Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups

[spooked911]

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/
In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups.

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs," according to the White House Web site.

Sunstein's article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

By "crippled epistemology" Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government "enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."

[SDuderstadt]

1. I'm willing to bet that reading Sunstein's actual paper...

will demonstrate that it is not as remotely sinister as Spooked and Raw Story make it out to be. Sunstein has far more credibility than Spooked.

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. BREAKING: Obama advisor thinks CTs are warped!!

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote something somewhere about how to promote the theory of evolution, too. Effing academics.

[eomer]

21. That wasn't the point.

In the paper he advocates government covert operations that sound pretty troubling to me. Are you okay with them?

I thought it was illegal for our government to commit covert propaganda on us, but I don't remember where I got that quaint idea. Is it legal?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Excuse me...

How in the world could what he is talking about be considered "government covert operations"?

[eomer]

24. Here:

We suggest a role for government
efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies)
might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to
undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises,
causal logic or implications for political action.

In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no
effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that
Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in
dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not
usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success. In
another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false
identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but
potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials
participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and
conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from
the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the
tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be
suspected of government connections. Despite these difficulties, the two forms of
cognitive infiltration offer different risk-reward mixes and are both potentially useful
instruments.

There is a similar tradeoff along another dimension: whether the infiltration
should occur in the real world, through physical penetration of conspiracist groups by
undercover agents, or instead should occur strictly in cyberspace. The latter is safer, but
potentially less productive. The former will sometimes be indispensable, where the
groups that purvey conspiracy theories (and perhaps themselves formulate conspiracies)
formulate their views through real-space informational networks rather than virtual
networks. Infiltration of any kind poses well-known risks: perhaps agents will be asked
to perform criminal acts to prove their bona fides, or (less plausibly) will themselves
become persuaded by the conspiratorial views they are supposed to be undermining;
perhaps agents will be unmasked and harmed by the infiltrated group. But the risks are
generally greater for real-world infiltration, where the agent is exposed to more serious
harms.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Sorry, dude....

I don't have a problem with that.

[eomer]

26. I didn't say you did. You do admit, then, that he advocates government covert operations.

Government covert operations to infiltrate citizen groups, both real-life and virtual, on both foreign and domestic soil, and covertly disseminate propaganda through government agents under the pretense that they are just citizens. Like in this very forum, for instance.

[SDuderstadt]

27. No, I don't....

read it again for oomprehension and subtlety

[eomer]

28. What subtlety keeps this from being a government covert operation:

whether the infiltration should occur in the real world, through physical penetration of conspiracist groups by
undercover agents...

[SDuderstadt]

29. The same subtlety that keeps it from being a...

complete paragraph, dude.

[eomer]

30. Alrightly, we can just let everyone read the larger excerpt and judge for themselves.

Or even read the full paper and judge for themselves.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Which is why I posted a link to it...

like I said, when you read the entire article, it sounds nowhere near as sinister as it is made out to be. Democracies do have a compelling interest in countering unfounded conspiracy theories but must do so within the law.

[eomer]

32. It most definitely discusses the possibility of covert agents infiltrating groups, real and virtual.

I posted the plain language from the paper that shows that.

Do you have any actual argument to the contrary? To merely claim unspecified subtleties doesn't say anything.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Dude...the CT's advocated here are so laughable on their face...

I don't think anyone here has a whole lot to worry about.

[reinvestigate911]

93. unless one draws a check from the government to do it...

and not that anyone at DU would engage in any such activity here.
'cause you know, just as the dude suggests: the conspiracy theories are just so damn ... laughable.

[SDuderstadt]

95. Well, I don't know what you think the...

"no-planes" claims are, but I'd actually put them in the category of "falling--down laughable.

[reinvestigate911]

96. the pseudo-skeptic discourse (or your discourse in general) is not limited to no-plane theories

and neither is your incessant deriding of differing opinions, counterargument, or alternate hypothesis limited to such theories. you enjoy poking fun at any and all you don't agree with, "dude"... or else, why so much laughter?

[SDuderstadt]

98. My mistake...I thought discussion forums were FOR...

differing opinions.

Damn, conspiracy theorists hate being asked for proof of their goofy claims. Bummer.

[reinvestigate911]

99. apparently obama staffers don't find it so goofy, "dude".

but seeing how it cost van jones his job, maybe you're right...

[SDuderstadt]

101. Staffers?

Dude...is Sunstein more than one person? Was he even an Obama staffer when we wrote it? (hint:no) Have you noticed the words Sunstein used? Do you notice all the conditional language? Do you notice the absence of word like "shall", "will", "should" or "would". Do you notice the word "might" used quite a bit? Do you have any evidence of the Obama administration moving to put these things in place?

Do you have a calendar?

[reinvestigate911]

103. did you happen to notice that it's an academic paper written by an obama appointee?

goofy, ain't it?

[SDuderstadt]

107. Yeah...did you notice that it was written well before...

Obama became President? That why I keep asking whether you have any evidence that the Obama administration endorses or is implementing any portion of it.

I notice your claims seem to rest on blurring critical distinctions like I just pointed out, dude.

[reinvestigate911]

113. so the paper was written before obama became pres; what bearing does that have on the man's beliefs?

notice that his current appointment is the "Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs"? are you suggesting that they are unrelated?

are you claiming that this is some kind of witch hunt that has no bearing on sunstein's ability to operate within the legal confines of the constitution? are you saying that the ethical question of employing such techniques is moot because he wrote the paper before he was invited to join O's team in washington?

or is it that you're suggesting that it's just another example of poor vetting due to the time-honored tradition of cronyism DC?

