Let's talk about George

He spent a lot of money trying to educate former Warsaw Pact countries on democracy after the Iron Curtain fell. I suspect Putin dislikes him for that reason, and when Putin dislikes someone, internet stories smear campaigns are sure to follow.
 
The Big Dog said:
Do you have evidence to support that rather unorthodox of what you believe a troll is?
Click to expand...

I thought it was called the Russian troll farm because they posted things that were not their actual position and because they misrepresented themselves as Americans? Is that not what It referred to?
 
The policy of pissing in the pool and that of working to maintain the pool in good use are not morally/ethically equivalent, and have opposing practical outcomes in matters of fact.

To suggest they are equivalent is wildly disingenuous at best. It requires zero understanding of how the real world works, indeed, a willful misunderstanding of actions and consequences, and the relation of all that to one's own personal doings. Basically, the argument is that the asymmetrical rights of the individual to exploit, including its systemic repercussions, take precedence over the viability or continuity of the system for any or all others. IOW, a post-monarchist dystopia masquerading as grandiose "freedom" for highly motivated, or dubiously gifted, "reasoners."
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Do you have evidence to support that rather unorthodox of what you believe a troll is?
Click to expand...

I feel strange agreeing with Bob. But that is always how I've defined an internet troll. Their position must not be sincerely held, and must be supported just to cause anger. A paid shill isn't necessarily a troll.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
The policy of pissing in the pool and that of working to maintain the pool in good use are not morally/ethically equivalent, and have opposing practical outcomes in matters of fact.

To suggest they are equivalent is wildly disingenuous at best. It requires zero understanding of how the real world works, indeed, a willful misunderstanding of actions and consequences, and the relation of all that to one's own personal doings. Basically, the argument is that the asymmetrical rights of the individual to exploit, including its systemic repercussions, take precedence over the viability or continuity of the system for any or all others. IOW, a post-monarchist dystopia masquerading as grandiose "freedom" for highly motivated, or dubiously gifted, "reasoners."
Click to expand...

That is indeed a good reason why people don't like Soros. Good job
 
lobosrul5 said:
I feel strange agreeing with Bob. But that is always how I've defined an internet troll. Their position must not be sincerely held, and must be supported just to cause anger. A paid shill isn't necessarily a troll.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no, it includes people who are posting without disclosing that they are being paid of course.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yeah, no, it includes people who are posting without disclosing that they are being paid of course.
Click to expand...

Which makes them a paid shill. But, if the guy/gal behind the keyboard believes what they are typing to be true, then I don't consider that trolling. Their intent also matters, is it to anger right-wingers, or get more people to vote for Clinton (in your example)?
 
lobosrul5 said:
Which makes them a paid shill. But, if the guy/gal behind the keyboard believes what they are typing to be true, then I don't consider that trolling. Their intent also matters, is it to anger right-wingers, or get more people to vote for Clinton (in your example)?
Click to expand...

Shill...that was the word I couldn't remember.

I don't think it makes them a shill, either. Their enthusiasm isn't faked.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Shill...that was the word I couldn't remember.

I don't think it makes them a shill, either. Their enthusiasm isn't faked.
Click to expand...

OK put it another way.

Example 1: The RNC finds the world's biggest Trump fan. They pay him to sit at a keyboard and type nice things about Trump that, at least in his mind, are true. He's a paid shill, but not a troll.

Example 2: They pay a bunch of people from a foreign country to write about how liberals are destroying the USA and how great Trump is. They must stick to talking points given to them. Most of them could care less one way or the other. That's trolling and shilling.
 
Ugh, I refuse to get bogged down in some silly debate about whether we should call them "trolls" or not, for Pete's sake.

The right and others (particularly Sanders supporters) were opposed to Soros funding internet posters who "enthusiastically" supported Clinton without disclosing that they were being paid to do so by Correct the Record.

/I was going to use astro-turfing but then we would be tied down in a discussions about the Field at the Houston Astrodome.
 
The Big Dog said:
Ugh, I refuse to get bogged down in some silly debate about whether we should call them "trolls" or not, for Pete's sake.

The right and others (particularly Sanders supporters) were opposed to Soros funding internet posters who "enthusiastically" supported Clinton without disclosing that they were being paid to do so by Correct the Record.

/I was going to use astro-turfing but then we would be tied down in a discussions about the Field at the Houston Astrodome.
Click to expand...

Why oppose that?
 
BobTheCoward said:
It called them fake. But we talked about how the article got it wrong and they are not fake Clinton supporters.
Click to expand...

Maybe you want to take another gander at the article?

In fact, do so. Pay PARTICULAR heed to the parts where they talk about Sanders "supporters" "switching" sides.

Plus you seem to be missing the whole "not disclosing they got paid."
 
The Big Dog said:
Maybe you want to take another gander at the article?

