Is even Wikipedia a right-wing-corrupted source?

[drewder]

@E-DUB

The thinking was that Gorbachev wanted to take the wall down but doing so after Reagan’s speech would make him look like he was “caving in” to foreign pressure.

Is there any evidence that Gorbachev wanted to do it and that he could have done it without the hardliners stopping him?

[Chronos]

I don’t get what the big deal is here. Anyone at all can edit Wikipedia. Yes, that means that some people edit it to suit a political agenda, and some of those people are necessarily going to be conservatives. So what? All of that is trivially true. It doesn’t say anything about how successful those conservatives are.

[BrainGlutton]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

I think the right-wing corruption has spread to his article because he seems like a loon.

Hartmann is considered to have progressive/liberal politics (although he describes himself as part of the radical middle).[33] He is the author of numerous books, including Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, in which he argues that the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) did not actually grant corporate personhood, and that this doctrine derives from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court clerk’s notes. Hartmann considers this a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States.[34] He has also written on the separation of church and state, drawing upon The Federalist Papers to argue that the Founding Fathers warned against the notion of the United States being a Christian nation. He contends that the 2000 American election and 2004 American election were stolen through electronic tampering, denial of the voting franchise by rigged voting lists, and limiting availability of voting machines in selected precincts. He also accuses the Bush administration of eroding democracy and individual freedoms.

Hartmann is also a vocal critic of the effects of neoliberal globalization on the U.S. economy, claiming that economic policies enacted during and since the presidency of Ronald Reagan have led, in large part, to many American industrial enterprises’ being acquired by multinational firms based in overseas countries, leading in many cases to manufacturing jobs’—once considered a major foundation of the U.S. economy—being relocated to countries in Asia and other areas where the costs of labor are lower than in the U.S. and the concurrent reversal of the United States’ traditional role of a leading exporter of finished manufactured goods to that of a primary importer of finished manufactured goods (exemplified by massive trade deficits with countries such as China). Hartmann argues that this phenomenon is leading to the erosion of the American middle class, whose survival Hartmann deems critical to the survival of American democracy. This argument is expressed in Hartmann’s 2006 book, Screwed: The Undeclared War Against The Middle Class and What We Can Do About It. One of the book’s main arguments is that media deregulation leads to corporate media’s shifting the American consensus towards the acceptance of privatization and massive corporate profits—which causes the shrinking of the middle class.

None of that is loony. What exactly are you talking about?

[BrainGlutton]

@Chronos

I don’t get what the big deal is here. Anyone at all can edit Wikipedia. Yes, that means that some people edit it to suit a political agenda, and some of those people are necessarily going to be conservatives. So what? All of that is trivially true. It doesn’t say anything about how successful those conservatives are.

But Hartmann is talking about a great deal more than that, he is alleging an actual systematic organized effort run by RW think-tanks – which, as you may know, are very well-funded organizations.

[smiling_bandit]

@drewder

Is there any evidence that Gorbachev wanted to do it and that he could have done it without the hardliners stopping him?

I have also heard this claim before, and it was equally unsupported then.

For some background, Gorbachev wasn’t especially interested in the Berlin Wall, but at the time, was getting out of the business of trying to dominate Eastern Europe. In fact, the German authorities were far more concerned with either keeping the Wall up or at least getting a big payment to end it. Also, we should two more years and a bit before coming down, so unless one believes the Soviets were almost immediately going to demand the East German government remove it, it’s hard to see how the speech could have delayed anything. For their part, most critics of the speech, or of Reagan or the West generally, don’t claim that it slowed matters but that it simply had no effect. Which, if true, would make it much like most political speeches.

The key event which led to the removal of the Wall, and ultimately to the end of East Berlin and East Germany, actually occurred in Hungary. The Hungarian government removed its border security with Austria, and East Germans began flooding into that country, and then even more demanded to be allowed to leave. Despite initial wavering, the old Soviet Bloc simply wouldn’t support East Germany. It’s hard to see how Reagan’s speech would have or could have slowed any of these developments.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

None of that is loony. What exactly are you talking about?

