Are the mentioned “media personalities “(Tim Pool) really sympathetic to authoritarianism?
From what little I’ve seen, no. I only know Tim Pool from his accurate portrayal of Swedens failed immigration experiment. Perhaps he’s now yet another boot licker?
FWIW Tim Pool calls for a civil war and the imprisonment and deaths of his political rivals (1) and has spread anti-Ukrainian propaganda (2) so you have a point if you consider that to be Exactly The Same Thing as the BBC. There is a kind of odd phenomenon of equivocating countries that are allies with countries that are not and clear cut propaganda and incitement to violence with literally any other type of benign speech. I don’t know why people engage in such a forced thought experiment but it does happen.
The escalation narrative is propaganda. It is intended to sway public opinion and end support for Ukraine. But people seems to forget that Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine can and should do whatever they can to defend themselves. There is no escalation. We can see that with the Kursk invasion and the other of Putin's numerous red lines that has already been crossed.
Is anything that is anti Ukraine considered propaganda?
That's very clearly not what was said. Rather, they were referring specifically to content from Tim Pool.
I agree he comes off as uncontrolled and it is bizarre.
That's good to know. But here's the thing -- it doesn't matter that he may be right, or partially right on certain details (like Nordstream, for example).
Because as a whole -- it's still propaganda, just from how it's structured, and the pungently shrill, and yes, intentionally uncontrolled and bizarre tone he employs. And from all the deceptions and diversions that's it packed with, and which we very quickly key into once we stop to break it all down.
That's how propaganda works. It's kind of like a shit sandwich, we might say. Parts of it might be kind of tasty actually, and perhaps have some nutritive value. But as a whole, its nutritive value is entirely the opposite. And in fact can be quite toxic.
As is basically every piece of content you will find from Tim Pool and others of his mold.
> Is anything that is anti Ukraine considered propaganda?
This is what I meant by odd equivocating. I made a clear point about Tim Pool and linked to a specific video. It is downright bizarre to ask the equivalent of “What if some other guy said something else entirely?” There is quite literally no room for misinterpretation unless it is forcibly introduced into conversation here.
What does the fact that guy is literally yelling at you from the very first frame of the video suggest to you? Do you recognize any parallels between his tone, and that of certain other famous political personalities in history?
What makes it propaganda other than being anti-Ukraine?
That this is so difficult to get a direct answer to suggests very strongly that you're also captured by propaganda and struggle to distinguish it from reality.
> Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.
From the specific example of the Tim Pool video posted earlier, his repetition of the phrase “Ukraine is our enemy” is a good example of loaded language meant to evoke an emotional rather than rational response.
Propaganda is not actually nebulous or usually all that difficult to identify. There are of course degrees of nuance sometimes, but Tim Pool is no master of subtlety or rhetorical complexity.
The idea that pointing out propaganda is the realm of people that have been “captured by [opposing] propaganda” is itself nonsense that traps a person in a sort of feedback loop (for example if that is how identifying propaganda works, if you notice that someone is captured by propaganda that is because you yourself are captured by a different propaganda). The idea that “propaganda” means “things I don’t want to hear” is factually wrong, and the endeavor of pretending that it is only accomplishes discouraging people from recognizing it.
Let me rephrase what I asked as a multiple choice question, and we'll see if that helps:
What does the fact that guy is literally yelling at you from the very first frame of the video suggest to you?
(a) something about Ukraine
(b) something about Russia
(c) that he must be really smart and have very insightful things to say
(d) that he is trying to emotionally manipulate me
(e) that he is my friend
> I feel like that word gets tossed around a lot (...)
This is the standard playbook of those trying to avoid any scrutiny into these industrial propaganda campaigns mounted by the likes of Russia and China: when faced with the evidence, they rush to try to muddy the waters with inane non-sequiturs on semantics, or other logical fallacies such as whataboutisms.
You may have read or heard that some of the sums of money involved are pretty fabulous. The people getting that money are loudly proclaiming that they were duped despite published communications that indicate they knew exactly what they were doing.
Are they trying to protect their reputations? Yeah think about that for a minute. If you read all the way to the end of the indictment there's a section called forfeiture allegations. That means the doj is going after all the money involved in the scheme. That's why people are playing dumb.
30 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 76.2 ms ] threadFrom what little I’ve seen, no. I only know Tim Pool from his accurate portrayal of Swedens failed immigration experiment. Perhaps he’s now yet another boot licker?
1
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1829950849482694938
2 https://x.com/realvisigoth/status/1831441494601077081
That's very clearly not what was said. Rather, they were referring specifically to content from Tim Pool.
I agree he comes off as uncontrolled and it is bizarre.
That's good to know. But here's the thing -- it doesn't matter that he may be right, or partially right on certain details (like Nordstream, for example).
Because as a whole -- it's still propaganda, just from how it's structured, and the pungently shrill, and yes, intentionally uncontrolled and bizarre tone he employs. And from all the deceptions and diversions that's it packed with, and which we very quickly key into once we stop to break it all down.
That's how propaganda works. It's kind of like a shit sandwich, we might say. Parts of it might be kind of tasty actually, and perhaps have some nutritive value. But as a whole, its nutritive value is entirely the opposite. And in fact can be quite toxic.
As is basically every piece of content you will find from Tim Pool and others of his mold.
This is what I meant by odd equivocating. I made a clear point about Tim Pool and linked to a specific video. It is downright bizarre to ask the equivalent of “What if some other guy said something else entirely?” There is quite literally no room for misinterpretation unless it is forcibly introduced into conversation here.
That this is so difficult to get a direct answer to suggests very strongly that you're also captured by propaganda and struggle to distinguish it from reality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
> Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.
From the specific example of the Tim Pool video posted earlier, his repetition of the phrase “Ukraine is our enemy” is a good example of loaded language meant to evoke an emotional rather than rational response.
Propaganda is not actually nebulous or usually all that difficult to identify. There are of course degrees of nuance sometimes, but Tim Pool is no master of subtlety or rhetorical complexity.
The idea that pointing out propaganda is the realm of people that have been “captured by [opposing] propaganda” is itself nonsense that traps a person in a sort of feedback loop (for example if that is how identifying propaganda works, if you notice that someone is captured by propaganda that is because you yourself are captured by a different propaganda). The idea that “propaganda” means “things I don’t want to hear” is factually wrong, and the endeavor of pretending that it is only accomplishes discouraging people from recognizing it.
This is the standard playbook of those trying to avoid any scrutiny into these industrial propaganda campaigns mounted by the likes of Russia and China: when faced with the evidence, they rush to try to muddy the waters with inane non-sequiturs on semantics, or other logical fallacies such as whataboutisms.
Are they trying to protect their reputations? Yeah think about that for a minute. If you read all the way to the end of the indictment there's a section called forfeiture allegations. That means the doj is going after all the money involved in the scheme. That's why people are playing dumb.