[SDuderstadt]

114. No, I'm suggesting that you have zero evidence that any of it...

is being implemented. How hard is that to understand?

[reinvestigate911]

116. i didn't realize that we were discussing whether it was being implemented or not..

what is in question is that it was proposed by an obama apointee.
maybe you missed that part...

is that because you have a guilty conscience, "dude"? /smirk

[SDuderstadt]

117. Why would I have a "guilty consceince"?

Stupid question

[reinvestigate911]

118. why would you misspell 'conscience'?

another stupid question?

and besides, the "evidence" that you seek is immaterial to the proposal itself.
that's apparently lost on you, too.

[SDuderstadt]

119. Simple question....

are you a "no-planer"?

[reinvestigate911]

121. what does that have to do with the topic currently under discussion?

deleted. please ignore.

[SDuderstadt]

122. It's a simple question....

are you a "no-planer"?

[reinvestigate911]

123. and what does that have to do with what we're talking about?

the answer is nothing*... but it's a simple device for you to avoid discussing the problem that this paper poses.

i would think that one would be appalled that an appointee in the "transparency" administration might propose limiting our first amendment rights; but no, for the "dude" it's all about whether i agree with his version of events or not.

how very fucking telling, "dude". and how very fucking predictable, too.

* apparently you seem to forget having already posed this stupid misdirection; but for the record, i answered "no" ... moreover, i doubt that you can provide an argument as to why it's even relevent.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Oh, I see...

so are all 0/11 conspiracy theories equal or would you say some are more far-fetched than others?

It has everything to do with what we're talking about, however, it seems you want to try to talk for me, even though you have no real idea what I think on the subject.

Thanks for going on the record about not being a "no-planer". That saves me from having to invoke "Lared's Rule". So, tell me, what do you think of "no-planers"?

[reinvestigate911]

125. more bullshit misdirection

and yes, all "0/11 conspiracy theories" ARE equal.

[SDuderstadt]

127. Just say you can't answer the question...

you don't have to pretend it's "misdirection".

Did you ever notice the "0" key is next to the "9" key? Do you notice how much they look alike they look on a phone screen? Isn't this misdirection on your part?

[reinvestigate911]

128. it's all off-topic and you know it. so stop with the bullshit.

let me spell it out for you, just so we're on the same page: it doesn't fucking matter what i believe happened on 9/11; the first amendment gaurantees my right to believe it, say it, or sing it while tap-dancing on the streetcorner without government shitwhistles infiltrating discussion groups, actual meeting spaces, or said streetcorners which i might frequent in their attempts to affect my opinion one way or the other. get it? this is america, "dude".

in other words: since when did promoting a so-called no-planes hypothesis become a thought crime?

the fact that you twist this into anything else than what i stated above is very fucking telling, "dude".

[SDuderstadt]

129. Dude...

you have this really fascinating habit of thinking you know what I'm thinking or where I'm going with something. And, yes I know the 1st Amendment "gaurantees" your right not only to believe it or say it. I'm pretty much a 1st amendment purist, dude.

And, seriously, did you honestly say "shitwhistles"? Jesus, you're funny. And, please show me where I proposed or endorsed deeming anything a "thought crime", dude. Is your paranoia really that strong?

P.S. I'm glad to hear you're not a "no-planer". I also hope you realize the 1st Amendment "gaurantees" someone's right to disagree with you. You always seem to leave that part out...dude.

[reinvestigate911]

130. so as a "1st amendment purist", how do you feel about the sunstein appointment...

... after-the-fact of his paper becoming public knowledge?

ps: i could give a shit that you're glad. (deleted my additional comments to avoid fanning any flames).

[SDuderstadt]

131. Oh, I am so sorry you feel....

"bullied". Oh, wait...I think it's more that you just don't do very well with the rough-and-tumble of debate. Maybe you should consider something a little less rigorous.

As far as Sunstein, as I pointed out before, I have read his paper and don't find it nearly as threatening as you do, especially given the conditional language he's using. When you write a paper like that, you explore a lot of different possibilities. Why don't we do this? Why don't you keep Sunstein under your watchful eye and if he makes a move to "ban conspiracy theories", let me know and I'll come riding to your aid with my copy of the constitution.

BTW, are you even remotely familiar with any of Sunstein's other writings? Had you even heard of him before all this? Do you think it might make some sense to hear his side of it before you start erecting the gallows? Or, should we just label him a "fascist pig" now and demand his ouster?

P.S. I thought the use of "pseudo-skeptical" and "pseudo-intellectual" on your part was quite impressive. I'm actually a real skeptic. Maybe you could give me some pointers on how to avoid appearing "pseudo". As far as your "moniker", I'm sorry to say that I don't believe ANY investigation that doesn't conclude that "9/11 was an inside job" would meet with your satisfaction, so why go through the motions? Besides, you don't appear to have a very good grasp on what was learned in the first one. Maybe you could have a fundraising drive or something.

Simple question: have you actually even read the 9/11 Commission Report? How about the various NIST Reports? ASCE's BPAT? The oral interviews of 9/11 eyewitnesses? Are you one of those "controlled demolition" types?

And, I'm not deriding you, dude. I'm deriding your goofy beliefs. Maybe with some study, you could learn the difference.

[reinvestigate911]

132. so utterly predictable.

i expected that you would attempt to defend the paper and claim that anyone criticizing it only demonstrates that they misunderstood it... or are unfairly taking it out of context.

what a waste of fucking time it is to play your stupid games.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Can you show me where I actually said any of those things....

dude?

