Clearly with all these examples, Biden is a certified Republican.
The Four Stages of Republican Misinformation
Posts
Total:
170
-->
@Intelligence_06
Because we should double down on our points, right?
-->
@Ramshutu
The Hunter Biden laptop claims are particularly egregious. It was disproving GP's laptop claims in Nov 2020 that triggered GP to block me and request safe space protections from me.
It never occurs to Trump's true believers to wonder how "new evidence" keeps getting "discovered" on a single laptop hard drive as if nobody has bothered to read it before or to discount any evidence that has the original file size, creation date, etc deliberately trashed or to express any skepticism regarding any evidence that spent 18 months in the custody of a guy under investigation for working with Russian intel as well as ineptly orchestrating the attempted overthrow of that same subject's govt just last year.
There's no rational check on these guys- they're just told to believe some shit so they must believe it until they are told not to.
Omaha !, Omaha !, Omaha !
-->
@Double_R
I think you can now label this thread exhibit A - it pretty deftly exemplifies the issue on the right.
Whenever you try and have a discussion on a topic that the right finds uncomfortable, along comes a true believer to try and completely and utterly derail the thread with subject changes, whataboutism, gaslighting, etc. Anything but an actual, genuine, intellectual conversation on the topic.
Such forbidden thought about republicans is obviously intolerable; and the moment such thoughts appear, these intellectual brown shirts must say or do literally anything, as much as possible, as often as possible, by whatever means to prevent and suppress a topic they don’t like being legitimately discussed - even if it’s just constant spamming a thread with stuff they prefer talking about. If they don’t want to talk about the topic - no one will the topic.
After all, why bother going through the complex process of formulating and justifying an argument when you can just bombard any argument so much, and so often that everyone else just gives up wanting to talk about it in the first place.
-->
@oromagi
I am broadly of the opinion that people like GPs goal is not an assessment or discussion of politics or the truth - but simply to make people saying things he doesn’t like stop talking.
Perhaps it’s related to his own discomfort or triggering; that it’s not enough to believe something - one has to stop other people saying differently.
His strategy is typically to say stuff to make you not want to talk about the original point any more; and if it doesn’t works, he goes to other extremes. Like blocking people - a great one a while back was that he went through and deleted a post after I replied, and then reposted the original.
This is all to say that we know that the HB laptop is egregious, that the majority of spam in this thread is not the same thing as misinformation, and has little to know real bearing on the topic at hand - GP knows it to.
The issue isn’t Hunter Biden, or his laptop, or Biden - if never has been; I don’t think he really believes any of this deep down. It is merely the tool of choice that he feels offers his best chance of shutting people up.
Look at this thread - does he really believe in the details of any of this stuff: or is he just reeling it off to derail the thread so we don’t talk about it, and this topic just offers a cover of legitimacy?
I think we should stop treating people who with every post demonstrate they are disinterested in an intellectually honest discussion - as if they are interested in intellectually honest discussion.
For those that don't understand my comment, Joe Maddon asked Peyton Manning about the meaning of the quarterback’s famous pre-snap code word: “Omaha!”
“It was a rhythmic three-syllable word,” Manning explained. “[It] meant we had changed the play, usually after kind of calling two plays in the huddle.
“All of a sudden, the defense shifts late and there’s just a few seconds left on the play clock, and so ‘Omaha’ meant we’re going to Plan B and this ball’s about to be snapped.”
“It was a rhythmic three-syllable word,” Manning explained. “[It] meant we had changed the play, usually after kind of calling two plays in the huddle.
“All of a sudden, the defense shifts late and there’s just a few seconds left on the play clock, and so ‘Omaha’ meant we’re going to Plan B and this ball’s about to be snapped.”
This is what GP did after his first comment. It was Plan B.
Guess we are all Republicans in this thread.
-->
@FLRW
go Broncos!
-->
@Greyparrot
Guess we are all Republicans in this thread.
