Wikileaks becoming the jackbooted thugs of the internet is almost ironic enough to be hilarious.
I'd say it had something to do with the horseshoe effect, but my guess is also that there's been a lot of personnel turnover at wikileaks that we don't know about from 2006 to today, aside from the people at the top.
Wikileaks becoming the jackbooted thugs of the internet is almost ironic enough to be hilarious.
I'd say it had something to do with the horseshoe effect, but my guess is also that there's been a lot of personnel turnover at wikileaks that we don't know about from 2006 to today, aside from the people at the top.
Yeah when the russians outwardly took over the operation.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Wikileaks becoming the jackbooted thugs of the internet is almost ironic enough to be hilarious.
I'd say it had something to do with the horseshoe effect, but my guess is also that there's been a lot of personnel turnover at wikileaks that we don't know about from 2006 to today, aside from the people at the top.
Yeah when the russians outwardly took over the operation.
Wikileaks becoming the jackbooted thugs of the internet is almost ironic enough to be hilarious.
I'd say it had something to do with the horseshoe effect, but my guess is also that there's been a lot of personnel turnover at wikileaks that we don't know about from 2006 to today, aside from the people at the top.
Yes and no. There is an excellent piece from a guy who was contracted to ghost an autobiography for Assange that sheds some light into it. The core of what it reveals leads to a best explanation of: Assange pushed away anyone who might potentially have steered the organization in a positive direction. He was either a Russian plant all along or too naive to not be manipulated by them.
This comes from
1) Assange has always been anti-American and anti-American government in general. (This comes less from the piece and more from his own public papers)
2) Assange is a paranoid and a narcicist. He craves his own secrecy and reacts poorly to being challenged. Challenging him on anything pushes you out of his inner circle.
3) Assange is very susceptible to people who tell him what he wants to hear. Frame something as his idea and he will do almost whatever you want.
4) Assange lies all the time to get what he wants.
It's also important to note that the core of he belief system that informed Wikileaks is not the democratic ideal we hold to, but something more akin to libertarianism. More technically anarcho socialism. And sure that doesn't make any sense but we have those type of people here so it should give you a frame of reference for what we are dealing with.
I started to wonder why it is that the crazy people are the ones with money and/or power, and then I remembered that - while the combination has a certain concentrating and/or enabling effect, to be sure - it's mostly a case of reporting/sampling bias: there's lots of people with these disorders who don't, but because they don't, we never hear about them, just the outliers.
(Or, as the semi-old joke goes, "Have you tried going mad without power? It's terrible, no one listens to you.")
Campbell Brown is Facebook's new head of figuring out what the fuck is real news. She's most recently been a charter school activist and is married to Dan Senor, a Bush crony who was the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority. When she was on CNN she was an utter moron in the traditional DC press mold.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm going to put this here because I agree, the press should make it clear where each communication via twitter is coming from. Is it straight from Trump or filtered through a spokesperson? In a normal presidency we know when it is the President at the podium or the Press Secretary.
German media and politicians have warned against an election-year spike in fake news after the rightwing website Breitbart claimed a mob chanting “Allahu Akbar” had set fire to a church in the city of Dortmund on New Year’s Eve.
After the report by the US site was widely shared on social media, the city’s police clarified that no “extraordinary or spectacular” incidents had marred the festivities.
The local newspaper, Ruhr Nachrichten, said elements of its online reporting on New Year’s Eve had been distorted by Breitbart to produce “fake news, hate and propaganda”.
Bild, Germany’s top-selling daily, also predicted trouble ahead – pointing to the fact that Breitbart’s former editor Steve Bannon had been appointed as US president-elect Donald Trump’s chief strategist.
It warned that Breitbart – which plans to launch German and French language sites – could seek to “aggravate the tense political climate in Germany”.
Breitbart has declined to comment.
Good thing no one connected to Breitbart is in the White House.
Campbell Brown is Facebook's new head of figuring out what the fuck is real news. She's most recently been a charter school activist and is married to Dan Senor, a Bush crony who was the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority. When she was on CNN she was an utter moron in the traditional DC press mold.
Because if something was proven this year is how much people want a Beltway insider to tell them what is truth and what isn't.
