Russian Online Trolls Resist The Light 244
Rick Zeman writes: Since the beginning of the public Internet on Usenet and now following on comment boards worldwide, live the trolls, the online creatures dedicated to stirring up trouble with their versions of online flaming, fact-twisting, and overall being a menace to online society. Russia, by paying state-sponsored trolls, has elevated the troll to the level of professional propagandists spewing the party line. In neighboring Finland, a country again precariously balanced between Europe and the Russian bear, Finnish journalist Jessikka Aro's investigations have opened a new front in the (dis)information war (Warning: source may be paywalled) where "'There are so many layers of fakery you get lost,' said Ms. Aro, who was awarded the Finnish Grand Prize for Journalism in March," reports the NYT. All because "A member of the European Union with an 830-mile-long border with Russia, Finland has stayed outside the United States-led military alliance but, unnerved by Russian military actions in Ukraine and its saber-rattling in the Baltic Sea, has expanded cooperation with NATO and debated whether to apply for full membership." The NYT article explores many of the actions that the Russian propagandists use to keep Finland out of NATO, and some of the more indefensible ones directed personally at Aro. She says, "They get inside your head, and you start thinking: If I do this, what will the trolls do next?"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shills =/= trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you.
Trolling is supposed to be a(n) art, not just being an asshole.
But I fear this is a lost battle. The common folk have appropriated the word and now their definition of it is inevitably going to be the primary one. We're just going to have to come up with a new word for intentional artful tongue-in-cheek inflammatory speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling is supposed to be a(n) art, not just being an asshole.
Meep!
Re: (Score:3)
I see opportunities.
Only the best baiting will be named masterbaiting.
Variations in the form of probaiting, rebaiting and debaiting are all allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Then clearly, from the two above, we could adopt / co-opt the term 'Master Debater' for the elegant ones, the ones that are true to, as you perceive it, their original intent.
I'll accept any suggestions as to a term for the inelegant ones...
Wait, hasn't this been done before?
Perhaps we should call them 'ReCursives'.
Re:Shills =/= trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, I think you're right. Those should be called shills. But if they're worth their salt (be they working for Putin or Monsanto), they do troll when it's appropriate.
Sometimes it's about pushing bluntly your customer's POV, but most of the time it'll be about derailing a conversation with some stupid hot-button issue (Aaah! systemd!) or even representing the opposing POV in such a dumb manner that the more intelligent counterarguments get drowned in the noise. And here trolling is a very handy tool.
This behavoir (by Kremlin, or by companies) is really abject, because it poisons human relations and puts a burden on our communications, which are pretty difficult as they are.
They're pissing in the commons, ant thus in our mouths.
Re:Shills =/= trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
Worse yet - there are people who honestly believe that the western countries and corporations aren't doing the exact same thing.
This isn't a problem coming out of Russia or China, it's a problem coming out of every authority group or special interest. FFS Slashdot has used the terms FUD and astroturfing in reference to Microsoft (and others) doing this exact shit for YEARS.
Pointing the finger at Russia/China is a nice way of deflecting the same criticisms leveled at the US government and corporations.
Can't shut the internet down, can't easily censor speech, next best alternative is to fill it with noise and propaganda so that no meaningful discussion can take place, and this problem is only going to get worse as chatbots and AI become better adapted at faking human communication. These groups have a strong understanding of human psychology and they will use every possible trick in the book to manipulate the public at large.
Frankly, I don't think Russia or China hold a candle to what the US is able to do.
Re:Shills =/= trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed.
However, at the same time this rhetoric itself is at the core of the Russian propaganda: essentially the message is 'since the US does it, we can too"
As a Finn I've engaged in a lot of discussions with both Russians and my fellow countrymen about the situation in Russia ever since Crimea, and this comes up quite frequently from the pro-Russian side. If you try to talk about the annexation of Crimea and how it's worrysome they throw 'Iraq'-card in your face. Nevermind that we had nothing to do with Iraq, and that despite the fuck-up and unjustified nature of the war in Iraq and for all their incompetence, the US still did not add Iraq as a new state.