No Orange-Gray-Parrot, it only looks that way because of your spamming the thread with Omaha posts,
after post,
after post,
after post,
after post,
after post,
after post,
after post,
after post.............
-->
@ebuc
Sorry, this thread is all about how misinformation uniquely applies to Republicans. So anyone caught in a lie will henceforth be rightly called a Republican.
Even Peyton Manning who is registered as republican, which may also be misinformation according to the OP.
Omaha!
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry,
OGP, you just proved origami incorrect by saying the above, eh? Way to go OGP.
this thread is all about how misinformation uniquely applies to Republicans. So anyone caught in a lie will henceforth be rightly called a Republican.
More dominant---75% vs 45%--- and serious --Iraq war {thanks to Cheney and dumbass Bush Jr. with Republicans.
But there was also Gulf of Tonkin { Lyndon Johnson } that began Vietnam war. .."The event led the U.S. to believe that North Vietnam was targeting its intelligence-gathering mission, and therefore the Turner Joy was sent to reinforce the Maddox. From the point of view of the Maddox, the attack had been unprovoked, though North Vietnam was under the impression that the Maddox had been involved in the raids on Hon Me and Hon Ngu islands. "..
Even Peyton Manning who is registered as republican, which may also be misinformation according to the OP. Omaha!
..." Manning didn't support Trump
publicly at his Super Bowl 50 press conference. He did, however,
acknowledge the two have played golf before and that Trump was
"extremely nice" during their limited time together. Donald Trump Jr. posted a picture with Manning over the summer at the Neshoba County Fair with his father's "...
....regarding Eli manning.... "It is well documented that the Manning family is quite religious. But
while it is known that his older brother–also famous quarterback–Peyton
Manning is a devout Christian, Eli doesn't seem to be carrying that
torch–or maybe he is just more quiet about it.
-->
@ebuc
Thanks!
-->
@ebuc
He’s trying to derail the thread - with the irony being that he’s doing so with obvious disinformation and intellectual dishonesty - which is exactly the key point this thread was trying to highlight.
The things he’s talking about are clearly and obviously not the same type or nature as the clear cut misinformation we’re talking about - which is almost invariably republican. We know that, he knows that.
But, like I said, it’s not about an intellectual argument - he’s trying to derail the conversation so that people don’t talk about topics that makes him uncomfortable.
The strategy he is using is every bit the same style as the Republican misinformation strategy - specifically whataboutism. There’s a slither of overlap between republican misinformation, and politicians lying about things - in that they both involve lies, even though the nature, intent, purpose and broadness is entirely materially different. He can’t defend anything related to the Republican misinformation machine - no one can, nor has any argument to add - but he apparently has to say something - can’t let a critical point stand - so tries to derail the thread, and stifle any conversation by trying to shift it to talking about democrats.
That’s the point - he doesn’t really believe any of this nonsense - he’s doing it because if we are now spending all our time talking about democrats in this thread - we’re not talking about Republicans any more. Whether you or I destroy his logic or argument is not relevant - because either way he’s changed the subject to being about democrats and has achieved his aim.
This absolutely typifies much of the online strategy of Republican misinformation - political discussion is often no longer about finding the right solutions, the truth, or discussing policy - but finding the best way to disrupt the conversation in a politically preferrable way.
As I said, look up - exhibit A.
Oh look! It's another Republican in the thread! Hi!
-->
@ebuc
More dominant---75% vs 45%--- and serious --Iraq war {thanks to Cheney and dumbass Bush Jr. with Republicans.
Yes. Those Republicans exhibited the same unique misinformation as the OP outlined.
Saul Alinsky's rule #4 is so fun!
