Don't underplay a regime and make them seem more reasonable than they are by whitewashing history
That's a better definition!
But also don't exaggerate a "regime"1 to make them seem more extreme than they are by whitewashing, decontextualizing, fabricating, using loaded language[1], etc.
Propoganda often works explicitly via selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception. What your are calling "details" and "minutia" are attempts to try and push back against some of that selectivity bias.
Am I supposed to give a monolithic answer now for speaking broadly?
Yes, because you were perfectly happy/capable of giving one before:
We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
Which while it's good in theory it appears the phrase "accidentally bootlicking" allows for others, including a certain 'argumentative gremlin', to perceive that as meaning "so long as it doesn't contradict my existing worldview".
Having a stronger/more rigorous definition would help you with communicating your ideas, allow you to self-check for dissonances and help me understand if there's anything of actual substance here.
Probably shouldn't have mentioned my thoughts on that thread, I had hoped to provide some perspective on where I was coming from but probably just confused things for everyone. That's my bad, back to the relevant point:
How do you think one should make that distinction?
We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
It depends entirely on how you define "accidentally bootlicking" because I think OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml has done an excellent job of calling out how you have been making that distinction.
Taking a step back and decontextualizing how do you think one should make that distinction?
When you recognize the amount of bullshit propoganda that is consumed daily and realize how false it all is it's very easy to switch to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mode.
Additionally it's harder to break others (and oneself) out of the propoganda soup without an extremely sharp distinction between the lies being spoonfed and the material reality. The material reality often ends up getting distorted as a result and the cycle continues.
A single voice actor couldn't produce enough lines to fully train an AI model...
The model is trained on a massive corpus of existing data and then fine tuned to match the target voice actor. Using less than ~30s of reference audio you can get a pretty decent fine tuning the main issue is that it currently isn't on par with the quality and consistency of an in studio voice actor, especially over long time domains.
That isn't what he was convicted of. The charges brought that could've made this true were related to the 2023 federal indictment consisting of:
four criminal charges of conspiring to defraud the government and disenfranchise voters, and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding.
However, on November 25, 2024 Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the case without prejudice.
The felonies he was convicted for were related to the March 2023 state indictment "The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump" which consisted of:
34 criminal charges of falsifying business records in the first degree related to payments made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
At no point has he been convicted of having:
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
He was convicted of being a fraudster, con-man, liar and sex pest but not for being an insurrectionist. This isn't a "illegal" problem, it's a classic case of dual tier justice and the consequences thereof. The justice system is beyond fucked, and has been for a long time. Solutions will not be coming from that line of reasoning.
I think you underestimate how thin the skin of the professional managerial class is. It's not about the tone of voice it's about the directness and how that's facilitating "conflict".
I'm trying to find the data around the "data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables" and am not finding it. Closest I find is the excerpt from their book here https://muse.jhu.edu/article/760088 which tells a rather mixed story.
I understand this was posted within the context of ongoing events in LA. Of note in the research being shared here is the goal of "overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation" which I think is a very different scope. However, I would encourage reading their latest peer reviewed paper here which I believe does a better job of scoping the LA protests.
Of note is that it addresses the consistent conflating of "violent armed overthrow of the state" with "throwing rocks after getting shot at".
Did you read your sources? They don't say what you think they do.
From the AP article you linked:
Of more than 300 arrested, there are about 286 defendants ___
Some of those facing charges undoubtedly share far-left and anti-government views. Far-right protesters also have been arrested and charged. ___ But many have had no previous run-ins with the law and no apparent ties to antifa, the umbrella term for leftist militant groups that Trump has said he wants to declare a terrorist organization.
In the classic misguided "journalistic neutrality" it does put additional emphasis on the 6 instances of "far-right extremism" a incidence rate of 2.1%. Do you believe that 2.1% is a majority?
From the guardian article:
Hunter would later post multiple messages on Facebook bragging of his actions in Minneapolis on the night of 28 May and morning of 29 May, writing, “I set fire to that precinct with the Black community,” and, “My mom would call the FBI if she knew.”
“I’ve burned police stations with Black Panthers in Minneapolis,” he claimed in one message, and in another, “The BLM protesters in Minneapolis loved me.”
He wasn't a lone actor trying to pin it on them, he was participating in an action with them.
From the KansasCity article:
While Kansas City police haven’t made any arrests in the May 30 arson incident and say they haven’t seen direct evidence of extremists trying to disrupt the local protests,
Tere are so many agendas at play that it’s hard to tell who’s on what side. In some cases, they say they’re seeing a bizarre alignment between those on the far right, such as militias and the Boogalooers, and Black Lives Matter advocates protesting the death of George Floyd, with anger at police and the government being the common thread.
Which if you stopped to read for a second you would understand why the boogaloo boys specifically had real skin in the game with the protests against police brutality and why they wear Hawaiian shirts bearing the names of people killed in confrontations with police.
If your point is just that agent provocateurs are not in the same vein as little green men then we are in agreement.
most of the people there engaging in violence would be conspirators regardless of why they were there.
The distinction I'm making is the "secret/secretly" part of the definition. A protest is not meant to be secret, infiltrating one is.
naive defense of police
Why do you perceive combatting the myth of 'police as tactical geniuses who are highly adept at infiltrations' as defense of police?
My argument is simply that an individual demonstrating agency in a stressfull moment seems far more likely than an elaborate 5d chess tactical trap set by police. Do you believe that during a protest, individual agency no longer exists?
That's a better definition!
But also don't exaggerate a "regime"1 to make them seem more extreme than they are by whitewashing, decontextualizing, fabricating, using loaded language[1], etc.
Propoganda often works explicitly via selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception. What your are calling "details" and "minutia" are attempts to try and push back against some of that selectivity bias.