• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom