It is playing into the hands of those who misunderstand socialism. Accepting their definition and using it against them may score some points, but it does seem like a poor long-term choice.

I will check it out, thanks.

I’m not sure why everyone is upset about it. — NOS4A2

A well informed electorate is imperative to any and all free and fair elections, particularly when we're talking about a representative republic with democratic traditions.

Knowingly misleading the public is fraud of the very worst kind, especially if the public trusts that what you say is both believed by you and true.

That's why.

Fair point. I'll stop using it.

A well informed electorate is imperative to any and all free and fair elections, particularly when we're talking about a representative republic with democratic traditions.

Knowingly misleading the public is fraud of the very worst kind, especially if the public trusts that what you say is both believed by you and true.

That's why. — creativesoul

This is excellent. The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country. We don't have a gun pointed at our heads or live under the threat of being imprisoned for what we say. There's almost "too much freedom," so those in power have to care about what people think and believe, and use the media (which they own) as a tool to shape (or 'manufacture') the public's opinions.

Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" argued this years ago, back in 1988. It's just as relevant now, although the difference being the rise of the Internet. Although it can do a lot of good, it's also been hugely destructive in the sense of spreading misinformation and creating information bubbles. It's also very vulnerable to outside forces, as was seen in the '16 election and Russia's attempts at swinging it.

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". I guess there is, but I'm wondering how ignorant one must really want to be to believe everything because it's on social media. I'm imagining thousands of little old ladies that have been introduced to social media and don't know that anyone can post anything, and they are constantly saying "Oh my!". It just doesn't make sense who is being manipulated whether by foreign or internal trolls.

It just doesn't make sense who is being manipulated whether by foreign or internal trolls. — schopenhauer1

That's a pointed underestimation of the ignorance-plague currently impestilating the US. I follow two Trump pages on Facebook. This ignorance is epidemic. Millions have been taken in, and not just sweet old ladies.

Both of my parents fit that description.

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". I guess there is, but I'm wondering how ignorant one must really want to be to believe everything because it's on social media. I'm imagining thousands of little old ladies that have been introduced to social media and don't know that anyone can post anything, and they are constantly saying "Oh my!". It just doesn't make sense who is being manipulated whether by foreign or internal trolls.

No one. Elections don’t occur on social media.

What we’re seeing is the democratization of information. People no longer run to the gatekeepers of the media, and that scares them. Their fight against “fake news” is little different than China’s fight against “fake news” nearly a decade ago, which ultimately led to more censorship and state control.

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". I guess there is, but I'm wondering how ignorant one must really want to be to believe everything because it's on social media. I'm imagining thousands of little old ladies that have been introduced to social media and don't know that anyone can post anything, and they are constantly saying "Oh my!". It just doesn't make sense who is being manipulated whether by foreign or internal trolls. — schopenhauer1

Probably the same type of people that choose their car insurance based on television commercials...oh, and of course those who throw food away as soon as it reaches the "best by" date...oh, and the anti-vaxers...this is sort of fun, I wonder how many I could come up with, haha (and would I eventually hit one that reveals my own gullibility? :yikes:)

Both of my parents fit that description. — Pfhorrest

Oooh, my parents don't do social media much, but my dad will definitely believe anything his friends tell him (no matter how glaring their lack of expertise is). My mom is a bit more critical of new info.

So what kind of personality profile is this? Is there a difference between this kind of willful manipulation and the plain old self-imposed limitations of what sources and opinions we wish to follow? If its the former, are these subtle lies or outeageous ones? If its outrageous ones, I ask again, what is the personality profile of this hapless non critically discerning person?

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? — schopenhauer1

Plenty of repeat business on Fox news... and some out of the president's own mouth.

Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"... — Xtrix

I have several Chomsky books. He's prone to take things a bit farther than I.

I think that there's less of a huge goal based conspiracy of uber wealthy people calling all the shots and more small shots being called over a long time period that have had disasterous results on the overwhelming majority of Americans.

