How come Russia propaganda in USA politics so bad but China propaganda seems to be just fine with everyone?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There's a big difference between what China is doing and what Russia is doing.

China isn't trying to pretend it's not China saying those things. Russia pretends it's Americans. Big difference.

Propaganda is propaganda any way you cut it in my book. So is standard capitalist marketing for that matter. They all have the same ends. With the ultimate goal to influence the behaviors of the viewing audience. In order for people who are acting rationally to start acting irrationally.

So not really a big difference after all.

The difference is actually huge, because advertising/marketing isn’t clandestine. You know—typically immediately—who is pitching to you, which in turn allows you to just as immediately throw up your guard (particularly for the many millions of poeple who detest the idea of a corporation manipulating them in any way, which is basically all people).

Now think about who the Russians targeted. It was primarily people of low intelligence/little education; what Nietszche called the “bungled and the botched.” And it wasn’t selling them a product they needed; it was about fanning their emotions—their hatred to be more precise—which is something regular advertising/marketing typically does not do. It’s generally geared toward positive messages (though not in the fashion market and we see how incredibly effective that has been; just look at any young woman today and you can see how body shaming and telling them they’re fat in a thousand different ways has fucked up their lives and warped their priorities).

But what about “attack ads” you may be getting ready to type? What is required in any political ad? A disclaimer stating who made the ad. Usually it’s the candidate themselves saying they “approved” this message, but sometimes it’s a PAC but even they are typically named, “Citizens Against Bill Clinton” or the like that tips the hat. And the reason is precisely because we understand any such media needs to reveal who is behind it.

If you don’t know I’m targeting you—manipulating you; pitting you against your neighbors and essentially whispering in your ear—however, then you never have a chance to put your guard up. It makes it much, much easier to influence you.

Is it 100% effective? Of course not. Nothing is. Is it MORE effective then branded advertising/marketing? Absolutely. How much more effective is a crap shoot, but as we saw a tiny less than 1% voting differential in just three key states was all that they needed to tip the scale.

So if regular methods move the needle let’s say .8% and clandestine methods tip it another .2%, then it worked miracles.

 

[barbos]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chinese-broadens-propaganda-drive-heartland-132238597.html

I just don't get it. Why was Russia spending a couple hundred thousand dollars on facebook the end of the world. But China openly publishing propaganda in central US apparently is just fine? Was one so much worse than the other? Perhaps Mueller be concentrating resources on why China is attempting to sway US citizens against a standing president?

There's a big difference between what China is doing and what Russia is doing.

China isn't trying to pretend it's not China saying those things. Russia pretends it's Americans. Big difference.

Yes, there is a difference, Chinese seems to be more fair and straightforward. But do you know why russians are less fair? because they think or rather know that Americans are not fair themselves. Plus there are not that many russians in America to have a paper directed at them to begin with and if there are any they are not willing to cooperate with Putin. So distinction is meaningless. Both countries are trying to mess with US.
In any case, I have said it many times, russians were not interested in Trump winning they were more interested in creating chaos, the same thing Americans are interested with respect to Russia.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chinese-broadens-propaganda-drive-heartland-132238597.html

I just don't get it. Why was Russia spending a couple hundred thousand dollars on facebook the end of the world. But China openly publishing propaganda in central US apparently is just fine? Was one so much worse than the other? Perhaps Mueller be concentrating resources on why China is attempting to sway US citizens against a standing president?

Well, if there was evidence that our President was in bed with Chinese, you'd have a real point. But there really isn't, so you don't.

Well, there's no evidence he's in bed with the Russians, either. But the Left does loves its conspiracy theories.

"The Left loves its conspiracy theories" pretending as though Trump and the conservatives have not pushed numerous conspiracy theories.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

russians were not interested in Trump winning

Clearly not the case.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, there's no evidence he's in bed with the Russians, either.

Ah, Trump Derangement syndrome shows itself again.

Sorry, I forgot. The Russian Collusion blather is what the Hillary supporters keep telling themselves is the real reason she lost. For laughing dog and others it's much better than facing reality.

Yet another example of the effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome - it causes cra-cra responses like yours.

The reality is that the Trump campaign did collude with the Russians. I have never claimed that cost HRC the election. The point is not that any collusion caused Trump to win, but that the Trump campaign colluded with an enemy of the US.

 

[Toni]

Well, there's no evidence he's in bed with the Russians, either. But the Left does loves its conspiracy theories.

Trump’s campaign is rife with Russian connections, so much so that for Trump himself to not know about it he would have to be completely daft or complicit. Russia is pro Trump, and Trump is pro Russia (lots of hard evidence for both points) - either you believe the CIA or you don’t.

