Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You also might consider that a dictionary is a really bad tool for any discussion longer than a sentence, especially when talking about complex conceptions like politics, philosophy, or social organization models. EDIT: And to be frank, I've already listed two distinct models of anarchy which posit very different things to which you have completely ignored both. Why would I bother explaining them further (which would require hunting down some books to refresh myself) just so you can go on a rant about what you read in a dictionary?

I mean come on man. People write entire books about these subjects and fail to cover all the bases. Any yokel can use a dictionary to look up physics. Doesn't make them a subject matter expert on the theory of relativity.

 LordofHats wrote:
Except anarchy doesn't really posit that. If I lived in an anarchy that lacked criminal charges for assault and battery my response to being punched could include punching back, beating with baseball bat, or just blowing the guys brains out (because if there ain't no criminal justice system everyone's just gonna handle that gak like hollywood cowboys). Which some anarchists might say is a more natural form of justice. I say that's how you get Hatfields and McCoys


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other interesting news, apparently there's an Indian nation that straddles the US Mexico Border

Depending on further details of your hypothetical punch to your face all 3 of those responses could've done legally in the US right now and we're still a Lon way from an anarchic society.

IIRC, there are a couple of Reservations along the US Mexican border.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Anarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive. Democracy is a system that forces the will of the majority on everyone.

Not necessarily (depends on what kind of anarchy we're talking about).

Anarchy is politically poorly defined. There are systems of collectivist anarchy that are democratic in nature and function like a confederation. Anarchy is kind of Republic's darker and edgier cousin. It's very broad and constitutes basically any rejection of traditional models of hierarchy.

Anarchy is the total absence of rule of law. So yeah, an anarchist democracy is a complete oxymoron. If someone ever tells you they are an anarchist or support/hope for anarchy, punch them in the stomach and take everything they have on their person. Show them what their "governmental system" will give them.

Anarchism belongs in the "neat idea, bad practice" pile of ideas, along with libertarianism, communism, and theocracy.

Considering numerous people have expressed in this thread actual concern that the wrong people will gain control of the US govt and enact a new holocaust I would posit that the political philosophy of strictly limiting the size and capabilities of the govt isn't a bad idea at all.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Depending on further details of your hypothetical punch to your face all 3 of those responses could've done legally in the US right now and we're still a Lon way from an anarchic society.

I'm not the one who hypothesized it. I'm simply point out that even in a max individualist society, there is still "punishment" for assaulting someone.

IIRC, there are a couple of Reservations along the US Mexican border.

I had no idea XD Apparently that tribe's lands are the size of Connecticut which is a mighty big parcel of land.

@LordofHats: yes, you did provide two alternate meanings for anarchy. Sorry, I got a bit carried away.

@Color Shas: I will try and be less fussy moving forward.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Color Shah: Yeah, the feeling is mutual. When people abandon common definitions in favor of alternative ones, then expect you to understand what they're talking about, it's very frustrating. It helps in communication and debate when people can at least agree on the common definition of words, or else at least clearly explain the alternate version they are using when they deviate.

I will try to be less fussy going forward.

Okay, if you want to define words properly, tell me the difference between mass and weight, energy and power, stress and strain, heat and temperature, speed and velocity, gravity and acceleration.

Words having different definitions dependent on the subject is not new. If you try to use "common" definitions for words when talking about a subject which has more vigorous definitions for those words then it is not the fault of those using the definitions which are standard for the subject that you do not understand. It is your fault for not doing adequate preparation before entering the debate.

Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?

Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Anti-Trumpers? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?

Also, is there any significance to the masks other than they are trying to hide their identity?

 jasper76 wrote:
Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?

Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?

Without asking them it is hard to tell. It isn't like they are all wearing a uniform to signify commitment to a specific group. Black clothing with masks is pretty much the standard uniform of vandals everywhere, regardless of any political affiliation they may have.

jasper76 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

If someone ever tells you they are an anarchist or support/hope for anarchy, punch them in the stomach and take everything they have on their person.

So wait. I'm confused now. Who am I allowed to punch and not punch because I'm getting mixed messages.

I think the point being made is that if people who want pure anarchy were actually exposed to it (in this case, by getting punched and robbed without any repercussions for the attacker), they might learn the lesson that they'd be eaten alive if they actually had to endure life in the kind of system they are promoting.

But maybe I should let Just Tony speak for himself.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. I guess playful/sarcastic maliciousness doesn't translate well in text.