From this, it's not a long way to the idea presented by some in the Kremlin that countries simply cannot want to be in NATO for the sake of their own security. Like, if an unallied country at the border of Russia looks at the recent actions of Russia towards other unallied border states (first Georgia in 2008, then later in Ukraine/Crimea) and concludes that it's safer by allying itself with someone other than Russia, then it obviously must because of Washington and the corporate illuminati controlling the popular opinion and seeking to threaten Russia, despite the fact that the risen interest in military co-operation is a direct result of their own actions. This is of course intentional. All authoritarian regimes need enemies, and to Russia it's 'western values' (ie. gays and sexual deviance primarily) from within and NATO from without. To help achieve this they treat the whole of Europe as a unified block ('the west') that's nothing but an extension of the US when it suits them, basically telling us Finns (and Ukrainians) here that we cannot have an opinion of our own, unless we agree with them.
They want to keep and even increase the tension because that's a convenient trick to distract people from the failings of their domestic policies and the rather dismal state of their economy, pretty much fascism 101 stuff. And the fact that in some sense the US is doing the same with the war on terror, war on drugs etc does not make it okay, or justifiable.
Re: (Score:3)
Great post. Please mod up.
Re: (Score:3)
Israel would be a better counter-argument than Iraq, per Crimea. We didn't sanction Israel for swiping land, unlike Russia, and in fact give them various forms of assistance.
That being said, two wrongs still don't make a right. Land swiping is land swiping and those who do/support it are jerks. May God/Matrix-admin spank all 3 of us.
Re:Shills =/= trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you. False equivalence seems to be the norm on this thread. I can't work out whether it's stupidity or malice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Shills =/= trolls (Score:3)
You say potato, I say fuckwit.
Someone FUDing for Microsoft won't pick up the phone and fire a gun next to it to scare off an iOS fanboy. That is a difference in kind, not degree. Hence, false equivalence.
Re: (Score:2)
FFS Slashdot has used the terms FUD and astroturfing in reference to Microsoft (and others) doing this exact shit for YEARS.
No. FUD is not inherently corporate. That can come from anywhere. Astroturfing is, by definition.
Re: (Score:3)
Worse yet - there are people who honestly believe that the western countries and corporations aren't doing the exact same thing.
Yes, and they'd be more right than wrong. Does the west engage in propaganda? Does the west engage in marketing? Does the west try to suppress news and thinking that isn't to their liking? Yes, to all the above.
And that's not what we're talking about. What Putin is doing is an a whole other scale and akin to brain washing (if you spoke with an "average" Russian, like I have, and learned what they're told and what they actually believe, your head would explode...), where the people aren't allowed to freely d
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
These guys are way beyond mere shills though. They don't just post in support of their government, they actively harass anyone who disagrees with them.
Re: (Score:2)
The meaning of troll seems to have been lost. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they are trolls.
The latest trend being ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A TROLL! TROOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Hence me putting "...has elevated the troll to the level of professional propagandists" in the headline.
Everyone does it (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course Russia would ry and influence public opinion. Finland is a direct neighbour. And they're certainly not the only ones. China does it, Europe^Wthe EU does it, even the USoA does it. Sometimes overtly, sometimes less so. Sometimes subtle, sometimes less so. Sometimes even naked threats, innit, mr. Cameron?
So yeah, nothing surprising here. If you're honest you don't try and spin it like a scandal story, like you're a SJW or something. Because if you do that you're really lying to yourself: This isn't
Re:Everyone does it (Score:4, Informative)
What do you mean by "even the USofA does it"?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course Russia would ry and influence public opinion. Finland is a direct neighbour.
The odd thing in this case is that great majority of the Finns do not want to join the NATO. Only one in five actually would like to join, so the less they influence the public opinion, the better. Provided that the aim is for Finland to remain outside of NATO.
Frankly, the cynic in me wonders if this (article) is an attempt to reframe the discussion in a way that it's more difficult to oppose joining NATO, " 'cause only Russian trolls do that"...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and we didn't really know that Russia did it before it was proven.
There are so many layers of fakery you get lost (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the point. In a word where you cannot control the population by controlling the information supply anymore, you just pollute the well so much that it becomes unusable for anyone, except for those having the knowledge, time and resources to filter out the shit. ...) has really only one option, and that is to decide who he trusts based on completely unrelated, and possibly also incorrect, data.
On any non-trivial subject that is not average Joe. He (make that 'We'
The US elections are another prime exa
EU vs disinformation (Score:2)
This link(EU vs disinfo [europa.eu]) was burried deep in the story, but is rather interesting, though it is unfortunate this particular service only targets pro-Kremlin disinformation.
