, for Trump is incredibly high and their loyalty to him transcends official channels. He's explicitly endorsed violence against journalists, brutality towards suspects, and celebrated the execution of Michael Reinoehl. While he didn't have direct control over the state police, he spoke directly to them frequently, and encouraged all of this.

[ch4s3]

It's also not true at all. There was no war on any journalists. I'm not aware of a single journalist jailed by the Trump DOJ, the FCC didn't yank any licenses, nothing. It was all talk.

[klyrs]

During the BLM protests, there were hundreds of assaults and detentions of members of the press, along with an enhanced surveillance apparatus. That these actions didn't go through the strictest official channels doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

Trump's commentary on the violence against the press: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/media/trump-velshi-msnbc-shot...

[cromd]

This seems to be largely about your definition of war. No elections were overturned, but could you say he waged war on elections? He had his team out there saying that Hugo Chavez created the rigged voting machines and that it was statistically impossible for Biden to have won. It was an ideological war, not a physical war. You don't have to jail anyone to nonetheless do broad damage to an institution. I agree that people can over-analyze sloppy comments from fringe weirdo politicians, but here is something the president tweeted:

>“They can’t stand the fact that this Administration has done more than virtually any other Administration in its first 2yrs,” he continued. “They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

(https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-cal...)

And surely media can be bad, can harm people, can lie, but "ENEMY" is interesting.

[gotoeleven]

Do you remember all the reporting about russia and trump during this time? Would you call that news fake or not fake?

[lkxijlewlf]

But, there is a connection between the two. Even his own children have admitted they get most all of their money from Russia (for example).

[hunterb123]

Prime example of the effects of biased reporting ^

There's a difference between having LEGITIMATE business long BEFORE your dad has power vs. getting put on a board of a corrupt energy company WHILE your dad is overseeing the country relations as VP. One is capitalism, one is nepotism.

But all that being said, the statement "they get most all of their money from Russia" is wrong at face value. Their businesses do not get the majority of revenue from Russia. Back that statement up with a source so it can be torn apart.

[helloworld11]

Your comparison is absurd. I'm sorry, but while Trump was often hostile to the media, the media and almost all major news sources (especially liberal-oriented ones) gave the hostility right back, in spades, openly and with no real threat to life or liberty for the editors and journalists involved. Trump made a lot of noise about authoritarian measures and personal wishes but if anything, did less than some previous presidents to actually try muzzling the media or journalists. I repeat, he was if anything the most heavily media-criticized president in recent history.

You then claim that this is the "same authoritarianism" as that of Putin's Russia, where the press is firmly muzzled, where you can and will go to prison for in any way openly criticizing the United Russia Party or Putin himself and where reporters or political opponents are regularly, frequently murdered even abroad for going against the grain of Putin's narratives too often.

No, these are not cases of different stages, they're cases of entirely different worlds. Trump's authoritarian noises were mostly just noises and sloppy backlash. Putin's authoritarianism is the real thing.

[ashwagary]

I agree. If we are being completely honest, the last 3 presidents attacked important information from getting out to the public in varying forms and degrees.

[dragonwriter]

> If we are being completely honest, the last 3 presidents attacked important information from getting out to the public in varying forms and degrees.

If we are being completely honest, we won't pretend the last three (whether you mean Obama, Trump, Biden or Bush, Obama, Trump) were special in that regard.

[ashwagary]

That's a fair point. Many of the 45 presidents engaged in similar behavior but recent technology improvements have made noticing it much easier.

[eric_cc]

This is bullshit. Most American news (left and right) is Entertainment and in that sense it IS actually quite fake. And that's to say nothing of the times MSM is outright lying. Trump calling out the fake news as fake was probably one of the best things he did with his time as president. At least some people woke up as a result. Before Trump, people would view publications like NYT and WaPo as fundamentally different than Fox News. Now, thankfully, many more people realize they are exactly the same. If anything, Fox News presents itself more honestly as news entertainment and NYT is more deceptive.

[echelon]

> And if you think nobody in America wants to jail journalists and media CEOs, go look at any forum with a substantial amount of Republicans talking freely.

I'm a liberal and would like to point out that fellow liberals say the same about conservatives. We're wasting energy and making enemies fighting a narrative warfare, and it's frankly very stupid.

Jail the their protestors, but not our own. Deplatform their voices and curtail their free speech, but not our own. It's the exact same behavior in both sides, yet both parties rush in to say how they're different and morally correct.

We need to mend ties, not strain them further. We're becoming too polarized, and that's exactly what authoritarians that eye the end of Democracy and its influence want. We're focused on fighting our petty squabbles instead of positioning ourselves in the global sphere.

