Beating a Dead Media Whore

There appears to be a lot of interest in fallacies—arguments that are illogical and therefore invalid—with a number of books and websites devoted to the subject.

However, there are a couple things about the fallacy experts that I find strange. First, most of them are propagandists who manipulate fallacies to suit their agenda. Most of them believe in the mainstream 9/11 narrative, for example, and virtually none of them have anything negative (or truthful) to say about Jews.

Another interesting thing is the fact that their commentary is very shallow. In particular, most of them appear to miss the big picture by a mile, like someone peering at a wart through a magnifying glass and not realizing it’s attached to an elephant.

Fallacies aren’t necessarily deliberately deceptive, but they are a major component of something much bigger, something we might loosely call propaganda and manipulation. Fallacies also come in many variations and are often used in conjunction with other fallacies, lies, hyperbole or other rhetorical devices.

Consider the discussion below. It was posted @ Do social media such as Facebook enhance democratic values?. However, my answer was deleted, and the entire discussion was deleted.

My comments are highlighted with a light blue background. I also highlighted comments made by two other individuals with yellow and lime green backgrounds. Read the question, answers and comments carefully. There’s obviously some strong disagreement.

Who do you think is right? Can you spot any lies, fallacies or other dirty tricks? If so, how many can you count?

The content below is licensed under Creative Commons (Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)). It first appeared on the website philosophy.stackexchange.com. The content reproduced below is essentially unchanged, but I deleted a lot of extraneous text (e.g. individuals’ stats, such as reputation) and changed the formatting and styling.

Deleted Discussion ˆ

Do social media such as Facebook enhance democratic values? [closed]

It might seem impossible to imagine the public sphere without digital platforms as today’s social media. The number of Facebook’s users is about third of the world’s population – that points to an enormous potential influence. Social networks as Facebook enable communication and exposure to information and can enhance activism positively. On the other hand, such networks also serve as a platform for manipulation and misinformation. But mechanisms of misinformation have always existed – allowing people to lie might be an integral part of a democratic sphere. Or does it contradict democratic values? Are digital platforms of social media neutral regarding value?

[Asked by Louis in January 2021]

  • Important issue. But you should remember that misinformation is not the only worry regarding social nets. Algorithms underlying the way information is chosen, targeted and filtered being another central worry because it implies on possibly non-democratic power. – Jordan S Jan 28 at 21:40
  • Enhance them compared to what, no Facebook or multiple facebooks? Some other forms of mass communication? The question makes little sense without a standard of comparison. – Conifold Jan 28 at 23:32
  • @Conifold, compared to no Facebook. But even without such comparison, it makes sense to ponder whether values as diversity, openness, and the like benefit from the accessibility to information and humans, or otherwise being damaged. Of course you may say it depends, but there is a reality and some experience we may infer from. – Louis  Jan 28 at 23:36
  • No Facebook and what instead? The old system of papers and TV? Something can be more or less accessible or more or less damaged only compared to something else. To make this question non-trivial you need to specify what the alternatives are, otherwise there is nothing to ponder. Compared to nothing Facebook is trivially better. So are even Chinese state media, for that matter. What makes current discussions substantive is that people are proposing alternatives that, arguably, would serve democracy better. E.g. breaking up Facebook like AT&T and Microsoft were, or regulating it, or cloning it. – ConifoldJan 29 at 0:06 
  • Replace “Facebook” with “murder.” Do we really have to go down the rabbit hole asking what the alternatives are? Most people prefer no murder to murder. People who take democracy seriously will likely prefer no Facebook to Facebook. It’s that simple. On the other hand, social networks aren’t going away. Therefore, a logical alternative might be a website with functions similar to Facebook or Twitter but that’s more honest and transparent. – David Blomstrom Jan 29 at 1:30
  • “Compared to nothing Facebook is trivially better.” That’s a very hard statement to defend. Unless, of course, we fell into a void where the only thing that existed was Facebook. – David Blomstrom Jan 29 at 1:32
  • Historian Niall Ferguson draws a parallel between the internet and the printing press. Early on the printing press helped bring us witch panics, and the wars of religion like the 30 Years War. Later, political ferment. I’d say universal education was not just facilitated, but required, by invention of the printing press. Social media has become the ‘public square’, but is regulated like libraries. Cory Doctorow has a superb overview of the reforms we need now youtu.be/bH9TqJtMmT8 – CriglCragl Jan 29 at 2:19
  • Define “democratic values” as used here. Because James Madison, for instance, would certainly think that social media a perfect match for democracies, them being ” as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” – Mary Jan 29 at 2:35
  • The first question should probably be whether lying is integral to “democratic values” (and what that means). But going further than that would probably have more to do with sociology and psychology than philosophy. It’s easy to see that unbiased facts spreading wide and fast could be good, but if lies or out-of-context facts do the same, that might be bad. The only way I can really see to figure out whether the former outweighs the latter is to see what actually happens in the real world (which necessarily also depends on the specifics of the site). That’s well beyond the scope of philosophy. – NotThatGuy Jan 29 at 10:58 
  • “It seems impossible to imagine the public sphere without digital platforms as today’s social media.”. You only need to go 10-15 years back. For most people its not hard to imagine at all, its just remembering. – Polygnome Jan 29 at 11:37
  • Access to social media is wide spread, but effective use of it is limited to those with ability. I think it will promote meritocratic values so long as it remains widely accessible. – laertiades Jan 29 at 17:28
This post is hidden. It was deleted 2 days ago by Philip Klöcking.

