“You’re better off switching to CNN.” It’s hard to believe, but that as actually true at this point. Also, you only touched on this briefly, but the massive influx of non-westerners onto the internet has led to the enshittification of everything. Truly the single greatest step to returning the internet to something resembling usable is region locking it. Lastly, let me just say that every sensible right winger is going to, in fact is already in the process of, leaving that platform and others like it. All that will be left are tools of mass psychosis and delusion.
Mike and the Mechanics had it right, "don't believe the church and state and everything they tell you", with the church being the media. I'm sure we are winning but I'm equally sure it's tougher going than the Donald portrays. The main thing, is we are in it now and have to play the hand out. Fortunately (or not) for us, and regrettably (in all cases) for Iran, we have a guy that won't countenance losing.
Last thing, the Iranian people who supposedly hate this regime need to get off their asses already.
Seems like Trump severely overestimated the will and ability of the Iranian people to take up arms and overthrow this regime. I admit that I haven't been follow this closely, but it looks as though the dissidents within Iran have done exactly nothing. I may be dooming here, but I see a scenario where we just give up and leave a big pile of rubble in Iran while Trump moves on to some other thing. Remember how resolute he seemed about Greenland and then suddenly just dropped the whole thing.
I guess it was a good thing to give up X for Lent. I keep hearing people say that there would be a lot of misleading noise, but I didn't know it was that bad.
In general, I've never been able to understand what becomes popular and what doesn't online--I'd have more followers if I did, I guess. Along these lines, I just don't understand the appeal of AI slop. Are people really this stupid/gullible/bored? If you actually read about what's going on, you can usually tease out the verified stuff and the exaggerations. Is this too much critical thinking?
I sure hope Scott's voice is mostly recovered by tomorrow when we get the Duke Lacrosse IQ Supplement in honor of the 20 year anniversary of the event.
This claim certainly doesn't originate with Scott, but it is a bit of a misnomer to act as though Gulf War I was the first television war. During Vietnam, the amount of live footage (battles, gruesome injuries, demoralized troops, even being embedded with the enemy in a limited context) was all ubiquitous. That was part of what led to demoralization and widespread resistance, besides the draft itself. Nothing like that existed for WWII, which is a big part of how the allies were able to win. German propaganda wasn't able to influence people in that regard because people were experiencing the war first hand in a way many allies weren't. France had it rough, but nothing like the Germans. England experienced the war more than Americans, but nothing like that. Propaganda did not keep Germany united, it was the idea of defending their homes (despite the fact that, no matter what some people on our side might say, Germany made a lot of aggressive moves). In terms of the televisual event, it's interesting to remember a piece of footage I first saw on a Devon Stack stream supposedly from the first Gulf War, but clearly fake and shot somewhere in southern California. The correspondents merely pretending they were in the middle east. Who knows how commonplace such footage was and this was over 3 decades ago. Those war correspondents during Vietnam were at least actually in country, whether what they were saying about the war had anymore objective truth than the wildly optimistic and over the mark prognostications of Westmoreland, another matter entirely safe to say. Even if the Gulf War fakery (which many of have seen) was an isolated incident, the depth of the lie is so great, it really trumps any AI slop on X. There's plenty more where that came from, so I don't think there's any merit to the claim that CNN, or anybody else is more reliable and that's got nothing to do with politics.
“You’re better off switching to CNN.” It’s hard to believe, but that as actually true at this point. Also, you only touched on this briefly, but the massive influx of non-westerners onto the internet has led to the enshittification of everything. Truly the single greatest step to returning the internet to something resembling usable is region locking it. Lastly, let me just say that every sensible right winger is going to, in fact is already in the process of, leaving that platform and others like it. All that will be left are tools of mass psychosis and delusion.
Mike and the Mechanics had it right, "don't believe the church and state and everything they tell you", with the church being the media. I'm sure we are winning but I'm equally sure it's tougher going than the Donald portrays. The main thing, is we are in it now and have to play the hand out. Fortunately (or not) for us, and regrettably (in all cases) for Iran, we have a guy that won't countenance losing.
Last thing, the Iranian people who supposedly hate this regime need to get off their asses already.
Seems like Trump severely overestimated the will and ability of the Iranian people to take up arms and overthrow this regime. I admit that I haven't been follow this closely, but it looks as though the dissidents within Iran have done exactly nothing. I may be dooming here, but I see a scenario where we just give up and leave a big pile of rubble in Iran while Trump moves on to some other thing. Remember how resolute he seemed about Greenland and then suddenly just dropped the whole thing.
Agreed, excepting that starting a revolution in a massive security state like Iran isn’t exactly easy.
I guess it was a good thing to give up X for Lent. I keep hearing people say that there would be a lot of misleading noise, but I didn't know it was that bad.
In general, I've never been able to understand what becomes popular and what doesn't online--I'd have more followers if I did, I guess. Along these lines, I just don't understand the appeal of AI slop. Are people really this stupid/gullible/bored? If you actually read about what's going on, you can usually tease out the verified stuff and the exaggerations. Is this too much critical thinking?
I sure hope Scott's voice is mostly recovered by tomorrow when we get the Duke Lacrosse IQ Supplement in honor of the 20 year anniversary of the event.
This claim certainly doesn't originate with Scott, but it is a bit of a misnomer to act as though Gulf War I was the first television war. During Vietnam, the amount of live footage (battles, gruesome injuries, demoralized troops, even being embedded with the enemy in a limited context) was all ubiquitous. That was part of what led to demoralization and widespread resistance, besides the draft itself. Nothing like that existed for WWII, which is a big part of how the allies were able to win. German propaganda wasn't able to influence people in that regard because people were experiencing the war first hand in a way many allies weren't. France had it rough, but nothing like the Germans. England experienced the war more than Americans, but nothing like that. Propaganda did not keep Germany united, it was the idea of defending their homes (despite the fact that, no matter what some people on our side might say, Germany made a lot of aggressive moves). In terms of the televisual event, it's interesting to remember a piece of footage I first saw on a Devon Stack stream supposedly from the first Gulf War, but clearly fake and shot somewhere in southern California. The correspondents merely pretending they were in the middle east. Who knows how commonplace such footage was and this was over 3 decades ago. Those war correspondents during Vietnam were at least actually in country, whether what they were saying about the war had anymore objective truth than the wildly optimistic and over the mark prognostications of Westmoreland, another matter entirely safe to say. Even if the Gulf War fakery (which many of have seen) was an isolated incident, the depth of the lie is so great, it really trumps any AI slop on X. There's plenty more where that came from, so I don't think there's any merit to the claim that CNN, or anybody else is more reliable and that's got nothing to do with politics.