I hope they just weight visibility of the posts or whatever when they're shared rather than putting a big fake news tag on the offending post. It'll just be appropriated like deplorables was
German media and politicians have warned against an election-year spike in fake news after the rightwing website Breitbart claimed a mob chanting “Allahu Akbar” had set fire to a church in the city of Dortmund on New Year’s Eve.
After the report by the US site was widely shared on social media, the city’s police clarified that no “extraordinary or spectacular” incidents had marred the festivities.
The local newspaper, Ruhr Nachrichten, said elements of its online reporting on New Year’s Eve had been distorted by Breitbart to produce “fake news, hate and propaganda”.
Bild, Germany’s top-selling daily, also predicted trouble ahead – pointing to the fact that Breitbart’s former editor Steve Bannon had been appointed as US president-elect Donald Trump’s chief strategist.
It warned that Breitbart – which plans to launch German and French language sites – could seek to “aggravate the tense political climate in Germany”.
Breitbart has declined to comment.
Good thing no one connected to Breitbart is in the White House.
Germany takes Nazis seriously, they should tell everyone about their affiliation with the alt-right.
Wikileaks becoming the jackbooted thugs of the internet is almost ironic enough to be hilarious.
I'd say it had something to do with the horseshoe effect, but my guess is also that there's been a lot of personnel turnover at wikileaks that we don't know about from 2006 to today, aside from the people at the top.
Yes and no. There is an excellent piece from a guy who was contracted to ghost an autobiography for Assange that sheds some light into it. The core of what it reveals leads to a best explanation of: Assange pushed away anyone who might potentially have steered the organization in a positive direction. He was either a Russian plant all along or too naive to not be manipulated by them.
This comes from
1) Assange has always been anti-American and anti-American government in general. (This comes less from the piece and more from his own public papers)
2) Assange is a paranoid and a narcicist. He craves his own secrecy and reacts poorly to being challenged. Challenging him on anything pushes you out of his inner circle.
3) Assange is very susceptible to people who tell him what he wants to hear. Frame something as his idea and he will do almost whatever you want.
4) Assange lies all the time to get what he wants.
It's also important to note that the core of he belief system that informed Wikileaks is not the democratic ideal we hold to, but something more akin to libertarianism. More technically anarcho socialism. And sure that doesn't make any sense but we have those type of people here so it should give you a frame of reference for what we are dealing with.
I wanted to believe there was a real journalist taking our worthless country to task for its crimes. He even revealed the killing of a BBC photojournalist and his escorts.
Wikileaks becoming the jackbooted thugs of the internet is almost ironic enough to be hilarious.
I'd say it had something to do with the horseshoe effect, but my guess is also that there's been a lot of personnel turnover at wikileaks that we don't know about from 2006 to today, aside from the people at the top.
Yes and no. There is an excellent piece from a guy who was contracted to ghost an autobiography for Assange that sheds some light into it. The core of what it reveals leads to a best explanation of: Assange pushed away anyone who might potentially have steered the organization in a positive direction. He was either a Russian plant all along or too naive to not be manipulated by them.
This comes from
1) Assange has always been anti-American and anti-American government in general. (This comes less from the piece and more from his own public papers)
2) Assange is a paranoid and a narcicist. He craves his own secrecy and reacts poorly to being challenged. Challenging him on anything pushes you out of his inner circle.
3) Assange is very susceptible to people who tell him what he wants to hear. Frame something as his idea and he will do almost whatever you want.
4) Assange lies all the time to get what he wants.
It's also important to note that the core of he belief system that informed Wikileaks is not the democratic ideal we hold to, but something more akin to libertarianism. More technically anarcho socialism. And sure that doesn't make any sense but we have those type of people here so it should give you a frame of reference for what we are dealing with.
I wanted to believe there was a real journalist taking our worthless country to task for its crimes. He even revealed the killing of a BBC photojournalist and his escorts.
Assange was never a journalist.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
German media and politicians have warned against an election-year spike in fake news after the rightwing website Breitbart claimed a mob chanting “Allahu Akbar” had set fire to a church in the city of Dortmund on New Year’s Eve.
After the report by the US site was widely shared on social media, the city’s police clarified that no “extraordinary or spectacular” incidents had marred the festivities.
