Why are there so many on the Left denying or justifying the Russian hacks?

[a_random_joel]

This is driving me crazy. I fully expect most on the Right and the Trump supporters to deny, deflect, ignore or justify the Russian hacking events. But lately I've been seeing a disturbing number of progressive, or at least progressive leaning folks on social media also denying or justifying this. Particularly among pro Bernie people (disclaimer: I myself was a Bernie primary voter).

The arguments range from "I don't trust anything the government says," to "I don't have any reason to doubt WikiLeaks," to "HRC deserves it because of what she did to Bernie," to "I'm glad this exposed the corruption," to "America interferes with elections, so..."

It's driving me crazy. At a time when progressives should be coming together and uniting, we are even more divided. And I happen to work in Information Security and the evidence for me is nearly overwhelming. In fact, I've been battling many on the Right and the Left with information on this. And the shitty party is, there's so much ignorance on these matters. It really is disturbing, and tells me we're in for a really big mess. We're already in a veiled cyber war with increasing attacks on commercial intellectual property, military secrets, and retail and consumer sites as well as financial institutions. Our infrastructure is being proved for weakness. I can't help but think that the minimization of the Russian political attacks will further undermine confidence in the institutions that our supposed to protect us. For those that are interested in some of the technical aspects or would like fodder to use if you're in the same battles as I am, I've compiled a list of some pretty solid articles on the subject from a variety of sources, both newsy and technical.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/seven-years-of-malware-linked-to-russian-state-backed-cyberespionage/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/10/evidence-prove-russian-hack/

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/12/13/13922054/cia-russia-hacking

[LonePirate]

1. The only people on the left denying the hacks are BoBs.

[a_random_joel]

2. Not completely...

[a_random_joel]

3. But even if that's the case...

We still need these people at some point. Particularly amongst millenials and younger voters...

[LonePirate]

4. They will return to the fold in the next election when their feelings are no longer hurt.

They might finally realize that preventing more destruction the Republicans is more important than revenge against the candidate who defeated their idol.

[a_random_joel]

5. We can only hope.

But truth be told, I'm more concerned about the strategic impact of the hacking and what lies beyond, than the actual political fallout.

Don't get me wrong, I'm concerned AF about what will happen under a Trump Admin, but the implications of no response to this attack and the long term game the Russians (and others) are playing is truly alarming. Especially under this clown Trump.

[uponit7771]

11. Its people with portmortems without the mention of Comey..hacking etc

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I keep pointing to confirmation bias...

It's the tendency of human nature to misinterpret facts and use emotions and unproven beliefs in making judgments. Look it up-- there's been plenty written about it lately.

And there is also this, from Wikipedia:

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[citation needed]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1] Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.[3]

Goebbels, Lenin, and a few others are credited with saying that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Whoever said it, it is true.

[a_random_joel]

7. Yes, definintely! And also Dunning-Kruger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[TreasonousBastard]

8. That, too.

[uponit7771]

12. +1

[Hekate]

9. I hope some are bookmarking your OP for the links. DU was at one time good at this.

Thanks

[a_random_joel]

14. Thanks!

[baldguy]

13. Some "liberals" will spend endless time desperately searching for some justification to hate Clinton

Russia and the GOP were happy to provide it. The fact that the rest of us will suffer because of that unreasoning hatred they see as a big plus.