-->
@Double_R
I’ll be honest while I (quite wisely imo) try not to comment on stuff like this before I know the facts my initial instinct was definitely that the story was made up. I mean, the abortion would’ve been legal under Ohio law and at the time people were doubting the story there was no arrest warrant (unless that was misinformation too?) I still don’t really understand what happened. I think there was a deeply fucked up family dynamic going on
“Hoax, until proven otherwise” for stories that seem “too good to be true” for any given political narrative is a good bet because man are there a long list of hoaxes that get taken seriously because people want to believe it lol. but it’s best not to be too aggressive about it because you wind up with egg on your face sometimes
I mean the current Vice President of the United States either believed the Jussie Smollet story or felt she had to pretend to, when it was unbelievably obvious to anyone who wasn’t deeply invested in a narrative that is validated when things like that happen that the story was totally made up. I don’t think either “side” accurately reflects reality, everyone looks at the world the way they want to see it and will dismiss or downplay information that’s hostile to their worldview. Whatever type of “misinformation” offends you more just comes down to your personal values and what impacts you I guess
-->
@thett3
The Jussie Smollett case is really a perfect example of what this thread is about and what the article is talking about by specifically calling these tactics "republican".
The reason people believed the story is because that's what was first reported and it was big news around the country. The story wasn't created by MSNBC, CNN, or Kamala Harris, the story that spread was the story the self alleged victim reported. And while it may have been slow at first, once it became clear that the story was a hoax it was widely accepted and criticized on the left. But that's not what happens on the right, when stories like this are disproven they just disappear. Look at the 2020 election lies. Everyone in Trump's orbit including Ivanka, Bill Barr, and Jason Miller all said it's BS. Do they talk about that in Fox News or OANN? No they just ignore it.
No one is claiming the political right has a monopoly on lies and misinformation, what is unique to the republicans is it's widespread use of misinformation as a political weapon and their refusal to back down once that misinformation is exposed.
-->
@Double_R
The reason people believed the story is because that's what was first reported and it was big news around the country. The story wasn't created by MSNBC, CNN, or Kamala Harris, the story that spread was the story the self alleged victim reported. And while it may have been slow at first, once it became clear that the story was a hoax it was widely accepted and criticized on the left.
ya but it was clear from the moment it was reported that it was a hoax. I heard about the story probably within an hour and immediately knew without even a shadow of a doubt that it was fake, would’ve literally bet every single cent I had on it being fake. But it was still widely believed—because people wanted to believe it. And when it was proven false it was swept under the rug. This doesn’t excuse people on the right who refuse to say Trump lost or something equally absurd, but as you said, nobody has a monopoly on dishonesty. I would totally disagree with you that the left happily owns it when they get things wrong instead of also trying to sweep it under the rug or ignore it. Both of these things, believing what you want to believe and trying to sweep the times you got egg on your face under the rug are just human nature.
In this particular case while I wouldn’t have bet on the outcome I was pretty shocked that the story turned out to be real. No side has a monopoly on seeing what they want to see, or what validates their narrative. One of the current lefts most treasured ideas is that the countries core ethnic group constantly oppresses and victimizes others, when the objective crime victimization and tax collection/welfare use data make it unbelievably clear that this narrative is false. This bothers me way more than people thinking an election was stolen which just makes me roll my eyes. Couldn’t tell you why. But I can put up with one and not the other, hence why I vote the way I do. The election lies stuff clearly gets under your skin a lot, finding it intolerable is fine. But I don’t think it’s fair to imply one side is fundamentally honest and one side is fundamentally dishonest when they both have tons of work to do
-->
@thett3
But I don’t think it’s fair to imply one side is fundamentally honest and one side is fundamentally dishonest when they both have tons of work to do