And, thanks for "wasting your time" anyhow. And, by the way, since I'm so "predictable", I think I'll just stop posting and let you answer what you think I'm going to say. It would have the same effect. I also noticed you never answered whether you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report. Did you? Do you even know what ASCE stands for or BPAT, for that matter?

[reinvestigate911]

134. dude?

you should take a break, you're getting tired.

and in your Argument By Prestigious Jargon, you forgot to include the kitchen sink... if i explain why it will make your non-sequitur ramblings more amusing, will you throw it in to your next post?

[SDuderstadt]

142. I'm simply asking if you've actually read...

the various reports that make up the official story, yet you can't seem to answer a simple question. Instead, like BeFree, you keep reframing my words into something I didn't say and running with that.

Did you read the 9/11 Commission report, yes or no?

[reinvestigate911]

144. we're not discussing the 9/11 commission report. this thread isn't about the 9/11 commission report.

can you stay on topic, yes or no?

[OnTheOtherHand]

139. that's the best you can do?

If you aren't interested in this topic, why post on it?

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

145. The "more sinister side of the democrat (sic) nanny state"??

Are you sure you're on the right website? Why did you use a GOP slur then? What, specifically, do you mean by the "more sinister side of the democrat (sic) nanny state"? Why did you use that phrase and why are you here?

[reinvestigate911]

148. still can't get back on topic eh?

wow, i didn't realize that this would hit such a raw nerve. maybe you're too invested in the outcome of a first amendment discussion?

[SDuderstadt]

149. No, I'm PRECISELY on-topic

What do you mean by the phrase, "the more sinister side of the democrat (sic) nanny state" and why did you use that phrase? Is this your idea of "cognitive infiltration"?

[reinvestigate911]

152. it's pretty simple "dude"

if you remove the cloak of "conditionality" and scrutinize what can be deemed as an "extremist group", the sunstein paper points toward policies that are -- by definition -- what many people fear would make the US a radical "leftist" surveillance state. moreover, it's precisely this very "mile" that a government would be expected to steal after sneaking multiple "inches" with an absurd, illegal, yet operational, http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/21/nsa-warrantless-wire.html">warrantless wiretapping program which targeted http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/nsa-whistlebl-1/">non-extremists, including http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/countdown-nsa-surveillance-far-vaster">journalists. need i remind you that this story was breaking as obama was being sworn in, although it may not be as surprising considering that obama supported FISA in its last run through congress?

of course "nanny state" may be a GOP "slur"; however, i would say that a proposal such as sunstein's -- should it be considered seriously (and obviously important people take what cass sunstein says seriously) -- definitely merit such criticism (or slur, if that suits you better)... and if you find it distasteful, maybe you should rethink your position on what the sunstein paper proposes, particularly in regards to the inches/miles metaphor in which this discussion is now framed. in short, where does it end?

[SDuderstadt]

155. No, dude...

the slur is using "democrat" as an adjective, when it is properly "Democratic"...for example, this website is properly called "Democratic Underground" and "democrat Underground" would be the slur. And you have no idea what my entire opinion is about Sunstein's paper, as I've only given it partially.

I have never said it's wrong to criticize the paper...I said I want to hear what Sunstein has to say about it and, while parts of it are of concern...for example, banning or taxing conspiracy theories, in my mind, would definitely violate the 1st amendment, what I see is Sunstein speculating about what governments do, not necessarily advocating specific actions, which is why I'd like to hear some clarification from him. I have also asked if anyone has any evidence that the Obama administration is either implementing it or even considering it. In the absence of that evidence, it's certainly valid to criticize it, but you've lept headfirst into condemnation mode, dude. My problem is the "shoot first, ask questions later" mode you and many others adopt.

Maybe if you'd learn to listen more and ask questions for clarification, rather than reframe what I say, based upon what you THINK I said or believe is the central issue in why it's near impossible to reason with you. Based on what I know about Sunstein, the books of his I've read and the pleasure of hearing him speak several times, I'd simply like to hear the other side before joining you or anyone in "off with his head" calls.

P.S. Unfortunately for you, the 1st amendment assures me the right to label your claims about 9/11 goofy whether you veer off into "no-plane" land or not. I also notice you seem to feel no one has the right to criticize the "9/11 truth movement" nor do you seem to allow for the possibility that you could be wrong. I have strong beliefs and believe in them passionately, however, I hold them provisionally. Demanding evidence is a part of being open-minded and until I see convincing evidence of your goofy claims, I reserve the right to reject them. I trust you won't go into your normal reframing mode and try to mischaracterize what I have actually said, dude.

[reinvestigate911]

157. and what claims are those, "dude"?

you don't fucking know, so please take heed of your own advice.

by the way: thanks for finally taking part in the discussion that we entered into yesterday... be that as it may, too bad you couldn't have posted the above 10 or 15 posts ago... i'd be interested in seeing where *THAT* conversation might lead, but right now i could care less.

finally it's exhausting watching you cycle through your script of declaring the comments of others as "laughable" and/or "goofy". do you ever bother to consider who you're responding to anymore, or is everyone in the dungeon, by default, "a no-planer" unless they outright scoff at the same things you hem and haw about here? are we all deserving of your scorn and ridicule, "dude"?

think closely before you answer, an appointment in the obama cabinet may lie in the balance.

[SDuderstadt]

158. Gladly, dude....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=230899#236608

In the above thread, you make the really silly strawman argument that:

"it couldn't be done, since I can't imagine "

this anti-intellectual fallacy accurately sums up the typical "debunker" mindset (emphasis on the quotes) ... it is the premise for virtually every argument (and ensuing derision) that flows from the pseudo-skepticism which litters this forum. thank you for so succinctly stating it, bill.