LordofHats wrote:Except anarchy doesn't really posit that. If I lived in an anarchy that lacked criminal charges for assault and battery my response to being punched could include punching back, beating with baseball bat, or just blowing the guys brains out (because if there ain't no criminal justice system everyone's just gonna handle that gak like hollywood cowboys). Which some anarchists might say is a more natural form of justice. I say that's how you get Hatfields and McCoys


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other interesting news, apparently there's an Indian nation that straddles the US Mexico Border

There have been multiple occasions of that sort of "mob rule" in human history, and for further clarity, nobody touting/promoting/wishing for anarchy ever specify types of anarchy, they usually just say anarchy. Not to mention the fact that there are already terms to cover those "forms of anarchy" without using altered forms of "______ Anarchy" to describe it. But this is a political discussion, and if the definition of the word "is" can keep someone out of jail/impeachment for purjory, then I guess I can't get too uptight about the interpretation of "anarchy".

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?

Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?

Without asking them it is hard to tell. It isn't like they are all wearing a uniform to signify commitment to a specific group. Black clothing with masks is pretty much the standard uniform of vandals everywhere, regardless of any political affiliation they may have.

Fair enough. Mostly when I've seen people post videos where they try and interview them, they go quiet. It seems if you are willing to resort to violence for a cause, you'd at least want people to know what the cause is that you're advocating, otherwise what's the point?

Incidentally, red/black flags are a recurring motif, which is why I thought there might be some organization behind it.

I think that's less an issue with the complexity of anarchist thought, and more an issue with anarchy being the political equivalent of a goth kid rebelling against his parents. How many people I've met who've said "I'm an anarchist" who couldn't even define what it was they wanted, expected, or how they thought things should be. I think there's a host of people who advocate anarchy to be edgy or as a sort of soft rebellion. I think the most famous anarchist in the modern world is probably Alan Moore, and Alan Moore has a really bizarre (i.e. shallow) conception of his own political outlook. And part of that is that there just aren't that many anarchists in the world. Some of the smart ones are really smart, but that's like trying to hunt down an Emmanuel Kant in a room full of Dan Browns.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll take your word for it. I refuse to join Twitter.

I'm not on twitter either. But the Trump tweet was shown in most of the media coverage.

What's pathetic is that while railing against these media outlets, it's so painfully obvious that he's desperate to gain their support and affirmation.

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll take your word for it. I refuse to join Twitter.

I'm not on twitter either. But the Trump tweet was shown in most of the media coverage.

What's pathetic is that while railing against these media outlets, it's so painfully obvious that he's desperate to gain their support and affirmation.

That stump speech he gave in Florida last week was weirdly needy, wasn't it?

I didn't see it. To be honest, I can't even watch Trump anymore. I've had my fill over the brutal year+ of campaigning we were all subjected to, the Obama birth certificate BS before that, and I can't endure audio/video exposure to his man-child personality anymore.

 Frazzled wrote:
An interesting take:

You just posted an article that attempts to make it sound shocking, maybe even sinister, that people are politically organising against a president they don't agree with. You even called this an 'interesting take'. It was not an 'interesting take'. It was fething bonkers.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
An interesting take:

You just posted an article that attempts to make it sound shocking, maybe even sinister, that people are politically organising against a president they don't agree with. You even called this an 'interesting take'. It was not an 'interesting take'. It was fething bonkers.

Well when you apparently have president tiny hands talking to alex "9/11 was an inside job" jones regularly and having Steve "whites are the superior race" Bannon as a top adviser, is it really surprising that things like frazz posted are being taken seriously?

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Depending on further details of your hypothetical punch to your face all 3 of those responses could've done legally in the US right now and we're still a Lon way from an anarchic society.

I'm not the one who hypothesized it. I'm simply point out that even in a max individualist society, there is still "punishment" for assaulting someone.

IIRC, there are a couple of Reservations along the US Mexican border.

I had no idea XD Apparently that tribe's lands are the size of Connecticut which is a mighty big parcel of land.

According to the wiki there is one on the border in Tx, New Mex, the big one in Az and 3 in Cali. All of them would have to be negotiated with in order to get Trump's wall built I would imagine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

Prestor Jon wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Depending on further details of your hypothetical punch to your face all 3 of those responses could've done legally in the US right now and we're still a Lon way from an anarchic society.

I'm not the one who hypothesized it. I'm simply point out that even in a max individualist society, there is still "punishment" for assaulting someone.

IIRC, there are a couple of Reservations along the US Mexican border.

I had no idea XD Apparently that tribe's lands are the size of Connecticut which is a mighty big parcel of land.