If you think any of our manufactured crises are even in the same order of magnitude as what Ukraine is facing right now, then they're already winning.

My worry isn't in owning or being owned by the other party. It's that Democracy is shown to be less effective, that free speech is put in a box, and that we end the century in shackles. No future under those pretenses is worth looking forward to.

[dehrmann]

> Deplatform their voices and curtail their free speech, but not our own

If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on, it's that tech isn't censoring the things they want censored.

[moate]

I'm currently debating how many burner accounts I should make to upvote this, because this so succinctly describes the situation. Everyone wants the thing they hate gone, and hates the the other side feels the same way about something they love.

(note to mods: after debate, the answer was 0, plz no rate limtz)

[kbelder]

I upvoted it for you.

Someday, I'll come for repayment.

[natechols]

Nearly all of recorded human history has been rule by gangsters - the liberal democracies of the rich world are an aberration, not the norm. I think about this almost daily and it terrifies me.

[phs318u]

Yes! I often wonder whether, in the far future, there will even be historians that know that for a brief moment in time - a couple of centuries - a historical blip - there was a significant chunk of the world where the masses could educate themselves and rise above their origins, without fear of reprisal from the state.

What I fear most is a return to the historical mean - where the vast majority are mere peasants. Ignorant, and systematically oppressed, restrained, and exploited.

[president]

Agreed. If there's anything I've learned over the years, it's that Democrats and Republicans are equally nasty. The only difference is one side is much more powerful because they are supported by virtually every cultural institution that exists.

[cymian]

Bingo

[throwaway5752]

The global fascist movement has had success hijacking the Republican party and some parts of the left (eg Gabbard). Largely the success on the right was greater because of affinity toward aggrievement in the electoral base that was more susceptible exploitation, but it also reflects the more mature financial channels (eg NRA).

But this is not a left/right political issue. That is incidental. The social exploit of this foreign operational is orthogonal to political ideology and both side stand to suffer substantially. Trump's lack of conservative ideology bona fides are well documented.

[cabalamat]

I agree. The US culture war helps dictators like Putin and Xi.

[LegitShady]

tnat doesnt solve the problems it just makes the stakes higher.

[Chris2048]

Any forum with a substantial amount of an left/right leaning group will have people wanting to jail/punish journalists.

Describing media outlets he didn't like as "a war against .. media" is sensationalist. Saying this is "the same authoritarianism in different stages" is the same as saying getting angry is the same as genocide - "same anger in different stages" which is what ahs given rise to the draconian "literally Hitler" attitude to any dissent; This in itself is totalitarian.

[squarefoot]

Does it sound surprising that they all are Putin strong supporters?

[meragrin_]

"We're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting all of these countries. And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they're paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia.

"So we're supposed to protect you against Russia and you pay billions of dollars to Russia and I think that's very inappropriate"

Trump 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-pipeline/trum...

[squarefoot]

"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. (sarcastic)

So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well."

Trump 02/22/2022.

(emphasis mine)

Full audio interview here:

https://www.clayandbuck.com/president-trump-with-cb-from-mar...

[kbelder]

It's weird how people don't seem to understand. He's saying that Putin is a threat and a liar, and that this campaign is based on a clever deception.

Obviously it wasn't as clever as Putin hoped, because nobody in the whole world except a few Russian HN posters believe it. But saying that your opponent has a clever plan does not mean you're on the opponent's side.

[lkxijlewlf]

Nope. Putin has played the long game by buying sympathy from the American Right.

[prox]

I found this article very enlightening : https://www.csis.org/features/kremlin-playbook-3

From the center of strategic and international studies. It describes how the same ideology (white male christian) worldview is connected to Putin and Trump, and how the West is viewed as decadent through the moral lens of the fundamentalist churches in both the US and the Russian orthodox church.

[LegitShady]

white male christian is not an ideology. The first is a skin color, the second is a gender, the third is a religion. Pretending that you throw those three things together creates some coherent and common ideology is not logical thought

[prox]

No, and maybe I could have worded that better. But that’s part of their identity and what they rally around. If you read the article you would see what I mean.

From the article “Here traditionalism and identity are fused together such that disrupting one threatens the other. Any demographic change (particularly immigration from Muslim-majority and non-White countries, exacerbated in the public perception by low birth rates) is viewed as a direct challenge to identity and tradition.”

So maybe the better word is “strategic conversatism” as per the article.

[t0suj4]

Conservatism is relative term. It basically means "keep what we have and carefully evaluate new things".

Conservatism in the US is not what conservatism in France is. Conservatism in Mexico is not what conservatism in Brazil is.