NO.

Truth, honesty, transparency and fair representation are the foundation of authentic democracy, and the social media are just as biased and dishonest as the traditional media.

I’ve actually created Facebook groups that were banned, only to be replaced by groups with the same name – except the replacements are examples of what we politicos call “controlled opposition.” In other words, you might have a group that claims to support Palestinians but is actually controlled by Israelis.

Particularly galling is the arrogance with which Google, Facebook and Twitter have pronounced themselves official gatekeepers of the truth regarding coronavirus. We peons aren’t allowed to discuss what THEY consider “conspiracy theories,” yet the social media freely disseminate the most inane BS uttered by people like Donald Trump and Bill Gates.

Though I haven’t investigated it in detail, there are currently cries of hypocrisy regarding Facebook’s alleged role in nurturing the “Capitol Riot.”

I recently got banned from Twitter. Some people were heaping accolades on the late Michael Kelly, who was killed in Iraq. I pointed out that he was a media you-know-what who helped campaign for that sleazy war and got what he deserved.

Yet how many posts celebrating the murder of countless Muslims do we see on the social networks?

Also of concern is the social media’s role in collecting user data. They’re probably the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus ever constructed. And yet many of us still use the social media just as we at least occasionally read a newspaper. They’ve become such a huge part of life, they’re almost impossible to avoid. Indeed, they’re frequently used as a type of online ID.

[Answered by David W. Blomstrom]