The local newspaper, Ruhr Nachrichten, said elements of its online reporting on New Year’s Eve had been distorted by Breitbart to produce “fake news, hate and propaganda”.
Bild, Germany’s top-selling daily, also predicted trouble ahead – pointing to the fact that Breitbart’s former editor Steve Bannon had been appointed as US president-elect Donald Trump’s chief strategist.
It warned that Breitbart – which plans to launch German and French language sites – could seek to “aggravate the tense political climate in Germany”.
Breitbart has declined to comment.
Good thing no one connected to Breitbart is in the White House.
Germany takes Nazis seriously, they should tell everyone about their affiliation with the alt-right.
Breitbart will have to moderate itself better in a country with actual hate-speech laws, too.
Wikileaks becoming the jackbooted thugs of the internet is almost ironic enough to be hilarious.
I'd say it had something to do with the horseshoe effect, but my guess is also that there's been a lot of personnel turnover at wikileaks that we don't know about from 2006 to today, aside from the people at the top.
Yes and no. There is an excellent piece from a guy who was contracted to ghost an autobiography for Assange that sheds some light into it. The core of what it reveals leads to a best explanation of: Assange pushed away anyone who might potentially have steered the organization in a positive direction. He was either a Russian plant all along or too naive to not be manipulated by them.
This comes from
1) Assange has always been anti-American and anti-American government in general. (This comes less from the piece and more from his own public papers)
2) Assange is a paranoid and a narcicist. He craves his own secrecy and reacts poorly to being challenged. Challenging him on anything pushes you out of his inner circle.
3) Assange is very susceptible to people who tell him what he wants to hear. Frame something as his idea and he will do almost whatever you want.
4) Assange lies all the time to get what he wants.
It's also important to note that the core of he belief system that informed Wikileaks is not the democratic ideal we hold to, but something more akin to libertarianism. More technically anarcho socialism. And sure that doesn't make any sense but we have those type of people here so it should give you a frame of reference for what we are dealing with.
I had read that piece as well, and what I took from it is that #2 on your list was by far Assange's most important driver. He genuinely does not care about truth or sides or ideology; he just craves attention and will do anything for it. He spends hours a day, every day, Googling his own name to see how much he got mentioned in the news that day. There were other people at the start of Wikileaks who were genuinely interested in revealing the Truth and all that, but they were driven away as it became more and more Assange Craves Attention, and that's all it is now. He was easy to make a Russian stooge because they'll pretend to give him the adulation he believes he deserves in his every moment, and he's so self-obsessed that he does not care what damage he does, and enjoys the current attention so much that he can't even consider that he will likely be killed once he outlives his usefulness.
The least bad thing we can say about him is that he's certainly mentally ill, of the type that will never get treatment because they never will accept that something is wrong with them. Like the president-elect!
Mr. Sessions is in many ways Mr. Trump’s antithesis: reedy-voiced, diminutive and mild-mannered, a devout Methodist and an Eagle Scout who will soon celebrate a golden wedding anniversary with his college sweetheart. His father ran a country store in the Deep South. And he is widely regarded as rigidly honest and inflexible on issues he considers matters of principle.
Then a bit about how Sessions isn't really all that conservative, no more so than John Ashcroft, nothing to see here, let's build up some bonafides:
He learned thriftiness from his parents, who grew up during the Depression. Upon becoming a United States attorney in 1981, he had only $750 in the bank, records show. Friends joke that even after he attained the comfortable life of a senator decades later, he refused to replace an aging car or the outdated kitchen countertops at his home in Mobile.
It was an environment that fostered Mr. Sessions’s belief in frugality and self-reliance, bounded by a strict — if much disputed — code of what was and was not fair.
Every factually horrible thing he's done is alluded to, to be fair, but as an aside enveloped with talk about his rock-ribbed conservatism and popularity in Alabama. His boyhood Scout days get more focus than his attempts to revive chain-gangs. He's another outsider like Trump, but ignore his decades in politics. Talk about how he grew up in a deeply segregated time, but gloss over it as a period he spent in a bubble, no further questions, he met his wife on a hayride, isn't that so quaint?