You can prove my observation wrong by citing a SINGLE post in which a skeptic argues this as either a major or even a minor premise. Funny how you have to mischaracterize our arguments to try to win. Unfortunately, you're still doing it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=270537#270672

so not only does amy goodman NOT dismiss mr. barrett's claims -- including the countdown -- but she in fact SUPPORTS him in calling for a new investigation.

if it weren't true then why didn't she correct him?
if it weren't true then why would she agree that there are still unanswered questions regarding semptember 11?

In the above classic, you laughingly try to conflate Amy Goodman's outright ignoring of Barrett's claim of a "countdown" into support for the claim. WTF? Anyone can watch the video and dismiss your goofy claim, dude.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=270333#270376

surely you can't be so stupid as to think that the omitted testimonies and new testimony obtained by subpoena could possibly lead to the "exact same conclusion" as reached by the botched 9/11 commission... or can you?

In the above gem you imply that the 9/11 Commission had no subpoena power, when the reality was that they not only had subpoena power, they also exercised it. You also reference "omitted testimonies" but conveniently ignore the 1.2 million pages of documents the Commission examined and the hour upon hour of witness testimony they heard, yet claim they "omitted testimony". Really, dude? How can you tell that from the report? Do you believe the Report would contain every word of testimony they heard? Do you think all testimony was heard in open or closed session of the full commission or does it occur to you that some witnesses testified before Commission Counsel and staff?

It also doesn't help that you directly call another member "stupid", but we've learned to expect that from you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=236218#236910

In the above gem, you try to claim that Mineta's testimony contradicts all the other evidence...eyewitness, logs, etc., when even Mineta says he could be mistaken (which is borne out by all the other evidence). More importantly, if Mineta overheard the aide ask Cheney, "does the order still stand?", how does that, in any way, prove it was a "standdown order" when the words would also fit a "shootdown order".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=218725#228946

In the above post, you provide a series of false claims, rebunking the "Able Danger" nonsense, taking the 9/11 Commission to task for not "mentioning WTC7" (why you would expect them to weigh in on engineering matters is truly laughable)and my favorite, "the fact that henry kissinger was initially appointed as the director of the 9/11 commission" (Um, no he wasn't...Bush initially appointed him to be the chairman, not the executive director. Apparently you don't know the difference between the Commission membership and the staff.).

And, the above is just from a few minutes of searching. If I actually put some real time and effort into, I could easily demostrate that you're just another garden variety "truther" with little regard for the actual facts, dude. Kind of ironic, huh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

146. your attitude: improve it

I'm no part of your flame war; I've engaged in actual substantive discussion elsewhere in the thread.

Methinks your name-calling speaks for itself, but I don't suppose we would ever agree about what it says.

[reinvestigate911]

147. obviously you have nothing to add, or you would have added it.

but thanks for showing your smiling face, just the same.

[OnTheOtherHand]

150. why would I "add" to a flame war?

The real question is, why do you?

[reinvestigate911]

126. deleted

deleted

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. I'm not sure

I don't know in what setting cognitive infiltration of bullshit conspiracism seems feasible -- as a covert op or otherwise. The proposal seems more naive than troubling, frankly. That said, I think the burden is on the authors to make the case for deception, and I don't think they came anywhere close. It seems to me that governments should focus on making reliable information available to everyone on equal terms, not on trying to squirt it into dark corners.

[BeFree]

35. heh

The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.

Well, if I was gonna do it, ya know, be a sock puppet for the government and infiltrate the anti-official story side, I'd pose as an academic type.

And since the official story is so flimsy and lacking reliable information I'd just go about the boards shoveling shit on anybody who was trying to get to the bottom of what is, and what isn't, reliable information.

It wouldn't be easy to stand right up face-to-face with those uncovering the truth. The way that the government handled all the information is hardly supportable and the glaring holes are really tough to cover-up, so, like I said I'd just shovel as much shit as I could.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

your goofy theories are laughable. They don't even require rebuttal.

[reinvestigate911]

94. the "goofy theories don't require rebuttal"... however a group of cognitive infiltrators will do?

not like you'd have a problem with it anyway, right?

[SDuderstadt]

97. I don't recall writing that paper, dude...

Let's make a deal...why don't you quit putting words in my mouth?

[reinvestigate911]

100. read my post again for subtlety and comprehension "dude"

some of us are question-challenged, aren't we?

[SDuderstadt]

102. Yes...

you are.

[reinvestigate911]

104. personal attacks so soon?

why am i unsurprised?

[SDuderstadt]

105. If I respond, "Yes, you are" to one of your posts...

and you claim it's a "personal attack", wouldn't that mean the "personal attack" originated in YOUR post, dude?

I think what I did is called a "deflection"...unfortunately, your barb ricocheted back and hit you. Bummer, dude.

[duphase]

106. No biggie. No harm, no foul, just a dude, dude. I'm gettin' to

like that word "dude". Hey Dude, don't let me down. Take a sad song and make it dooder.

[reinvestigate911]

111. good one, "dude"

but again, unoriginal. yawn.

[SDuderstadt]

112. When you wake up from your little nap...

please explain how "yes, you are" is somehow a "personal attack".

This should be good.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. I wish you would "pose as an academic type"

If you did it at all competently, the quality of your posts would improve by at least an order of magnitude.

You seem to be all about the personalities. It strikes me as bizarre.

[eomer]

50. Ha, I misread the "Response to" and thought you were talking to SDuderstadt.

Honestly, there are plenty of posters on both sides of the ad hoc divide who I wish would "pose as an academic type" and raise the level of discourse.

Bizarre, indeed, or else tactical. <:tinfoil:>

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. acrimony isn't all that interesting, is it?

