Election interference

A couple days ago I was talking with a friend, and mentioned that I didn't understand why American attitudes towards the Ukraine War seem to divide along partisan lines. What is it about (for example) supporting abortion rights or Black Lives Matter that automatically translates into supporting military aid for Ukraine? I remember back during my adolescence that many Democrats argued for peace or even isolationism, while the Republicans were saber-rattlers; why should the parties have (seemingly) changed positions now?

My friend was a little incredulous at my incomprehension. She reminded me that Russian hackers had taken steps in 2016 to sway our election; as a result, she said, she and many other Democrats still blame Russian interference today for the election of Donald Trump. I admit I hadn't thought of that, maybe partly because I always thought the accusation sounded a little weak. Even given that Russian hackers posted inflammatory material on social media, still the voters themselves were the ones who cast ballots. Nobody has ever claimed that the Russians hacked voting machines so that a vote for Mrs. Clinton was recorded for Mr. Trump. As for the influence that social media might have had, I figure everyone knows that the Internet is full of crazy people, so you have to take anything you read with a grain of salt. Presumably the voters who read material posted by these Russian trolls know that too.

Just now I did a search and found a recent article from Vox which argues that while Russian agents did indeed post stuff on American social media, it probably didn't determine the outcome of the election.

But I also started thinking: is this really the first time our country has had any experience with election interference? Or is it just the first time the influence has gone this direction?

      

What counts as "hate speech"?

Yesterday someone at work was talking about recent developments in the Ukraine War. I haven't been following the news, so mostly I just listened while he and our boss discussed things. Anyway, somewhere along the line he began speculating about what might happen in Russia once Vladimir Putin dies. He referenced a couple of events I wasn't familiar with (so I don't remember what they were) and then said, "Do you think they'll learn from such obvious failures? Of course they're Russians, so they might not learn anything."

This man is a left-wing Democrat with impeccable liberal credentials. He would never dream of beginning a disparaging remark by saying, "Of course they're Black, so …" or "Of course they're Jewish, so …" or "Of course they're gay, so …." And if he heard someone else say that, he would immediately mark it down as hate speech. He would immediately condemn that kind of blatant prejudice.

So what is it about Russians, that makes it different this time? Does it somehow not count as hate speech as long as the group you are disparaging are Russians? Or perhaps (to generalize) as long as the group is politically unpopular? But hate speech is almost never deployed against popular groups; so to allow it against unpopular groups is almost the same thing as eliminating the concept as any kind of meaningful distinction.

Am I confused here?