Putin's version of conservatism, as mentioned in the article, is only applicable to Russia and countries with similar culture.

Comparing Trump to Putin is like comparing Nixon to Brezhnev.

[prox]

So when Trump is praising Putin, where does that come from? What does he admire?

[t0suj4]

I think Trump's praises may increase his chances for Putin to accept Trump's proposals. IIRC Trump wrote a book about making deals that's why I believe it.

Besides that I think that Putin made genuinely smart strategical steps to ensure that nobody will get between him and Ukraine... How it will turn out we yet have to see.

Cornering a leader with nuclear capabilities benefits nobody and can get dangerous, leaving him with nothing to lose. I think Trump wanted to use Russia to counter China.

[akomtu]

To be honest, the blue camp is different only in rhetoric: if the red wants control in the name of national security, the blue wants the same control in the name of grotesque moral rightnessess. Fake news is a good summary of our media today, it just applies to both camps.

[electrondood]

Bullshit false equivalence.

I notice that Democrats aren't forming white supremacist militias, plotting to kidnap state governors, attacking Congress specifically to overturn the results of a national election, etc.

[marcusverus]

If you only apply 'guilt by association' to your opponents, but not to yourself and your tribe, then your worldview will be built on a foundation of cheap rhetorical tricks.

Remember when Hillary's mentor (Mr. Byrd) was a former KKK Grand Dragon (and Democrat Senator)? Or when that democrat attempted to assassinate a dozen Republican lawmakers on a baseball field? How about the one who killed five cops in Dallas? Or the ones who engaged in (or cheered on) the 2020 riots that did billions of dollars in damage (including a months-long attack on a Federal courthouse in Portland, complete with firebombing!)?

All of this finger pointing bullshit is a distraction, intended to scare stupid people to the polls.

[wbsss4412]

Byrd entered congress while the south was still segregated.

Not to excuse his actions at earlier times in his life, but by the time he was a “mentor” to Hillary Clinton he had renounced racism and and segregation and was the longest serving member in the US senate and an expert on its procedures.

Pointing out that the Democratic Party was full of southern segregationists in the early 20th century is pure laziness.

Additionally, the federal courthouse wasn’t “firebombed” some groups broke in and set fires. It was violent and destructive but you’re vastly exaggerating the scale.

[dehrmann]

Remember the aftermath of the Portland protests? The damage and loss of business were estimated to be $23M. It's not the same as what you're describing from the far right, but it's also pretty bad, just in a different way.

[dev_by_day]

Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands in demanding censorship.

Remember the accusations of racism that were used to shut down the lab leak theory? Or the demands to censor scientists with any dissenting viewpoints over Covid? The cover up of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that resulted in journalists from the Post being banned?

The "war on disinformation" their obsessed with is not any different from a "war on fake news". Censorship is a tool of cowards and there are plenty of cowards in both parties that will use it to shut down any dissenting view points.

[throwaway5752]

Division is the goal of the adversary. We should stop arguing for no good reason if we don't have to.

[dev_by_day]

We shouldn't allow people to spread lies and demonize one side unchecked. If were going to talk about problems, its best we don't scape goat on one side and admit there are flaws in both parties.

Letting them scape-goat and demonize unchecked doesn't help anything either.

[throwaway5752]

I stand by what I said. Focus on what you have in common and deal with disagreements by leveraging conflict de-escalation techniques such as NVC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication. Think about what you stand to gain arguing with someone on the internet. Consider what it does to your mindset. I agree with you on civil disagreement and standing up for what you believe.

For instance - I disagree with you on the lab leak theory and laptop comments. I understand you feel about them strongly, but I think you are smart and should reconsider the source material for those claims. Further, I feel the way you expressed it was regrettable: "blood on their hands" is unnecessary and inaccurate. You could have phrased that in ways that were more accurate, more effective, and less inflammatory.

Everyone is literally less intelligent, less capable of rational decision making, and more susceptible to manipulation when they are angry. I have certainly been guilty of this before, and I am just trying to share some of what I have learned.

One final comment: one thing that all social media including HN could do is remove user-visible up and downvotes. It engages the brain in a similar way to gambling (https://www.brainfacts.org/diseases-and-disorders/addiction/...) and creates self-reinforcing conflict that can be exploited.

[AnthonyMouse]

It's the censorship making the division worse.

Social media already has a big problem with filter bubbles. If you go to a place where 99% of people there are one party's partisans and try to rebut their misinformation, you get dogpiled. People insult you and sling baseless accusations of racism, which deters people from attempting to debate when they're highly outnumbered. So any place which has any partisan bias gets an even bigger one until everything is totally polarized.