I have a sort of existential sympathy for warriors on both sides, and greater sympathy for warriors on one side -- but the war, per se, doesn't interest me very much. (I don't consider you a warrior, although of course you are formidable when provoked....)

[BeFree]

55. heh

And what does the academic type do? Make a personal attack!!!!

That's either ironic as hell or just plain hypocrisy. But it did make me laugh.

[SDuderstadt]

56. You need to learn the difference between "scrutiny"...

"criticism" and "attack", dude. It's amazing how much more civilized and restrained the debate here is when you're not involved in it (as well as a few other posters who've gone by the wayside.

[BeFree]

59. Bwahahaha!

I know you don't mean to be funny, but you are. Bwahahahah!!1

[SDuderstadt]

78. Well, you're not, dude...

so, how about the pledge to quit twisting what people say?

[OnTheOtherHand]

76. actually not a personal attack

I don't know who you are. I don't care who you are. But I think it's a shame that your posts aren't better.

[BeFree]

77. heh

I bet you wish yours' were better.

[SDuderstadt]

79. At the very least, OTOH does not...

twist what other people say, dude. You might want to ask why so many people have complaint about you.

[jberryhill]

39. It's an academic piece, not "advocacy" or a "proposal" /nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. the meaning of "proposal" depends on context

I agree that it's important to recognize that this was an academic paper, not a policy memorandum or whatever else. But when academics suggest ideas -- policy-related or otherwise -- it is pretty common to call them proposals.

[eomer]

47. We agree, mostly.

At the pragmatic level the troubling part is not whatever the government would squirt about bullshit conspiracy theories, it is what they would squirt about conspiracy theories that are not bullshit (either intentionally or unwittingly on the part of the individual or organization doing the squirting).

On principle, though, it is troubling regardless of the merits of a particular theory. I agree with your statement of how the government should approach it in your last sentence.

One more aspect of whether it is troubling: at the time he wrote it, not so much. It was just some naive guy writing a paper. But having that guy in a government job where he is in a position to implement these ideas (if that is the case with his position), that would be troubling.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. I would put the first part a bit differently, but yes

I think it basically depends on what is being "squirted." Raising good objections to crap conspiracy theories about actual conspiracies should, in principle, be a good thing. Raising crap objections, not. Certainly "raising doubts" does not always and everywhere improve collective reasoning.

I don't see how Sunstein's position would allow him to act on these ideas, but I could be missing it.

[eomer]

54. Raising good objections, publicly, with clear attribution as to who is the author of the objections,

is another component that is necessary but not sufficient. I agree that what is being "squirted" is another part, but that's where it gets tricky -- who gets to decide? I'd prefer that they stick to publishing facts and leave the conclusions to others, except when there is an official reason to draw a conclusion (like a decision to prosecute).

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. that's a reasonable stopping point

I like the idea that truly twisted thinking should be challenged, not ignored in the hope that it will go away -- but the idea that government agents should do it surreptitiously, I'm wildly unconvinced about that.

A lot of objections don't especially need authors. Take recently, when someone posted apparent evidence that George H. W. Bush was in Tyler, TX when JFK was shot, and then asked why Bush was in Dallas when JFK was shot. The objection pretty much writes itself, although one might struggle to get the tone right.

[salvorhardin]

136. Sunstein has a rather naive view of how conspiracist groups are organized I think

It's not like the old KKK where there was central organization. It's more of an ad hoc assemblage of individuals and groups glomming onto an idea that emotionally resonates for them without any real formal organization.

And while I like the phrase crippled epistemology (it'd make a great name for a band), I don't think it's true that people who believe conspiracy theories do so because they have limited sources of trusted information. If anything, it's that they have too many. Almost anything that affirms their existing belief is taken at face value regardless of origin.

I'll have to give Sunstein's paper a read, but there's a pretty good, though not especially wide, body of literature out there on conspiracy theorists now. It doesn't sound like Sunstein has read it, else I don't think he'd be advancing these kinds of proposals.

[OnTheOtherHand]

151. I'll be interested in what you think

My current impression is that Sunstein is naive, but perhaps not in exactly that way. But I really shouldn't reread the paper right now!

[salvorhardin]

135. ROFL!

Effing academics, indeed. What do they know? :rofl:

[spooked911]

48. who was making it out to be sinister?

I didn't even add any commentary, but only pasted in the story.

Do you challenge what was written in the story?

[SDuderstadt]

57. You and Raw story, dude...

your "who, me?" defense is laughable.

[spooked911]

86. what was made out as "sinister"?

you're the laughable one here.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Of course I am, Mr. "no-planes"/mini-nukes/bunny cage" n/t

[duphase]

159. Still wouldn't most of us be better off if Sunstein's ideas aren't adopted?

I think it's best to nip these kinds of gag and punish ideas in the bud. Who would possibly favor spending taxpayer money on
the kind of schemes that Mr. Sunstein wrote about?

[SDuderstadt]

160. Which is why I don't advocate any of his ideas...

dude, except the one where the "government" would openly and transparently inject its viewpoint into the debate.

[Ohio Joe]

163. I bet you are correct

Here is the paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

And here is the key paragraph... whole and not cherry picked and mis-quoted:

Part II discusses government responses and legal issues, in light of the discussion
in Part I. We address several dilemmas of governmental response to conspiracy theories,
such as the question whether it is better to rebut such theories, at the risk of legitimating
them, or to ignore them, at the risk of leaving them unrebutted. Conspiracy theories turn
out to be especially hard to undermine or dislodge; they have a self-sealing quality,
rendering them particularly immune to challenge. We suggest several policy responses
that can dampen the supply of conspiracy theorizing, in part by introducing diverse
viewpoints and new factual assumptions into the hard-core groups that produce such
theories. Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of
extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to
expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.

