Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2021, 12:29 AM - Edit history (2)
And not expressing my thoughts coherently.
1) I had revisited the Whitmer plot and saw that she was targeted because her public profile was raised merely for doing her job conscientously. Which makes one wonder (given that you never know who reads stuff of on the internet), if it is safe even for random nobodies to post about anything that is not innocuous-such as science.
2) One of my points about politicians had to do with the fact that people like these qanon cultists appear to be getting riled up because they believe entirely baseless conspiracies. And so, if anything even slightly inaccurate is posted about right wing militia groups -whom in all probability some of qanon at least support (please note all the qualifiers I used) - they will probably double down on their deliberate or self deceptive lies and make false equivalences between actually large disinformation campaigns like qanon and relatively minor inaccuracies found on left leaning forums. To that extent (and I think we both agree), there is no reference to rape in the Whitmer plot, which was horrifying enough without it.
3) My other point about politicians was that there are parts of the world where politicians or at least people in positions of power and authority do get away with targeting the families of rape victims who complain and so on.
This is a recent case in the news in India:
https://theprint.in/politics/sengar-in-jail-his-wife-is-canvassing-for-bjp-as-unnaos-bangarmau-bypoll-sees-3-corner-fight/533750/
This is an older one from Saudi Arabia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatif_rape_case
So retaliatory or violent acts against women in general and those who complain or have a raised public profile are not uncommon in any part of the world. And retaliatory acts against journalists occur in all sorts of undemocratic dictator states like China, Russia etc.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-wuhan-journalist-trial-coronavirus/2020/12/28/01fac40c-48b7-11eb-97b6-4eb9f72ff46b_story.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia
My main point from that still incoherent post is about -a) The importance of accuracy when criticizing anyone one dislikes or even likes. Because, a subset of people, who have no factual basis for supporting the kinds of politicians (Trump) no one should support, rely on fraudulent stories; the discrediting of all mainstream news sources etc. to justify their support of nuts- a way of saving face maybe.
b) Qanon like drivel is a real nuisance to actually responsible and serious organizations combating real problems like child trafficking and violence against women.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-qanon-child-sex-trafficking-20201028-eclhifensfdqlnduqodoehexji-story.html
All that reinforces the importance of distinguishing non-specific generalizations from accuracy wrt specific crimes like the plot against Whitmer.
My original response was to a long time duer who I think got the rape part of that specific plot wrong. And while online trolls and misogynists routinely make rape threats against women (I don't even feel the need to post links in support of that one), in this specific case where an actual crime was planned, I did not see any references to rape.
I responded to the post impulsively solely because it made the Whitmer plot sound even scarier than kidnapping and execution. Rape and gang rape, in particular, are arguably the worst forms of torture.
And the point of stories like these from a propaganda standpoint is, I suspect, to frighten people in general. This has to be why Trump has been speeding up executions. I assume it is some form of sociopathic messaging-the guy behaves more like a mobster than like a normal politician. What is possibly to be gained by executing people as they have been doing? At first it seems like pure sociopathy. But possibly it is a calculation or at least a subconscious calculation that it generally frightens people-especially people who disagree with you politically. It works against democracy. Weaponized trolling, actual executions, failed but scary plots etc. make people afraid to have any public profile or to even go about their lives without public profiles (as there is so much needless, endemic surveillance). I am ok with surveillance that is non invasive and aimed solely at stopping violent crime.
But most of these tactics Trump etc. use seem aimed at subverting any kind of human rights focused democracy.
That is still incoherent but I cannot do better. I do know that even aside from covid, it is increasingly hard to ignore the state of the world entirely, though I have tried to for longer than I can remember. And I am both afraid of attracting the attention of people lunatic enough to justify human rights abuses, lies and violence. And to inadvertently do something casually/unintentionally that sets off a nut-job who gets triggered by a random post on the net. And the need to make factually accurate statements is more important than ever-the boy who cries wolf etc. Things are inter-connected in incomprehensible ways and I don't want to poke at things (i.e. all of our lives being connected via a largely unregulated internet, with far too many callous, irresponsible, self serving or actively malicious participants, owners etc.)
My apologies if that still does not make sense. It is several streams of consciousness without a specific narrative. But I think I am going to wean myself off the net save for mentally soothing things like science and the bare minimum monitoring of politics needed for basic awareness. I said nothing about not labelling all politicians the same or if I did, that was not my point. I was saying that when you criticize a politician, you have to be careful it is accurate and not open to misinterpretation. I have no idea if I have myself met that standard. I have never made false statements, but I have certainly made broad generalizations in the past. And that is something I would be cautious about going forward. Clearly, language has consequences. I actually did not think the rubbish coming out of Trump's mouth would lead to such major acts of violence, plots etc. I thought they would radicalize people to the -still awful-but less scary extent of having people believe nonsense of increasingly lower quality and make them vote for generally awful Republican candidates of deteriorating quality (from policy to character) and I thought they were horrible on important policy points (e.g. science, environmental issues, animal welfare, education, poverty, equality, regulation of corporations) 17 years ago. And I was and am sure that their policy prescriptions in general are terrible. But, clearly you can do even worse than having terrible policy prescriptions-like inciting violent insurrections and attempting to throw over democracy.
I am usually so disappointed over bad policies (specially wrt the environment), which are bound to have bad consequences in the long run, that this even lower bar was not even needed. But now that is the bar apparently (thanks to people like Trump)-at the minimum not backing violent overthrows of democracy. Which means, I suppose, that bad policy prescriptions are more acceptable now. The right wing race to the bottom continues.
And I am going to take a 6 month break (at least) from the net. I have actually wanted a break from the net for a decade now. It is disruptive, a time-suck and net unhealthy. And anything with not just right wing nuts and misogynists, but also generic trolls, miscreants, hackers, larpers etc should be avoided. I don't touch garbage from companies like Facebook and Google (or any other privacy violating, safety threatening, poorly regulated drivel). I like DU...so I'll probably check back when I have time but I don't now. Anyway it looks like thibgs should settle down now.
At any rate, I am hoping for and expecting all forms of real privacy and safety regulations to sweep in at some point.
I don't think social media in general has come off well in tge Trump era. I hopw other companies and groups that generally operate like this quit at least now.
When my life has stabilized, I will check back here.
That was not a reply to you wnylib, but just generic disengagement from the net for a while. A lot of stuff I have seen in a long time -a series of really bad ideas. I would strictly pare out all but necedsary stuff from my life, except for some animal welfare and environmental groups and a few things off and on like du.
Trollish stuff never ends well-least of all when trolls are elected POTUS.
I prefer complete privacy and solitude save for the bare minimum amount of surveillance needed for actual safety wrt physical violence from external sources. I cannot believe the amount of corrupt, deregulated drivel that even democracies push.
= new reply since forum marked as read
