@jeff There is a hardcore element of American Evangelical Christians who have actively been courting post-Communist Russia since the mid-1990s, and especially 2000. They admire Putin for his support of the Russian Orthodox Church, and would like a similar arrangement in the USA.
Rick Joyner, for instance, has a very strong Russian connection and has been talking up Putin's Russia for a long time.
https://www.morningstarministries.org/resources/prophetic-bulletins/2014/ukraine-crisis
@jeff I'm just showing you how the Republican/Russia connection practically works.
It's there. It's very strong.
@jeff The US Democratic party is not currently, in 2018, wired into active Russian military intelligence services in the same way that the US Republican party is.
That's because they have access to the actual US intelligence services.
Trump is more closely connected to Russian intelligence agents than he is to legitimate US intelligence agents.
There is, however, a covert section of the US military which appears to be very strongly wired into Russia.
It's rather an explosive situation.
@jeff Would your source for this information by any chance be Russia Today?
@jeff And yet here you are literally repeating Russian propaganda points.
It's interesting how propaganda works, isn't it? It works even if you don't believe it's propaganda.
@jeff Once again: Your source for this scoop?
@jeff Right, so you're aware then of the very strong links between Wikileaks and Russia?
@jeff What sources would you consider non-credible in this context?
We may have a communication problem if I cite legitimate journalism and you don't believe it's legitimate.
@jeff I don't watch TV news at all.
I do follow William Gibson on Twitter, who has been covering the Russian situation for several years now, and links to a wide array of journalistic sources.
But again, if you don't trust the outlets who are researching and publishing the truth, you will find my statements incredible.
@jeff Why do you consider it 'giving Russia credit' to take notice of and point out inflammatory online propaganda which originates from Russia - and therefore can be safely discarded?
We both would like to reduce online polarization.
To do so, though, requires realising when one's feelings about 'the other side' have been manipulated by intentional deception.
@jeff @natecull agreed: hyperpartisan shit-flinging and big data are huge barriers.
This is further exacerbated by the use of agent provocateurs, targeted using big data and armed with hyperpartisan talking points.
Many interests use those agent provocateurs. Commercial companies, political parties, and yes, nation states.
Russia is one party that's implicated, but right now the corporate media is only focusing on them.
They don't go far enough.
@Hascobe @jeff It's a big ol' hairy mess, yep, and it's hugely enabled by good homegrown US 'surveillance capitalism' and the ad/marketing industry.
Without the bot armies that are tolerated on Facebook and Twitter, and without things like Youtube recommendation algorithms explicitly amplifying radicalising content, this wouldn't be nearly the crisis that it is.
I actually think that both capitalism and government regulation are only partially workable, but both fail in different ways and under different stresses.
A good economy is one that uses both capital and regulation in ways which balance each other, so that when one fails the other can balance it.
I think the USA from 1930s to 1960s achieved great things by being such a 'mixed' economy, neither pure capitalist nor pure socialist.
@Shamar @jeff @natecull anonymity is both a danger (in that bots and trolls can use it to pretend to be who they are not) and a boon (in that it divorces views from speakers, allowing them to be judged on merit, and also removes ego, making it easier to change one's mind).
My view is that any discussion under anonymity should allow for robust analysis of any individual's stances. The drawback of agent provocateurs can be mitigated.