Note the last sentence... gee, give out all the information and not just little bits... I think the problem is that the bush policy of secrecy went on for too many years and that information leaked out too slowly to have the effect suggested by the paper. truthers simply refuse to look at the facts and continue to bring up long debunked "clues" such as "The towers fell at free fall speeds into their own footprint" of which, neither is true... yet... things like this continue to come up.

Also note that it only proposes "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups", Not stealthily... not all CT'ers. But... hey, the paranoia must march forward.

[SidDithers]

3. Rawstory is quickly becoming the WND of the left...nt

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

4. Excellent observation, Sid...

very apt description. And Spooked is doing everything he can to solidify his status as an inside joke (hey, I just got my unintentional pun...inside joke vs inside job) to many, if not most, of us here. It's truly embarrassing.

[igetalong]

5. What's that supposed to achieve?

Doesn't it seem that Obama has been all about no change and about no new emphasis on investigating or instituting individual accountability for the illegal acts practiced by the elite, the exact same rotted conditions he campaigned (promised) to try to change, but has actually instead endorsed and actually further strengthened?

[SDuderstadt]

6. Jesus...

another "Obama = Bush" poster.

[igetalong]

7. Nope. Didn't say that. Read what I typed. EOM

[SDuderstadt]

9. I DID read what you typed and...

that is essentially what you are saying. You can try to spin it differently, if you want.

[Ter]

15. For someone that claims to hate conspiracies

You sure love posting in conspiracy threads.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Please show me where I ever claimed to...

"hate conspiracies", dude. I loathe almost all conspiracy theories for precisely the same reason so few are shown to be true: poor reasoning, little in the way of facts, leaps of Logic...kinda like you mischaracterizing my actual position.

[Octafish]

8. Trust?

From the OP:

"...people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust..."

With good reason.

[SDuderstadt]

10. So they trust CT websites...

makes sense.

[BeFree]

11. Bwahahahaha!!

They think we are a danger to the established story.

And they are gawd damned right.

First they ignored us, then they're fighting us, then we will win.
We are in the fight us part.

Get ready for more sock-puppets.

[SDuderstadt]

12. No, you disseminate a lot of misinformation, dude...n/t

[igetalong]

13. Yup. It takes a heap to put a hush in the house.

"Get ready for more sock-puppets." If that means what I think it means - "additional strong persuaders of the Gov't gospel", I agree.

[BeFree]

37. Well

The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts

These controlled 'independent experts' IS a fairly apt depiction of what a sock puppet would be, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

38. igetalong is gone already, Befree....

you're talking to a dead sockpuppet, dude.

[mikelgb]

14. so amusing this thread is

:popcorn:

[Twist_U_Up]

17. So their aim is to troll the internet ?

There's enough trolls on the web already.....

[SDuderstadt]

18. What makes them a "troll", TuuTuu? n/t

[CJCRANE]

19. Anyone who has taken the time to look at the official information available

can figure out why it happened and who was involved. No amount of muddying the water will change that.

[SDuderstadt]

20. You can dowload the paper here and determine if....

it's anywhere near as sinister as Spooked implies. My take is that it's not and Sunstein and his collaborator identified a very real issue.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8www.actionjav.com

[GreenMetalFlake]

22. they've got to realize they've got a HUGE PR problem with this - on top of managing public opinion

which, at least re conspiracies in america, the tried n true personal smears and dismissals haven't worked to prevent people from researching them, questioning them, etc. this move is frankly rather unbelievable on many fronts. i can't imagine even the diehard naysayers - re ANY CT - getting on board with this shit

[jberryhill]

40. The Birthers At Freeperville Are Up In Arms Over This, btw /nt

[procopia]

41. I wouldn't know; I don't go there. nt

[jberryhill]

42. Really? Some folks from here would fit right in...

....right down to the "sheeple".....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2428006/posts

To: Man50D
The Fascist Statists who control our government, and who are sucking the life out of our economy and national treasure, are becoming exposed for who and what they really are, but the sheeple still seem oblivious to their plight; like stupid "deer in the headlights."
But alas, I must therefore be a conspiracy theorist myself; one to be discovered and banned (banished) by an all powerful government authority! Heaven help us.

7 posted on January 14, 2010 6:33:33 AM EST by JustTheTruth (Say "NO!" to Socialism in America!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

[SDuderstadt]

43. Amen, JB....

the ones from here that really scare me are the ones that throw the term "treason" around so lightly and openly fantasize about guillotines, gallows and summary executions. It's truly frightening to behold.

[GreenMetalFlake]

52. exactly. and if this thread had been allowed in GD, there'd be many libs/lefties asking WTF too

the pathetic want of some to paint this as a freeper issue is amazing

[Twist_U_Up]

61. you'll find many amazing things here in bizzarro world

things that make ya go
Hmmmmmm

[SDuderstadt]

63. Including your nonsensical posts, TuuTuu...n/t

[BeFree]

65. Take it as a sign

That we are making inroads. That they even have to consider going about attacking us covertly is a sign that we are on the right road.

[SDuderstadt]

67. So, the Obama administration is now "in on it", too, BeFree?

Did it ever occur to you that rational people see your "inside job" delusions as, well, delusions?

[LARED]

44. Sunstein obviously has never engaged CT'ers as evidenced by his

belief that "cognitive infiltration’ has the ability to fix "crippled epistemology"

[spooked911]

49. Of course, I'm sure this has nothing to do with the official story supporters

who rabidly and constantly post at this board.

I would guess most of them are supported by a different, older program.

