US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

This is how you do it!

Northwestern and Brown also negotiated an end to the encampments, without even actually threatening them.

 

[Federberg]

Northwestern and Brown also negotiated an end to the encampments, without even actually threatening them.

then they were too nice. The time for coddling is over. I highly doubt this is just students. Very high probability there are activists with nefarious intent amongst them

 

[shawnbm]

Northwestern and Brown also negotiated an end to the encampments, without even actually threatening them.

I find what the University of Florida did, my alma mater, to be the way to go about it. What Northwestern, Brown and others did only feeds the and does not deter the insanity. Dartmouth didn't do what Northwestern or Brown did, they followed with the University of Florida did or perhaps it was the other way around; I really don't know and don't care. I remember going to demonstrations in the early 1980s at the University of Florida where there were plenty of demonstrations over the Reagan Administration, nuclear war, the Cuba situation, etc. and it was made clear to all of us that you can do what you need to do and assemble freely, but there was a time and place, the classes would go on, there would be no disruption and that was that. I certainly knew to go away from those things when the time was up and, frankly, I understood I was there to get an education. I do not recall and I do not know with certainty, but I seriously doubt there were outside agitator's or professionals being paid to go around assist in drumming up things and creating chaos and intentionally interrupting the University from its function. It may have existed, unbeknownst to me, but it certainly was not in the level that we are seeing across the country today.

 

[Moxie]

I find what the University of Florida did, my alma mater, to be the way to go about it. What Northwestern, Brown and others did only feeds the and does not deter the insanity. Dartmouth didn't do what Northwestern or Brown did, they followed with the University of Florida did or perhaps it was the other way around; I really don't know and don't care. I remember going to demonstrations in the early 1980s at the University of Florida where there were plenty of demonstrations over the Reagan Administration, nuclear war, the Cuba situation, etc. and it was made clear to all of us that you can do what you need to do and assemble freely, but there was a time and place, the classes would go on, there would be no disruption and that was that. I certainly knew to go away from those things when the time was up and, frankly, I understood I was there to get an education. I do not recall and I do not know with certainty, but I seriously doubt there were outside agitator's or professionals being paid to go around assist in drumming up things and creating chaos and intentionally interrupting the University from its function. It may have existed, unbeknownst to me, but it certainly was not in the level that we are seeing across the country today.

I definitely agree that disrupting people's (expensive!) educations is no way to win folks over to your cause. University presidents have to decide what to do when things go too far, though I don't mind if they negotiate a peaceful conclusion without the need for cops, arrests and expulsions. No solution is one-size-fits-all in something this widespread. I have limited sympathy for the passions of these students, as I find their single-mindedness on this complex issue to be totally lacking in nuance, or intellectual rigor...the very things they are in college to learn.

I've also been to rallies and demonstrations since something a bit predating your era of them, and I don't remember "outside agitators" either. This seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Or, at least the claiming that they exist is. One protest I went to that had a very noticeable Antifa presence was the inauguration of Bush in DC, in 2001. This was in the early days of Antifa, and they were noticeable for their black bandannas. But I wouldn't call them outside agitators. They were simply a more organized group within a large protest. We all were there protesting the same thing,..that the Supreme Court had halted the vote count in FL and declared Bush the winner. And I never saw them stirring up trouble. It was the cops that escalated the tension, by corralling us, and swapping out uniformed cops for cops in riot gear, right in front of us. That, and the helicopters overhead. I get that there was a newly elected President there. But I looked back at the reporting of the time, and there were few skirmishes, and few arrests.

I'd like to know who @Federberg thinks these "outside agitators" are, and what their nefarious intentions might be. Or even their non-nefarious aims.

 

[Federberg]

in case we all missed it, the world has changed. I don't think the protests of a bygone era are comparable for the simple reason that social media exists, what was once local is not necessarily so anymore. Not in the global Information Age. We are watching two conflicts in other parts of the world with a very obvious cyber/social media component being implemented. In both cases the outcomes of these conflicts can be affected by US foreign policy. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that the combatants are willing to sit passively and not attempt to affect the US policy actions that might determine their fates. Let me be clear... the lives and fates of the combatants will be affected by US policy. At the same time social media tools like TikTok are highly effective at promoting the positions of the combatants. Anyone who uses these tools can see the efforts in support of one side or the other. We also hear the very same talking points that the combatants make in support of their beliefs, promoted on social media, and spouted by the protesters. Might this be a passive transfer? Absolutely! Let's say it started passively, do you think it's stayed passive or more realistically have the combatants taken note and sought to turbo charge the transfer of their beliefs and values across social media? This isn't conspiracy theory here, all we have to do is open our eyes and see what's happening right in front of us.

 

[shawnbm]

^ good points there Federberg

 

[Moxie]

in case we all missed it, the world has changed. I don't think the protests of a bygone era are comparable for the simple reason that social media exists, what was once local is not necessarily so anymore. Not in the global Information Age. We are watching two conflicts in other parts of the world with a very obvious cyber/social media component being implemented. In both cases the outcomes of these conflicts can be affected by US foreign policy. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that the combatants are willing to sit passively and not attempt to affect the US policy actions that might determine their fates. Let me be clear... the lives and fates of the combatants will be affected by US policy. At the same time social media tools like TikTok are highly effective at promoting the positions of the combatants. Anyone who uses these tools can see the efforts in support of one side or the other. We also hear the very same talking points that the combatants make in support of their beliefs, promoted on social media, and spouted by the protesters. Might this be a passive transfer? Absolutely! Let's say it started passively, do you think it's stayed passive or more realistically have the combatants taken note and sought to turbo charge the transfer of their beliefs and values across social media? This isn't conspiracy theory here, all we have to do is open our eyes and see what's happening right in front of us.