In fact, do so. Pay PARTICULAR heed to the parts where they talk about Sanders "supporters" "switching" sides.

Plus you seem to be missing the whole "not disclosing they got paid."
Click to expand...

And I'm asking what is the problem with them getting paid. I get you object to that part. I want to know why.
 
The Big Dog said:
Ugh, I refuse to get bogged down in some silly debate about whether we should call them "trolls" or not, for Pete's sake.

The right and others (particularly Sanders supporters) were opposed to Soros funding internet posters who "enthusiastically" supported Clinton without disclosing that they were being paid to do so by Correct the Record.

/I was going to use astro-turfing but then we would be tied down in a discussions about the Field at the Houston Astrodome.
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
Why oppose that?
Click to expand...

It does seem to be one of the common complaints regarding the Kochs, that they funded a bunch of teaparty groups thus making them not legitimate grass roots organization. Its pretty much the same accusation against Soros here. By paying the folks with out disclosing it makes it appear as thought the groups are more spontaneous than they really are. Meh, I don't really care. I don't think you need anything more than he's a guy who spends a lot of money to defeat republicans and conservative causes.
 
ahhell said:
I guess the real question is, why to some folks on the left really focus on Soros so much. I think some folks just need a villain, but like I said, its not at all different from the way some folks on the left focus so much on the Koch's and to a lesser degree on Adelson.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that there is a significant difference.

The left criticizes the Koch brothers because they support global warming denial. You will not typically see the left suggest the reason why global warming denial is bad is that the Koch's support it. Conversely, if you reference MMfA fact checking the "refutation" of it by those on the right will invariably at some point mention Soros as a reason it should not be trusted.
 
The Big Dog said:
well they admitted it so, thanks.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't.

They admitted to paying Clinton supporters.

A person observed new posts by Clinton supporters.

There is no evidence that the posts the person read were generated by compensated supporters.

Saying they pay supporters is not evidence that the person correctly identified the paid from the unpaid supporters.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, they didn't.

They admitted to paying Clinton supporters.

A person observed new posts by Clinton supporters.

There is no evidence that the posts the person read were generated by compensated supporters.

Saying they pay supporters is not evidence that the person correctly identified the paid from the unpaid supporters.
Click to expand...

Paying Clinton supporters. Check.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And I'm asking what is the problem with them getting paid. I get you object to that part. I want to know why.
Click to expand...

To be a paid poster and not disclose it is a lie by omission. It's a misrepresentation of who and what you are, and why you're engaging in internet communication. People know to be wary of advertisements. Covert advertising is morally dubious, at best.
 
I see we're already in conspiracy theory land.

However, a lot of the posting right wingers missed the point I was making. Saying the left's criticism of the Koch brothers is the same thing as the rights hatred towards Soros is a false equivalency unless you can point to what it is that is being criticised. If we disregard conspiracy theories like the ones The Big Dog is pushing, what has George Soros done that's so bad?

Or let me put it another way, do American conservatives think working to strenghtening liberal democracy or promoting human and civil rights is a bad thing? 'Cause that's what Soros' organizations are doing.
 
The idea that Soros and Koch are analogous fails on another fundamental level. No one on the left thinks the Koch brothers are behind every single conservative movement or rally. At least I've never run into anyone either in real life or on the web that alleges that.

But then you look at Soros and you see that to conservatives he is behind literally everything the Left does as well as things they only think the Left does. Guy shoots a congressman? Soros! Woman marches? Soros! Protest in some city? Soros! Protests in many cities? Soros! Wait, the massacre was actually a false flag!?! Soros! A meme on facebook says San Francisco just made being a Christian illegal!?! Soros! The Black Panther movie is "programming" kids to see black people as equals!?! Soros! Jimmy Kimmel said something you don't like? Soros wrote the script!

See the difference there?
 
Travis said:
But then you look at Soros and you see that to conservatives he is behind literally everything the Left does as well as things they only think the Left does. Guy shoots a congressman? Soros! Woman marches? Soros! Protest in some city? Soros! Protests in many cities? Soros! Wait, the massacre was actually a false flag!?! Soros! A meme on facebook says San Francisco just made being a Christian illegal!?! Soros! The Black Panther movie is "programming" kids to see black people as equals!?! Soros! Jimmy Kimmel said something you don't like? Soros wrote the script!
Click to expand...

Aw, you're making me miss this guy. lol
 
Some guy on CNN was saying Soros was behind the recent protests by high schoolers following the school shooting in florida. His argument was that kids can't be serious and can't organize things, so this was probably the work of shifty leftists like Soros trying to make it look like kids care about not getting shot.
 
It is well known that teenagers are generally cool with being murdered and will only care about staying alive if manipulative Leftists put the idea in their head.
 
That's one subject where the equivocacy between Soros and the Kochs doesn't really work. Sure, fringe loonies on the internet will look for a scapegoat, but this was a supposedly respectable former Republican Congressman feeding consipracy theories on national TV.