This one story though can apply anywhere: Three classic "disinformation recipes" put to use [campaign-archive1.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That "anti-disinfo" project lools like EU trolling, just with a slightly different name. The difference between Russia and the ridiculously corrupt Bruxelles institutions is that the latter don't even deny their own trolling, they just call it "counter narrative" or something like that: http://www.politico.eu/article... [politico.eu]
However, luckily it doesn't seem to be very effective, given the EU's sinking popularity among its own (unwilling) citizens: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bus... [telegraph.co.uk]
Oh look. I caught a Russian troll.
Misuse of the word troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
1) Can you propose a better term to describe the “Russian online trolls”? The term must also be correctly recognized by general public.
2) Since when is trolling “uncovering unpleasant truth”? On the other hand, how else can could describe the goatse guy?
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought trolling was just stirring the pot, using inflammatory ideas and language to incite arguments.
"iPhone users are just egocentric hipsters."
"Linux users are dorks."
"FreeBSD is dying."
"Bernie Sanders is a communist."
"SystemD is taking over."
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh (Score:2)
stirring up trouble with their versions of online flaming, fact-twisting, and overall being a menace to online society.
Speaking of trolls...
Finland (Score:2)
Finland has a long history of "neutrality" and trying to play off both sides of the cold war against each other for their own benefit. It didn't take Russian propaganda to make the Finns pursue such a strategy. It's also hardly news that the Russians have been trying to place propaganda in Western media, that there are actual Russophiles in Europe and European media, or
Re: (Score:2)
Good way to drive up site traffic as the paid trolls will come around and post anonymously.
The Wikipedia Admin Theater of War (Score:2)
Sovereign trolls in online comments are wasting their resources. The high stakes strategic target for sovereign trolls is Wikipedia's administrative structure [electronicintifada.net].
WOW - We are in a minute from full Cold War! (Score:2)
Just you people tell me when we start injecting cyanide behind grandpa's ears and eating babies at breakfast! ...
Re: US uses a supercomputer (Score:4, Funny)
Troll recursion.
Re: US uses a supercomputer (Score:5, Informative)
Project Bluebird, MKUltra, etc.
Tuskegee Airmen
Gulf War Syndrome
Tracking via Cell Phones
TSA body scanners
Secret Courts, laws, watch lists, no fly lists
Deflected asteroid attack on Buenos Aires
Roswell
Kennedy assassination
AIDS
Aurora Project
Bay of Pigs
Iran Contra
Robot Al Gore
Recording all cell phone meta data
Monitoring all cell phone calls
Recording every packet crossing over any pipe an American ISP owns
Distributing crack to blacks
9/11
Operation Gunrunner / Fast and Furious
How there's only ever one person working at the post office
Watergate
The DMV
Steve Irwin Assassination
Philadelphia Experiment
Operation Northwood
Project Grey Box
Clipper chips / Palladium
Terminator 3
Operation Rainfall
Pan Am 103
Assassination of Lady Diana
Fluoride
Reptilian overlords
Chem trails
The red menace / McCarthyism
Breaking Bad Season 6
Global warming
Phantom time
etc.
etc.
Considering how many "crackpot" conspiracy theories turn out to be true, and often far worse than theorized, paranoia should be the default state.
Re: US uses a supercomputer (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This list reads like a really crap version of "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel.
You win the internet today.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's play Spot the Crazy Person!
Re: (Score:2)
The MK-Ultra one always gets me. I was sure it was all just a made-up kookie conspiracy theory and when it turned out to be true I had to really adjust my thinking.
Also, Ronald Reagan flooding the inner cities with crack cocaine. As much as I hated Reagan, I figured that had to be a crazy fever dream. But no...
Re: US uses a supercomputer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for getting Republicans out of power. Isn't that kinda obvious?
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing that Breaking Bad Season 6 didn't make your list...what about it?
Re: Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Euros are not much better informed (am one), and Americans are no better than Russians.
We (europe) need to cut the shit with both of you and build independent European defences.
I view both as equal threats to European countries. I'm further from Russia than our suomi buddies though.
Our American friends have their peculiarities but I'll pick the USA to be my ally over the Russians any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Just about the only thing that would make me rethink that attitude is if Trump gains the presidency and even then only if he actually does what the is currently saying he will do (which I doubt). That's how much worse Russia is than the US.
