Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:14 PM - Edit history (2)
And the goal is to influence people's thinking."
Exactly. Thank you for clearly illustrating the obvious once again, sabrina1.
A realistic, logical examination of their actions here, and the possible rewards and motivations for these repeated behaviors, can only lead us to the distressing conclusion that there are motivations behind their actions that are contrary to the interests of the overwhelming majority of people on this planet.
Their constant, illogical, ludicrous, disingenuous, sometimes even hysterical, doublespeak arguments defending the status quo, and often, arguments defending tangible corrupt practices of the status quo, are very disturbing.
They appear to be a group of of internet "Gatekeepers", people whose function it is to use any and all manner of propaganda to counter the arguments and information put forth by those of us who support democracy, democratic action, and the well being of human beings, over serving desires specific to wealthy private interests.
It appears that their goal here is to influence the most gullible, conservative thinkers among us, in order to persuade them to blindly trust and support the corporatist status quo.
They have many concerns, and their current, apparently overwhelming concern, is that we supporters of transparent democracy are advocating against and wish to see the use of electronic voting systems made illegal nationwide. These systems are proprietary, and are easily and eminently manipulable by the wealthy private interests that own and control them.
Their intention here in the current discussion is clear:
They wish to influence folks to believe that a collective with democratic intentions, to wit: Anonymous, cannot, would not, and did not, locate, identify, and hack into, electronic voting systems that have been deliberately compromised by wealthy private interests, in order to correct these aforementioned compromisations, and ensure that the machines function as accurate reflectors of ballots cast and ballots counted.
They don't want people to know that any individual, or collection of individuals, with the specific knowledge required to do so, can manipulate these machines in order to alter the results of elections, at will, under certain conditions. They fear that if enough people truly understand this, public pressure to eliminate electronic voting systems would result in their actual elimination, negating the great deal of time and effort undertaken by the wealthy private interests that forced these untrustworthy systems on us during the Bush era. Forced.
We gave no consent to this abomination.
Electronic voting systems are a travesty of democracy that wealthy private interests have forced upon us, so that they may manipulate these systems in order to help ensure that they can circumvent electoral democracy whenever they deem that it is in their interests to do so.
So, the question arises ~ Why in the world would any genuinely democracy supporting person who wishes to have transparent accurate, fair vote counts defend the use of electronic voting systems so adamantly and illogically, and even go as far as to derisively label anyone questioning the possible malicious electronic manipulation of vote counts as a conspiracy theorist?
Answer: They absolutely would not, unless, of course, they were, um, extremely limited in perception and/or powers of deduction. Because no reasonable person would advocate for, nor defend, the usage of these machines. The simple fact is that there is no way to ensure the security and accuracy of these machines to any degree even remotely acceptable to sincere, reasonable persons desirous of a genuinely democratic electoral process.
Those of us who advocate for transparent processes clearly have no ulterior intentions or motives, particularly and specifically, no profit motives, behind our advocacy for a clear and clean democratic process.
Those who advocate for electronic voting systems that can easily be manipulated by wealthy private interests, on the other hand, can make no such claim. So what reward are they getting out of defending the use of, and continued use of, electronic voting systems? This reward can take form in the tangible, or satisfy ideological concerns, or both.
So do the math. Either way, the answer to the equation adds up to "Why the fuck are they constantly feeding this anti-democratic corporatist bullshit to us on a progressive website?".
It totally stinks.
Houston...we have a problem...
Gatekeeping is the process through which information is filtered for dissemination, whether for publication, broadcasting, the Internet, or some other mode of communication. The academic theory of gatekeeping is found in multiple fields of study, including communication studies, journalism, political science, and sociology.[1] It was originally focused on the mass media with its few-to-many dynamic but now gatekeeping theory also addresses face-to-face communication and the many-to-many dynamic inherent in the Internet. The theory was first instituted by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1943.[2] Gatekeeping occurs at all levels of the media structure - from a reporter deciding which sources are chosen to include in a story to editors deciding which stories are printed or covered, and includes media outlet owners and even advertisers. Individuals can also act as gatekeepers, deciding what information to include in an email or in a blog, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeping_%28communication%29
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read