pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @xz 26 Oct \ parent \ on: Uh, Oh: New York Times, Washington Post Signal Post-Election Crackdown Politics_And_Law
I see your point.
But the Harvard take seems prejudice ( I didn't read the NYT) but as Matt Taibii says there: We can't just let voters choose? The idea that this will happen without astroturfing is the point.
To cause chaos, to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, implies that it would be astroturfed like the BLM campaign, it sows dischord, mostly everyone is disenfranchized through an engineered crisis.
Policy does not change on day one. There might be security pressures if sweeping changes in policy are enacted. It would be naive for any group to think that a change in leadership is not needed right now.
PS. I dig Julia Roberts, thx for the recommend.
The idea that this will happen without astroturfing
Depends how we define astroturf, if we simply say orchestrated then yes you're right it absolutely will be orchestrated. You and I might realize this, but that makes us the fringe 1-3% and not who the article is intended for.
I clarify to say orchestrated because of the need to price in a 5th gen warfare scenario. Things could get actually messy simply because the enemy gets a vote. That would count as orchestrated still imo, but not quite as controlled as astroturf.
security pressures
We're already in Thucydides trap, the threat of policy change creates security pressures which justify the policy change which force the security pressures.
reply
Yes, I meant orchestrated. I could not think of a better word, and I suppose this has importance. Just as some might say 9-11 was orchestrated, the consequences of what is deemed a questionable and implausible narrative in the rear-view mirror, and ultimately filed under conspiritorial, also has consequences in the long run. Usually, a censerous environment and an emperor with no clothing.
Thucydides
That's a good point. Thing is, I think this can work in both ways. I.e, the threat of no change brings it's own slower, inevitable ensured demise. Isn't change the only constant? I do like the Greek tales and the wisdom derived. According to the trap, who fears who? I'm sure that equally, power interests are astute at playing on both sides of the field. I guess that makes things dangerous, but in a sense, nothing new neither.
reply
nothing new neither
Bingo, I think a lot of people reject conspiratorial views on what happens today because they don't know their history
How many times does the world changed drastically in a lifetime? How well telegraphed are those things?
This election feels like it's the catalyst for a Cuba-JFK / 1971 - Watergate / 9.11- GFC / Pandemic scale "weeks when decades happen" series of events
And just like those events it wont be random
reply