[oilchange]

Media propaganda talking points checklist.

1. Iran. Check.

2. Russia. Check.

3. China. Check.

4. Mexican drug cartel. Check.

You hit all the propaganda talking points in one comment. Usually such comments stick to one talking point. "China, china, china" or "russia, russia, russia" or ...

> Let me say that what the US government is doing wouldn't even be controversial in 99% of the world, including probably 90% of democracies.

That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US.

> People in other countries are much more clear eyed and pragmatic about these things.

Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.

[flerchin]

You're not wrong about the propaganda talking points.

>Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.

In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China, and nearly everyone is concerned about Mexican Drug Cartels.

[kodah]

We can simultaneously acknowledge that we have an adversarial relationship as a country with Iran, Russia, and China and that it's not an excuse to extract data from the people.

I'm not even sure what this crap about Mexico is.

[flerchin]

Yes totally. National adversaries are not an excuse to forgo the Bill of Rights.

[janalsncm]

Historically speaking, it has been the main excuse at every turn.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war.

People were imprisoned for handing out isolationist pamphlets during WW1 (that’s where we got the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” gem).

Germans and Japanese were imprisoned without trial during WW2.

The FBI illegally spied on pretty much any domestic political organization (and even infiltrated many of them) from the 50s to the 70s.

Now we have pervasive NSA spying on Americans and third parties facilitating the circumvention of any privacy laws we thought we had.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Nobody is forgoing the Bill of Rights. Courts have determined that it is compatible with the Bill of Rights.

[flerchin]

That's an evolving situation, and a plain reading of the 4th amendment makes this whole process look not compatible.

[cheeseomlit]

Then the courts are wrong, as they often are when it comes to constitutionality. Domestic dragnet surveillance is a very obvious violation of the 4th amendment.

[janalsncm]

In what sense are they “wrong”? You don’t agree with them. But theirs is the final word on the matter until a new court or new law comes around. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights has varied greatly over the last 250 years even though the words have stayed the same. The law isn’t based on our ideas of what it is, the law is based on what is enforced.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Id be interested in why courts believe that it is not. Is it because it's at the level of signals rather than correlated to people?

[uoaei]

Legality has nothing to do with any notion of "should".

[oilchange]

> In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China

What's a liberal democracy? Oh you mean our vassals are at odds with the countries we are at odds with? I find that odd.

What is the "liberal democracies" problem with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels. Take ireland for example. What's their beef with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels?

Oh they have no beef. It's just that they have to follow orders. We say jump and they say how high. Maybe one day, these liberal democracies will be liberated and regain their sovereignty. Hey maybe russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels can help liberate them.

The thing about propaganda is how silly it gets.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

It's extremely insulting to call friends and allies vassals.

[FormerBandmate]

It's how Russia sees the world, which is why the Soviet Union failed. Really impeded trade relations in the eastern bloc

[guerrilla]

I think it's extremely insulting to call vassals "friends and allies."

[oilchange]

The truth hurts.

An influential and prominent bureaucrat once said america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Think about it.

Isn't it more insulting to call countries you firebombed and nuked "friends and allies". Imagine if china firebombed germany and currently occupies it. Would we not laugh if china called germany their friend and ally? Imagine if russia nuked japan and occupied it. Would we call them besties for life?

Edit: You still haven't answered what ireland's problem with iran is? What's ireland's problem with russia and china. And what issues do they have with the mexicans.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

> america has no friends or enemies, just interests.

Who said that and where and when did they say it?

[janalsncm]

> That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US.

The popular notion of civil rights in America and the historical reality are at odds. Americans have always been spied on, it was just less publicized in the past.

[we_never_see_it]

Russia is an existential threat to our democracy. Surveillance is necessary so no election can interfered by the Russians. Millions of lives have been lost because of an illegal president. We don't want that to happen again.

[BeFlatXIII]

Can I have some of your drugs?

[oilchange]

> Russia is an existential threat to our democracy.

Where did I hear this talking point before? Oh that's right. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

https://youtu.be/q_hGKT5FI78?t=52

[JChase2]

That's the Sinclair Broadcast Group forcing the news orgs they own to read from the same script. They also had "must run" news segments that include conservative commentary. That doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat to democracy world wide, it just means we have a problem with mega corps owning too much media. I don't think that gives the US an excuse to spy on our own citizens however.

[birdyrooster]

Way to be ultimately dismissive and basically call PC a shill and with a smugness that is unnecessary. Different people have different interests and you can’t just ad hominem them as propaganda.

[valianteffort]

He expressed the most absolutely brainwashed take on why surveillance is necessary. It's difficult to take him seriously when his talking points couldn't have been written better by any three-letter agency PR department.

[anoonmoose]

It's a 32-day-old account named after the bad guy from a Star Wars movie. I'd be suspicious of them before even reading the comment, which was fairly bonkers. As for substantive rebuttal of their statements, others have already done it elsewhere in the thread.

edit: YIKES https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166300

[DirectorKrennic]

What?

[anoonmoose]

If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.

You said there should be 6.9 billion less people on the planet and when asked if you'd be one of the 0.1 billion remaining people you said yes and basically acknowledged you'd already said too much. If that's what you left up, I shudder at whatever this [1] might have been

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36166458

[DirectorKrennic]

> If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.

That's not what I said. Bye.

[anoonmoose]

No, what you said was, you think the world would be better off if 6.9B people were dead and you were one of the remaining 100M. And what I'm saying is, those two statements are not very different.

[birdyrooster]

Damn you are a certified sociopath. Welcome brother.

[shadowgovt]

> That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US.

The US has several problems the rest of the world doesn't. Chronic school shootings, for instance.