All politics is manufacturing consent though. That much is certain.

...those who throw food away as soon as it reaches the "best by" date... — ZhouBoTong

So people who like higher quality foods?

:rofl:

The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country... — Xtrix

The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership.

The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership.

Here in the UK, the populists most certainly did manipulate the information and media, including social media and persuaded two specific constituencies to vote leave in the EU referendum. So clearly voting against their interests. The unfortunate thing is that it is probably irreversible now.

The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership. — creativesoul

Somewhat yes.

For example I happen to be in a country where the traditional right-wing liberal / libertarian political parties don't exist: all of the so-called right-wing parties are staunch defenders of the welfare state and have the objective of a strong government. American libertarianism simply doesn't exist. Yet many would be interested in it here too. Unlikely not a large group, but still. Especially many of the expats that have moved to the US are totally in love with the do-it-yourself libertarianism and the lightness of the government.

Yet about the issue of referring to what "the people" want:

One has to understand that there isn't or hasn't never been "the people" with one agenda, one World-view. Perhaps totalitarian dictatorships excluded. One part or segment of the "the people", the voters, can indeed have no representation and can have nobody talking from their viewpoint and furthering their views. Yet this doesn't mean that there wouldn't be among "the people" totally different opinions.

Every popular movement will always say they represent the "true people" who have been silenced / forgotten and they themselves know these real people. Where it becomes extremely annoying and quite condescending is when some have the view that some people are "wrong" in their views, so wrong that they "vote against their real interests". Really? they are just so stupid or what? And the person saying this isn't???

Usage (eventually, if usage sticks) determines how a word should be defined. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And if there are various usages of the one term?

Then we have to live with a variety of (at times contradictory) definitions, or come up with a new word.

All our talk about "socialism," without some kind of qualification, is meaningless.

I think that there's less of a huge goal based conspiracy of uber wealthy people calling all the shots and more small shots being called over a long time period that have had disasterous results on the overwhelming majority of Americans. — creativesoul

So does Chomsky.

All our talk about "socialism," without some kind of qualification, is meaningless. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, it's ambiguous at least.

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". — schopenhauer1

I doubt it. It doesn't seem like it has much effect, and if it does it's in ways that really aren't measurable. I never questioned whether Russia interfered, for example, but really never bought the narrative that the interference helped Trump in any way.

I have several Chomsky books. He's prone to take things a bit farther than I.

I think that there's less of a huge goal based conspiracy of uber wealthy people calling all the shots and more small shots being called over a long time period — creativesoul

Maybe, but Chomsky never argues for conspiracies. That's a very common misunderstanding. It's not what I'm saying either.

The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country...
— Xtrix

The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership. — creativesoul

That's a good point. Remember too that the biggest voting bloc in the US is "non-voters." I think this is precisely for the reason you mentioned: no real choice. The two party system in this country is odd -- we don't even have a labor party, which is common in the others. It's two factions of the business class, and has been for a long time.

But I was talking mostly about those who DO still care and still vote. In that case, propaganda is very important. But it does indeed apply even to keeping a two-party system in tact. The media paints a picture of "left" and "right," especially on social issues, but never operates on the assumption that this system is strange and never reflects the needs and interests of the majority of Americans.

This is another reason why Bernie is different. Although running in the democratic party, he's sui genesis different than others and is running a campaign unlike any other in 100 years just based on fundraising alone.

Every popular movement will always say they represent the "true people" who have been silenced / forgotten and they themselves know these real people. Where it becomes extremely annoying and quite condescending is when some have the view that some people are "wrong" in their views, so wrong that they "vote against their real interests". Really? they are just so stupid or what? And the person saying this isn't??? — ssu

Not every popular movement says that, and certainly not Bernie's. What's said is that the majority of Americans support various policies -- 90% or so want universal background checks on guns, nearly 70% want either universal healthcare or a public option, etc. To point out that there's many people in this country with a lot of different interests and needs isn't saying anything at all. It's obvious and almost childish to point out.