Re: Good? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not that likely to be elected.
People said that about George W. Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
People say a lot of things. Some of which turn out to be true.
Looking at those correlations is not going to get you anywhere close to a correct prediction.
I personally believe that what we are seeing now is the motivated core party members voting. I believe that in a general election Trump does not stand a chance against Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
People said that about George W. Bush.
Nobody said that about GWB. He was ahead in the polls from the start, had a solid record as governor of Texas, and he ran as a center-right "compassionate conservative" moderate. For the first year, he also governed as a center-right moderate. It wasn't until his 2002 "axis-of-evil" speech that his presidency went off the rails.
Re: (Score:3)
Polls mean pretty much nothing until a month or so before the actual election. They rarely reflect reality and often show contradictory results.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a month before the election they don't mean much. We had a couple of Provincial races here in Canada where the polls were totally wrong and the last Federal election was interesting as for the first time ever, it was a 3 way race out of the gate and all 3 parties took turns leading the polls, there ended up being a record amount of strategic voting giving the winner a bigger win then predicted.
Re: (Score:2)
The longer it takes, the less time Clinton will have to hold her new, post pivot, centrist position.
I'm comfortable with the gridlock that would come from any conceivable outcome of this election. Even if Clinton wins _and_ takes the Senate, she wouldn't hold it more than two years.
Re: Good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Good? (Score:5, Informative)
If we're going back in history as far as WWII, then we're going back as far as Stalin. I doubt all the deaths attributable to all US presidents since WWII add up to the numbers slaughtered by Stalin. The insistence on seeing the US as dramatically more evil than every other state is patently absurd.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
An American here. Also studied American and World History on a college level and as a hobby. I also find Russian history fascinating.
Russia is very dysfunctional. On a totally different level than the rest of Europe, half of Asia, and the West. It's a miracle they haven't started WWIII yet.
Re: Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand the desire to bash the US that seems so rampant on Slashdot. Equating the US to Russia is quite foolish.
We have our problems, sure, but they're not really a threat to you. I keep hearing that it would be a big problem if Trump is elected President. That's pretty unlikely, for one. And if he were, Congress would stand in the way of him doing substantial damage. Trump might accidentally succeed in something both Bush and Obama failed at, which is getting Congress to work together.
Europeans aren't inherently better than the US. You guys have countries seriously considering leaving the EU. You guys have some pretty serious financial issues, far worse than our debt crisis in Puerto Rico. You guys are dealing with the threat of terror and are quickly going down the road toward mass surveillance. The UK is already there and is probably worse than the US. You guys have plenty of racism directed toward refugees; why do you think the word "untermenschen" appears in Slashdot comments with some regularity? It sure isn't a slur that's used in the US.
Our government pretty clearly isn't paying people to troll the internet. The government doesn't control the US media, not even close. The wealthy and powerful almost completely control our media. It's not a great situation, but it's a far cry from anything going on in Russia.
With respect to defenses, I don't trust Europe to be more militarily responsible than the US. When you have power, there's a temptation to use it, and often it's not used for good. From time to time, we have to relearn the lessons of war as a new generation begins influencing our decisions, one who hasn't seen what war can do. We fought in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam, but many of us had forgotten how bad war can be. We've relearned that lesson from our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans don't want more wars, because we've learned that lesson once again. These problems are not inherent to Americans; Europeans are not inherently better than Americans.
We could tell Europe to get lost and return to the Monroe Doctrine of two centuries ago. We're better off not doing that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the desire to bash the US that seems so rampant on Slashdot.
Don't take it personally. America is on top, and people have a natural inclination to complain about the top dog. But they don't really mean it. Very few people in Europe would prefer a Russian or Chinese world order over what they have now.
Re: Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
in what way, exactly, is the US a "massive threat to us (Euro)"?
Is any European country at risk of invasion by the US, for example? Ask the Baltic countries about the threat of invasion by Russia. That is entirely possible.
Does the US control strategic gas supplies for heating Europe? Does it use that to exert political leverage in Europe? Again, no, that would be Russia.
This notion of "a plague on both your houses" is just lazy thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Is any European country at risk of invasion by the US, for example?
Militarily, no. Culturally, yes. There are a dozen McDonalds within walking distance of the Louvre. Europeans search with Google, and socialize with Facebook. American culture, mostly from American corporations, is pervasive in Europe, and many of them don't like it.