I can wholeheartedly agree with this, but I don't think anyone's contending there's a monopoly on DISHONESTY. For me, at least, the stark difference is in the expectation of accountability, or of some sort of "principle" on what is likely the vocal minority in the Republican party. For example, at least for me, the accusations about HIllary Clinton's emails, my response is "Find them and let's look at the evidence." Her 'involvement' such as it was in Benghazi...for me, "present the evidence and let's see what it tells us." The answer in both of these cases, according to the evidence, is that neither of these things amount to much, and certainly not enough to turn her into what REpublican voters seem to think of her. But just today, there is EXTREMELY strong evidence of Trump committing an actual crime, destroying or attempting to destroy presidential records, which is explicitly against the law. There's photographic evidence, presented by a reputable reporter, which, if it's actually wrong, Trump and co. should sue for defamation, right? If Joe Biden, Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton had done something like this, it would rightfully be a gigantic story, and me, as a guy who likely votes democratic more often than republican, would ABSOLUTELY be at the front of the line, demanding an explanation and an independent investigation, and most assuredly, whoever did it doesn't get my vote, as this is extremely dangerous behavior from the president and his people. Where, pray tell, is the republican outrage on today's Haberman story? Sure, you see a couple of soft tweets from formerly elected republicans, who aren't up for re-election. Really, every American should be extremely disturbed and demanding accountability. Republicans, led by "I love the cops" Trump himself, who all talk about law and order, are pretty quick to handwave this stuff as it comes up under the guise of "they're just out to get him" and "fake news." Again, there's no monopoly on political hypocrisy, AMONG POLITICIANS. Find me the Trump supporter who saw today's story and said "This needs to be investigated fully." Find me the house member who said "Completely inappopriate and absolutely a clear crime." It's a lack of accountability that should bother everyone, but nope. Everything's met with "whatabout" as if no two things can be true at the same time.
"HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP!" Let's have the evidence presented and see if it's worth caring about, how it connects to the current president, I say! Of course, no republican voter was outraged when China's awarding patents to Trump's kids during his tenure, or how many foreign nationals "chose" to stay at a Trump property, or the secret service was put up at his resorts at higher prices...this is the difference as I see it between the two.
-->
@ludofl3x
Well stated.
-->
@ludofl3x
"HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP!" Let's have the evidence presented and see if it's worth caring about, how it connects to the current president, I say! Of course, no republican voter was outraged when China's awarding patents to Trump's kids during his tenure, or how many foreign nationals "chose" to stay at a Trump property, or the secret service was put up at his resorts at higher prices...this is the difference as I see it between the two
But the Democratic Party isn’t investigating the laptop. In fact, while the party itself didn’t hand down the decision, institutions that overwhelmingly support the party suppressed the story in an unprecedented manner. If the attitude of the Democratic Party was really “let’s have the evidence presented and see if it’s worth caring about” that’s what they would be doing right now. When republicans take the house in November they will open the investigation into Hunter Biden and his business dealings that the democrats could’ve done but didn’t. Of course the republicans would never do something like this for Trumps kids/business who are certainly very shady, I wouldn’t dispute that
But just today, there is EXTREMELY strong evidence of Trump committing an actual crime, destroying or attempting to destroy presidential records, which is explicitly against the law. There's photographic evidence, presented by a reputable reporter, which, if it's actually wrong, Trump and co. should sue for defamation, right? If Joe Biden, Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton had done something like this, it would rightfully be a gigantic story, and me, as a guy who likely votes democratic more often than republican, would ABSOLUTELY be at the front of the line, demanding an explanation and an independent investigation, and most assuredly, whoever did it doesn't get my vote, as this is extremely dangerous behavior from the president and his people. Where, pray tell, is the republican outrage on today's Haberman story?
You’ll get no argument from me. I’m done with Trump. But all of the election/jan 6th stuff is a huge story, even if republicans want to pretend it isn’t. Maybe it isn’t on Fox News (I wouldn’t know, don’t watch it.) It’s just another example of people tuning out things that make their side look bad
I’m not defending or excusing people on the right, I just happen to care about what I dislike about the left more.
-->
@thett3
At least the Republican party has vocal internal factions calling each other out within the party. You can't get a single Democrat to testify under oath anything against Biden.
To say the Democrat party has shit that never stinks is the reason why house cleaning can never happen. The censorship within the Democrat party is actually more than external censorship. People can't even say publicly that Biden should not run in 2024 without serious blowback. Where are the Liz Cheney's in the Democrat Party?