  • Powerful answer. You get it. – JacobIRR Jan 29 at 1:50
  • I believe you deserve to get banned. Antisemitism, racism, and hate from people like you are what make Twitter and Facebook have to ban people. And by the way, the holocaust is real, not a “holohoax”. Some of your comments for reference: “Then again, many of the so-called “NeoNazis” and “Holocaust Deniers” are working for the Jews, and their books may not be completely truthful.” “I’ve been doing my homework, and I’ve learned that Jews are masters of conspiracy and terrorism. After all, they’ve been profiting from war for centuries” – whackamadoodle3000 Jan 29 at 10:04
  • People like you ruin social media for everyone else. They wouldn’t have to take the intrusive steps they do when there isn’t so many lies. While I don’t think social media has always fairly removed content, that’s no excuse for your antisemitism. You use it to spread hate and fear, and conspiracy theories about Jews. And yes, they are conspiracy theories, lies, whatever you want to call them. By spreading misinformation and racist content, you undermine democracy and further polarize the country. – whackamadoodle3000 Jan 29 at 10:10
  • If you really believe what you’re saying, why don’t you post under your real name? Sorry, but “whackamadoodle” makes you look like another whackamadoodle. And, by the way, I’m not the one who’s spreading lies, whack job. – David Blomstrom Jan 29 at 11:22
  • This answer would be stronger if you could edit it to be more focused. The parts that address the question (re. tech giants becoming gatekeepers of acceptable speech) are good and apt, and I would like to upvote for them. However they are undermined by the parts where you give your specific opinions — I guess you mean it just to illustrate the first parts, but you end up also pushing the opinions themselves, which is not relevant here, and discourages me from upvoting the answer (since I disagree strongly with some of them; I don’t want them suppressed, but I don’t want to support them). – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Jan 29 at 11:24 
  • Some of your more valid points, e.g. gatekeeping speech and the role of surveillance are completely overshadowed by your disrespectful, inappropriate, rude and hostile remarks. No person deserves their death to be labelled “what they deserved”. Also, your unsubstantiated claims just don’t belong in answer.– Polygnome Jan 29 at 11:44
  • No person’s death can be considered something they deserved? Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. I believe in good and evil, and I also believe in accountability. I don’t cry when I hear about a burglar spending a couple weeks in prison, and when I hear about a media rat who campaigned for a war that saw the extermination of over one million people getting killed in that war, I say “What’s the bad news?” As for “unsubstantiated claims,” could you be more specific? I’m afraid you lost me. – David BlomstromJan 29 at 11:47
  • @DavidBlomstrom I also do believe in accountability. That is not the point. Calling someone’s death “what they deserved” is disrespectful and even hateful. Its exactly the kind of hateful speech so many people loathe on social media. Its the exact reason why people like me think social media was a failure, if that is how we now talk to and about each other. – Polygnome Jan 29 at 12:04
  • This is not an answer, it’s just an opinion. – henning — reinstate Monica Jan 29 at 12:24
  • @Polygnome – So you’re saying that we should RESPECT society’s most disgusting dregs? Maybe you should start a discussion to figure out how that even begins to make sense. Or, better yet, maybe you should go tour Iraq and see how many war orphans are willing to donate money to a Michael Kelly Fund.– David Blomstrom Jan 29 at 12:32
  • @DavidBlomstrom What has the one thing (war orphans disagreeing with Michael Kellys Fund) to do with the other (basics of human conduct and human decency). I’ll just let the Code of Conduct here. Whatever you think of Micheal Kelly and his Fund, that doesn’t mean its ok to spew more hate. – Polygnome Jan 29 at 12:47

I think this question requires a little disambiguation. By “enhance Democratic values” do you mean improve the values themselves or promote the better exhibition of them in reality? Assuming you mean the latter, I think there is an analogous principle that I picked up reading Toynbee. I don’t have it in front of me but it was something to the effect that the more military force is specialized the more it promotes authoritarian government as during the medieval knight, and the more common it is the more it promotes democratic rule, as during the frontier rifle. If we view the dissemination of information as a source of power influential in politics then I think the answer might depend on how specialized social media is. In some ways it is quite specialized in the way it is determined which content is displayed and I think this aspect could be over represented by a certain expert class. Also there is the potential for special interests to obtain preferential treatment in that the source of the power is very centralized. This would promote the interests of a privileged class.

I think, worth considering is to what extent democratic values are complimentary to or are juxtaposed to meritocratic values. Perhaps it would be socially salubrious if the obtainment of power within the realm of social media favored whoever was most effective rather than all equally.

[Answered by laertiades]

My Analysis ˆ

OK, how many red flags did you spot? I have a big advantage because, in addition to being a student of politix, I’ve camped out on this particular forum for a long time. So I’ve learned about many of the dirty tricks the forum moderators play.

Let’s begin by framing the issue. You should know that StackExchange.com is essentially a Jewish propaganda site. One of its co-founders, Joel Spolsky, was an Israeli paratrooper. Ken Atwood appears to be a Jew, too, though I haven’t confirmed it.

StackExchange was hit with a barrage of protests and moderator resignations when it began adopting a more hard-line strategy. One former moderator said they adopted a new Code of Conduct which both censors and dictates beliefs. All I have to say is Amen.

