4 ms·

What I dislike about this attitude is it's reductionist. No: not "Duh." Here in America we have a very confusing system, and no not everything is explained by

What I dislike about this attitude is it's reductionist. No: not "Duh." Here in America we have a very confusing system, and no not everything is explained by self interest. For example: George Washington voluntarily turning down more power. Yes, self interest is a large player in people's choices, larger than they publicly admit, and maybe larger than any other factor. But jumping from that to helping a foreign dictator use chemical weapons is not a "duh."

chiefalchemist 9y ago
True. "Duh" might be heavy handed. But this is certainly no surprise. Let's not forget we (read: CIA, I believe) trained UBL & Co to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. And then what happened. And then of course, there's are previous antics in Iran. That is, we have a history there, and it's not pretty. I'm not being troll-y, but I have to ask: What do you find confusing about the American system (that a quick read of history doesn't explain)?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mistermann 9y ago
Personally, I think "duh" is the perfect sentiment for this. What governments, ours and "corrupt" ones, are really doing behind closed doors vs what we're told by our media is vastly different. The hysterics over the latest Syria gassing and the Russian hackers epidemic are just the latest examples in a long line of using the media to manipulate public opinion and keep people fighting among themselves so they never find out what's really going on. And those that do peek behind the curtains, brand them conspiracy theorists. Works like a charm.
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  I hear this theory a lot. And it's not paranoid, but it's also not fruitful without substantiation. You need to develop your theory and gather some evidence. How is the government controlling media? Which media? Why are there no whistleblowers? What's your evidence? Obviously the US government isn't censoring the internet. In the meantime, I fear you're actually making people more skeptical of you by jumping to conclusions
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > And those that do peek behind the curtains, brand them conspiracy theorists. Well that didn't take long. Oh good lord, you talk as if this is the first time you've heard such a theory. Everything you ask for has been well discussed and proof of varying degrees provided, as I imagine you well know. The parent comment to mine seems to have been granted an interesting status, it now loads as collapsed under all browsers, including incognito.
    - alexandercrohde 9y ago
      This frustrates me, because I think your behavior makes people trust government MORE. Because you're inarticulate, don't link to any articles, and also unfriendly, it pushes people in the neutral zone away from your cause. If you think there's objective proof of widespread government manipulation of newspapers, then link to the wikipedia article. If you acknowledge a neutral set of intellectual and informed judges (wikipedia) find it absurd, then don't go around saying it's "proven."
      - mistermann 9y ago
        This comment is excellent (except for the proven slip-up), but you probably knew that.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
wybiral 9y ago
And anyone who keeps up with congressional hearings and discussions or even watches C-SPAN from time-to-time knows that there are multiple sides to any decision that gets made. We have a democracy made up of various representatives, and parties, sometimes competing on issues. Even the currently ruling majority being the same party as the president doesn't guarantee that a certain decision will hold. On situations of global conflict it's even more complex. We have to negotiate with our allies and with organizations like the UN and NATO. And move within the confines of various agreements and deals we've made with other entities. And take in different intelligence reports and strategic assessments. The modern world is more complex than we want it to be. But overly-simplified perspectives of it aren't always helpful.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

True. "Duh" might be heavy handed. But this is certainly no surprise. Let's not forget we (read: CIA, I believe) trained UBL & Co to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. And then what happened. And then of course, there's are previous antics in Iran. That is, we have a history there, and it's not pretty. I'm not being troll-y, but I have to ask: What do you find confusing about the American system (that a quick read of history doesn't explain)?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mistermann 9y ago

Personally, I think "duh" is the perfect sentiment for this. What governments, ours and "corrupt" ones, are really doing behind closed doors vs what we're told by our media is vastly different. The hysterics over the latest Syria gassing and the Russian hackers epidemic are just the latest examples in a long line of using the media to manipulate public opinion and keep people fighting among themselves so they never find out what's really going on. And those that do peek behind the curtains, brand them conspiracy theorists. Works like a charm.

alexandercrohde 9y ago
I hear this theory a lot. And it's not paranoid, but it's also not fruitful without substantiation. You need to develop your theory and gather some evidence. How is the government controlling media? Which media? Why are there no whistleblowers? What's your evidence? Obviously the US government isn't censoring the internet. In the meantime, I fear you're actually making people more skeptical of you by jumping to conclusions
- mistermann 9y ago
  > And those that do peek behind the curtains, brand them conspiracy theorists. Well that didn't take long. Oh good lord, you talk as if this is the first time you've heard such a theory. Everything you ask for has been well discussed and proof of varying degrees provided, as I imagine you well know. The parent comment to mine seems to have been granted an interesting status, it now loads as collapsed under all browsers, including incognito.
  - alexandercrohde 9y ago
    This frustrates me, because I think your behavior makes people trust government MORE. Because you're inarticulate, don't link to any articles, and also unfriendly, it pushes people in the neutral zone away from your cause. If you think there's objective proof of widespread government manipulation of newspapers, then link to the wikipedia article. If you acknowledge a neutral set of intellectual and informed judges (wikipedia) find it absurd, then don't go around saying it's "proven."
    - mistermann 9y ago
      This comment is excellent (except for the proven slip-up), but you probably knew that.
- icebraining 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

wybiral 9y ago

And anyone who keeps up with congressional hearings and discussions or even watches C-SPAN from time-to-time knows that there are multiple sides to any decision that gets made. We have a democracy made up of various representatives, and parties, sometimes competing on issues. Even the currently ruling majority being the same party as the president doesn't guarantee that a certain decision will hold. On situations of global conflict it's even more complex. We have to negotiate with our allies and with organizations like the UN and NATO. And move within the confines of various agreements and deals we've made with other entities. And take in different intelligence reports and strategic assessments. The modern world is more complex than we want it to be. But overly-simplified perspectives of it aren't always helpful.