There's discussion of his failed appointment to a federal judgeship, but focus is on a failed attempt to prosecute black activists for helping people to vote, delivered in clinically deceptive language. No mention of his jokes about the KKK or referring to a black US assistant attorney as "boy." Follow up with the fact that he has hired some black people since the 1960s to cleanse the palate.
Every negative thing about the man is ellided past or reduced by some barely related fact, an endless flow of sentences insisting he is just a staunch, true-hearted believer, a guy who has at least one black defender, so how bad can he be?
The lens through which we are expected to view the ascension of this racist, ignorant, cruel little pile of poorly knit white sheets:
Now, as Mr. Trump embarks on a presidency in which he promises to remake Washington and dispense with many of its traditions, it will fall to Mr. Sessions to decide if and when to say no. And his reputation for standing up to the powers that be, consequences be damned, may face its stiffest test yet.
A lone hero in the darkness, a marble statue with a flaming torch and a belief in what's right to defend us against... Donald Trump. The man he endorsed in the first place to earn this bullshit cronyism.
Fuck everybody involved with this piece, most especially Matt Apuzzo, a man who lied in numerous articles during the election to slander Hillary Clinton over the e-mail nonsense.
And a special nod of disappointment to Emily Bazelon for contributing to this mess, because while I don't love her, I thought she was better than this shit, and I developed a respect for her moral decency from her work at Slate.
With that and the stuff being written about Mattis, I wonder how Trump's propensity for jealousy will impact his interactions with his department heads.
Interesting times.
Hoz on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Maybe that's the strategy. Trump hates the New York Times, so they write up a glowing article about each of his most reprehensible Cabinet picks in order to get him to choose someone else.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
If a little praise from the press is all it takes to ruffle Trump's feathers the Democrats won't need to manipulate him against his picks he'll turn on them eventually whenever they do something, anything, that can be seen as positive in their field of work. For example, in W.'s administration various officials like Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft etc all got their time in the spotlight.
This leave him in dire straights with the unappointed ones who are shifted replaced, and the congress approved picks he'll have wait until he can somehow get congress to green light whoever is his favorite at the moment. It's going to get rocky real fast during long period until that happens, too.
I'm curious how this factored into when he was a businessman, surely some high ranking underlings got good press too?
How did this guy run a business? That requires some degree of management skills, yet he appears to have none whatsoever.
Posts
Vowels, how do they work?
Tuttle, Buttle, what's the difference?
pleasepaypreacher.net
At this point, they might as well go ahead and put RT and the FSB on their site as official sponsors.
I'd say it had something to do with the horseshoe effect, but my guess is also that there's been a lot of personnel turnover at wikileaks that we don't know about from 2006 to today, aside from the people at the top.
Yeah when the russians outwardly took over the operation.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Let's just call a spade a Reaper Indoctrination.
Yes and no. There is an excellent piece from a guy who was contracted to ghost an autobiography for Assange that sheds some light into it. The core of what it reveals leads to a best explanation of: Assange pushed away anyone who might potentially have steered the organization in a positive direction. He was either a Russian plant all along or too naive to not be manipulated by them.
This comes from
1) Assange has always been anti-American and anti-American government in general. (This comes less from the piece and more from his own public papers)
2) Assange is a paranoid and a narcicist. He craves his own secrecy and reacts poorly to being challenged. Challenging him on anything pushes you out of his inner circle.
3) Assange is very susceptible to people who tell him what he wants to hear. Frame something as his idea and he will do almost whatever you want.
4) Assange lies all the time to get what he wants.
It's also important to note that the core of he belief system that informed Wikileaks is not the democratic ideal we hold to, but something more akin to libertarianism. More technically anarcho socialism. And sure that doesn't make any sense but we have those type of people here so it should give you a frame of reference for what we are dealing with.
I started to wonder why it is that the crazy people are the ones with money and/or power, and then I remembered that - while the combination has a certain concentrating and/or enabling effect, to be sure - it's mostly a case of reporting/sampling bias: there's lots of people with these disorders who don't, but because they don't, we never hear about them, just the outliers.
(Or, as the semi-old joke goes, "Have you tried going mad without power? It's terrible, no one listens to you.")