The moderator who deleted my answer, Philip Klöcking, is a Jewish asshole who has insulted me on many occasions.

As you may know, most of the bigger social networks, including Facebook, are also owned by Jews. So it isn’t surprising that a question that’s critical of Facebook would be rigidly censored.

The first thing I noticed about the first post highlighted in yellow was the name of the poster—whackamadoodle3000.

I’m suspicious of people who post comments online anonymously or pseudonymously to begin with. If’s easy to lie when you don’t have to defend your lies. On top of that, what kind of kook would choose a name like whackamadoodle3000?

When whackamadoodle3000—may I call you Whack Job for short?—said “I believe you deserve to get banned,” he crossed a line. How does that address the question being discussed?

Of course, I could state my opinion that Whack Job should be banned because he’s a high school geek with a reputation of just 101 on Philosophy StackExchange. One thing people should learn from philosophy is humility.

Whack Job then states “The holocaust is real, not a ‘holohoax.’”

In fact, that’s a topic that’s virtually impossible to discuss on a Jewish propaganda forum. How do you define Holocaust? Holohoax? If Whack Job is talking about the details, then maybe he can prove that six million Jews were killed in gas chambers or that none of them were innocent.

Whack Job then claims people like me ruin the social media. He calls me a liar and accuses me of undermining democracy and polarizing the country.

In fact, it’s the other way around. Jewish high school pimps like Whack Job ruined social media and help undermine democracy and polarize the country. (The Jews’ crack cocaine war against the black community was absolutely brilliant.) Whack Job is a liar.

Next up to bat is Polygnome, another computer nerd who doesn’t even mention political science or philosophy on his profile page and who has a reputation of 119 (significantly bigger than Whack Job).

Polygnome takes aim at my “disrespectful, inappropriate, rude and hostile remarks,” claiming no one deserves their death to be labeled “what they deserved.” He also bemoans my “unsubstantiated claims” without specifying which of my claims he’s referring to.

He then goes on a rant about hate speech ruining social media. That’s quite a laugh when I’ve seen SO many posts on Facebook and Twitter campaigning for war against Muslims along with the infamous torture videos displayed on YouTube. Like hypocrisy much?

This is where Polygnome goes off the deep end: “What has the one thing (war orphans disagreeing with Michael Kellys Fund) to do with the other (basics of human conduct and human decency).”

Yes, let’s trivialize war orphans by insinuating there’s no connection to human conduct and decency. What could possibly be wrong with honoring a professional liar who helped orchestrate their parents’ murder? Sheez!What this asshole is basically saying is It’s OK to invade another country and murder, rape and pillage, but it is NOT OK to say bad things about the media whores who helped pave the way for all that murder, rape and pillage.

I didn’t get a chance to respond to Polygnome’s last comment, because my answer was deleted, and I was issued a temporary ban. Whack Job and Polygnome, who started the flame war, insulted me and lied about me, were not banned.

When StackExchange moderators delete my answers, they usually post a flurry of insults, then disable comments before I can reply. This time around, they let a couple Jewish high school brats anonymously sling mud at me before locking me out.

Beating a Dead Media Whore ˆ

Now that I’ve had my say regarding Jewish high school kids who think they have a clue about philosophy, let’s address the question regarding the morality of trash-talking dead people. I should mention that I got banned from Twitter for saying something similar about Michael Kelly after I discovered a discussion where people were praising him.

Balance ˆ

Balance

For me, the question is centered around something I call balance. It’s something very familiar to people who study math.

For example, we all know that 2 + 2 = 4. Similarly, 8 – 7 = 1 and 2,000 X 4 = 8,000.

So how do we react when someone tells us that 2 + 2 = 5?

Most of us would probably politely point out their mistake. And it had to be a mistake, because no one is stupid enough to think that 2 + 2 = 5.

But suppose someone insisted that 2 + 2 really does equal five. Suppose they went one step further and tried to coerce YOU into believing that.