I've never heard left-wing pundits and politicians go on TV and blame some right-wing boogeyman for everything the right does that they don't like. Quite the contrary, most of them appear to go out of their way not to antagonize nationalist protesters a lot of the time.

Their right-wing counterparts, even government officials, appear to be more than willing to do stuff like blame Soros for secretly bribing school kids to make them say they don't like being murdered...
 
kellyb said:
To be a paid poster and not disclose it is a lie by omission. It's a misrepresentation of who and what you are, and why you're engaging in internet communication. People know to be wary of advertisements. Covert advertising is morally dubious, at best.
Click to expand...

But they haven't misrepresented who they are.

If I were a Patriots fan on a forum,. And Robert Kraft paid me to start a blog about the Patriots, I'm not misrepresenting what I am by not mentioning it.
 
uke2se said:
Not much to sense since I spelled it out. :D

Silence speaks loudly, tho.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the conservatives around here don't seem to be on board with Soros conspiracy theories. Unless I've missed some smoking guns.
 
phiwum said:
To be fair, the conservatives around here don't seem to be on board with Soros conspiracy theories. Unless I've missed some smoking guns.
Click to expand...

I've seen it mentioned from time to time. It's like a nervous tick.
 
uke2se said:
If we disregard conspiracy theories like the ones The Big Dog is pushing, what has George Soros done that's so bad?
Click to expand...

Soros funding Kerry, Clinton and Super Pacs and Correct the Record are "conspiracy theories"?

Actual undisputed facts are "conspiracy theories" now?

That is absolutely beyond ridiculous, but it does reveal the true motive behind the rhetoric here.

Conspiracy theories, can a brother get a god damn laughing dog?

:thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
 
Travis said:
The idea that Soros and Koch are analogous fails on another fundamental level. No one on the left thinks the Koch brothers are behind every single conservative movement or rally. At least I've never run into anyone either in real life or on the web that alleges that.

But then you look at Soros and you see that to conservatives he is behind literally everything the Left does as well as things they only think the Left does. Guy shoots a congressman? Soros! Woman marches? Soros! Protest in some city? Soros! Protests in many cities? Soros! Wait, the massacre was actually a false flag!?! Soros! A meme on facebook says San Francisco just made being a Christian illegal!?! Soros! The Black Panther movie is "programming" kids to see black people as equals!?! Soros! Jimmy Kimmel said something you don't like? Soros wrote the script!

See the difference there?
Click to expand...
This strikes me merely as bias. You can't see the distinctions or nuance in your opposition nearly so much as you can within your own camp. I for instance don't know of any conservative that thinks soros is behind every liberal/dem group or organization. I also don't know of any liberals that think the Koch's are behind everything on the Right, but in both cases I know folks who seem irrationally focused on either the Kochs' influence or Soros'.

Honestly, I see a lot more of the Crazy, OMG, the Kochs' talk than OMG, Soros.

Porpoise of Life said:
Some guy on CNN was saying Soros was behind the recent protests by high schoolers following the school shooting in florida. His argument was that kids can't be serious and can't organize things, so this was probably the work of shifty leftists like Soros trying to make it look like kids care about not getting shot.
Click to expand...

Porpoise of Life said:
That's one subject where the equivocacy between Soros and the Kochs doesn't really work. Sure, fringe loonies on the internet will look for a scapegoat, but this was a supposedly respectable former Republican Congressman feeding consipracy theories on national TV.

I've never heard left-wing pundits and politicians go on TV and blame some right-wing boogeyman for everything the right does that they don't like. Quite the contrary, most of them appear to go out of their way not to antagonize nationalist protesters a lot of the time.

Their right-wing counterparts, even government officials, appear to be more than willing to do stuff like blame Soros for secretly bribing school kids to make them say they don't like being murdered...
Click to expand...
Do you have a name? Becuase some guy who is supposedly a respectable Republican Congressman isn't exactly a convincing argument that Soro's hate is more mainstream than Koch hate.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
This strikes me merely as bias. You can't see the distinctions or nuance in your opposition nearly so much as you can within your own camp. I for instance don't know of any conservative that thinks soros is behind every liberal/dem group or organization. I also don't know of any liberals that think the Koch's are behind everything on the Right, but in both cases I know folks who seem irrationally focused on either the Kochs' influence or Soros'.

Honestly, I see a lot more of the Crazy, OMG, the Kochs' talk than OMG, Soros.
Click to expand...

I keep telling you what the difference is.

The Koch brothers fund climate denial, lessened environmental regulation, actions against worker's rights etc.

George Sors funds strengthened democratic institutions and civil and human rights.

One of those things is not like the other.

If you want to tell me why you feel that it is, you will have to tell me why working for democratic institutions and human rights is a bad thing. Can you do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom