-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
WSJ: Bots target Kamala Harris, racist conspiracy theories during Dem debate
- Thread starter Invisible Cities
- Start date
Where the fuck did I ever say that? Did I say "Is Kamala Black" or even imply that attack was legitimate?
I don't think Kamala isn't black and never attempted to claim otherwise.
I...I am so confused why you are now coming at me accusing me of being racist.
To be honest Harris was indeed destroyed by Gabbard on that point.
I'm not convinced that the propagation of that rhetoric is primarily bot mediated.
I'm not convinced that the propagation of that rhetoric is primarily bot mediated.
Well, Gabbard was spouting right wing garbage. So destroyed in the sense that she didn't react well within the context of a debate, and instead of calling Gabbard out made a weak impression.
I'm coming at you primarily for going "this is just people avoiding the topic _______" in an article that's primarily focused on racist/conservative attacks on Harris that have been ongoing for at least a month and amplified by bot networks. To use an overused phrase- people can walk and chew gum. The "You're avoiding _____" thing is a blatant attempt to police people into only discussing things that fall into a poster's preferred narrative.
Noted liberal rag WSJ is using a disingenuous argument to protect the black female candidate. Gotcha.
Pointing out that tweets questioning her "blackness" are being promoted in bad faith is the actual racism too?
Anyone fooled by bots isn't going to be swayed by facts. The WSJ publishing an article on bots instead of investigating the veracity of Gabbard's accusations is part of the flak to divert attention away from Harris' record. It's not that hard to figure out. What purpose does it serve to say that bots are spreading propaganda?
I have no idea how you inferred that from what I said.
Nothing. Nothing can be done about it and the boys arent saying anything that real life racists in this country already espouse. They have no tangible impact on the issues here. What does have a substantial impact is the least talked about position since the Thursday debates around here.
You know what? It's not worth it. I'm sorry that I came across "policing" the thread. Am I still a racist in your eyes?
What I'm trying to get across is that if you are someone who sounds like the quoted part below? You really need to do some self-reflection on how you are approaching these topics. (I was looking up the Tulsi/NBC stuff from months back and this came up in the google search results -it's RedState so I'd avoid clicking through unless you really want to verify that I wasn't making it up.) (source)
No one is going to claim (unless they actually are an obsessed stan) that the exchange was good for Harris- it absolutely wasn't and it is something she would need to correct/address going forward to keep her standing in the race. But it's not the only aspect of what's happening here - there's the horserace aspect about this affects Harris in the race, the debate over Harris' record that's been ongoing for months, Tulsi herself being a DINO, and yes, the botnet issues that have been ongoing w/ ugly attacks towards Harris as well as the bots that have been propping up and amplifying Tulsi for years. All of these are worth discussing, and the idea that taking on any of the latter two means you are trying to drown out the former two is ridiculous.
Explain to me then why spending any time focusing on bots driving racist rhetoric is actually driving racism in this country? That's exactly what you said.
It's been pointed out numerous times in this thread and others that there are legit criticisms of Harris. Whether she's a "real" black woman isn't one of them. It's possible to debate her faults on their merits without defending or dismissing racist Russian bots
It can be true that Harris has a lot of things that make her a bad candidate that should be pointed out and that the same bot tactics from 2016 are in play and need to be pointed out and exposed.
The real crime here is that this is all comes with the bonus of propping up Tulsi fucking Gabbard
The real crime here is that this is all comes with the bonus of propping up Tulsi fucking Gabbard
Kirblar needs to do some self-reflection to figure out why he thinks Arabs can't sing or dance and why he thinks it's okay to justify war crimes in Korea. Maybe his general disdain for the working class too and why he thought an apt comparison to the forum restructuring here was the invasion of Iraq. What I'm trying to say here is, don't worry about him.
Stop making sense. It's easier to say Copmala and plug one's ears to anything else than to legit think about this shit in a productive manner.