Re: Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny: There was a Kentucky Fried Chicken right next to my work. It just went out of business because 2 years ago, a pair of Greek guys opened a nice little chargrilled chicken place across the road.
Nobody went to KFC anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
They should talk to the Thai and Vietnamese, see how they handled the arrogant foreigners.
If the French really wanted to kill McDonald's they should learn to cook a good hamburger. It's hard to make a burger as bad as McDonald's. I'm sure the French can do it (actually both, 'bad as' and 'good'), they invented 'French Fries' after all.
Re: Good? (Score:2)
They make a better burger. And they make steak hache, which is glorious.
Re: (Score:2)
There is some debate about where french fries were invented.
Pizza has been reinvented twice. And swiss cheese is American. It was just named swiss cheese because it bears a similarity to some actually swiss cheese.
What have the Americans ever done for us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Communism — first implemented in and spread with support of Russia — has killed 94 million [reason.com] people in the 20th century. What have the Americans ever done to you to even approach — much less equal — that?
I invite you to compare Western Germany, dominated by Americans, with Eastern Germany... Are you still certain, the threats are equal? Or are you too young to even know, what I'm talking about?
Stalin is — thanks in part to the propaganda campaign described in TFA — once again a Russia's hero [nytimes.com]. A "strong leader"... The moment it "rose from its knees" (Russian propaganda's favorite expression), the country went on to attack neighbors. And not just to right wrongs — real or perceived — but to annex territory and expand borders. With overwhelming support from the citizenry — who forgive their own squalor to their rulers in exchange for military victories. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine — all European countries — have already become victims.
America's last land-acquisition was Hawaii [wikipedia.org]... Are you still sure, the threats are equal?
Re: What have the Americans ever done for us? (Score:2)
Thank you for saying this. It's depressing how much people seem to be oblivious too...
Re:What have the Americans ever done for us? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of what Europe is seeing is the long term effects of the marshal plan.
That plan had several interesting long term goals.
First was to stand Europe back up after WW2. Many people do not quite realize the scope of WW2. This was to give Europeans the ability to rebuild and create more jobs. People with jobs do not want to goto war usually.
The second was to give Americans a say in what was going on. Up until WW1 the US pretty much stayed out of it. This meant the US got to decide what happened military wise. They did this by making some European countries dependent on US aid and loans. So if a particular country decided to start getting rowdy the funding 'went away'. Many in the US were tired of getting dragged into whatever mess the French, English, Germans, or Spanish had come up with this time.
The Third was to blunt the expansion of the USSR. The Americans might show up in suits and bully a bit of policy but for the most part let the countries do whatever within the guidelines of peace. This included things like getting rid of guns. The Russians had a much different idea. They show up in tank divisions and execute the leaders in a town including any religious faction leaders. They then put a group of locals who are happy for the change in status quo in charge and back it up with force. Take for example the recent expansion they did. It was pretty much standard USSR expansion 101. Tanks, soldiers under the flag of a 'rebel' group. Then execute anyone who defies them either by 'accident' or overtly.
The 'hidden' fourth thing was to gut the military of all those countries. The US took care of it. If someone is taking care of it for free you can use that money for other things. It is why the US has one of the largest military budgets in the world. The bases in many countries turned into large sources of taxes and money for the areas where they were built. Many countries say 'get out' then turn around and say 'wait a second we dont want you to go' once they realize what that base meant for the area.
That was just the European theater. The Pacific theater is similar. Notice the way the US neutered Japan. Japan was as big of a fighting force as German and the Americans.
Economic prosperity blunts the reasons for war. Harry Truman and George Marshal saw that and put it into effect.
The Marshal plan is one of the best pieces of legislation and government procedure ever created to promote peace through prosperity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet, you would not refute even one of them...
You, anti-americans, are so funny... Please, don't hate...
Honest, huh? Sending special forces into Crimea without insignia was honest, huh? Lying to the world about Georgia's, Moldova's, or
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fuck you, asshole. That's the kind of "debating" you get for your name-calling.
Next time — behave...
Re: The EU doesn't even deny doing its own trollin (Score:2)
Nigel? On Slashdot? In the words of INXS, "Two worlds colliding..."
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a citizen of a country that made the tragic mistake to be part of the EU, hopefully not forever, and I see the EU itself as a threat to the sovereignty of my own homeland.