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/07/german-police-quash-breitbart-story-of-mob-setting-fire-to-dortmund-church Good thing no one connected to Breitbart is in the White House.
Because if something was proven this year is how much people want a Beltway insider to tell them what is truth and what isn't.
Germany takes Nazis seriously, they should tell everyone about their affiliation with the alt-right.
I wanted to believe there was a real journalist taking our worthless country to task for its crimes. He even revealed the killing of a BBC photojournalist and his escorts.
So we didn't need them to find out about the Bush stuff. And they really didn't reveal anything incriminating. It was always propaganda.
Assange was never a journalist.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Breitbart will have to moderate itself better in a country with actual hate-speech laws, too.
Oh, it took longer than that to think that the americans chasing after somebody could be a good idea.
I had read that piece as well, and what I took from it is that #2 on your list was by far Assange's most important driver. He genuinely does not care about truth or sides or ideology; he just craves attention and will do anything for it. He spends hours a day, every day, Googling his own name to see how much he got mentioned in the news that day. There were other people at the start of Wikileaks who were genuinely interested in revealing the Truth and all that, but they were driven away as it became more and more Assange Craves Attention, and that's all it is now. He was easy to make a Russian stooge because they'll pretend to give him the adulation he believes he deserves in his every moment, and he's so self-obsessed that he does not care what damage he does, and enjoys the current attention so much that he can't even consider that he will likely be killed once he outlives his usefulness.
The least bad thing we can say about him is that he's certainly mentally ill, of the type that will never get treatment because they never will accept that something is wrong with them. Like the president-elect!
Instead of stopping her and pointing out that it specifically stated there was no assessment made on subject period
He needs to give that award back to Samantha Bee
You're not getting a valuable insight into the administration's perspective
Even when you argue against them you're allowing them to portray there being two sides to reality
It's a fucking travesty
But the ratings.
The Times is issuing hagiographies of Jeff Sessions, so we're already well beyond the "press might resist this madness" phase.
Wait, seriously? WTF?
Because I've got a few days of subscription left, some highlights:
Then a bit about how Sessions isn't really all that conservative, no more so than John Ashcroft, nothing to see here, let's build up some bonafides:
Every factually horrible thing he's done is alluded to, to be fair, but as an aside enveloped with talk about his rock-ribbed conservatism and popularity in Alabama. His boyhood Scout days get more focus than his attempts to revive chain-gangs. He's another outsider like Trump, but ignore his decades in politics. Talk about how he grew up in a deeply segregated time, but gloss over it as a period he spent in a bubble, no further questions, he met his wife on a hayride, isn't that so quaint?
There's discussion of his failed appointment to a federal judgeship, but focus is on a failed attempt to prosecute black activists for helping people to vote, delivered in clinically deceptive language. No mention of his jokes about the KKK or referring to a black US assistant attorney as "boy." Follow up with the fact that he has hired some black people since the 1960s to cleanse the palate.
Every negative thing about the man is ellided past or reduced by some barely related fact, an endless flow of sentences insisting he is just a staunch, true-hearted believer, a guy who has at least one black defender, so how bad can he be?
The lens through which we are expected to view the ascension of this racist, ignorant, cruel little pile of poorly knit white sheets:
A lone hero in the darkness, a marble statue with a flaming torch and a belief in what's right to defend us against... Donald Trump. The man he endorsed in the first place to earn this bullshit cronyism.
Fuck everybody involved with this piece, most especially Matt Apuzzo, a man who lied in numerous articles during the election to slander Hillary Clinton over the e-mail nonsense.
And a special nod of disappointment to Emily Bazelon for contributing to this mess, because while I don't love her, I thought she was better than this shit, and I developed a respect for her moral decency from her work at Slate.
Even that doesn't require breaking out the pony bit and slapping on a saddle for a piece of shit like Jeff Sessions.
Interesting times.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
This leave him in dire straights with the unappointed ones who are shifted replaced, and the congress approved picks he'll have wait until he can somehow get congress to green light whoever is his favorite at the moment. It's going to get rocky real fast during long period until that happens, too.
I'm curious how this factored into when he was a businessman, surely some high ranking underlings got good press too?
How did this guy run a business? That requires some degree of management skills, yet he appears to have none whatsoever.