[Ohio Joe]

58. Do you know where I can apply?

Seriously, if anyone knows, I'd appreciate it. I've been unemployed for a long time and a little extra cash would help. Sheesh, I've been pointing out what a stupid idea it is to think there were no planes on 9/11 for free when some of you bastards are getting paid... come on, help a guy out!

[SDuderstadt]

62. Due to the economic crisis and budget problems...

all I have been getting are vouchers, which are essentially IOU's.

[BeFree]

64. Well, joe

If you were any good at it, I'm sure they'd have signed you up by now.

But it is interesting that you are applying.
Kind of admitting that it is up and running, eh?

[Ohio Joe]

66. Hi BeFree

Still working on trying to twist peoples words... Keep going, you'll get it one day.

[SDuderstadt]

68. At least it appears BeFree has been forced to drop his...

"you defend the OCT" and "you believe Bushco" smears.

[BeFree]

69. Yep....forced.

[SDuderstadt]

70. You should never have done it to begin with, dude...

it absolutely poisoned civilized debate, not that you'd care. However, I see that you are up to your old trick of twisting other members' words beyond all recognition to make it appear they're saying something far afield from what they actually meant. Hopefully, you won't have to be forced to drop such an unfair tactic.

Why don't you pledge to simply stop it right now, dude? Surely it's not your intention to poison the debate, right? Right? Set an example, dude.

[BeFree]

71. Well

I can't be forced to believe the OCT, or Bushco.

And your responses to me tell me that I am very successful at refuting the OCT and Bushco. Thanks for your affirmation.

[SDuderstadt]

72. You just did it again, dude...

you twisted the plain meaning of what I said to make it appear that someone is trying to get you to believe the "OCT" (which doesn't exist) or support "Bushco". No one here supports "Bushco" and I'd challenge you find a single person here who calls you on your goofy claims for any reason other than they make no sense.

So, dude...what's it going to take to get you to abandon your dirty trick of twisting other members' words and quit poisoning the debate (which you've done since you got here)? What place do your dirty tricks have on a progressive Democratic forum?

[BeFree]

73. Hilarious

You, saying I am poisonous has to be about the goofiest thing here.

[SDuderstadt]

75. You just did it again...

you're twisting what I said to make it appear I called you poisonous when what I actually did was take issue with your dirty tricks and how THEY poison the debate, dude. If you cannot accurately characterize what someone has said, perhaps you should consider not debating.

What's it going to take for you to drop the dirty tactics, dude?

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. obviously Sunstein's article is misdirection

So I shouldn't have to tell you what program actually is getting funded. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Did I miss a memo or something?

I thought I had the updated list of positions to bid on. My last gig was just to follow "truthers" around and make faces at them. I think I'm ready for the "big leagues" now.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Jesus, dude...

there you go again with your "official story" (whatever that is) versus truthseekers false dilemma. One need hardly support the "official story" to recognize your "no-planes" bullshit for the embarrassing and patently offensive nonsense that it is. It's astounding to witness your Logic-resistant meandering when confronted on your delusions.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Taking issue with your goofy "no-planes" bullshit ...

doesn't mean someone supports the "official story" (whatever that is...it's really stupid to claim there's one "official story"). However, with the exception of Bush administration misrepresentations of their efforts to prevent 9/11 and the competency of their response to it, the consensus view has far more evidence for it than your goofy "no-planes" bullshit, for which you have precisely no evidence, dude.

[spooked911]

88. false on all counts

You know damn well what is meant by the official story. And there is abundant evidence for no planes. What I'd really like to know if you ever get tired of writing "your goofy "no-planes" bullshit".

[SDuderstadt]

90. No n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. do you ever get tired of asserting that "there is abundant evidence for no planes"?

It's not as if your arguments are getting any better. Why would you expect a different response?

[BeFree]

82. well

It is a story. This story that says that Bushco was unaware, or didn't know, or was too incompetent to care. That even tho there were warnings, and the CIA head was going around with his "hair on fire", and FBI field agents were reporting on pilots practicing flying but not caring about taking off or landing, and those reports being ignored, and Jeb Bush down in Florida making an emergency declaration days before, and the whole John O'Neil saga.....

And that just part of the lead up......

How about this... in order to placate those who deny the OCT we henceforth
just call it the Bullshit Story of 9/11? The BS-9/11, for short.

Has a certain bureaucratic ring to it, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

83. No deal, BeFree...

just more of your evidenceless bullshit.

[Mefistofeles]

164. True. Official theorists post with incredible frequency

It's just too weird not to smell a rat.

[zappaman]

165. I get paid to post

so the truth won't come out.
because if it came out on a website like this, next stop is THE WORLD!

[SDuderstadt]

166. How did you wind up getting paid?

I'm still on the barter system.

[OnTheOtherHand]

167. well, thanks for your service

However much they pay you, I'm sure it isn't enough.

I don't quite get how it's supposed to work, however. How does your posting here prevent the truth from coming out?

Hmm. Maybe that other poster can explain it to me.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Here's Greenwald's take on it

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html

Wow, Sunstein sounds like a major dickhead.

Just to get a sense for what an extremist Cass Sunstein is (which itself is ironic, given that his paper calls for "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups," as the Abstract puts it), marvel at this paragraph:



So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions." I'd love to know the "conditions" under which the government-enforced banning of conspiracy theories or the imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will "have a place." That would require, at a bare minumum, a repeal of the First Amendment. Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be barred from any meaningful government position.