I'm also not saying people are voting against their "real" interests. You added that. Try listening to other people without projecting -- you learn a lot more.

People do indeed vote against their interests. Not their "real" interests in the sense you mean -- like I know what their "real" interests are and they stupidly vote against them. They themselves acknowledge they would benefit from certain policies, like extending medicare, but vote for politicians that refuse to implement such policies. That's voting against one's interests. And they have their reasons, too: they're willing to stomach a candidate they don't even like for other reasons. What are these "other reasons"? Usually social issues like abortion, guns, immigration, religion, anti-liberalism, being anti-"elites," etc. This is what is seen when you talk to people, and it shows up in the polls as well. Most of it is complete nonsense, yet they vote on the basis of it.

So the question then becomes: why do they care so much about these particular issues that they're willing to vote for someone they dislike and who in many other ways are against their interests?

That's exactly where the media come in. When it's beaten into your head for 30 years that immigrants are destroying the country, that liberals want to secularize everything and take God and prayer out of schools, that the government is trying to disarm us gradually so we can't defend ourselves when they come for us, etc. Then yes, it's easy to see why people vote against their interests.

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? — schopenhauer1

Re the ignorance epidemic in the US:

5WPR Survey Reveals 38% of Beer-Drinking Americans Wouldn't Buy Corona Now

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/5wpr-survey-reveals-38-of-beer-drinking-americans-wouldnt-buy-corona-now-301012225.html

I hope this is fake news, but I'm afraid it isn't.

Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!"It just doesn't make sense who is being manipulated whether by foreign or internal trolls. — schopenhauer1

No one. — NOS4A2

I doubt it. — Xtrix

Set some time aside to read the comments on the Trump Facebook page. They believe anything they want to believe. Anything.

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/

They themselves acknowledge they would benefit from certain policies, like extending medicare, but vote for politicians that refuse to implement such policies. That's voting against one's interests. And they have their reasons, too: they're willing to stomach a candidate they don't even like for other reasons. What are these "other reasons"? Usually social issues like abortion, guns, immigration, religion, anti-liberalism, being anti-"elites," etc. This is what is seen when you talk to people, and it shows up in the polls as well. Most of it is complete nonsense, yet they vote on the basis of it. — Xtrix

So in the end your saying voters are voters are voting against their interests and say about the reasons that "most of it is complete nonsense". Couldn't be more condescending, because I assume you don't think that you yourself are voting like this.

Of course people have to take the whole package when the vote for one candidate. And even if they would agree on with something, some other things can make them not to go with the candidate. And just to say this would be just "complete nonsense" may not so be true.

If there's one thing that I would see as a "cautionary red light" about Bernie is that one of his economics advisors is Stephanie Kelton who is a strong proponent of MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, the view basically that government debt doesn't matter, see for example article The Economist Who Believes The Government Should just Print More Money. Personally I'm not so convinced about MMT, especially as for other countries the old rules of the game do seem to matter.

Bernie seems to be old school politician and of course she (Kelton) is just an advisor, but it may be a tempting way forward to keep the campaign promises. The GOP won't give any room for Bernie, of course. Hence likely there will be strong opposition to raising taxes and hence to pay with more debt is quite obvious answer when your advisors take the same stance of Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter". Yes, debt doesn't matter... until it does is my view.

The Atlantic Article

Not fake, per se, but misleading.

Not fake, per se, but misleading. — Artemis

Thanks.

If I may butt in. US voters don't have choices when it comes to candidates. As a result, people will tend to vote based on a single or two issues that matter the most to them. For instance, anti-abortion and lower taxes. You end up with Trump regardless of all the other crap that includes.

That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests.

Now, if the political landscape would offer more policy combinations, that would include for instance, "lower taxes but in favour of abortion" you'd see people would actually be capable to truly vote in accordance with their interests. So don't blame the voters, blame the system.