jackjjackson · M
View 14 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Roundandroundwego Don't throw false accusations at me. I am not "gaslighting" the Americans at all, nor anyone else - though I'm not quite sure what you mean by it.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@jackjjackson No it is neither fair nor correct.
The United Kingdom is nowhere near Communist.
If anything it is the far-Right via so-called "populist" politics who are the greater threat than the far-Left to democracies like Britain and many other countries. We are seeing the reverse of what was happening fifty years ago, when Communism was trying to be fashionable.
How did you even "conclude" the UK is Communist?
The United Kingdom is nowhere near Communist.
If anything it is the far-Right via so-called "populist" politics who are the greater threat than the far-Left to democracies like Britain and many other countries. We are seeing the reverse of what was happening fifty years ago, when Communism was trying to be fashionable.
How did you even "conclude" the UK is Communist?
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
I'm sure them policy papers, like "Which Path to Persia"is real! And - the USA has a bipartisan coalition in Washington, what's been following these policies! Together! With plans! For decades!
It's you and me that's against having five year plans! We pick free market and small government for people, they rule.
I'm a Credence fan, really, but their anti Communism is dangerous.
It's you and me that's against having five year plans! We pick free market and small government for people, they rule.
I'm a Credence fan, really, but their anti Communism is dangerous.
jackjjackson · M
I recommend the end of the country and a better life for all Persians. The current leaders of Iran would be imprisoned at CETEC flor life. @Roundandroundwego
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@jackjjackson I recommend that you consider the fact that most people in the world want that for the Washington regime and its people, and that the USA agreed not to regime change others in treaties.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
None because I don't follow them in the first place.
Perhaps politicians do try to plan a few decades ahead, but in a multi-party, multi-media democratic system it would be a considerable gamble to predict strategy in more than very shallow, general ways.
Really the most a political party can do is devise its general ideology and try to maintain that.
Apart from the possibility of losing the next election, a party's main difficulty is trying to predict any practical response to any significant national and international political, financial and social developments more than a few years ahead. Indeed, I think it is becoming harder than it might have been a few decades ago.
So they work more from election to election than decade to decade. The only nations that can work in decade steps are the single-party, authoritarian ones designed for continuity of ideology and system, with leaders who may be so for life but are still temporal caretakers of the system.
.
On "conspiracy theories" generally, I test them by a few basic questions, the first of course being, "Are they even credible?" Most aren't!
Perhaps politicians do try to plan a few decades ahead, but in a multi-party, multi-media democratic system it would be a considerable gamble to predict strategy in more than very shallow, general ways.
Really the most a political party can do is devise its general ideology and try to maintain that.
Apart from the possibility of losing the next election, a party's main difficulty is trying to predict any practical response to any significant national and international political, financial and social developments more than a few years ahead. Indeed, I think it is becoming harder than it might have been a few decades ago.
So they work more from election to election than decade to decade. The only nations that can work in decade steps are the single-party, authoritarian ones designed for continuity of ideology and system, with leaders who may be so for life but are still temporal caretakers of the system.
.
On "conspiracy theories" generally, I test them by a few basic questions, the first of course being, "Are they even credible?" Most aren't!
BohoBabe · M
I think all of the right-wing internet cultures of the last decade were astroturfed by billionaires.
We know for a fact that all of these movements were born and cultivated on the 4chan /pol/ forum, Jeffery Epstein was regularly in contact with the owner of /pol/, and Epstein funded right-wing media. 4chan is also perfect for astroturfing with bots, because it's anonymous and you don't need an account to post. So with bots, Epstein could make it look like these ideas were much more common than they really were.
We know for a fact that all of these movements were born and cultivated on the 4chan /pol/ forum, Jeffery Epstein was regularly in contact with the owner of /pol/, and Epstein funded right-wing media. 4chan is also perfect for astroturfing with bots, because it's anonymous and you don't need an account to post. So with bots, Epstein could make it look like these ideas were much more common than they really were.
BohoBabe · M
@ArishMell TBH, I think Qanon evolved organically from a handful of terminally online Incels and Neo-Nazis. But Epstein used bots and the media to make it look like Qanan was so big, it had to be talked about seriously. That gave it the legitimacy it needed to draw in much more people.
It was the same thing with the Tea Party. It may have been organic at some point, but it was quickly taken up by the Republicans. That's why in the beginning, the Tea Party was more libertarian, but then it became a standard conservative movement.
It was the same thing with the Tea Party. It may have been organic at some point, but it was quickly taken up by the Republicans. That's why in the beginning, the Tea Party was more libertarian, but then it became a standard conservative movement.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@BohoBabe Were there "bots" when Qanon started? I thought it had emerged before they did. Some of its associated and founding fantasies certainly did. However, it became a "movement" of assorted, disaffected folk clinging to assorted antisocial "-isms", fringe politics and the like.
Why are so many are so taken in by these crackpot ideas?
Are they all really deeply gullible, of low intelligence and knowledge?
Do least some of them have reasons such as resenting being unable to "succeed" by however they define that?
Or feel excluded from aspects of life they see others enjoying?
Both could apply to the "incels" unable to form relationships, so blame women rather than examine their own failings.
It's hard to see how those reasons might apply to such as the neo-Nazis though. Ideology like that stems more from simple prejudices and ignorance; but is encouraged if the believer is led to think the "wrong" people are favoured over his or her own.
Not only extremist political notions like Qanon but even wholly non-political, non-personal things like the Bermuda Triangle and von Daniken's fantasies, too. Are they attractive by "solutions" superficially more exciting and intriguing than bland reality, to people with deep imaginations and shallow lives?
Why are so many are so taken in by these crackpot ideas?
Are they all really deeply gullible, of low intelligence and knowledge?
Do least some of them have reasons such as resenting being unable to "succeed" by however they define that?
Or feel excluded from aspects of life they see others enjoying?
Both could apply to the "incels" unable to form relationships, so blame women rather than examine their own failings.
It's hard to see how those reasons might apply to such as the neo-Nazis though. Ideology like that stems more from simple prejudices and ignorance; but is encouraged if the believer is led to think the "wrong" people are favoured over his or her own.
Not only extremist political notions like Qanon but even wholly non-political, non-personal things like the Bermuda Triangle and von Daniken's fantasies, too. Are they attractive by "solutions" superficially more exciting and intriguing than bland reality, to people with deep imaginations and shallow lives?
Bumbles · 56-60, M
I am old school: no conspiracy theories.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
peterlee · M
Who shot Kennedy, and why?
How did Diana die, and why?
Simply no answers here.
Did men really land on the moon in 1969? With no computers? Yet they cannot do it now?
Did Pope John Paul One really die in his sleep?
Why did Harold Wilson suddenly resign?
What happened to Hitler at the end of the war? No body or ashes found.
How did Diana die, and why?
Simply no answers here.
Did men really land on the moon in 1969? With no computers? Yet they cannot do it now?
Did Pope John Paul One really die in his sleep?
Why did Harold Wilson suddenly resign?
What happened to Hitler at the end of the war? No body or ashes found.