According to the wiki there is one on the border in Tx, New Mex, the big one in Az and 3 in Cali. All of them would have to be negotiated with in order to get Trump's wall built I would imagine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

And the natives already have such a high opinion of him after the dakota pipeline

 jasper76 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?

Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?

Without asking them it is hard to tell. It isn't like they are all wearing a uniform to signify commitment to a specific group. Black clothing with masks is pretty much the standard uniform of vandals everywhere, regardless of any political affiliation they may have.

Fair enough. Mostly when I've seen people post videos where they try and interview them, they go quiet. It seems if you are willing to resort to violence for a cause, you'd at least want people to know what the cause is that you're advocating, otherwise what's the point?

Incidentally, red/black flags are a recurring motif, which is why I thought there might be some organization behind it.

For what it's worth, with a little googling, I found that the red/black flag is a symbol of Anarcho-Syndicalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism) of which Noam Chomsky is the most well-known current proponent. I suppose if your leading intellectual cannot convince people of the merits of the cause, its time to beat people up and break gak.

On a lighter note, this is the philosophy Monty Python was poking fun at with the "Now we see the violence inherent in the system!" bit.

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll take your word for it. I refuse to join Twitter.

I'm not on twitter either. But the Trump tweet was shown in most of the media coverage.

What's pathetic is that while railing against these media outlets, it's so painfully obvious that he's desperate to gain their support and affirmation.

That stump speech he gave in Florida last week was weirdly needy, wasn't it?

Prestor Jon wrote:

Jayson Blair got fired from the NYT for writing fake news articles, Dan Rather got fired from CBS for pushing a fake news story on the network broadcast and Brian Williams got fired from NBC for repeatedly lying and fabricating false news stories about himself. Not all the news they report is fake but they've had fake news scandals that has damaged their credibility and journalistic integrity.

Every outlet has had issues going back to the origins of the printing press and the town crier, and everyone should get their information from a variety of sources and channels to minimize the impact of specific outlets doing dirty things, but the constant railings about how they're *all* untrustworthy about *everything*, as opposed to making mistakes or doing dumb things once in a while on specific topics (as human organizations naturally do), is both inaccurate and tiresome, and is directly intended to undermine credibility without any real reason other than so when people do things that they *should* be called out on, they can just say "it's all fake" and people will believe them.

Particularly when the few outlets supporting these accusations are, by any measure, dramatically less reliable information outlets than the sources they are calling out.

Do you all think Trump is creating distrust for the press, or simply trying to capitalize on people's existing distrust of the press? Remember, this stuff goes back before Trump hit the politics circuit. Sarah Palin was railing against the "lamestream" media before Trump threw his hat in the ring.

I tend to think people who support Trump already don't trust the media, and haven't for quite a long time, the anti-Trumpers might be better served by just ignoring his trolling, and the media itself should just ignore his anti-media tantrums and do their job as though they are not being trolled. If any of that makes sense.

 jasper76 wrote:

Spoiler:

It's actually really funny you mention that because the two peasants are basically Karl Marx and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (the respective founding fathers of Marxism and modern Anarchism). They were chums once, but then one of them decided he really liked Karl Grun and the other was like "feth that" and then they weren't chums anymore


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you all think Trump is creating distrust for the press, or simply trying to capitalize on people's existing distrust of the press?

It is impossible to do one without the other.

The thing I'd question is to what degree Trump believes his own BS. They guy seems outright certifiable at times.

 jasper76 wrote:
The problem is, no-one can really provide a definition of what "alt-right" means. Is it the YouTube kids talking about anti-SJW stuff who claim to oppose racism and sexism? Is it legit white supremacists like the Spencer guy? Is it people whose primary motivation is protecting US labor? Is it Trump supporters in general?

The alt right is a radical reactionary movement in the most classic sense of the term. It is built around an extreme hostility to social changes in gender, race and sexual politics. But outside of those general characteristics there's a hell of a lot of diversity. It ranges from kids just going through a provocative stage to actual, self-declared nazis.

 LordofHats wrote:

The thing I'd question is to what degree Trump believes his own BS. They guy seems outright certifiable at times.

I suspect that Trump is lashing out because he's desperate for approval from the media, and he's not getting it, and he can't stand it. So he's trying to reconcile his need for approval with the dissaproval he's getting by painting the media as dishonest. If only they were honest, they'd understand him and love him for the smart, tough boy he is.

Some people view Trump as some kind of media mastermind, but if you think about him as though he's in some ways like a school-aged child, alot of his behavior makes a whole lot more sense. At least to me.

 Frazzled wrote:
The intent is to pigeon hole all those who disagree as racist neo nazis. Same playbook the Democratic party has done for a generation, just a different term.

