The U.S. has been pressing Congo to preserve its carbon-absorbing forests, but government officials want to exploit oil and gas reserves they say lie below them.
I offhandly mentioned that about Chomsky becuse of the way you have goiven someone who claimed that the poor Bosnians could leave the death camp any time they wanted such a glowing recommendation. This is not exactly a new or unknown controversy.
You say he is repeating the doubts Phillip Kinghtly’ brought, but they’ve been be the throughly debunked, and Chomsky knows its been throughly debunked because later in the same interview he uses the results of the court case where which debunked it as evidence of the courts oppressing free speech. It’s especially bad for someone who is soposed to be an expert on the media repeating a quack because the quack fire his narrative.
David Campbell is just being through using academic language, and I chose his case because I thought you might appreciate and be able to keep up with a properly detailed academic response. Sorry it was too long for you. If you want an easier to understand one, Kraut has a video option piece where he keeps most of his bad habits to a minimum sans being deliberately inflammatory.
In any case, the actual argument I was making before you brought everything to a halt to talk about Chomsky was that you seem to think that ‘power’ is some monolithic they which is endlessly intelligent and completely shared between business and politics. I understand it’s an easy and comforting narrative, but it is an manufactured narrative.
When think tanks whose members make up significant parts of an administration like the Project for a New American Century tell you what and why their doing something you might as well examine it. When xenophobic people in power tell you they want to get back at the Arabs you can probably believe them not just write that off as a manufactured media narrative.
There are manufacturer’s media narratives, like the one that the US invaded a dictator that was already giving it half it’s oil so it could get less oil, but I wasn’t listing those. I was listing some of the thousands of diffrent things that led to it. I thought you could understand that?
There is no unified They in governments, although thinking that is the defining characteristic of conspiracy theorists. Raw resources are a factor in geopolitics, and in Iraq, but are hardly something that’s preticularaly media can use to manufacture consent for a war. Neoconservatives and Neoliberals don’t need some sinister conspiracy to muck shit up in small poor nations, their flawed understanding of economics does that when they give their best try to help.
The thesis I was trying to illustrate was that politics is the sun total interactions of generally well meaning if flawed motives working at cross purposes, even at very top. It is not about raw resources, and they are an absurdly doubious way to modivate an electorate to get out and vote for you or to make friends with power.
In any case, the actual argument I was making […] as that you seem to think that ‘power’ is some monolithic they which is endlessly intelligent and completely shared between business and politics.
And there it is. There’s the actual thing you were apparently trying to address. You spent all that time and all those words addressing an imaginary thing that I had not said based purely on an impression that you had without ever actually explaining what you were thinking. That’s why none of it made any sense.
See, in future, you can just say this upfront. If you had in this case then I could have just told you flat out that you were wrong about what I thought and saved you all this effort. It is really weird that you were able to say this, and even that I “seem to think” it, and not understand that you were simply projecting some strawman bullshit onto me.
In future perhaps be a bit less patronizing and argumentative to everyone you meet? Maybe even try responding to a detailed point by point rebuttal by not ignoring all but one point and then derailing the conversation twice, or mayhaps even explaining why you think a point is mistaken instead of just ignoring it. It might waste less time.
If you want the advanced course, when reading, try asking yourself questions like what is what I am reading trying to say, what is the core thesis of the position this evidence is in support of, and how does this new information relate to my position? Doing so is called critical reading, and is important in online debate.
I’m going to end things here, as mirroring your tone is not pleasant at all.
I offhandly mentioned that about Chomsky becuse of the way you have goiven someone who claimed that the poor Bosnians could leave the death camp any time they wanted such a glowing recommendation. This is not exactly a new or unknown controversy.
You say he is repeating the doubts Phillip Kinghtly’ brought, but they’ve been be the throughly debunked, and Chomsky knows its been throughly debunked because later in the same interview he uses the results of the court case where which debunked it as evidence of the courts oppressing free speech. It’s especially bad for someone who is soposed to be an expert on the media repeating a quack because the quack fire his narrative.
David Campbell is just being through using academic language, and I chose his case because I thought you might appreciate and be able to keep up with a properly detailed academic response. Sorry it was too long for you. If you want an easier to understand one, Kraut has a video option piece where he keeps most of his bad habits to a minimum sans being deliberately inflammatory.
In any case, the actual argument I was making before you brought everything to a halt to talk about Chomsky was that you seem to think that ‘power’ is some monolithic they which is endlessly intelligent and completely shared between business and politics. I understand it’s an easy and comforting narrative, but it is an manufactured narrative.
When think tanks whose members make up significant parts of an administration like the Project for a New American Century tell you what and why their doing something you might as well examine it. When xenophobic people in power tell you they want to get back at the Arabs you can probably believe them not just write that off as a manufactured media narrative.
There are manufacturer’s media narratives, like the one that the US invaded a dictator that was already giving it half it’s oil so it could get less oil, but I wasn’t listing those. I was listing some of the thousands of diffrent things that led to it. I thought you could understand that?
There is no unified They in governments, although thinking that is the defining characteristic of conspiracy theorists. Raw resources are a factor in geopolitics, and in Iraq, but are hardly something that’s preticularaly media can use to manufacture consent for a war. Neoconservatives and Neoliberals don’t need some sinister conspiracy to muck shit up in small poor nations, their flawed understanding of economics does that when they give their best try to help.
The thesis I was trying to illustrate was that politics is the sun total interactions of generally well meaning if flawed motives working at cross purposes, even at very top. It is not about raw resources, and they are an absurdly doubious way to modivate an electorate to get out and vote for you or to make friends with power.
And there it is. There’s the actual thing you were apparently trying to address. You spent all that time and all those words addressing an imaginary thing that I had not said based purely on an impression that you had without ever actually explaining what you were thinking. That’s why none of it made any sense.
See, in future, you can just say this upfront. If you had in this case then I could have just told you flat out that you were wrong about what I thought and saved you all this effort. It is really weird that you were able to say this, and even that I “seem to think” it, and not understand that you were simply projecting some strawman bullshit onto me.
What a fantastic waste of both of our times.
I agree completely.
In future perhaps be a bit less patronizing and argumentative to everyone you meet? Maybe even try responding to a detailed point by point rebuttal by not ignoring all but one point and then derailing the conversation twice, or mayhaps even explaining why you think a point is mistaken instead of just ignoring it. It might waste less time.
If you want the advanced course, when reading, try asking yourself questions like what is what I am reading trying to say, what is the core thesis of the position this evidence is in support of, and how does this new information relate to my position? Doing so is called critical reading, and is important in online debate.
I’m going to end things here, as mirroring your tone is not pleasant at all.