It’s just a question of whether you are ok with that. You guys will decide in the mid-terms.

Heh, the Hilary Clinton campaign was rife with Russian connections. So fucking what. If there was evidence of collusion, it'd be out by now. Don't need to wait for the special counsel on that. But the Left needs Russia for the convenient excuse on why their *perfect* candidate was rejected and for any further electoral defeats. Better to accept that maybe the ideas promoted by the Left are just bad.

There's evidence of collusion. There have been indictments. More are on the way.

Trump has long been entangled with the Russian mob/government.

Sure, people voted for him anyway because it's so much easier to believe someone who says outloud all the worst things that you've ever thought about everybody who isn't a white Christian male. Make that 'Christian.' I know some fine people who are Christian. And some not so fine people who talk a lot about being Christian while hating on everybody else.

 

[JohnG]

There's no collusion. And Russian interference - all $100K of it - was diverse. It's purpose was to cause division. (Like the post-election "not my president" rally attended by Michael Moore.) What's missing from the conversation is a sense of history. The Russians/Soviets have been doing this for a century. They troll because they like to troll. Remember the rumor that J. Edger Hoover was a cross dresser? Who do you think made that up? The media has really failed here.

It would seem to me the problem isn’t so much that Russia interfered with the election, and continues, the problem is that Trump won’t do anything about it and won’t acknowledge it except for when he encourages it (calling on Russia to find Hillary’s emails).

I think the Left would feel a whole lot better if he acknowledged it as a problem and at least attempted to do something about it. His attempt to rectify the situation was the Helsinki debacle, and that just added fuel to the fire and further divided the country.

Trump can't acknowledge it because he thinks it would be admitting collusion and I think democrats agree and democrats who lost to Trump need that admission in order to excuse their loss to Trump.
So, yeah, left would feel better if Trump admits it, but that will never happen.

The opposite. Trump not addressing the issue is a big part of why people think there was collusion.

It’s possible it’s only his ego that wont allow him to acknowledge the problem, not that he actively colluded (Im being generous here) but that doesn’t sit well with “left” either - that his ego clouds his judgment on serious national security issues.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No one can show any harm done by the Russian "interference"

Why does no one say what damage was done to the country?

It would seem to me the problem isn’t so much that Russia interfered with the election, and continues, the problem is that Trump won’t do anything about it and won’t . . .

There's nothing there to do anything about. This is delusional.

. . . acknowledge it except for when he encourages it (calling on Russia to find Hillary’s emails).

I think the Left would feel a whole lot better if he acknowledged it as a problem and . . .

No, there's NO PROBLEM to acknowledge. This is silly.

. . . and at least attempted to do something about it.

No, nothing needs to be done about it. There's no "it" there to do anything about. No one has been able show anything bad about "it" that needs fixing.

Why is everyone deluded about this and imagining something is wrong?

His attempt to rectify the situation was . . .

There's nothing to rectify! Why are you imagining things?

They did not changed the vote count, which is all that matters. Therefore there is nothing wrong, and this is all just PARANOIA!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why does no one say what damage was done to the country?




There's nothing there to do anything about. This is delusional.



No, there's NO PROBLEM to acknowledge. This is silly.

. . . and at least attempted to do something about it.

No, nothing needs to be done about it. There's no "it" there to do anything about. No one has been able show anything bad about "it" that needs fixing.

Why is everyone deluded about this and imagining something is wrong?

His attempt to rectify the situation was . . .

There's nothing to rectify! Why are you imagining things?

They did not changed the vote count, which is all that matters. Therefore there is nothing wrong, and this is all just PARANOIA!

Buddy: did you pay attention to the election at all? One of the central attacks the Russians pursed was to create discord in the democratic party and reduce turn out. They created this false meme that there was there deep dark conspiracy to rob Bernie from the vote. The Bernie voters got pissed, and many didn't vote for HRC. They also whipped up the raciest vote by sending out adds for "Black Lives Matter" and etc. in middle class white districts. I'm not claiming that the Russians are responsible for Trump. But to say that they had no negative affect on the US election is crazy talk.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should "Russian interference" in the election be treated as a crime? What's the threat to the nation?

Why does no one say what damage was done to the country?

. . . the problem is that Trump won’t do anything about it and won’t . . .

There's nothing there to do anything about. This is delusional.

I think the Left would feel a whole lot better if he acknowledged it as a problem and . . .

No, there's NO PROBLEM to acknowledge. This is silly.

. . . and at least attempted to do something about it.