I can't speak for Shawn, but I think we were just talking about the old days. I have no doubt that the world has changed. You bring up interesting points about how messages can be spread across social media, and the interest that parties have in them. But my question to you was sincere. The term "outside agitators" gets thrown around a lot. So, you're saying that you think that they're directly related to Hamas and to Israel? Like Mossad people? And whatever secret service Hamas has to put moles into these protests? Or, do you think they are US-based but otherwise interested entities that stir up trouble, and put it on social media? This is a serious question.

 

[Federberg]

I can't speak for Shawn, but I think we were just talking about the old days. I have no doubt that the world has changed. You bring up interesting points about how messages can be spread across social media, and the interest that parties have in them. But my question to you was sincere. The term "outside agitators" gets thrown around a lot. So, you're saying that you think that they're directly related to Hamas and to Israel? Like Mossad people? And whatever secret service Hamas has to put moles into these protests? Or, do you think they are US-based but otherwise interested entities that stir up trouble, and put it on social media? This is a serious question.

social media IS an outside agitator... But I'll take the bait... I think there are a number of nation states with the wherewithal to infiltrate some of these groups... China, Russia, Iran... I suspect that latter two are more likely, as they are probably more willing to invest in the micro. I see China's intelligence operations more focused on the macro... i.e. Tiktok, fentanyl etc...

 

[shawnbm]

It all of that. A lot of moving parts here and going forward. It is all about worldview. Formerly, it was democracy (almost always tied to some form of capitalism) versus Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Now, it increasingly imbued with victim politics and a view of either one is an oppressor--or beneficiary thereof--or a victim or inheritor of a certain deck of cards, regardless of what economic system you find yourself in. History and current affairs are now viewed through that prism more and more it seems--but the latter are far more often to be old world in economic theory; i.e., prone to socialism/communism and a general acceptance of anarchy to serve their purposes. Obviously, this is off the cuff and could be off-base, but that is what I have seen over the last decade.

 

[Federberg]

It all of that. A lot of moving parts here and going forward. It is all about worldview. Formerly, it was democracy (almost always tied to some form of capitalism) versus Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Now, it increasingly imbued with victim politics and a view of either one is an oppressor--or beneficiary thereof--or a victim or inheritor of a certain deck of cards, regardless of what economic system you find yourself in. History and current affairs are now viewed through that prism more and more it seems--but the latter are far more often to be old world in economic theory; i.e., prone to socialism/communism and a general acceptance of anarchy to serve their purposes. Obviously, this is off the cuff and could be off-base, but that is what I have seen over the last decade.

the worm will turn and common sense will prevail again. This cultural marxist ideology is self destructive

 

[Federberg]

I really hope this isn’t true but if it is it’s an example of the tyranny of the state I was talking about a while ago…

 

[shawnbm]

^^^ please, that can't be true. I sure hope it is not true!

 

[Federberg]

^^^ please, that can't be true. I sure hope it is not true!

I hope so too mate, but this is the same government that blocked the bank accounts of truckers who were protesting during covid. Is it that much of a leap?

 

[Moxie]

Well, you guys could wonder about it, and hope it's not as bad as they way Elon Musk portrays it, or you could look it. I saved you the trouble.

Government says only extreme online hate speech would be probed by human rights body

Government officials say online hate speech would have to portray a group as 'inherently violent' or 'unhuman' to meet the threshold for investigation by a human-rights tribunal under a newly proposed law.

www.ctvnews.ca

There's also a NYTimes article which focuses on the child protection aspects, which is significantly different from the focus of the Canadian TV take on it.

It does seem to go a bit far. Imprisonment for life for promoting genocide? But the bill has to work its way through the process before it becomes law, meaning that it will likely be modified. Regulating the internet is something that a lot of countries are grappling with. With good reason. And some countries have laws against hate speech.

 

[Moxie]

social media IS an outside agitator...

Excellent point. Foreign entities have been using it as a propaganda tool for ages now, in various milieu. But I was asking about the ones on the ground that people claim are there.

But I'll take the bait... I think there are a number of nation states with the wherewithal to infiltrate some of these groups... China, Russia, Iran... I suspect that latter two are more likely, as they are probably more willing to invest in the micro. I see China's intelligence operations more focused on the macro... i.e. Tiktok, fentanyl etc...

It's not a bait. Seriously. I was curious to know what you think this could mean in our changing world. Very interesting points about what China v. Russia and Iran might be willing to do, or how they would approach it. I can easily believe that there are Russian and Iranian assets working in the US, for years now. And Israeli ones. I'm having a hard time imagining that they made it to all of the various campus protests, but if you combine it with a social media propaganda barrage, I could see how that could work. It does make those college students look like tools. Unfortunately, that doesn't surprise me, either. As I've said, I find the students' take on this rather lacking in nuance and understanding.