Wait. That is from wikipedia. Have you no sense of irony?

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@BrainGlutton

None of that is loony. What exactly are you talking about?

I am unsure we will be able to see eye to eye on this person’s levels of quack.

[BrainGlutton]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

I am unsure we will be able to see eye to eye on this person’s levels of quack.

We might if you’ll get more specific.

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

Wait. That is from wikipedia. Have you no sense of irony?

Sure, but why use it all the time and wear it out?

This is also of some interest and relevance, BTW (from RationalWiki, not Wikipedia):

Wikipedia honcho Jimbo Wales once described himself as “Objectivist to the core,” and named his daughter Kira after Kira Argounova in We the Living.[53] These facts may clarify a few things for experienced Wikipedians. In its first weeks, Wikipedia had a disproportionately detailed coverage of the works of Ayn Rand compared to the works of all other authors combined.[54] It’s odd seeing that Wikipedia can be viewed as an example of common ownership, which is some upper-stage pinko-shit (Marx says it is). Any Rand would be ashamed at you for not being selfish enough, Jimbo.

[Chronos]

Quoth BrainGlutton:

But Hartmann is talking about a great deal more than that, he is alleging an actual systematic organized effort run by RW think-tanks – which, as you may know, are very well-funded organizations.

Sure, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens, too. But systematic, organized, and well-funded is not the same thing as successful.

[E-DUB]

Drewder wrote: “Is there any evidence that Gorbachev wanted to do it and that he could have done it without the hardliners stopping him?”

Beyond my memory of events at the time, I haven’t been able to locate it. That’s what I was complaining about. Attempts to Google any combination of words that would be reasonably expected to elicit such evidence are overwhelmed by laudatory articles some of which all but say that Reagan tore it down with his bare hands.

Similar results obtain re: the nuke comment.

[Guinastasia]

@BrainGlutton

I dunno about pigeons, but:

Dude, that’s fucking Looney Tunes.

[E-DUB]

Haven’t heard Hartmann in years since our local prog talk station was taken off the air.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@BrainGlutton

We might if you’ll get more specific.

Corporations being the driving force of all things that happen ever, stolen elections, media deregulation as a propaganda instrument, the men behind the conspiracy to assassinate JFK…it reads like this guy concocts a conspiracy theory or hijacks one that already exists and then writes a book about it. And then the evolutionary just so story for ADHD. He gets about a book a year from this crap.

It’s my deeply held personal belief that whenever I am offered up an easy group to blame for this or that set of the world’s problems I am actually offered a steaming pile of bullshit. So from my perspective this guy’s entire career is based on offering up one steaming pile after another. Problems are more complex than an easily identifiable set of ingroup and outgroup members where the outgroup is responsible for all the problems with the world. It doesn’t work with Black people, or Jews, or White people, or Mexican Immigrants, or Teachers, or Ivory Tower Intellectuals, or Gulenists (if you’re Turkish), or the CIA, or Wall Street, or Syrian Refugees, or Muslims or Big Pharma or whatever group another group wants to say is out to fuck us over. It’s actually much worse because it’s a bunch of noise that distracts from actually working on problems.

So that is why we aren’t going to see eye to eye if you don’t immediately understand why I think he’s bonkers (and not really deserving of any greater analysis than “he’s bonkers”). Sorry, I probably shouldn’t have posted.

[furt]

@BrainGlutton

But Hartmann is talking about a great deal more than that, he is alleging an actual systematic organized effort run by RW think-tanks – which, as you may know, are very well-funded organizations.

LOL. And Left-wing think tanks are run on a shoestring, with little old ladies and volunteers doing the bulk of the work.

The shit that partisans have to tell themselves is hilarious.

[eschereal]

As I recall, Hartmann was the guy who tied the 2nd Amendment to slavery, saying it has that “well regulated militia” clause to protect the right of slave-states to have militias for rounding up slaves and for putting down any slave rebellions. Some people find that idea outrageous, others maybe not so much.

