Research
-
Did I say ban?
<checks> nope. I did not say ban.
If a counter-terrorism intelligence analyst doesn’t read the manifestos of their targets, they can’t do their jobs effectively and should be fired. Doesn’t mean that they secretly harbor a yearning for a “global caliphate” or bombing more federal buildings.
You'd be surprised how often that actually does happen, though. And that's why I called you naive. It's actually a fairly massive problem, and part of the reason why outfits that do that generally share the load.
but for discussing political ideologies, you don't need to read all the political texts to understand and discuss things. there are ways of getting at the core material with out reading the full shit.
-
You'd be surprised how often that actually does happen, though.
Please link examples.
-
The term your looking for is "Information Warfare"
Al Qaeda and Taliban use this, targeting military personel and civilians alike.
ISIS also uses it. (and this is being talked about again with Jabbar and New Orleans.) And then there's the other side of that, the white supremacists.
other older and more certain examples include people like George Blake (who became a communist while captive during the Korean war and was flipped to work for the soviets.)
James Armistead may have been a double agent during the Civil War.
Jack Barsky was a KGB spy in the US who, just through developing a life in the US came to turn double agent.
You've also got dozens of studies on the same process with people like conspiracy debunkers (both amatuer and professional), as well as content moderators for social media. its the same basic process albeit less dramatic. This ranges from everything with flat earthers to people combating antivax through to people pushing more dangerous content like ISIS or Proud Boys or whatever angry white dude groups are around.
sorry, I don't have links, and I can't talk about some of it. but yeah. it happens. All the time. our brains are hardwired to jump to the emotional, even if the rational says "the fuck you doing", and the propaganda used by basically everyone is designed to exploit that.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Lol I think I was falling asleep when I typed that. I need to remember not to comment when I'm literally in bed trying to fall asleep or eventually I'll do a covfefe.
-
I really like doing the opposite of this comic, i.e. reading a book titled "you are wrong", and then I'm like "I knew it!". Even if I don't change my mind, I like finding angles I hadn't considered, because as you allude to, it can help to argue one's ideological stance.
I think different book clubs serve different purposes, and it's unfortunate that yours isn't scratching your itch. I wonder if they're craving something different to you; I'm thinking of how, when I have experienced a piece of media that has resonated with me, I go through a period where I want to immerse myself in that media, and I'm desperate to discuss it with my friends. I wonder if that's what your current book club are seeking
-
cally [he/they]replied to [email protected] last edited by
"You are wrong."
"You are wrong."
"You are wrong."
"This is bullshit!"
-
I think where that gets frustrating is when the book’s argument starts off a ridiculous premise/accepted statement, and then any time spent reading after that is wasted.
“As we all know, climate change is a conspiracy. Let’s spend 80 pages taking a look at how this belief in it has negatively affected so many people’s lives.”
-
I think reading Mussolini would be more beneficial to what we are trying to achieve understanding wise. Also Ayn Rand.
-
Yeah this exactly is how I feel about it.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
This is kinda the underlying problem with modern political discourse. One side has gone so far off the deep end that there's genuinely nothing of value that they are adding to the conversation. "The Jewish Space Lasers are manipulating our weather" just isn't a position that is worth entertaining.
That being said, it's still worth reading the literature of the enemy, even if it's just to know what kinds of ridiculous statements they're holding as truth. If you don't know how your opponent's worldview was constructed, what hope do you have of deconstructing it?