Imagine if people suddenly began ridiculing, insulting and threatening you for believing that 2 + 2 = 4. You then discover that gangs of propagandists are teaching this new math (or Jew math) to public school students in an attempt to scramble their brains. Eventually, you find yourself surrounded by people who believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

That situation would be intolerable. It could drive some people to insanity. More intelligent people might be driven to kill.

Justice

Balance is a very important part of morality, ethics and justice. Men and women should get equal pay for doing the same work. It isn’t fair for CEO’s to rake in tens of millions of dollars a year when their employees are making $20 an hour. People living in Latin American countries shouldn’t be forced to sell their natural resources at cutthroat prices to U.S. corporations.

Media Whores ˆ

People don’t always get as upset over news of violent crimes as they used to because we live in an incredibly violent world. The media is saturated with reports of violent crimes.

Media Whore

Still, anyone who is victimized by a violent crime will likely carry emotional scars for the rest of their life.

But media whores get a free ride. They can look us in the eye and lie their asses off 24/7 and make a lot of money doing it.

And their lies aren’t trivial. On the contrary, media whores are the great enablers. They make it easier for corporate scumbags and corrupt politicians to screw the people, and they make it easier for them to escape justice. The media campaign for wars, falsely portraying the U.S. as a pillar of democracy and human rights in the process.

Having been targeted by the media’s insults and lies since I became a political activist in the mid-1990’s, I have grown to hate media whores with a white hot passion.

In Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hunter S. Thompson wrote,

“The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits—a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.”

That’s the best media-whore quote I’ve found so far. It’s a little embarrassing because I haven’t been able to mint anything better—yet.

On the negative side, Thompson never killed a media whore, as far as I know. Sadly, I probably never will, either. I’d have a hard time finishing my projects if I was in prison.

But suppose you learned about a media whore who died a violent death. Maybe he or she was killed in a plane crash. Better yet, imagine if they were murdered by an irate citizen who was intelligent enough to see them for what they were.

Best of all would be a planeload of media whores delivered to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria, where they could be tortured to death by their victims.

Is it somehow wrong to fantasize about such things? And is it wrong to say bad things about media whores (or other evil people) after they’ve died? If so, why?

Balancing the Equation ˆ

Injustice

An army of media whores ridiculed and demonized Muammar Gaddafi—one of modern history’s greatest leaders and quite possibly Africa’s best hope—long before NATO invaded Libya. Media whores gleefully lied about the war, and their gleeful reporting of Gaddafi’s macabre murder was utterly pathetic.

Media whores continued to jump up and down on Gaddafi’s corpse long after he died. They even manufactured a story alleging that Gaddafi had cages filled with children in his basement. The children were kept to satisfy his sexual desires. For good measure, the media whores told us they included both boys and girls. Yes, Africa’s strongman was a gay pedophile, similar to former Seattle Mayor Ed Murray.

The Jewish actor Sean Penn joined the media whores in dancing on Gaddafi’s grave in a truly deranged rant.

So how can it be that I’m criticized for trash-talking a media whore who helped bring about the murder of one of the world’s greatest leaders, along with thousands of Libyan citizens, while the same media whore is treated like a hero? Or, in the case of Michael Kelly, why is Kelly being lionized for a war that everyone knows was unjust, illegal and grossly destructive, but I’m condemned and banned by Twitter for calling foul on their gross hypocrisy and immorality?

If we could condense this scenario to a mathematical formula, it might look something like this:

Media whore (Michael Kelly) > 1 million deaths + = HERO
Activist (David W. Blomstrom) > criticizes media whore before and after he dies = VILLAIN

Dignity in Death? ˆ

Dead Media Whore

Some people think there’s something sacred about death. If you want to criticize a man to his face while he’s alive, that’s free speech. But saying bad things about the dead is just plain tacky.

So why do media whores continue saying bad things about Muammar Gaddafi, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara? How many media whores had the backbone to tell these heroic figures what they thought about them to their faces while they were alive?

Bear in mind that the pseudonymous twits who post on online forums like Quora, Reddit and StackExchange almost always cheer for media whores, even if they deny it. Many, if not most of them are Jews.

I don’t play cards with cheats, and I will never accept their twisted, two-faced moral codes.

