Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

User-Operated Forums
  • Posts

    6806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    145

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Moving the goal post - you didn't say long term. It's not "blind faith", but then again, I don't think capitalism is out to get me. Indeed, I'm not afraid of either covid or the vaccines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue against the idea that capitalism is why the world is so terrible. It's worse than arguing with a leftist, because at least a leftist knows that they don't like capitalism. It could be stupidity, or could be that you are a victim of propaganda, or both. I can accept that you reach your ideas by lack of reason, it doesn't have to be propaganda. You insist that the only way I could come to a different conclusion is propaganda.
  2. Except there is, but, it doesn't matter, this also means you think pharmaceutical companies are up to no good. You are no different than the people who say that we should not trust GMO foods.
  3. He's not a great guy, but yes, the manner in which it is talked about is. That vaccines cause more harm? It usually is a type propaganda that lead people to believe that. Pretty much a nonissue, that you bring it up seems kind of silly. Could easily be from propaganda that makes it seem relevant. I think saying this is a reason for rioting is usually from a type of propaganda as well. Pharmaceutical companies make pretty good products, vaccines included, unless there is reason to think that a specific company has engaged in routine fraud (as opposed to pharmaceutical companies that regularly make effective and useful products). Whatever it takes to approve those is fine with me.
  4. As if your examples you used couldn't be propaganda? Anyway, distorted information is a major issue from RT. Also, the Objectivist theory of history is basically that ideas and philosophy shape what the public at large believes. Stopping at modern history being shaped by propaganda is more like a Leftist analysis of history where the powers of capitalism manipulate the average person through false consciousness brought about by large media corporations. You are blaming capitalism centrally (which of course makes the US take the most criticism), including big Pharma ("they want us to think that vaccines are safe!"), political dynamics manufactured by the media, and to top it off, that the West is completely up to no good for just about any conflict or disagreement. All you do that is really different is that you avoid using the word capitalism.
  5. That's how you produce an objective news article though. That's the point, it's word garbling. It's a way to deliberately distort the truth at worst, and it is non-objective journalism at best.
  6. No, it wasn't even a search for hints. It was pretty much so clear to me that it was as if they smacked me in the face. But, I decided to point out anyway exactly how to be skeptical of new sources, which you recommended that we do. I pointed out how quote splitting is a form of taking a quote out of context. People don't take quotes out of context for no reason. I mean, regardless of how brief it is, it is never appropriate to split quotes. Here's an example: Speaking about the "Kremlin's brutal invasion" and why it is not "included in an RT article", Tony considers how the "propaganda in this story" is written with "heavily edited and paraphrased" information. I didn't edit your words, I didn't invent anything. I didn't even edit the verb tense. Notice that I didn't even use your scare quotes inappropriately - it's exactly as you wrote it. But with careful placement of words and where to split the quote, it makes it seem like you are suggesting something you never intended.
  7. What do you mean? It isn't subliminal, its identifying subtext. It's also identifying some pretty straightforward ways of how news articles can actively distort information. I mean, you obviously don't deny that propaganda is a thing, so how do you think it is done? It's not done through bald-faced lies, and distorting quotes is a good way to do it because it isn't a straightforward lie. All I did was point out quote splitting, and what this quote splitting accomplishes. By the way, quote splitting isn't what was said/written by someone, it specifically involves inserting snippets which already begins to take a quote out of context. Yes, this is absolutely true. This is exactly what I'm saying about RT. What-about-ism doesn't help your case. But that's also kind of ironic because you linked a hard Left news source (Democracy Now) as a kind of anti-propaganda about the war.
  8. You been taken to task for linking nothing but RT articles. If you linked other sources as well, or even compared and contrasted RT articles with articles from others, then I wouldn't have said anything. You haven't joined in on the skeptical analysis of RT articles, as you proposed we do. Worse, when we ask what your point is about linking a particular article, you don't really say. Read a bit more carefully, one notable thing that they have done here is take a quote and then chop it up within the same sentence, not as a simple gap like a pause in what somebody said. This is a way to get it to feel like a paraphrase, but it gives just enough room to exaggerate or minimize a phrase by the words the insert in between. "NATO should still “increase force presence in the east” but focus on “defensive” capabilities and re-evaluate activities such as drills “to avoid creating a false impression of preparation for offensive action,” the researchers said." See how the word focus is put just before defensive? We don't have any context for the word defensive, and the word 'but' is in there even though increasing force presence is not necessarily offensive. It's trying to suggest that NATO is obviously planning an invasion or assault and there's no way it could be defensive. The paragraph here by RT makes you want to believe that increased force presence is the opposite of defensive, and anything that appears defensive is actually an attempt to hide preparation for offensive action which is in the form of increased force presence. I think this kind of quote splitting is always on purpose, it is a pretty good way to notice a subtext. Your first reaction should be to look at the report that it is quoting, did you do that? Here it is: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1971-1.html This isn't some special attention I'm giving to RT because I hate it, I do this thing with any kind of article I read about world events. Democracy Now is not so bad as an information source for this conflict, or at least because it isn't one of the actual participants in the conflict.
  9. Well yeah, you told me that authoritarian propaganda is not as bad as propaganda from a democratic nation and you said that there is actually good reason to think it is very factual and reliable as a source.