I agree that bots are a massive problem and clearly have a right wing and pro-Tulsi motive, but using her AG elections as proof of the disingenuous nature of some of the criticisms just misses the mark. Shitty AGs who have ravaged the marginalized people in their electorate have been re-elected time and again all over the country. I often agree with a lot of your posts, but saying, "If she is so bad, why would black communities re-elect her?" is completely ridiculous. AGs not being held accountable and operating away from public scrutiny because they're not a traditional politician is a thing.
User Banned (1 week): off-topic hostility, prior ban for similar behavior.
I already did explain this to you. When the emphasis of the discussion is on Russian bots saying the exact same rhetoric that American people are already using to deflect the actual criticism away, that of systemic racism that was driven by a person's actions in office and the policies supported by that person (who is currently a likely presidential candidate of that party) then youre ignoring the fundamental driving forces that perpetuate racism in the first place, and likely doing so intentionally. This is the PREDOMINANT argument being used surrounding the Harris topic on this forum (that its actually the Russian bots thats the issue, not actually the criticisms of Harris herself). One does nothing to drive systemic racism, the other does.
I never said the Russian bot tweets werent racist so idk why you keep trying to bring that up like I suggested or inferred it.
Just so youre aware about that posters history
1. Thinks anyone who brought up drone strikes killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives by Obama and Hilary wasnt a legitimate criticism
2. Thinks we need to be more understanding of the 94 crime bill, arguably the most harmful piece of legislation to the Black community since emancipation
3. Russian bots are the real problem with the criticism of Harris
4. War crimes against Korea = ok
Among many others. I wouldn't worry about him.
I'm not sure using social media during election season is the smartest thing to do. Nowadays, almost every non-verified account posting about politics appears to be a bot account.
While there are plenty of reasons to not view her as a favored candidate, its been more than evident online she's a big target for bot nation, prob the biggest at this point in the election cycle. Makes sense because imho they can't paint her with the communist brush like the other candidates and imho would be Trump's worst matchup in a debate.
Like ive seen legit critiques from real people viewing her as having anti-black tendencies because of her time as a prosecutor which agree or not, you can see the logic of. But the 'she's not black, she's half indian!' detractors seem not to understand how race historically works culturally not even among Black community, but America in general.
Plus you've got fake blaccent, stereotypical username choices, etc.
One of my fav bot run ins was a discussion about police brutality and someone comes in sideways with 'only good cop is a murdered cop!' killing the fruitful discussion. Looking at her bio it was a bastardized 'black' sounding name random as fuck hobbies 'NYPD are terrorists. Only good Trump is a dead Trump. Vaccines r awesome! Star Trek forever! #GoldenGirlsFan #BTSfan'
Like ive seen legit critiques from real people viewing her as having anti-black tendencies because of her time as a prosecutor which agree or not, you can see the logic of. But the 'she's not black, she's half indian!' detractors seem not to understand how race historically works culturally not even among Black community, but America in general.
Plus you've got fake blaccent, stereotypical username choices, etc.
One of my fav bot run ins was a discussion about police brutality and someone comes in sideways with 'only good cop is a murdered cop!' killing the fruitful discussion. Looking at her bio it was a bastardized 'black' sounding name random as fuck hobbies 'NYPD are terrorists. Only good Trump is a dead Trump. Vaccines r awesome! Star Trek forever! #GoldenGirlsFan #BTSfan'
I didn't say that. I said you said it's racist to bring them up(you did and continue to do so). It's not. I'm a Warren supporter and I have legitimate concerns about Harris but dismissing racist bot attacks (which is exactly what you're doing) is ridiculous. It's possible to discuss systemic racism while acknowledging that those tweets are racist.
Why the fuck don't countries that would not benefit from Russian interference counter attack this? Why doesnt the intelligence community?
Basically she's a cop. It's an open and shut case. She's a fraud and I've been saying this since the last debates when she was surging
(I might still vote for her)
Firing up racist conservatives/depressing minority turnout. The "not really black" stuff works on those angles.
my nigga, this cat didnt post no sources but then when questioned on it copped an attitude about it. Kamala was alright as an AG and certainly better than ANY republican here in CA, but she supported some lame shit and dont wanna be honest about it when confronted.