I'm going to guess you're British, I know I am. English before that, though I now reside in Wales. I have also resided elsewhere(s) around to world, at various times in my life. Any (international) agreement we enter into is, in a sense, a reaction to a 'threat' to our sovereignty. Once you accept that there are other individuals / tribes / nations / associations of nations you can enter into a conversation with them. There's nothing wrong with you or me as an individual being a part of any of those units o
Re: (Score:3)
We just have a fuckton of morons that are willing to do it for free.
Re: Seriously? (Score:2, Insightful)
Regular american citizens are still indoctrinated from cold war propaganda, they don't need to pay anyone to "troll", they do it naturally through their ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Could you point to some of the propaganda that we're "still indoctrinated" by, or are you a Russian troll?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pay attention, fuckwit. [theguardian.com]
Re: Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could you point to some of the propaganda that we're "still indoctrinated" by [...]?
Sure - one of the biggest examples is the pervasive (and perverse) idea that the United States is a 'Christian' nation. During the Cold War, Eisenhower injected references to God in paper currency and our own Pledge of Allegiance, specifically to "unite" the country against the much-overstated Communist 'threat'. This has resulted in several generations of state and federal laws that illegally reflect 'Christian' doctrine, and several generations of people who support it and believe that's the only way it should be.
Only recently has society been able to start loosening that grip and begin the path to becoming the nation we were intended to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are four references to God in the Declaration of Independence. The founders were all Christians of one variety or another. (http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/people/god-and-the-constitution.html) "In God we Trust" dates back to 1812. The freedom of religion, Christian or otherwise, is a core value. The fact that the Soviets were anti-religion (not just anti-Christian) and pushing that upon all of the east-bloc nations, is hardly propaganda, it was a simple fact...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Re: (Score:2)
The 'God' of 1776 is a lot different than what you think of now. In those days, "God" was simply the name for a creationist power, whether it be the abstract power in Deism (which a number of our Founding Fathers were, to refute your claim), the meddling God of Christianity, or whatever in between. In the 20th Century, the term 'God' became explicitly synonymous with the Christian flavor (much like the word 'marriage').
The freedom of religion IS a core value, which makes these specific Cold War actions of t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as Cold War veteran, from '76 to the end, I'll dispute your claim. There may have been something to it in the 50s or 60s, but not on my watch. There was little to no push for Christianity, and only minor mentions of the Soviet push against religion.
I'll confess (not that I'm into that) that I knew nothing about Deism, and was relying on the line:
"Some had turned away from orthodox Christianity to embrace Unitarianism or Deism, liberal strains of Christianity that stressed reason and free inquiry ove
Re: (Score:2)
In the 20th Century, the term 'God' became explicitly synonymous with the Christian flavor.
Not for everybody, but I suspect you'd have been right if you'd said most people conflate the term 'God' with only aspects of the Christian faith.
You make a couple of very good points though.
Re: (Score:2)
They were also Freemasons. Does that mean the worship of Baphomet is a core value of the United States?
Re: (Score:2)
Way to take it out of context.
Re: (Score:2)
Four in the declaration - and zero in the constitution, unless you count the date. Religion is only even referenced twice: Once to forbid religious tests for office, and once in the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice context shift. I was speaking specifically about society and law shuffling off the constraints of organized religion and how those parts of the nation operate, it was not an exhaustive review of our entire government.
After you.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you guys have to pledge allegiance to the flag/country every day in school? My first hint to Americas true nature was when classmates had to go to school for a while in the States and came back with horror stories about the indoctrination. Along with all your anti-freedom laws (lots in the '60's), lack of following your Bill of Rights etc leads to the conclusion that America is a subtle totalitarian state, which figures that giving the people the choice between Coke and Pepsi means freedom, even if 7U
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure that qualifies as Cold War propaganda. There have been numerous legal cases regarding removing the "under God" portion, but nobody else seems to complain much about the remainder of the pledge. I believe some places allow kids to opt out.
So, here's my $.02. I personally don't care about the "under God" or lack of a deity reference. But I don't have a problem raising children to pledge allegiance to the country that is providing them with an education. They're welcome to have whatever belief sy
Re: (Score:2)
Kids can opt out in any school. It just serves as a signal for the other kids to beat up the traitor after school.
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly not a good solution. Where my kid went to school, they sent us a list of class subjects that parents could opt out of for their kids...mostly sexually related. While I didn't opt her out of any, I could certainly see it being stigmatizing having to leave the room in front of the other kids. They need a better method.