Platform censorship makes it even worse because the platform's censors will be in one bubble or the other, their censorship decisions will be biased in that direction and push anyone on the other team onto other platforms and we end up with entirely partisan platforms that never talk to each other, and are thereby both highly misinformed about different sets of things.

[akomtu]

Again, the blue camp isnt any better here. Did you hear about the very recent Kentucky event? Did you hear about the sketchy "rise of the moors" organisation and that highway event? The "fake news" isnt just biased reporting, but also not reporting events that would challenge the narrative. A small disclosure: I was among those who donated to the Bernie's campaign, yet I reject most of the blue rhetoric.

[mrexroad]

s/fake news/entertainment exploiting a set of curated insecurities to maximize ad-sales/g

The problem is that most are convinced that it’s all “fake news” and their preferred source is the “least fake”, all while getting pulled deeper down the rabbit hole.

I see the same dynamic with my teenage kids and the YouTubers /etc they watch on topics they’re interested in. They hear something, get overly excited about it, and then fixate/share/etc. I almost feel it’s a part time job to show enough interest to where they’ll talk about it so I can try and help build the reflex of distill out fact/assumption/inference, and reframe narrative to a set of possibilities that for facts. It’s actually been a challenge b/c often things sound stupid if I'm too reductionist and they shut down. But TBH usually sounds stupid b/c it is stupid manufactured drama that sells YouTube ads. Same dynamic whether some Roblox gamer drama, MLB lockout drama, or politics — all “news” eventually optimizes to maximize ad revenue, competing with creative entertainment for attention.

[magicalist]

> Again, the blue camp isnt any better here.... Did you hear about the sketchy "rise of the moors" organisation and that highway event?

lol, Rise of the Moors super invested in universal healthcare and social safety nets now?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say supposed sovereign citizens aren't very active in local party politics.

[eric_cc]

dude just stop. Idiots on the left. Idiots on the right. Stop being a tool.. because honestly, only a brainwashed tool would truly believe the problem only exists with The OTHER group.

[dev_by_day]

Plenty of equivalence actually.

Democrats encourage anarchist militias who openly advocate for violence and arson, try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies, openly cheered on the fire bombing and attacking of police officers and government buildings(court houses), spread misinformation about the Kyle Rittenhouse despite all expert legal analysis saying they were misinformed.

[jgwil2]

> try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies

US intelligence confirmed that Russia tried to swing an election, so this isn't a "conspiracy." As for the rest of your points, those positions were never embraced by mainstream Democrats.

[dev_by_day]

The Mueller report showed some involvement but did not say the election results were illegitimate and there were a large amount of democrats who continue to claim this election result is not legitimate.

(FWIW I don't like trump but I still believe he would have won 2016 with or without Russia, its a cop out to blame Russia for that)

We literally had Democrat senators saying "rioting is the voice of the streets"(AOC), and calling Kyle Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist, whole portions of cities in democrat run cities were given to anarchist militias like in CHAZ and were flippantly calling these groups "peaceful" while they engaged in looting, arson, and attacking police officers.

[jgwil2]

AOC is famously not a mainstream Democrat (she is to the left of almost the whole party), nor is she a senator. And even if she were either of those things, the single line you quote, out of context and without citation, does not show that she is in any way equivalent to the crazier elements of the Republican party (c.f. Marjorie Taylor Greene).

[LegitShady]

Contrast with the next presidential election, which also had Russian interference, but questioning the results of make you a conspiracy theorist.

The Democrats have the election as either a sham or the most secure election ever based on if their side won.

[_ph_]

As a non-american, I can see how some actions of the left seem to be a bit over the top and as things escalated might really got a bit extreme too. But is a push against racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights really wrong? Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?

[emptysongglass]

> But is a push against racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights really wrong?

No, of course it isn't. But many people I know, myself included, are afraid to speak out against what we see as new forms of hate levied in their name. The CHAZ or the hijacking of this brutal war against Ukraine into a commentary on care only being bound to race or the evacuation of cisgendered women and men from their own bodies by way of language so that everyone is "just" a vagina-haver or penis-possessor are just a few examples of where I see these pushes become the very weapons of the forces its proponents profess to fight.

> Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?

As a liberal (or what was liberal 10 years ago), I mostly notice how much people who stand for these issues attack others who have a different opinion and try to silence them.

This is the first time I'm giving voice to some of these deeply unpopular opinions in the new liberal left spaces like HN, for which I fully expect to be downvoted and potentially flagged into oblivion.

I don't think the oft-violent rhetoric and deplatforming crusades of the new left is the right way of effecting positive change on the world.