No, nothing needs to be done about it. There's no "it" there to do anything about. No one has been able show anything bad about "it" that needs fixing.

Why is everyone deluded about this and imagining something is wrong?

His attempt to rectify the situation was . . .

There's nothing to rectify! Why are you imagining things?

They did not change the vote count, which is all that matters. Therefore there is nothing wrong, and this is all just PARANOIA!

Buddy: did you pay attention to the election at all? One of the central attacks the Russians pursed was to create discord in the democratic party and reduce turnout.

There's nothing wrong with creating discord in the two parties, or in the minor parties either. Discord is a normal part of the process. The parties need to have more discord, instead of all their voters thinking the same, in lockstep with the party bosses. There is too much worshiping the party demagogues, believing everything they say, never questioning them.

Telling the truth can reduce turnout, because voters hear what they don't want to hear, whereas lying to them -- telling them what they want to hear -- can increase turnout, turning the voters into a herd of cattle who do what they're told.

So a lower turnout is not necessarily bad, when it means the stampede is slowed down and the cattle have more doubt about the lies they are being told by their pundits.

They created this false meme that there was there deep dark conspiracy to rob Bernie from the vote.

There's probably some truth to that. So your meme is that the conspiracy story had to be suppressed, even if there was some truth to it. Well you're wrong -- nothing should be suppressed. The voters are entitled to hear everything, with nothing being censored.

The Bernie voters got pissed, and many didn't vote for HRC.

So your meme is that anything should be censored which might result in HRC receiving fewer votes. So anything which might have cost HRC some votes is "interference" in the election and should be investigated and prosecuted as a crime.

You're just proving the point that there was no "interference" in the election which needs to be investigated as something illegal, and that all this foreign "interference" nonsense is just paranoia.

If there was really an "it" that needed to be corrected, you would come up with a real example.

Did the Russians tamper with the computers, the ballots, the vote count? No? Well then what's all the fuss about?

They also whipped up the racist vote by sending out ads for "Black Lives Matter" and etc. in middle class white districts.

So your meme also is that middle class whites and white racists should not vote, and anyone who encourages those types to vote should be investigated and prosecuted for a crime, because those voters should not participate in the elections.

I'm not claiming that the Russians are responsible for Trump.

Even if they did change the outcome, giving him a larger vote count, why does it matter? One of those two was going to win. Just because your candidate lost does not mean a crime has happened. As long as the vote count was not tampered with.

There are millions of factors which affect the outcome, and millions of attempts to influence voters this way or that.

What if a popular climate scientist, non-American, made an announcement a few days prior to the election, convincing many voters that global warming is real and not phony as Trump claims, and because of this Trump loses the election.

Is that "interference" in our elections? Should someone be investigated and charged with a crime, because it changed the outcome of the vote?

But to say that they had no negative effect on the US election is crazy talk.

For the losing side, the outcome is always negative, and so anything which influenced the voters to the wrong candidate is a "negative effect" for the losing side. Even telling the truth is a "negative effect" on the election, if it causes voters to change their vote to the wrong candidate.

You're proving the point that all this "Russian interference" hysteria is babble nonsense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have laws in the US about those who make political speech being required to identify themselves. I think this is a good idea and I would like to see it go farther--sometimes it's committees whose allegiance isn't always apparent.

Russia was pretending to be grass roots Americans.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No, it's not treason to use communication effectively to change people's minds, even if it changes their vote.

And fraudulent claims are the norm in all political campaigns, and effectively do influence voters.

We have laws in the US about those who make political speech being required to identify themselves.

There are lot of goofy laws which make no sense.

A law saying literally "Anyone making political speech must identify themselves" probably would be abused by those in power who would use it to punish their political opponents, enforcing it selectively. And also it would be challenged in court by one of the targeted victims and ruled unconstitutional, as a violation of the 1st amendment protecting free speech. A law saying no one may make political statements without first registering with the government and identifying themselves would be an obvious infringement on free speech rights.

I think this is a good idea and I would like . . .

No, it's a terrible idea to let those in power dictate who can speak anything political and who cannot, based on a requirement that everyone who is going to speak must first go through a proper procedure of "identifying" themselves to those in power. This is the United States, not Stalinist Russia.

. . . would like to see it go farther--sometimes it's committees whose allegiance isn't always apparent.

This can't be taken seriously. How can we claim to be a free society if the police or other authority is empowered to arrest anyone making political speech on the grounds that their "allegiance" is doubted by someone in power? That might be the tradition in Saudi Arabia or N. Korea, but not any country with a Bill of Rights and basic individual freedoms.

Russia was pretending to be grass roots Americans.