Emphasis in graphic is Greenwald's. The full paper is available from here.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

[CJCRANE]

87. Thanks Bolo Boffin, interesting.

His style reminds me a little of Zelikow's style of writing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

91. yeah, I'm wondering whether that survived peer review

I don't know about the standards in political philosophy, but when a manuscript suggests in passing that there might be "a place" for banning an entire category of -- well, really, who can tell what would be banned here? publication content? meetings? lectures? ideas in people's heads?! -- whatever else one says about it, it's poor reasoning, or writing, or both. And it raises legitimate questions about Sunstein's conception of free speech.

The article was published in the June 2009 issue of the Journal of Political Philosophy, which means that the final version is behind Ebsco's 12-month firewall. I'd be curious to know whether the reviewers called out the authors on this.

[Bolo Boffin]

109. In the paper, Sunstein talks about censorship tactics in Iraq

Among other things. People that pretend human rights end at the edge of the Constitution's jurisdiction make me ill.

[duphase]

110. me too. Sunstein is a man of ideas & was probably just thinking

out loud. I don't recall what was going on (in current events) at that time, but it may well have been something that just came to
him sort of like when Pres. Bush joked about how much easier his job would be if he was a dictator. People are making too much out
of Sunstein's paper.

Besides, even if his ideas were to become reality, they wouldn't impact very much because he refers to conspiracy THEORIES, whereas
most of the people who freaked don't really consider 9/11 etc. as conspiracy THEORIES. Sunstein's ideas would have ZERO impact on
research/findings of historical events, crimes etc.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. This is not an offhand comment. This is a considered position published in a whitepaper.

Sunstein doesn't get the out of "thinking out loud" on this one.

[duphase]

120. In that case, Cass's case might ought to be more carefully examined

I wonder if Sunstein believes that investigating that "third rate burglary" at the Watergate was a waste of time and that the whole
issure (as Howell Heflin would pronounce it) should have just been dismissed out of hand ... and maybe W & Bernstein should have been
somehow subject to civil/criminal penalties?

[Bolo Boffin]

154. He uses Watergate as an example of an actual conspiracy.

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect). In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones. Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.

And more on the point:

This is not, and is not be intended to be, a general claim that conspiracy theories are unjustified or unwarranted. Much depends on the background state of knowledge-producing institutions. If those institutions are generally trustworthy, in part because they are embedded in an open society with a well-functioning marketplace of ideas and free flow of information, then conspiracy theories will generally (which is not to say always) be unjustified. On the other hand, individuals in societies with systematically malfunctioning or skewed institutions of knowledge – say, individuals who live in an authoritarian regime lacking a free press – may have good reason to distrust all or most of the official denials they hear. For these individuals, conspiracy theories will more often be warranted, whether or not true. Likewise, individuals embedded in isolated groups or small, self-enclosed networks who are exposed only to skewed information will more often hold conspiracy theories that are justified, relative to their limited informational environment. Holocaust denials might themselves be considered in this light. When isolated groups operate within a society that is both wider and more open, their theories may be unjustified from the standpoint of the wider society but justified from the standpoint of the group if it maintains its isolation. In these situations, the problem for the wider society is to breach the informational isolation of the small group or network, a problem we discuss below.

[duphase]

156. Thanks.

It's interesting that he talks about "false conspiracy theories, not true ones." Unless you investigate, how would you know?



Conspiracy is a crime, not a theory.

[OnTheOtherHand]

141. I don't think it's that simple

I'm not a Sunstein groupie, so it's fine for him to be dead wrong about some of this. But I don't think he is suggesting that Iraqis have less of a human right to free speech than Americans do. (I'm not sure how Sunstein conceptualizes "human rights" per se, but I suspect it's a red herring regardless.) I don't think he would regard misinformation likely to incite violence as protected speech in the United States, either.

Part of the problem here, of course, is that even if it's misinformation, it isn't just any misinformation. Basically one has a government or quasi-government deciding what can be said about its own activities. It is sort of interesting to think about how effective or ineffective that may be in addressing conspiracism, but who can be trusted with that power regardless? Umm, maybe Sunstein will address that in his next paper.

[salvorhardin]

137. 2) is just idiotic

How they hell would one tax conspiracy theorists? Just the idea of the IRS trying to codify exactly what constitutes a conspiracy theory and in what media it may be taxed is laughable.

[Bolo Boffin]

138. Well, in the Iraqi context

It would be a tax or fine on newspapers or the like that print conspiracy theories. Or the Meyssan book getting a special CT tax of 5 euros, some such nonsense. He's probably thinking of the parallel of a sin tax on cigarettes or alcohol. Christ, what an asshole. I can't say he's proposing it here because we've got the First Amendment, but in Iraq Sunstein would be just fine with it.

[duphase]

140. First we came for the conspiracy investigators, then we went

after a bunch of disgruntled Iraqis, then a very liberal woman from the north country became president and wanted to go after
subversives amongst the liberal elite and those caught up in that San Francisco ethos.

[salvorhardin]

153. Right, I understand, but that's the thing...

Who determines whether or not it's a conspiracy theory? Can you imagine trying to come up with a bullet-proof legal definition? It's like porn. Everybody knows porn when they see it. Doesn't mean we can define it.

[Flatulo]

108. Do you know what 'cognitive' means? nt

[defendandprotect]

161. Better arrest everyone in DOJ, cause they also believe in "conspiracy" . . .

This is frighteningly interesting --

I thought it was quite a sign of weakness and fear on the part of the perps when Obama

mentioned 9/11 conspiracy believers -- with anger. That anger, IMO, represents FEAR.

Someone told him to make that statement.

This is a further warning --

Meanwhile, they will ignore "pro-life" murder and domestic terrorism which has pretty

much shut down women's clinics in "America."

[zinnisking]

162. kick