  10. I didn't say it's not, I'm responding to the weird notion that RT is relatively reliable and enough so that it is by far your preference for any new source. So, what, you're telling us to look at this propaganda just to bring us awareness of the different kinds of propaganda there are? Yeah, that's what we are saying: RT is a propaganda machine. Yet part of your disagreement is that RT isn't really that bad and it tells the blunt truth! If I start to tell you about how they don't tell the truth in any transparent way, you will then start telling me about how everyone is doing propaganda, and RT is no different. You are worried that people might read your opinion and agree with you without analyzing what you wrote? But you did the exact opposite just above with the video you linked! Different sources have different standards, for different topics even. I'm not too concerned about what RT has to say about new movies, or what it says about fashion. The fact that you don't see it as objective to judge the standards and motivations of a media outlet, makes me wonder if you believe that the standards one has with the truth has nothing to do with what a person claims the truth is. Like with epistemology, proper thinking standards lend themselves to truthfulness and reliability, even moral respectability. Indeed, which I guess explains why you have grown a fondness for RT.
  11. I don't think that the question he asked is principled. No, there isn't anyone that supports infanticide, the question is in the form of "when did you stop beating your wife". It's a question in bad faith, and deserves no response except to say that the question is in bad faith and go on to the actual point under discussion.
  12. He's just posting "thoughts". Nothing to see here. No motive. Just innocent links. The facts reveal themselves. If you don't see it, no explanation is possible. If you do see it, you get it. If you disagree, you missed the point. Because after all, if you understood the point, you would agree. Then again, if you don't follow his point, you are hopelessly lost. Yeah, who knows what they're saying? In fact, who even knows why you showed us the link if you don't even know how much reliability and understanding the source provides? The US is surprisingly more free than you would think.
  13. RT is more guilty than the rest. You literally said that authoritarian governments have less interest in propaganda than democratic governments, and that democratic propaganda is more corrosive. Here you make a post that says RT is a bad source, and other sources are bad sources, but then you will later on clearly say that RT is the most preferable and the most truthful. You want us to be properly skeptical about news articles, but when we do this about the RT articles you link, you accuse us of demanding too much, don't bother responding to the parts we object to specifically, don't bother to give us follow-up information or secondary sources where we want to know more about your claims. You ask us to peruse everything we can find, but quite literally, you refuse to show us anything else you find besides RT articles. The very few non-RT articles you have linked, you either misunderstand the article or refuse to engage in discussion about the meaning of the article. It seems more likely you have a job at RT and get paid for clicks for articles you link.
  14. Not really, because authoritarian governments actively suppress a lot of information while simultaneously presenting information that would justify their authority as something good and desirable - and thereby making people even easier to hold under their thumb. Would you show me the RT article that demonstrates your claim? Also, I would like some articles by Xinhua. After all, if authoritarians have the least need to manipulate the truth, their news sources should be the most accurate and truthful.
  15. I wonder, what would happen if the media propaganda provided by Russia Today combined forces with Putin's extremely authoritarian government? Maybe they would start a war with the Ukraine with exaggerated claims of genocide. Oh wait, I don't need to wonder, because this literally happened.
  16. No, you failed to do that because you made it pretty apparent that the reason for preferring one side over another is authoritarianism. Then again, I've had to go to the absurd notion that authoritarianism of Russia really is the same as the rest of the West, and all kinds of strange apologetics for authoritarianism. So I guess it makes sense why you think it shows something else.
  17. Your comparison doesn't work anyway, there would have to be an intervening third power to equal Russia.
  18. Yes, because you have equated incidental activities, which are bad but not essential to a system, with activities that define the essentials of a system. You ironically said that you live in the most free country, meaning that in some way you think it is not a free country, and pretty much in a morally reprehensible country. Yeah, China is completely authoritarian, Taiwan is not, so I think the parallels should make it obvious that this is morally consistent. If this happened, you would be quoting Xinhua, and would tell us that you realized that it was Western propaganda all along telling us that Taiwan was the good guy. But what you are saying doesn't make sense anyway, because the power dynamic makes it so that China is equal to Russia, and Taiwan is equal to Ukraine, so of course Taiwan would receive Western support. Your sentence construction is confusing. Putin didn't have to do anything, everything was fine. But it's not a good idea to trust authoritarians, you should be ready when they get into a bad mood.
  19. I'm not going to rehash the discussion, I would be repeating myself.
  20. It was pretty clear that you were being sarcastic, the joke being that it's absurd to not characterize it as authoritarian (once again missing my point). But your point seemed to be that the US is authoritarian in an incidental way. Just because you ask Socratic questions so often and sometimes use sarcasm doesn't mean people can't see what you're doing.
  21. I wasn't silent about that, we actually talked about it. What am I supposed to say if you don't remember a conversation that we had?
  22. It's like you can't conceive that someone would say unequivocally that Russia is significantly worse than the Ukraine and is responsible for great moral fault. You have rationalized that by saying you have lower standards for Russia than the West morally speaking, refusing to engage many questions unless you can blame NATO or the Ukraine for irritating Putin (you don't bother answering questions about what you think), and your only source for any claim is RT. I already went over before how one story was not putting forth facts and statements, but using adjectives and descriptions that directly distort factual information. Adopting an official language was portrayed as banning the Russian language. If you don't notice this, you aren't paying attention. Why should he bother? You aren't going to bother responding, you don't typically respond to people breaking down arguments. Did you literally not understand what I said about the difference between something being authoritarian by nature by its very functioning, and something being authoritarian as merely an individual act? But hey, if you think you are really living in an authoritarian dictatorship, and Russia is no better, I guess enjoy your fantasy? Jon Letendre is enjoying his with his qanon LARP campaign. You didn't verify it and present the evidence to us (I looked) and it was a big part of your claim for Putin's justification for invasion (you never did say Russia's invasion was moral, explicitly, but defense of justifications indicates moral defense). It doesn't help when your only source is RT.
  23. Yeah, that's why authoritarians act the way they do: it will achieve what they think is best, which is anything but freedom.
×
×
  • Create New...