[BrainGlutton]

@furt

LOL. And Left-wing think tanks are run on a shoestring, with little old ladies and volunteers doing the bulk of the work.

I dunno about that, but I’m sure they get less funding in the aggregate than the RW think-tanks. There are at least 10 Kochs or Scaifes or Coorses for every Soros or Buffett.

[BrainGlutton]

@eschereal

As I recall, Hartmann was the guy who tied the 2nd Amendment to slavery, saying it has that “well regulated militia” clause to protect the right of slave-states to have militias for rounding up slaves and for putting down any slave rebellions. Some people find that idea outrageous, others maybe not so much.

Never heard of that theory before, might or might not be true, but, either way, on the Mohs outrageousness scale, not so much.

My preferred theory is that the 2d Amendment was intended to facilitate a prepared militia-based defense system and thereby obviate the need for a standing professional army, of which thing the FFs had recent experience as an instrument of internal domestic state rule. Which is now every bit as anachronistic as the slave-catching-militia idea.

[eschereal]

A lynchpin of his argument seems to be that the first draft of what came to be the 2nd essentially has the word “country” where the adopted version has “state”.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

I’m accustomed to RWs arguing on the Intertubes dismissing cites to Wikipedia as liberally biased. But I am reading The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America–and What We Can Do to Stop It, by Thom Hartmann, and he states at p. 30:

No citation is given. Never heard of this before. Is it true – of Wikipedia alone, or even “all across the Internet”?

Well, let’s look at the first few paragraphs and see if “the 1960s was a horrible dystopia”

“The Sixties”, as they are known in both scholarship and popular culture, is a term used by historians, journalists, and other objective academics; in some cases nostalgically to describe the counterculture and revolution in social norms about clothing, music, drugs, dress, sexuality, formalities, and schooling; and in others pejoratively to denounce the decade as one of irresponsible excess, flamboyance, and decay of social order. The decade was also labeled the Swinging Sixties because of the fall or relaxation of social taboos especially relating to racism and sexism that occurred during this time. Commentator Christopher Booker[4] described this era as a classical Jungian nightmare cycle, where a rigid culture, unable to contain the demands for greater individual freedom, broke free of the social constraints of the previous age through extreme deviation from the norm. He charts the rise, success, fall/nightmare and explosion in the London scene of the 1960s. Several Western nations such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, and West Germany turned to the political left in the early and mid-1960s.

In response to civil disobedience campaigns from groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), U.S. President John F. Kennedy, a Keynesian[5] and staunch anti-communist, pushed for social reforms. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 was a shock. Liberal reforms were finally passed under Lyndon B. Johnson including civil rights for African Americans and healthcare for the elderly and the poor. Despite his large-scale Great Society programs, Johnson was increasingly reviled by the New Left at home and abroad. The heavy-handed American role in the Vietnam War outraged student protestors around the globe. The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. upon working with underpaid Tennessee garbage collectors and the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the police response towards protesters of the 1968 Democratic National Convention, defined politics of violence in the United States.

In Western Europe and Japan, organizations such as those present at May 1968, the Red Army Faction, and the Zengakuren tested liberal democracy’s ability to satisfy its marginalized or alienated citizenry amidst post-industrial age hybrid capitalist economies. In Britain, the Labour Party gained power in 1964.[6] In France, the protests of 1968 led to President Charles de Gaulle temporarily fleeing the country.[7] For some, May 1968 meant the end of traditional collective action and the beginning of a new era to be dominated mainly by the so-called new social movements.[8] Italy formed its first left-of-center government in March 1962 with a coalition of Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, and moderate Republicans. Socialists joined the ruling block in December 1963. In Brazil, João Goulart became president after Jânio Quadros resigned. In Africa the 1960s was a period of radical political change as 32 countries gained independence from their European colonial rulers.

Looks like he’s wrong.