Whereas it would be unconscionable for Republicans to ever pigeon hole someone from the left as, say, a socialist or a communist just because they argue for greater income equality. Check your zipper fraz, I think your bias might be showing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Color Shas: You are ignoring the fact that many people who are identified as alt-right voice opposition to white supremacy and do not take a position on isolationism.

Anti-progressivism does not mean white supremacy, or isolationism. It does not mean you are threatened by equality.

Definitely, but this is where the difference between social conservatism and reactionaries come in to play.

Social conservative - "I don't hate anyone but I'm not on board with all these new progressive causes. You've got your gay marriage, now you want people to pick their own bathrooms. And I worked hard to get through college and build my profession, it wasn't handed to me because I'm white."

Reactionary - "Things were better back in the day, in the old social order where I feel I have a more comfortable place. We need to roll back the changes in gender, sex and race relations."

Radical Reactionary - "Everything the Reactionary said, and these changes have been really terrible and are poised to destroy society unless we do something really drastic, really soon."

Racist Radical Reactionary - "Everything the Radical Reactionary said, and also some conspiracy stuff that almost always lead back to the Jews."

The various alt-right groups sit at varying places between those last three. They don't include the first group, ordinary social conservatives. In fact, the alt-right hates those guys about as much as they hate everyone else, They call them cuckservatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
No, I'm just asserting that "alt-right" means different things to different people. I'd prefer if people called white supremacists "white supremacists", isolationist "isolationists", anti-SJWs "anti-SJWs", etc. so I know what the hell people are talking about. Without a concrete definition of the term "alt-right", I have to proceed from the assumption that it means "people I don't agree with", because as it stands, everyone has their own working definition of what "alt-right" means, and therefore it's not a helpful phrase in conversation.

I've personally and correctly been taken to task for using the term "the left" too broadly, and I've tried to adjust my phrasing to better indicate what I mean accordingly. I'm just suggesting that other people do the same instead of using the phrase "alt-right".

A collection of groups can have varying beliefs, while still having an overall collective impact. In this way 'the left' can be a useful descriptor, because while the left contains groups arguing for greater income distribution, and other groups arguing for gay rights, or racial equality, and so on, all these groups in combination have a broad collective effect on politics. These groups will often co-ordinate or organise between themselves, and will also find their political fortunes are often tied together. The same is true for the right, lots of smaller groups that can be grouped together in terms of their overall impact and overall fortunes.

I think the real issue comes with using any term too broadly is when you start assigning specific behaviours to all members of that group. "The alt right all are all racists" is wrong. "The alt right has many issues with racism, and their overall impact increases racial tensions" is okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Fair enough. I've said my peace. Does that mean I can start saying "the left" again without everybody and their mama jumping down my throat?

If you use it in a way that provides a useful comment on the left, then there's no problem. If you use it to make sweeping generalisations about people then that would most likely create problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

No, there is nothing in free speech that says you can't criticise people or call their ideas dangerous and/or stupid. And that is all that is happening here - free speech by some people, with other free speech given in response. There is no threat of government crackdown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Experiment #1... I got nothing... before, Trump running for GOP ticket, I imagined him being that NY Billionaire Liberal.

Easy peasy George Soros.

Experiment #2... this one's easy, it's:

Spoiler:

Romney and Trump do not have substantively the same policies. They're not even close.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Jayson Blair got fired from the NYT for writing fake news articles, Dan Rather got fired from CBS for pushing a fake news story on the network broadcast and Brian Williams got fired from NBC for repeatedly lying and fabricating false news stories about himself. Not all the news they report is fake but they've had fake news scandals that has damaged their credibility and journalistic integrity.

This is a fundamentally weird way to think about the media.

Lets say I have a McDonalds near my house. They make countless burgers and have for decades. Once I went in there, and my burger was burned because a machine was malfunctioning. They apologized and replaced the machine. Then a few years later, one of the guys on the grill goes behind the restaurant to smoke a joint and burns a burger. They apologize and fire the guy. A few years later, the grill guy is on a personal call and burns the burgers. They apologize and fire the guy.

If my takeaway from this is "I don't go to mcdonalds, because they always burn the burgers", wouldn't that be sort of a crazy person way of seeing the world? Wouldn't a more reasonable thing be to look at the bigger picture - to see that they make a bajillion burgers and rarely burn them, and when they do, they try and fix the process when it's a process issue, or fire the responsible party when it's not a process issue? To decide that a single plagiarism scandal in a 166 year old newspaper just might be an outlier?