[Chris2048]

> But is a push against racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights really wrong?

Framing it this way is misleading. "push back" that entails violent, harmful and illegal behaviour maybe wrong with total irrelevance to what you are trying to achieve.

> Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?

No, I see the opposite, to the extend that extreme virtue-signalling on these topics is met with no opposition, because no-one wants to be labelled an *-ist.

[mensetmanusman]

“ But is a push against racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights really wrong?”

Isn’t it an issue of framing? E.g. it appears that some think that the solution to racism appears to be implementing institutional racism indefinitely until racism is cured.

This is distracting from the real issue of class warfare which is what psyops relies on to divide prior arguing past each other.

[kbelder]

Neither party is racist, neither party is sexist, except for the fringe minority of both. They disagree on approach and methods, and twist that into believing their opponent is evil to the core.

Democrats think Republicans are evil racists for trying to shut down diversity mandates. Republicans think Democrats are evil racists for trying to impose diversity mandates. They both want to eliminate racism, but their worldviews cause conflict on how to do that.

There are some legitimate fundamental differences on LGBT rights, I'll admit. Not so much on LG, but as you get further into the abbreviation, it increases.

[Already__Taken]

As an outsider "name of grotesque moral rightnessess" thrown from the Christian right made me spit my coffee out.

[akomtu]

If most "christian rights" knew my beliefs about the religion, they'd burn me at stake. I do think that the Bible has a lot of wisdom in it, but a lot of bs too.

[stronglikedan]

> racism, for gender equality, LGBT rights

The thing is, those are all non-issues now, and have been for a while. The reason the MSM is known as fake news in the US, is that they keep trying to push these as current issues, even though they've been settled.

[ajford]

That's a truck-load of bullshit. Texas Gov. Abbot is pushing an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda in the open. He and his pals are flat-out pushing anti-trans agendas that accuse parents of children seeking gender-affirming treatment of child abuse.

The Texas right-leaning lege just got through passing a bill that was designed to be hard to assail in the courts that hands out money for turning in anyone who assist someone in seeking an abortion, robbing people of their rights over their own bodily autonomy.

Florida gov't is trying to pass bills that prohibit talking about gender orientation and identity, racism, and equality in the workplace and classroom.

This isn't a "non-issue". This isn't "settled". We're still fighting for our rights and freedoms, and those of our children. I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some greedy nutjob politician deny my children (or anyone's children) the right to be who they are or want to be.

If they don't like gender transitioning, then they shouldn't transition, but don't tell me or mine that they can't!

[mensetmanusman]

In the Context of politics being preference:

“ He and his pals are flat-out pushing anti-trans agendas that accuse parents of children seeking gender-affirming treatment of child abuse.”

Isn’t this, by definition, a very debatable topic with pros and cons that have to be weighed. Where one comes down, I.e. their preference for policy on this, will be informed by their background and biases.

E.g. it isn’t entirely obvious that we should give minors, who legally can not consent to many activities, access to ethically untestable non-reversible treatments.

These issues are actually the purpose of politics. E.g. it is a feature of the system that there is debate on implementing the preferences of a democracy.

[ajford]

The treatment administered to minors is reversible.

Studies show that gender-affirming treatments and care can reduce thoughts of suicide and self-harm.

No one is pushing these treatments on unwilling minors. To take away peoples' rights to these treatments is unconscionable. And to direct people to be charged or investigated for child abuse is even more so. It's just another point that puts people in fear of the authorities.

[klyrs]

> Isn’t this, by definition, a very debatable topic with pros and cons that have to be weighed.

Honestly, you're voicing for support of the person you're responding to, here. These aren't "non-issues" as GGP claimed.

But, puberty blockers, the medical treatment under fire, aren't non-reversible.

[spoils19]

I agree whole heartedly. Until we figure it out, treating it as legal abuse and punishing the parents is the way to go.

[cheeseomlit]

Chemically castrating a child is child abuse.

[ajford]

Puberty blocking is not chemical castration.

By your argument chemotherapy is assassination by poison and setting a broken bone is assault.

[Broken_Hippo]

Delaying puberty is not chemical castration.

[metamet]

They certainly aren't non-issues.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/florida-s-don-t-...

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/judg...

[jtgeibel]

This is complete nonsense. I can easily think of an example from the past week where a Republican controlled state is attacking transgender children and their parents to score political points with the Republican base. It is absurd to claim that equal rights in America is a settled topic or a non-issue.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-transgender-care-lawsuit-...

[Broken_Hippo]

The thing is, those are all non-issues now, and have been for a while

That's just not true.