Hacker News Reader

Comment by jayess | Hacker News Reader

That's the entire political discourse these days, isn't it? X had dealing with, or "has connections" to Y, therefore everything Y does can be imputed to X.

There's a Russian behind every curtain! They're perhaps the most powerful country on earth! Literally everything (from Bernie to Jill Stein to Trump to the NRA) is Russina backed! ZOMG!

I'm guessing you haven't ever read anything about McCarthyism. https://theintercept.com/2017/02/23/the-increasingly-unhinge...

View on HN

>Whatabout McCarthyism?

What about the founder of Wikileaks working for Russian propaganda media, which is what we're discussing here? I'm not sure what your motivation to deflect on this is.

How is he deflecting?

He's talking about McCarthyism, which is very relevant to the subject at hand.

Because it's a false equivalency. Nobody is accusing Julian Assange of something that he isn't guilty of, and it's attempting to change the subject when faced with the facts.

No, it's an element of political discourse that is entirely necessary. Given how cheap and effective this sort of tactic is in the current media and information landscape, why would someone interested in destabilizing a country not do it?

Well, you consider it to be cheap and effective -- in 2018.

But back in 2016: Obama said there was “no serious” person who would suggest it was possible to rig American elections, adding, “I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.” [0]

I wonder how public opinion shifted. Back in 2016, the idea of rigging elections with facebook ads was alex-jones-level of tinfoil conspiracy, and now we are discussing it as an obvious, cheap and effective tactic.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/obama-tells-...

Your election in 2000 was stolen with the help of technically faulty (at least) voting machines. The fact that the possibility was considered tinfoil conspiracy in 2016 just means that politicians are rather skilled at reassuring the public.

Obama probably felt that he would have damaged the democratic party by saying anything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com