The Democrat party is becoming increasingly closer to Stalin's party where all dissenters are systemically purged.
-->
@Greyparrot
You can't get a single Democrat to testify under oath anything against Biden.
What democrat has been called to testify under oath about Biden, in what context? How many Trump guys are ignoring subpoenas from Congress?
People can't even say publicly that Biden should not run in 2024 without serious blowback.
A lot of elected Republicans out there saying "I won't vote for Trump because of all the stuff I've learned since?", are there? Cheney you're lauding, as she's getting drubbed for re-election in her state BECAUSE she stands on her principles and Trump has sicced his voting bloc on her over it?
The Democrat party is becoming increasingly closer to Stalin's party where all dissenters are systemically purged.
Have you read the General Milley story today? Surely you aren't serious. Which primary has Joe Biden stepped into and said "This person doesn't support me enough, don't vote for them!" like Trump did with Kemp in GA (even at one point saying Abrmas would be better for GA!), or with Lake in AZ? If you aren't a big proponent of the baseless electoral fraud claim, then you're out. That entire post was a prime example of the behavior and philosophy I posted about, it's a joke.
-->
@ludofl3x
A lot of elected Republicans out there saying "I won't vote for Trump because of all the stuff I've learned since?"
Yeah, me and Thett do all the time, without fear. And the point I was making is while you can find internal factions of anti-trumpers in the Republican party, there exists no anti-biden factions. That's a serious problem.
-->
@thett3
I would totally disagree with you that the left happily owns it when they get things wrong instead of also trying to sweep it under the rug or ignore it.
I never suggested that the left "happily" owns it when they are wrong, nor have I implied anything contradicting your point about human nature, how people want their versions of reality to be correct and will go to great lengths to maintain whatever comfortable view of the world they prefer. What is different about the two parties is the way that the republican party uses these flaws in human nature as an overt and unapologetic political strategy.
In the OP I quoted the 4 steps the article is to make it's point. Can you point to any examples where the left has used this strategy on a mass scale? Can you honestly tell me both sides use this strategy evenly?
I don't know what reason you had to believe the Jussie Smollet example was a hoax from the start, but I suspect based on what you wrote that it was intuitive rather than a fact based assumption. If so, that's not worth much in this conversation until you can explain why the story of a black man experiencing a hate crime is something the left should have been skeptical about.
The idea that one side would be far more susceptible to this is not difficult to imagine especially if you look at what would cause such a disparity. I believe this is a symptom and even to some extent a cause of asymmetrical polarization. The political right hates the left more than the left hates the right. This can be seen in a number of ways, Biden vs Trump's poll numbers for example. Right wingers love to use poll numbers to claim Biden is doing worse than Trump, but if you look at the partisan split the difference between the two is not the disapproval of the opposition, it's the disapproval of the president's own party. Democratic voters are ok with criticizing their own, on the right that gets you thrown out of the party.
My favorite example however is what happened after Trump won in 2016. We saw both parties views on the economy change drastically despite there being no significant measurable change in Trump's first year. Democratic voters favorable view of the economy went from the high 70's at the start of the year to the 50's by the end of it. Republican voters meanwhile went from the teens at the start of the year to the high 90's by the end of the year.
That's clearly not a result of changing economic fortunes, it's about our desire to be right and for "our side" to win. That desire is not the same on both sides.
-->
@Double_R
I don't know what reason you had to believe the Jussie Smollet example was a hoax from the start, but I suspect based on what you wrote that it was intuitive rather than a fact based assumption. If so, that's not worth much in this conversation until you can explain why the story of a black man experiencing a hate crime is something the left should have been skeptical about.
They definitely should be skeptical of something like that, yes, especially in a place like Chicago. Two white hillbillies trying to lynch a black guy in Chicago yelling "this is Trump country!" in below 0 weather was clearly something that didn't happen. If I'm able to use my intuition to make accurate predictions, at least on this subject, but the sitting Vice President cannot, what does that say?