Re: (Score:2)
The pledge opt-out is used by a few religious groups. The Mormon church used to prohibit taking the pledge, but doesn't any longer. The Jehova's Witnesses still do. I'm not clear on the theological grounds, but the JWs have their share of horror stories. Children and teenagers have always loved to pick on those who are different from the group, and refusing to take the pledge marks onesself as an outsider and thus a target for bullying and abuse. There's one case that became quite infamous when a class teac
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I forgot about the under God part, which just takes it to another level considering the 1st amendment. Opting out just led to a beating from what I heard and the idea of indoctrinating kids sounds like something from Soviet Russia. Perhaps your fine with removing freedoms from children that way but I'm not. It's part of the hypocrisy of America which changes it from not a bad place to a place where the people have been indoctrinated much as those countries that America traditionally hates.
I've also met
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now I'm gonna state that I think you're stretching the truth in a few places.
1. I highly doubt that you've ever met "a fair number American political refugees". Let me rephrase that. They were more likely to have committed a crime, and fleeing prosecution, and making the claim that it was for "political" reasons.... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/... [theguardian.com]
2. Dual citizen or not, Americans abroad have long been required to pay taxes on money earned overseas. Myself included, which I did for over 12 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Your definition of propaganda is fairly unique. I'm pretty familiar with what it is, having lived in several countries and traveled to dozens more. If you'd like to discuss one other than this, that's fine, but it's what I'm referring to...
1.
derogatory
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"
synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin;
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a big scale? The Pentagon propaganda budget is a quarter of the NASA budget FFS
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.wired.com/2009/02/... [wired.com]
Even faux news has written about that:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As has been repeatedly stated, but you Russian trolls repeatedly ignore because it exposes your lies, the U.S. does not have an army of paid trolls spewing nonsense on social media like Russia does [theatlantic.com]. We know Russia pays people, its citizens, to put out lies because one woman sued the Russian government over the practice [nbcnews.com].
But as always from Russian trolls there will be an excuse or an attempt at deflecting the truth just like when it is pointed out Russia has lost over 2,000
Re: (Score:2)
1. If you're a Finn, you're a particularly stupid one.
2. Who gives a flying fuck that "She is known for being convicted for amphetamine-related drug-charges in Finland"? What has that to do with her credibility as a journalist? Did you really read that kind of ad hominem attack and say "well, shit, if she was once convicted of possessing speed, I can't believe her journalism"? As I said, if you really are a Finn, you're a particularly stupid one.
3. Someone fired a gun next to a phone because they didn't agr
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you read the article? The USA/NATO trolls are "special units" which are set up to protect the West against a "growing threat [to] civil discourse."
Any foreign or independent opinions which run contrary to the narrative spelled out in Western media propaganda are a "threat"
Re: (Score:3)
I nominate rick zeman as faggot shill of the year
Spasibo. An insult from a troll is a compliment indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who seriously entertains the notion that the US/UK or for that matter any country hosting governments interested in information control is not employing paid trolls, shills, misinfo and disinfo agents in an attempt to control the narrative and beliefs of their populace (or at least muddy the waters beyond comprehension) is to this writer's mind either lost in cognitive dissonance, or worse, willfully ignorant.
I have no doubt that at least the US does this to some extent, but I doubt that it exists on a level equal to the Russian trolls, or we would be hearing more about it. Unless you believe in some vast shadowy conspiracy that has a stranglehold over all media and prevents news of this from coming to light, in which case you should really just go out and get more tinfoil.
One reason that I think it is unlikely that the US employs a huge number of people for this is just the question of getting people qualified
Re: Nothing compared to western propaganda (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a good, not malicious, reason why people on Slashdot are anti-Russia and anti-China. Russia is run by a kleptocrat thug who poisons dissidents on the streets of London (round the corner from my frigging office, so I remain quite indignant). China is run by an autocrat who is tightening power and clamping down on all dissent. Both states routinely forbid the mass of their citizenry from doing things that those of us in the West take for granted. The restrictions on freedom of speech, of belief, of religious practice, of sexual identity and behaviour, etc, are orders of magnitude greater than anything we in the West have to contemplate. There is no Great Firewall of the US. The one in China is all too real. This stuff matters, and ought not to be downplayed.