Firehosing - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15047356
"Firehosing relies on pushing out as many lies as possible as frequently as possible. That’s typical for propaganda, but the aspect that makes firehosing a unique strategy is that it doesn’t require the propagandist to make the lies believable. That seems counterintuitive, but as Carlos Maza of Vox explains, firehosing is effective because its goal isn’t to persuade. It’s to rob facts of their power. Firehosing inundates us with so many wild opinions that it becomes exhausting to continually disprove them...

How do we combat firehosing?... They emphasize that factchecking alone is ineffective: “Don’t expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth.” Instead, it is better to forewarn audiences about the methods that propagandists use to manipulate public opinion.

Another counter-strategy is to disrupt the flow of disinformation."

IOW, tolerating those that lie constantly is a serious mistake.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nformation
By late
#15047418
Finfinder wrote:
Why don't you start with the Russiagate and Ukrainegate thread you could take your hypocrisy to a new level of trolling.



It's all Russiagate.

There is a reason a bunch of countries have shiny new cyberdefense programs. They were attacked by Russia.

It's not like there is controversy here.

Or with Climate Change...

It's all BS all the time, and it is corrosive.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15047419
late wrote:It's all Russiagate.

There is a reason a bunch of countries have shiny new cyberdefense programs. They were attacked by Russia.

It's not like there is controversy here.

Or with Climate Change...

It's all BS all the time, and it is corrosive.


First post and you already broke your own rules not a good start for you. Enjoy your troll.
By late
#15047422
Finfinder wrote:
First post and you already broke your own rules not a good start for you.



You need to learn how to construct a paragraph that expresses your thoughts.

I seriously doubt I broke rules of any sort.

And what I said is rooted in fact. There is an annual competition now where teams from across the world compete to see who is best at defending against Russian style cyberattacks. As lame as it is, you could try to make an argument if it was just us. But it's not just us. It's everybody Putin doesn't like, and that's a hell of a lot of people.

Not only is there consensus within the community of climatologists, the science community at large supports them. They responded to the constant propaganda assault by Big Oil.

The weird thing about this is that there are so many instances of climate change across the world now. You don't need to be a scientist to see them.

Yet the firehosing continues.

Again, no actual controversy, just low rent propaganda.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15047425
late wrote:"Firehosing relies on pushing out as many lies as possible as frequently as possible. That’s typical for propaganda, but the aspect that makes firehosing a unique strategy is that it doesn’t require the propagandist to make the lies believable. That seems counterintuitive, but as Carlos Maza of Vox explains, firehosing is effective because its goal isn’t to persuade. It’s to rob facts of their power. Firehosing inundates us with so many wild opinions that it becomes exhausting to continually disprove them...

How do we combat firehosing?... They emphasize that factchecking alone is ineffective: “Don’t expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth.” Instead, it is better to forewarn audiences about the methods that propagandists use to manipulate public opinion.

Another counter-strategy is to disrupt the flow of disinformation."

IOW, tolerating those that lie constantly is a serious mistake.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nformation



You make statements without backing them up with facts. I directed you to the Russiagate and Ukrainegate thread, both are examples of firehosing. Please spend your energies defending and debating verses personal attacks and grammar policing.
By late
#15047428
Finfinder wrote:
1) You make statements without backing them up with facts.

2) I directed you to the Russiagate and Ukrainegate thread, both are examples of firehosing.





1) I provide sources more often than most here, and I use facts routinely. Part of constructing a coherent paragraph is being specific.

2) They are examples of firehosing by the Right. As has been shown to be the case on a daily basis here.
By late
#15047436
Finfinder wrote:
...but you don't use facts on this thread nor paragraphs.



Incorrect.

I used facts, I did not use paragraphs.

The OP had paragraphs, but your one liners don't give me much to work with.

Because propaganda is repetitive by nature, I've gotten into the habit of not elaborating on something I've covered a couple times already in the last 24 hours.

Anyone paying attention will know if it's true, or not. And they'll also know rubber and glue when they see it.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15047437
late wrote:Incorrect.

I used facts, I did not use paragraphs.

The OP had paragraphs, but your one liners don't give me much to work with.

Because propaganda is repetitive by nature, I've gotten into the habit of not elaborating on something I've covered a couple times already in the last 24 hours.

Anyone paying attention will know if it's true, or not. And they'll also know rubber and glue when they see it.


I'm not conducive to the tedious style and nature you debate always getting the last word in is not a good proclivity of winning. I ask you now for the 3rd time to review the Russiagate and the Ukrainegate threads and in particular the Russiagete thread if you can produce a single fact that says any American illegally colluded with Russia?
By late
#15047452
Finfinder wrote:
I'm not conducive to the tedious style and nature you debate always getting the last word in is not a good proclivity of winning. I ask you now for the 3rd time to review the Russiagate and the Ukrainegate threads and in particular the Russiagete thread if you can produce a single fact that says any American illegally colluded with Russia?



