Anonymous ID: abaf7e June 16, 2018, 8:33 a.m. No.1772572   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>1772282

when i was at lunch at work like a month ago or so i overhead a conversation of someone who said he interviewed to be on hillarys it team

he said that they all hate each other and they hate her the most

lucky us huh

Anonymous ID: abaf7e June 16, 2018, 8:40 a.m. No.1772616   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/16/nba-star-zach-randolphs-brother-killed-in-shooting-outside-indiana-bar.html

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/03/21/nbas-kyle-korver-takes-leave-after-death-brother-27.html

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/03/26/nba-g-league-player-zeke-upshaw-dies-after-collapsing-on-court.html

3 nba related deaths in march and april

wonder if theres anything here

Anonymous ID: abaf7e June 16, 2018, 8:51 a.m. No.1772691   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>2695 >>2746

uh guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

"Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration

 

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government's antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[36] where they suggest, among other tactics, >"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."[36] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups."

 

The authors declare that there are five hypothetical responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. >(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."

 

Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[36] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "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." This position has been criticized by some commentators[37][38] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[39] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[40][41][42][43]

Anonymous ID: abaf7e June 16, 2018, 8:52 a.m. No.1772703   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>1772695

sorry i tried to highlight it but it failed

3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.

cointel pro

Anonymous ID: abaf7e June 16, 2018, 8:59 a.m. No.1772765   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>2791 >>2825

>>1772746

thats what i was trying to get at

obama admin relegalized propaganda in the 2012 ndaa

2013 was when the mass shilling of social media began

ex r conspiracy politics twitter

how much you wanna bet most of the online crazies are or were govt/brock plants