When Wackamojo7000, or whatever he’s calling himself today, dies, I’ll be the first to piss on his grave.

But what about deceased people who aren’t media whores, corporate whores, corrupt politicians, lawyers or Jews? What about decent people who have passed away?

Well, that’s a different story. I think the more than one million people that Michael Kelly helped murder deserve respect. In fact, it’s hard to imagine anyone who would piss on them other than the Jews and some of their Zionist supporters.

The Hitler Card ˆ

The Hitler Card

Of course, I can always play my trump card, Adolf Hitler.

He’s dead, and the Jews continue to heap lies and insults on him. In fact, they denigrate not just the “Nazis” but Germans in general. That’s a textbook example of racism.

Like I said above, I’m a big fan of balance. If the Jews can condemn Adolf Hitler, I can condemn Benjamin Netanyahu. If the Jews can condemn the German people, I can condemn the Jews.

It isn’t rocket science.

Respect & Education ˆ

Respect

Imagine a city council meeting where just two people have signed up to speak.

The first person begins with the following statement:

“Before I begin, I want you to know I think you’re all a bunch of wonderful, hard-working people who do your best. I also know you have a busy schedule, and my issue isn’t that important, so if you want to ignore me that’s fine.”

And this is how the second person prefaces his comments:

“I’ve been studying this city’s government for several years, and I learned long ago you’re a bunch of lying, back-stabbing bastards. The only reason I signed up to speak is that I want the public record to show that I addressed the council, giving them a chance to fix something before I hit them with a lawsuit and a wave of public protests.”

How do you think city council members are going to react to these two individuals?

They’ll likely thank the first speaker for his thoughtful input, even as they inwardly sneer at him. “What a typically brainless, spineless jerk,” they might think to themselves. They aren’t going to lose any sleep over screwing him out of more of his hard-earned tax dollars.

The second speaker, on the other hand, is going to get their attention. Council member Kshama Sawant is going to stop playing with her cell phone and sit up and pay attention.

They aren’t going to appreciate being called lying, back-stabbing bastards. Yet they’ll ironically have a little more respect for this man, because they know he’s speaking the truth. This isn’t a person they can easily play games with.

Whether or not a threatened lawsuit really shakes them up depends on a number of factors. But they’ll probably dispatch a couple aides to check it out at the very least.

Next, imagine another person—Bob—who is attending the council meeting just out of curiosity. He wants to learn about local politics.

The first speaker said nothing to either educate or energize him. On the other hand, he might be motivated to seek out the second speaker after the meeting and ask if he can talk to him over lunch some day.

When people you that trash-talking dead scumbags is disrespectful, there’s an implication that you will be treated with more respect if you do NOT engage in such practices. Here in liberal Seattle, that’s a bald-faced lie.

When I first started working as a teacher with the Seattle School District, long before my political awakening, I was treated like a pile of dog shit. In fact, most Seattleites are treated that way, especially poorer people and minorities, even if they aren’t all aware of it.

When I blossomed into an activist, I didn’t mince words. I called a spade a spade, and I advocated accountability. I didn’t make a lot of friends, and the Seattle Mafia didn’t suddenly embrace as a friend. They would never admit they have the slightest respect for me.

But people do treat me with more respect than they used to. It might be a respect borne largely of intimidation rather than love, but that’s certainly better than getting pissed on 24/7 by the entire establishment.

Summary ˆ

I am not advocating for people to run around loudly and rudely hurling insults at every public figure they don’t like.

However, I do think there are people who deserve to be criticized while they’re alive, and I can’t understand how dying somehow makes them a better person. Moreover, I think openly criticizing people can be viewed as a civic duty. It’s certainly vastly preferable to glorifying dead scum like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Michael Kelly.

At the same time, don’t let media whores and Jews who are too cowardly to post comments under their real names lecture you about morality, especially when they have far more skeletons in their closets than you do.

Ultimately, it all boils down to a question of balance. If you sense a propagandist is unfairly representing the issue, sit down and try to reduce the conversation to simple terms, making it easier to understand the big picture.

In closing, please check out my online memorial to Michael Kelly.