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you all think Trump is creating distrust for the press, or simply trying to capitalize on people's existing distrust of the press? Remember, this stuff goes back before Trump hit the politics circuit. Sarah Palin was railing against the "lamestream" media before Trump threw his hat in the ring.

both, but with the ultimate end to be to discredit anything "bad" that might be said about their side in any case, because all too often there just isn't a rational response except to attack the source instead.

I tend to think people who support Trump already don't trust the media, and haven't for quite a long time, the anti-Trumpers might be better served by just ignoring his trolling, and the media itself should just ignore his anti-media tantrums and do their job as though they are not being trolled. If any of that makes sense.

In some ways it does, but at the same time just letting it go makes it seem like there might be something to it, like there isn't an adequate response, and people just tend to start believing things once it's said enough time, particularly without immediate retort.

So after the court rules that Pruitt had to comply with the FOIA request last week he was quickly confirmed as head of EPA.

Today the records were released, and nobody is surprised that he simply copy-pasted whatever Devon and others send to him when fighting the EPA.

 jasper76 wrote:
I didn't see it. To be honest, I can't even watch Trump anymore. I've had my fill over the brutal year+ of campaigning we were all subjected to, the Obama birth certificate BS before that, and I can't endure audio/video exposure to his man-child personality anymore.

Well, the bright side is that there might be only 3 years and 11 months until we can start watching the US president and not squirm with embarrassment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well when you apparently have president tiny hands talking to alex "9/11 was an inside job" jones regularly and having Steve "whites are the superior race" Bannon as a top adviser, is it really surprising that things like frazz posted are being taken seriously?

To be fair to fraz and the article he posted, it is more kind of old school political hack journalism rather than the new breed. It took facts, like the strong response of the left to Trump's presidency, and then ran with it to create a kind of implied, suggested conspiracy. The more modern style of political insanity is quite different. In Alex Jones' hands it would be 'proof that deep state plotted 9/11' with a picture of Hillary Clinton placing explosives in the WTC1, that might just possibly be photoshop. The Breitbat story would read 'Gay Jew is part of deep state, also here's a story of some black on black violence that we're going to link to in some tenuous way'.

 jasper76 wrote:
Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?

Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Anti-Trumpers? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?

Also, is there any significance to the masks other than they are trying to hide their identity?

Those are people, mostly anarchists but also other leftists, engaging in black bloc tactics. They attempt to be for the protest what the police are against the protest. Roughly speaking. The black and red flag is the anarchist flag.

There's of course also anyone else masked, who could be anyone, which is of course the point.

Twice as many hours spent tweeting than in intelligence briefings. Almost a quarter of his time fething about in private clubs. I'm guessing Bannon must be flat out picking up the slack.

The irony is that someone probably spent more time putting that graph together than Trump has spent working.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Jayson Blair got fired from the NYT for writing fake news articles, Dan Rather got fired from CBS for pushing a fake news story on the network broadcast and Brian Williams got fired from NBC for repeatedly lying and fabricating false news stories about himself. Not all the news they report is fake but they've had fake news scandals that has damaged their credibility and journalistic integrity.

The difference is in your own post. The people who did those things got fired for doing it. The organisations they work for took a big hit to their reputations, the NYT incident is still mentioned as a stain on their reputation, and that happened more than a decade ago.

Breitbart has been called for hundreds of misleading and downright fictitious articles. No-one has been fired or penalised, more often than not the articles aren't even changed, except possibly for making the headline less racist. Because Breitbart editorial staff doesn't give a gak about reality, and nor does its readership.

I'm not saying mainstream media is perfect. Far from it. But its problems are ordinary problems - poor research, coverage of the horse race over the substance, stuff like that. But this is nothing like the act of making up stories out of nowhere for the sake of business and/or profit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Every outlet has had issues going back to the origins of the printing press and the town crier, and everyone should get their information from a variety of sources and channels to minimize the impact of specific outlets doing dirty things, but the constant railings about how they're *all* untrustworthy about *everything*, as opposed to making mistakes or doing dumb things once in a while on specific topics (as human organizations naturally do), is both inaccurate and tiresome, and is directly intended to undermine credibility without any real reason other than so when people do things that they *should* be called out on, they can just say "it's all fake" and people will believe them.

One of the most interesting developments in soviet propaganda came when they realised they didn't have to convince their lies were real, they just had to leave you confused enough that you didn't believe anyone. The modern day Russian government still holds to the same strategy, and so would be quite happy with a state of affairs where people back away from believing all media, who dismiss everything as fake news.