There could be or possibly is law disallowing certain speech where those speaking are claiming to be someone they are not.

This might be similar to fraud, or forgery, depending on the details of it. But for it to be made illegal, at minimum it has to be shown what the damage is to those who are victimized by it. And this damage cannot just be a nutty claim that the wrong candidate won the last election because the speaker influenced voters by pretending to be someone he wasn't.

There are many forms of communication where someone pretends to be someone they are not, such as in entertainment. And sometimes this communication can be very effective in influencing the spectators. Certain false impersonations can be fraudulent and prosecuted as criminal, because of those deceived and cheated financially. But this can't apply to political campaigning speech which normally contains fraudulent claims which mislead voters, as the standard practice.

Should all speech be subject to censorship which has political content and influences people and contains any kind of pretending in it? And what about publications which do this?

All speech and published matter of this description requiring prior approval from those in power? everyone speaking or publishing subject to arrest and being charged with treason by those in power who might question their "allegiance"?

Today's political Left and political Right would doubtless abuse any authority like this and use it to punish their political opposition.

The current hysteria about "Russian interference" is a case in point, where both sides are trying to find legal authority to convict the other side of something criminal.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What the hell are you babbling about lumpen? There is so much straw in that drivel as to almost be commendable.

The question is whether or not undue influence can be applied to someone by hiding who is the influencer, or what is their agenda, which is precisely why we require disclosure on all political ads. If you think I’m a friend of yours, you are going to give undue weight to my opinions/beliefs. This is a well established fact about human socialization. We are not nearly as critical of people we think we are allied with as we should be. Hence the disclosure requirement.

Disclosure, however, in no way impedes free speech and/or has nothing to do with censorship or “approval from those in power.” It is about transparancy and protecting the ignorant from con men.

 

[barbos]

Russia was pretending to be grass roots Americans.

Outrageous! Outrageous I say!

 

[Underseer]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chinese-broadens-propaganda-drive-heartland-132238597.html

I just don't get it. Why was Russia spending a couple hundred thousand dollars on facebook the end of the world. But China openly publishing propaganda in central US apparently is just fine? Was one so much worse than the other? Perhaps Mueller be concentrating resources on why China is attempting to sway US citizens against a standing president?

Obviously because the libtards are racist against white people, and the Russians are white!

Good on you, brother, for once again exposing the "tolerant left" for their repeated acts of White Genocide!

Some day, we will overcome all of this White Genocide and free the superior white race from oppression! Stay strong! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Trump crew has been in bed with Russian oligarchs and mobster gangs allied with Putin for years. The Chinese, much less so. Which does not excuse Chinese meddling. But the Russian meddling is heavy handed, right in our face, obvious, and Trump and the GOP are turning a blind eye to it. Trying for example, to hobble investigations into this and Trump's involvement with this sort of whole sale meddling and interference.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It doesn’t matter how effective it was, or if we do it too, or any of this ancillary blather. The fact that Trump openly solicited and his campaign worked with a foreign government—who was attacking us at the time—is more than enough to impeach him as a traitor.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why does no one say what damage was done to the country?




There's nothing there to do anything about. This is delusional.



No, there's NO PROBLEM to acknowledge. This is silly.

. . . and at least attempted to do something about it.

No, nothing needs to be done about it. There's no "it" there to do anything about. No one has been able show anything bad about "it" that needs fixing.

Why is everyone deluded about this and imagining something is wrong?

His attempt to rectify the situation was . . .

There's nothing to rectify! Why are you imagining things?

They did not changed the vote count, which is all that matters. Therefore there is nothing wrong, and this is all just PARANOIA!

Well, since you put in emboldened, enlarged, colored font, it must be true.

Your position places you against the FBI, the CIA, two congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and Director of National Intelligence.

Wait, hold on --

Your position places you against the FBI, the CIA, two congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and Director of National Intelligence.

There, maybe you'll believe them now.

 

[RVonse]

Were those the same partison FBI agents who actively attempted to overturn the results of the last POTUS election?

Im with Lumpens with this anyway. In the final analysis how do you prevent another country from doing what the Russians did without locking down the entire process in an undemocratic fashion? I for one prefer not to have a nanny state to protect me from everything I might hear from the wrong source. You are required to be adult age to vote, it is not to much to expect voters to be adults.

 

[Elixir]

If there was evidence of collusion, it'd be out by now.

There is already plenty of evidence of collusion that is "out". But don't pull your head out of your ass YET - wait until after the elections when reports start coming out from Mueller's office. You may have to wait until February to see those reports though - the Republican enablers in Congress are not going to be eager to have their naked emperor exposed.