I believe this is a symptom and even to some extent a cause of asymmetrical polarization. The political right hates the left more than the left hates the right.
Are you so sure about this? The polling data and academic studies on who is more likely to end a friendship over politics, who wouldn't date someone on the other side of the aisle, or who would reject a resume from someone affiliated with the opposite party overwhelmingly shows that leftists are more likely to do these things. How does that track with the right being more hateful? I know I'm biased but I'm not afraid to disagree with my conservative friends, which I do on a lot since I no longer like Trump, support a lot of liberal policies, etc. On the other hand, I would be afraid to talk to politics with my liberal relatives even on a casual basis. This is anecdotal but I am fairly certain I saw survey data that backed up the idea that conservatives were more likely to self censor
My favorite example however is what happened after Trump won in 2016. We saw both parties views on the economy change drastically despite there being no significant measurable change in Trump's first year. Democratic voters favorable view of the economy went from the high 70's at the start of the year to the 50's by the end of it. Republican voters meanwhile went from the teens at the start of the year to the high 90's by the end of the year.That's clearly not a result of changing economic fortunes, it's about our desire to be right and for "our side" to win. That desire is not the same on both sides.
Very true, although democrats experienced the exact same effect in 2020: https://news.gallup.com/poll/330170/economic-confidence-improved-still-negative.aspx Nobody is immune sadly
In the OP I quoted the 4 steps the article is to make it's point. Can you point to any examples where the left has used this strategy on a mass scale? Can you honestly tell me both sides use this strategy evenly?
Not to be rude but I don't think the "four steps" thing was really an intellectually rigorous analysis lol. Step one: "First, Republicans use any means necessary to achieve power and promote their unpopular, extremist, counter-majoritarian agenda." This is a sentence without a meaning. "Republicans use ANY MEANS NECESSARY [not specified] to do bad thing"
Step two: "Second, they create and promote disinformation and lies to frighten their base and Jedi mind-trick them into believing they are being oppressed by the actual victims." Also conveys no information. How do they do this?
Step three: "Third, they create a specific villain, target them, and then attack them through scapegoating, smearing, and intimidation." Yes I can 100% honestly say that the left does this a LOT lol
Step four: "Fourth, they never apologize or back down once their lie is exposed, but instead, they double down, and in times of doubt, always pivot towards racism and fear-mongering." Everyone sweeps it under the rug when they are wrong, yes
-->
@thett3
They definitely should be skeptical of something like that, yes, especially in a place like Chicago. Two white hillbillies trying to lynch a black guy in Chicago yelling "this is Trump country!" in below 0 weather was clearly something that didn't happen.
Is it your belief that black people in Chicago do not experience racism?
Is it also your belief that someone is less likely to experience racism because it's cold outside?
How does that track with the right being more hateful?
Because, these are different things. The hatred I'm talking about is political. It's easy to think your opposition is the devil when the opposition has no face, or when the face you put on it is just a symbol. I think CNN is a good example. Trump supporters talk about CNN like it's the enemy of our way of life, but then when they meet CNN reporters in person they are overwhelmingly friendly to them. It's indicative of a massive disconnect between entertainment and real life, which is not surprising considering that the figure head for the party is a former reality TV star.
Very true, although democrats experienced the exact same effect in 2020
No, they didn't. Your article talks about economic outlook, that's a very different thing. That's about confidence in the future, the study I referenced was about their views of the economy they were actively experiencing. Your study talks about this as well, and in that regard democrats voted improved 16 points under Biden while decreasing 33 points, so again when it comes to the reality we experience republicans are twice as more likely to shift based on whether their party controls the White House.
Not to be rude but I don't think the "four steps" thing was really an intellectually rigorous analysis
I don't think the article was written very well. I think the 4 steps were vague as you pointed out and I dunt think they used the clearest examples, but I think they were definitely onto something.
For now let's just focus on the last step applies to the left the same way as it does on the right? When was the last time you went to a Biden rally and heard people in mass use the term "fake news"?