Your boy cited a source for his refutation regarding her stance on prison labor that didnt even help his argument. In the article she says she is concerned about those kinds of statements and how they run counter to what she stands for, but then declines to answer what role if any her department/state should have over it. I got issues with her off the strength of that truancy shit she pulled. That video of her lightweight bragging about the shit was uncalled for and not something to be up there smiling about.
Kamala did the same kind of weak shit after the debate talking to anderson cooper, basically said she aint gonna answer shit from some bum bitch polling at 1% lmao
I agree with you on premise, but I don't like the underlying through line...
Essentially, what views of reality are actually mainstream and which were not actually mainstream and were fringe but have been become so through similar tactics.
As an example, what if medicare for all is not a universally beloved thing that everyone wants but was something pushed by fringe groups of the party onto the party as a whole?
I don't want believe that fringe ideas can be made mainstream by bad actors and bots... I just don't.
And I don't buy into the idea that everyone believes everything they read on social media posted by crazy Aunt Suzy.
But her emails....
Kamala is rightfully being pushed about her record as AG and, personally, it makes me nervous. That shouldn't preclude us from having a discussion about the efforts of Russian bots to push muddy narratives. While Hillary did technically fuck up with the email server it wasn't egregious enough for her to deserve losing the election. But it surely played a part. The next candidate they come for will be the one you're supporting (whoever that is) and while some of the points they use may be factually accurate don't expect it to be a discussion had in good faith. It'll be used to push an eventual false narrative that people will then believe because it's done incrementally
I'm not in here to defend Kamala or her policy but it does scare me that Bots boosting stuff in the primary for ANY candidate is so easily dismissed
That's because they don't. People that don't already believe what's being pushed by bots will not be swayed by them. If they do, they're already testing the waters of crazy before they go all in.
Sure it's nice to sound calm and balanced, but it's effectively worthless if the priciple behind the premise is bad.
Let's take that Copmala picture for instance. Is anyone really swayed one way or another by it? I highly doubt that Royalan is going to change his avatar over it. Or let's say it's some racist shit, are they going to change their mind? Will it change Albatross' mind? It has absolutely nothing to do with being rational as the very act of being swayed by bots is, by nature, irrational.
Last edited:
That picture, lmfao.This isn't hard to understand, it's the same playbook from 2016. The playbook goes back much further than 2016. The Mueller Report address how the intelligence community saw this at play as far back as 2010.
Real life fringe accounts hold an opinion on something, maybe it's a legit gripe maybe it is a fringe opinion, a bot army grabs that opinion and promotes it to make it seem like it's not a fringe opinion, and people who are more towards the mainstream, non-fringe, are being influenced into thinking that a fringe, provocative, divisive opinion is actually more mainstream than it is.
And then the conversation and perception shifts, and you get an impression that is not real. The impression that hashtags like "#Copmala" endorse are twisted, not representations of reality, posting propagandized photoshopped images like this:
And when those get promoted and then moved into the mainstream, it shifts opinion that a fringe, extreme point of view that is not representative of reality is actually mainstream or a normal opinion to hold. I'm not even a Kamala Harris supporter, I'm indifferent to her and would certainly vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate, but photoshopped propaganda like this that's getting retweeted by bot armies is not reality. It's a distorted fringe opinion that's trying to mislead you into thinking that Harris cuffs little black girls, has "Blue Lives Matter" flags, and dresses as a cop. The reality is that Harris was re-elected as AG across California -- both in progressive and mainstream liberal, both in white and black communites -- by a landslide.
ANd... of course... lots of these hashtags aren't only denigrating Harris, but they're also promoting Tulsi Gabbard.
This is the playbook that Russian-backed bots used in 2016 and the run-up to 2016. It's widely documented in the Mueller Report and intelligence community reports. But, we can't help but let it influence us. Also, the more people retreat into confirmation bias bubbles, small niches of sub communities that are easy to influence, the more you're easily influenced by bull shit imaginary propaganda.
People are wild.
That's simply not true. I regularly talk to people who spout off borderline conspiracy nonsense they've read on Twitter. Stuff that's based on just enough fact to muddy the waters. These are reasonably intelligent people I'm talking about here too. It's not because they're too stupid or too crazy that they buy it, it's because they don't bother looking up sources themselves or don't have the time to.