I wasn't going to reply, since you're clearly trying to drag the conversation away from the topic where you hope to get all excited over some irrelevant bit of trivia.

But your timing is exquisite.

The trial of Roger Stone has started, and it was just revealed he was the contact between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks, which was Russian. It was Russia that dug up most of the dirt. Their first attempt didn't work because the database wasn't user friendly. So they worked on it, and cooked up some sort of deal with Assange. The prosecutor grilled Bannon until he coughed up the truth.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but turn they do.

People have written books diving into the sordid details. The problem is not a lack of evidence, but a surfeit.

And not all of it is in the public domain, some of it won't see the light of day until Trump is charged and disclosure finally happens.

Back to the topic... If firehosing is as destructive as the author asserts, it's time to talk about an appropriate response.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15048259
late wrote:"Firehosing relies on pushing out as many lies as possible as frequently as possible. That’s typical for propaganda, but the aspect that makes firehosing a unique strategy is that it doesn’t require the propagandist to make the lies believable. That seems counterintuitive, but as Carlos Maza of Vox explains, firehosing is effective because its goal isn’t to persuade. It’s to rob facts of their power. Firehosing inundates us with so many wild opinions that it becomes exhausting to continually disprove them...

How do we combat firehosing?... They emphasize that factchecking alone is ineffective: “Don’t expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth.” Instead, it is better to forewarn audiences about the methods that propagandists use to manipulate public opinion.

Another counter-strategy is to disrupt the flow of disinformation."

IOW, tolerating those that lie constantly is a serious mistake.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nformation


an example of firehosing

late wrote:Amb. Taylor pointed out, in his earlier testimony, that giving Ukraine an existential threat also undermined the commitment to the Rule of Law we have had for centuries.

It does it in a number of ways.

This post is something of a placeholder. I'll talk more about it later. But I can start now.

Trying to get a foreign country to meddle in our elections undermines both rule of law and the legitimacy of the Republic. Face it, the more corrupt elections are, the less democratic we will be.

We have tried to help a lot of countries establish Rule of Law. We even tried in Russia, but it didn't take. Our lawyers had a lot of trouble getting Russians to think of contracts as binding, and not just a way to make a quick buck.

Ukraine is in a shooting war, witholding aid (and we did withold aid) was an existential threat. That's serious pressure. It also subverts the postwar world Ike and Truman set up after WW2. It also benefits Putin. In short, it's disgusting.

Trump did not have the authority to withhold aid. There is a procedure to do that. But Ukraine passed the tests, so there were no grounds for halting aid, not that the Trump crowd was competent enough to use that process.

Ukrainegate doesn't stand by itself. They had tried the very same 'offer you can't refuse' with the previous president. They also leaned on, and got, an under the table deal so that political donors could get an energy contract for less than other standing bids.

This hostility to the Rule of Law has been ongoing for a few years. The Trump campaign had about a hundred contacts with Russians and their intermediaries. Every one was supposed to be reported, which would have prevented most or all of the subsequent meetings. As you know, that did not happen. They went on to lie dozens of times, denying the meeting happened. They then lied dozens of times more about the nature of those meetings.

They went so far as to repeatedly try to set up backchannel communications that American intelligence couldn't listen to. In case you're wondering, that's against multiple laws.
By late
#15048270
Finfinder wrote:
an example of firehosing



That's a good example of wishful thinking.

I have been listening to Taylor's live testimony. He is everything Trump is not, competent, nonpartisan, patriotic, knowledgeable.

You could try to construct an argument to prove your point, and I wish you would.

I could use a good laugh.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15048273
I'm not the one starting threads with opinions offered as facts and my replies are just a counter balance to your made up fake narrative.
By late
#15048282
Finfinder wrote:
I'm not the one starting threads with opinions offered as facts and my replies are just a counter balance to your made up fake narrative.



Sigh.

I suppose it was too much to hope for.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15048597
This is a comical thread. My former party, the republicans, are morally bankrupt. They are tacitly supporting bribery and some would say treason favoring Russia over our own country's best interest.

People who are ignoring the overwhelming evidence are not stupid. They are scum.
US authorities support Satanism

Speaking of Satanism, it is important to note th[…]

Ukrainegate

I wonder if Gordy's going to reiterate his first v[…]

You forgot Venezuela. Yes, thank you. And come t[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Can't answer that one. I am not close enough to t[…]