261
Genocide Joe Rule
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
261 points (100.0% liked)
196
16420 readers
2007 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In my experience most of the people calling him genocide Joe can't vote in US elections.
But yes, their goal is to get Trump elected.
I think the people in this thread aren't Russian bots. That's why I think it's worth arguing with them. If we want Biden to win in November, then calling him Genocide Joe isn't helping.
I don't think Lemmy has the cultural cachet to warrant actual Russian Trolls, we get the propaganda second hand from useful idiots.
Actual damaging propaganda will occur on the mainstream sites, especially Twitter, via the RUSKIES to drive support from Biden in the general. We must all do our part to prevent votes for fascists (Trump, any republican at all at this point)
This is me-me is just commentary on a safe protest vote with a vilifying tagline to garner attention. But the protest vote is to end the US-funded genocide of the Palestinian people by the country of Israel, which is a very worthy goal.
While I think a lot of this is Russia, I think Qatar is ultimately the main offendor here.
Next time you see a post on here linked to al Jazeera reporting in Palestine, just point out that all jazeerah is technically a wing of the same political apparatus that Hamas is. If you were to do this, you might notice that within 24 hours, downvoting of your comment might equal more than 50℅ of all activity in that thread, almost as if people were coming to that post solely to downvote.
You might also notice that for the people who do respond to you, they will almost never address anything you actually say, but appear to have prompts based off what specific keywords you hit. Or you might notice a flurry of accounts all responding as if they are the person already engaged in conversation with you, but they all have different screen names. Almost as if they are writing their replies directly from your posting history rather than their own account in boxes.
The propaganda machine is here, and I suspect the P2P nature of our system is going to make this platform the least able to moderate it out once we reach a critical mass of people.
Now, thankfully there is only 35,000 of us here, so we are such a low priority that there aren't too many bad actors here yet.
what does this mean?
If I write you a message, you get an icon in your private message inbox allowing you to know I responded.
However, if you are signed into a sock account, or even multiple accounts, you might forget which account you are currently signed into, and instead of waiting to be notified (because Lemmy has a bit of a lag), you instead are refreshing my profile, you might just respond directly to me from there, even if you aren't in the right account.
ah. inboxes. the space really threw me for a loop.
do you have proof of any of this?
Proof that the majority of accounts using Palestinians to sow division among democrats in an election year can't vote in US elections?
The only way I could possibly prove that to you is if I only communicated with people after photographing their ID and then sending all of that to you.
so you're making it up
You can also keep watch on the accounts who post and comment on al Jazeerah links.
I would say that any time a "leftist" posts an English language edition of a right-authoritarian state media in a positive fashion, chances are good that account should be saved and watched from time to time.
this is more conspiracy theories.
Al Jazeera being the state media of Qatar is a conspiracy? Has Al Jazeerah been told this?
accusing people who post accurate information to Lemmy of being state actors is, yes, a conspiracy theory
If a leftist believes that a far right regime is the only place to get accurate information that can't be found elsewhere, and then promotes that far right regime's media, that person is not a leftist.
What are they? I don't know. But when we have a small amount of accounts of people who are not who they claim to be, and they all are spending hours per day promoting the exact same message, and occasionally responding to the wrong messages, coordination of some kind is happening.
These accounts who push borderline pro-hamas sentiments while using Qatari media to do so may not be state sponsored. It could just be some lone nutcase who just really agrees with Qatar's geopolitical goals.
sure. could also be a leftist.
Maybe. If so, they'd be a lousy one.
your characterization doesn't determine the veracity of anyone's politics.
they don't need to believe it is the only place to get accurate information to post accurate information from there
How do you personally determine when a right wing propaganda outlet is telling you the truth?
I assume the facts are right in most media. it's the framing you gotta watch out for.
Why would you assume the facts reported by the media wing of the government funding one of the sides being reported on is accurate?
Don't you agree that these leftists posting should wait until independent media verifies Qatar's claims before it gets posted?
fact checking is too easy and ubiquitous to think you can just lie about the facts, so innuendo and framing are the really pernicious aspects of modern propaganda thats framed as news. so, no, I don't think it's necessary to wait.
You don't think it is necessary to fact check authoritarian governments before believing what they tell you?
Wow. Just sit in that for a little bit.
what have they published that has been proven to be false?
this is an appeal to ridicule. it's not a rebuttal.
you said yourself you can't prove this. it's a conspiracy theory.
I don't need to prove that people who are funneling ad revenue to far right authoritarian regimes who fund religious terrorism aren't leftists.
Their actions did that before I entered the equation.
that's conjecture, not proof
What in that statement is conjecture?
Everybody who clicks on a link to that website without an ad blocker just gave ad revenue to an explicitly anti-semitic government. Going without a VPN, and that government now has a really simple way of unmasking the identities of who visited, directly from Lemmy.
As leftists, we have to be pro Palestine while being anti Qatar and anti Hamas. Trusting what they tell us isn't leftist, nor intelligent and I think if you are being honest with yourself, you already know that.
leftists link corporate media of all kind. it doesn't impugn their politics.
Most corporate media aren't the sister organizations of Hamas.
You know that.
but they take money from people just as shitty, like bayer and lockheed and the pentagon. there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
What specific US based leftist media are you accusing of taking money from weapons manufacturing?
I have been specific in my accusations against a media company, it is only right that you should as well.
none, but there is plenty of us corporate and state sponsored propaganda posted in these communities and i don't see accusations of shilling for the pentagon and cia being thrown around like the accusations of shilling for putin/trump
If you can name a single account of a supposed leftist who is filling their day by posting state propaganda or pro-weapons manufacturing sources to leftist communities, than I will happily consider this to have merit.
From my perspective it seems like you are excusing authoritarian behavior under the guise that leftists do it for others and thus are obligated to do so for Hamas.
I think until you name and shame we can probably dismiss this specific point.
i never suggested any obligation. i'm saying that it's unreasonable to disqualify factual reporting on the basis that you don't like the people that funded it. object to the framing, or even to the actors themselves, but the reporting of facts is done by all kinds of actors, and it's up to readers to understand biases in even factual reporting and come to their own conclusions.
how hard is this?
new york times
washington post
given how ubiquitos links to these war-hawking publications are, your objection to al jazeera can't be motivated by the fact that tehy are f unded by bad people. it must be something else.
No, I just pointed out that you set up an unmeetable threshold to be willing to accept my experience.
If you aren't willing to trust a person's experience as genuine (even if their conclusion about said experience is wrong) unless they have collected data on 35,000 people behind the accounts on 1 website, that's entirely on you.
I can say that there is a boomer on Lemmy, if you are really interested, you could follow the accounts who seem to show up a lot, bullying anybody who disagrees with him.
I love tokenboomer! he has the best takes, and ... yea the comment sections are usually owning the libs, but that doesn't make them paid propagandists or sock puppets.
frankly, you're spreading unevidenced (and unprovable according to you) conspiracy theories.
There are a lot of boomers here, I won't confirm any usernames, although my post history and who has responded certainly is public.