What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

Yet another uninformed impression vomited into the modern public square.  If I could go back in time I would shoot the internet. 

On a broader level I disagree with the sentiment. In a lot of countries dissent of opinion can only be shared thanks to the Internet. Hungarian independent media, other oppressed societies, the suffering of Gazans etc.

There are immense pros to it even in politics despite the significant cons.

You are too young to remember a time when people were able to express and communicate with and attract others to their cause without using the internet.  It is a big claim to suggest that the internet is the only way in which it can occur. You would have to explain away how it happened prior to the internet.

What has clearly happened with the internet is we have entered an era where false claims and "impressions" are shared to wide (global) audiences, and the harm of that is incalculable.

[Razgovory]

I see "get rid of ICE" and "ICE out of LA" as compatible.   If every town says "ICE out of X" then they are going for get rid of ICE.



It is seems clear that at least some of the protesters understand it that way.
Also this:

[Admiral Yi]

One of the things that is interesting about both of you is how you tend to agree with the Trumpist arguments and their framing of the debate, yet oppose Trump.

I'm glad you oppose Trump, but I don't understand why.

You are demonstrating incredibly poor observational skills.  I have disagreed, on the record, with an infinity of Trumpist arguments.

What I also disagree with are anti Trumpist myths.  A lie by the good guys is still a lie.

[Tamas]

Yet another uninformed impression vomited into the modern public square.  If I could go back in time I would shoot the internet. 

On a broader level I disagree with the sentiment. In a lot of countries dissent of opinion can only be shared thanks to the Internet. Hungarian independent media, other oppressed societies, the suffering of Gazans etc.

There are immense pros to it even in politics despite the significant cons.

You are too young to remember a time when people were able to express and communicate with and attract others to their cause without using the internet.  It is a big claim to suggest that the internet is the only way in which it can occur. You would have to explain away how it happened prior to the internet.

What has clearly happened with the internet is we have entered an era where false claims and "impressions" are shared to wide (global) audiences, and the harm of that is incalculable.

I remember the time our house got a land-line, mate.

[crazy canuck]

Yet another uninformed impression vomited into the modern public square.  If I could go back in time I would shoot the internet. 

On a broader level I disagree with the sentiment. In a lot of countries dissent of opinion can only be shared thanks to the Internet. Hungarian independent media, other oppressed societies, the suffering of Gazans etc.

There are immense pros to it even in politics despite the significant cons.

You are too young to remember a time when people were able to express and communicate with and attract others to their cause without using the internet.  It is a big claim to suggest that the internet is the only way in which it can occur. You would have to explain away how it happened prior to the internet.

What has clearly happened with the internet is we have entered an era where false claims and "impressions" are shared to wide (global) audiences, and the harm of that is incalculable.

I remember the time our house got a land-line, mate.

Ok, let me put the question another way then, why do you think the internet is the only way dissent could occur?

[Tamas]

It's not the only way of course but it is very effective to publicise and spread dissent or even just differing opinions and narrative. Yes sometimes that results in bad things but also it helps weaken the grip of autocrats on the narratives they push.

[Bauer]

Yet another uninformed impression vomited into the modern public square.  If I could go back in time I would shoot the internet. 

On a broader level I disagree with the sentiment. In a lot of countries dissent of opinion can only be shared thanks to the Internet. Hungarian independent media, other oppressed societies, the suffering of Gazans etc.

There are immense pros to it even in politics despite the significant cons.

You are too young to remember a time when people were able to express and communicate with and attract others to their cause without using the internet.  It is a big claim to suggest that the internet is the only way in which it can occur. You would have to explain away how it happened prior to the internet.

What has clearly happened with the internet is we have entered an era where false claims and "impressions" are shared to wide (global) audiences, and the harm of that is incalculable.

Another source of harm of the internet is its ability to congregate people holding extreme opinions.  In a world without internet they would be more isolated, but now it's easier to find a "community" and feel part of something therefore validating their views.

But that is the world we live in now and we must be able to navigate through all the crap to make use of the positive aspects.

[crazy canuck]

It's not the only way of course but it is very effective to publicise and spread dissent or even just differing opinions and narrative. Yes sometimes that results in bad things but also it helps weaken the grip of autocrats on the narratives they push.

Ok, what I was responding to was your statement "In a lot of countries dissent of opinion can only be shared thanks to the Internet."

[crazy canuck]

Yet another uninformed impression vomited into the modern public square.  If I could go back in time I would shoot the internet. 

On a broader level I disagree with the sentiment. In a lot of countries dissent of opinion can only be shared thanks to the Internet. Hungarian independent media, other oppressed societies, the suffering of Gazans etc.

There are immense pros to it even in politics despite the significant cons.

You are too young to remember a time when people were able to express and communicate with and attract others to their cause without using the internet.  It is a big claim to suggest that the internet is the only way in which it can occur. You would have to explain away how it happened prior to the internet.

What has clearly happened with the internet is we have entered an era where false claims and "impressions" are shared to wide (global) audiences, and the harm of that is incalculable.

Another source of harm of the internet is its ability to congregate people holding extreme opinions.  In a world without internet they would be more isolated, but now it's easier to find a "community" and feel part of something therefore validating their views.

But that is the world we live in now and we must be able to navigate through all the crap to make use of the positive aspects.

Agreed, on both counts. 

[Razgovory]

We probably wouldn't have these riots were it not for the internet and antizionism would not be as big a thing in the West.  So yeah, a lot of extremism.

[crazy canuck]

We probably wouldn't have these riots were it not for the internet and antizionism would not be as big a thing in the West.  So yeah, a lot of extremism.

This is a good illustration of the kind of ignorance that exists on the internet.  Antizionism existed as a "big thing" long before the internet. And the antizionists were the Jews who thought it was a daft idea.

[Bauer]

Humans knew how to spread word around since the beginning of our existence.  But each better communication tool made that easier.  The Internet is just an amplifier nothing more, but it's at a scale never before seen in human experience.

[Razgovory]

We probably wouldn't have these riots were it not for the internet and antizionism would not be as big a thing in the West.  So yeah, a lot of extremism.

This is a good illustration of the kind of ignorance that exists on the internet.  Antizionism existed as a "big thing" long before the internet. And the antizionists were the Jews who thought it was a daft idea.

The majority of left-wing Americans were not antizionist until after the Internet.  That is why I mentioned "the West", you must have missed that part.  Of course the desire to redeem Islam and the Arab race by exterminating Jews was a big thing in Middle East and to a lesser degree among Soviet flunkies, but at least in the US it was not a major movement.  Now the majority of left-Wing Americans are antizionist and the internet may have played a major role in this.  We've had three attacks on Jews in as many months.  This wouldn't have happened 20 years ago.  I mean look at Languish, we were generally pro Zionist during the 2nd intifada, and now we have rather decisively shifted.  Radicalism isn't just something that happens to other people.

[crazy canuck]

Humans knew how to spread word around since the beginning of our existence.  But each better communication tool made that easier.  The Internet is just an amplifier nothing more, but it's at a scale never before seen in human experience.

I think it is more than an amplifier.  In a lot of other settings there are constraints and social cues on what is and what is not appropriate. Those social cues are absent in an online world, and perhaps even the reverse - people go out of their way to say outlandish things like all Muslims are reactionary.

And so we get a perfect destructive storm of misinformation, ignorance (willful or otherwise) and accepting audiences.

[Zoupa]

We probably wouldn't have these riots were it not for the internet and antizionism would not be as big a thing in the West.  So yeah, a lot of extremism.

The riots would stop if ICE would only release the hostages.