To be clear I'm not saying a legitimate criticism of kamala's record isn't worth having but it's naive to think only crazy idiots fall for bot propaganda.
Regardless of Harris, her terrible performance or her bad record, Gabbard absolutely is a stooge for certain foreign authoritarian regimes.
Spouting off unsourced Twitter claims because they're on your feed is the exact opposite of "reasonably intelligent"
Be honest.
These people have time. They have time to browse Netflix and Amazon, they have time to make a 3 second Google search.
They just choose not to
I agree that the guy I posted could have done a better job in presenting some of his points, and highlighting the more brazenly dishonest portions of that viral anti-Harris thread, that honestly feel like they were added for padding.
For example, the thread states that Harris twice voted against federally funding abortion. The thread neglects to mention that she voted for a bill to fund the government, and that bill included the Hyde Amendment. And that bill was supported by nearly every senator running for president right now. Including Elizabeth Warren. Are we really going to suggest that Elizabeth Warren is against federal funding of abortion? Or is the Hyde Amendment just a tough pill that these senators had to swallow to keep the chains of government moving?
Or the Steve Mnuchin story that just keeps coming up. Even one of the sources that the anti-Harris thread often uses, Paste Magazine, debunks the insinuation that Harris declined to prosecute Mnuchin because of some kind of political or financial gain. And it's honestly laughable that someone would believe that a $2000 donation could purchase influence over a potential U.S. Senator.
Kamala Harris has a pretty nuanced record as San Francisco's DA and California's Attorney General. In fact I feel this Vox article does a good job of outlining it, the good and the bad. And I completely agree that she needs to be able to answer her critics confidently and thoroughly, especially if she expect to make any headway in the primary.
Ben Carson is a brilliant neurosurgeon, but competency in one area doesn't necessarily to extend to others. Richard Dawkins probably forgot more about science than I ever knew, but that doesn't mean he's immune to being a misogynist asshole because he's a scientist and should know better.
Like I said, being influenced by a bot is already irrational.
No I said continually deflecting to this issue as the predominant response to the criticism is driving racism as it permit the structural driving force of systemic racism to continue to operate out of focus while shifting the narrative to something more mundane. I've explained this several times now and idk how to make it anymore clear or how you keep thining that means I'm saying the Russian tweet arent racist.
Lmao that photo is amaaaaazin'.This isn't hard to understand, it's the same playbook from 2016. The playbook goes back much further than 2016. The Mueller Report address how the intelligence community saw this at play as far back as 2010.
Real life fringe accounts hold an opinion on something, maybe it's a legit gripe maybe it is a fringe opinion, a bot army grabs that opinion and promotes it to make it seem like it's not a fringe opinion, and people who are more towards the mainstream, non-fringe, are being influenced into thinking that a fringe, provocative, divisive opinion is actually more mainstream than it is.
And then the conversation and perception shifts, and you get an impression that is not real. The impression that hashtags like "#Copmala" endorse are twisted, not representations of reality, posting propagandized photoshopped images like this:
And when those get promoted and then moved into the mainstream, it shifts opinion that a fringe, extreme point of view that is not representative of reality is actually mainstream or a normal opinion to hold. I'm not even a Kamala Harris supporter, I'm indifferent to her and would certainly vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate, but photoshopped propaganda like this that's getting retweeted by bot armies is not reality. It's a distorted fringe opinion that's trying to mislead you into thinking that Harris cuffs little black girls, has "Blue Lives Matter" flags, and dresses as a cop. The reality is that Harris was re-elected as AG across California -- both in progressive and mainstream liberal, both in white and black communites -- by a landslide.
ANd... of course... lots of these hashtags aren't only denigrating Harris, but they're also promoting Tulsi Gabbard.
This is the playbook that Russian-backed bots used in 2016 and the run-up to 2016. It's widely documented in the Mueller Report and intelligence community reports. But, we can't help but let it influence us. Also, the more people retreat into confirmation bias bubbles, small niches of sub communities that are easy to influence, the more you're easily influenced by bull shit imaginary propaganda.