6 ms·

Generally banal factual statements selectively arranged to form a narrative aimed at furthering a particular political agenda. TIL Fox News aren't the only ones

Generally banal factual statements selectively arranged to form a narrative aimed at furthering a particular political agenda. TIL Fox News aren't the only ones that do this! Edit: If conspiratorial stuff like this is the entirety of your media diet, you're going to have a hopelessly warped view of reality.

TheNorthman 6y ago
The video is 21 minutes long and you commented on it's contents 7 minutes after OP posted the link. I think it's also fair to assume some time went by between OP posting and you seeing their comment. How did you find the time to view the clip thoroughly enough to dismiss it so nonchalantly?
- andrewjl 6y ago
  I'm well familiar with the directors other work to know he has next to zero credibility on economic issues. And after reading the directors quotes on the 2016 election[1], I don't think he has any credibility period. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger
  - TheNorthman 6y ago
    Your rejection of Pilger is baseless and your reduction of his works as dealing with `economic issues' is equally so. Your comments reminds me of Slavoj Zizek's phrase: ideological par excellence in that while you're free to think of Pilger as you want, even biased, you're not absolved of similar issues. Putting the topic on its head, he is still widely respected in academia by amongst others, IIRC, Chomsky
    - andrewjl 6y ago
      I never reduced his works to dealing with economic issues and saying so is a misreading of what I wrote. What I meant was that the aspects of his work that do focus on economic issues betray a lack of technical understanding and a clear ideological agenda that biases presentation. The former is especially useful to the latter in that it uses deliberate ambiguities to allow one to sprout falsehoods via false analogy and omission. One can then lie by stating facts, selectively. If that's what you enjoy watching, that's cool man, but just keep in mind it's fiction and is of very little practical use besides entertainment value. Definitely don't try to build a political movement based on it! Unless you want it to fail. Repeatedly.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  Maybe microdosed on some stuff, listening at double speed, skipping, fast forwarding. Essentially turning it into something from Mickey Mouse, while talking about warped realities with a straight face.
TaylorAlexander 6y ago
There’s plenty of valid criticism of the IMF and World Bank policies beyond John Pilger. And this makes sense as they wield incredible power especially against poorer nations. In particular they use the power of a small but influential cadre of wealthy people to make huge changes in foreign countries. To say, as you’ve done down thread, that this is mere fiction I think is wrong. It sounds more to me like a viewpoint you’re unfamiliar with. Here is more reading on the topic: http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Brief_Hx_StrucAdj_DGE.html http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Brief_Hx_StrucAd... http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v12/1/globalization.html http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v12/1/globalization.html
- andrewjl 6y ago
  I'm well familiar with this viewpoint. I was and still largely am sympathetic to its (at least idealized) intentions, however too often it became obvious that those who hold it forget all about Hanlon's Razor. Not every policy failure is a deliberate conspiracy and to paint them as such is dishonesty. More often than not, those who subscribe to these conspiratorial views of "big evil Capitalism coming to get you" become blinded to actual solutions and end up perpetuating the very problems they purport to wish to solve.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    I mean even these avowed anarcho-capitalists have pretty much the same criticism of the World Bank as John Pilger: https://c4ss.org/content/80 https://c4ss.org/content/80 How do you feel about The State as an institution?
    - andrewjl 6y ago
      I'm not an anarcho-capitalist if that's what you're asking. Anarcho-capitalism is a great idealization but remains unsuitable for the real world. It's very hard to discuss the State without referencing Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, etc. Over the past century min-anarchism (of which I at least consider anarcho-capitalism to be a variant of) in general has not offered anything convincing to solve the issues they raised. I'm not optimistic it will do so in the next century either. I'm open to having my mind changed though. How does one assure security with a minimal "night watchman" State? Note that security does not just mean physical security, but also an intangible feeling of safety in the sense that one can go outside without fear of anything untoward happening to them. And I'm well familiar with Ben Franklin's aphorism. Nevertheless it is a real issue and one that the U.S. Constitution solved reasonably well. Edit: Also I find it hard to take seriously anybody that references "neoliberal policies" as that article does. What does that even mean? Free markets? Property rights? Movement of capital? All those things are ingredients to prosperity, in my view. Often "neoliberal" ends up just being those parts of capitalism that one doesn't like. And of course everyone has their own subset. Mass confusion, non-stop arguments over I'm not sure what exactly ensue.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Would you say that about [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit... and [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine too?
- andrewjl 6y ago
  > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit... "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." [1] "Although the accuracy of the content has been questioned, the book did well in terms of sales, placing on the best-seller lists of both the New York Times and Amazon." [2] Who needs evidence and reasoning when vacuous, fact-lite writing makes for great sales! > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine "Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies." [3] "Klein isn’t an economist but a journalist" [3] Stiglitz (cited by the author herself!) states that Shock Doctrine contains no understanding of actual economics. I'm sure the spy thriller narrative makes up for it though. "Friedman and the other shock therapists were also guilty of oversimplification, basing their belief in the perfection of market economies on models that assumed perfect information, perfect competition, perfect risk markets." [3] Ah when you've nowhere else to turn, let's do some what-about-ism. We cannot back up our arguments, but the other side cannot either! It's rich to accuse Friedman of oversimplifying when his own writing shows otherwise. He is against precisely what he is being accused of supporting. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story! "I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation in terms of industrialist versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and it can’t get away with something except by producing a better product at a lower cost; and that’s why I don’t want government to step in and help the business community." [4][5] It helps to read multiple perspectives on an issue as complex as economics and development. It may not provide the easy answers we crave but it does act as an immunizer to shallow, doctrinaire thinking displayed in these "works". I'll forgive the downvotes if you'll read a book by Friedman (or Hayek or any economist with whom you disagree) for every one you've read that's critical of him. Then make up your own mind. We might still not be in agreement, but at least we can have a factual discussion. [1] Sebastian Mallaby https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601265.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/0... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit... [3] https://tsd.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/bleakonomics.html https://tsd.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/bleakonomi... [4] Milton Friedman: Free to Choose [5] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.pdf

TheNorthman 6y ago

The video is 21 minutes long and you commented on it's contents 7 minutes after OP posted the link. I think it's also fair to assume some time went by between OP posting and you seeing their comment. How did you find the time to view the clip thoroughly enough to dismiss it so nonchalantly?

andrewjl 6y ago
I'm well familiar with the directors other work to know he has next to zero credibility on economic issues. And after reading the directors quotes on the 2016 election[1], I don't think he has any credibility period. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger
- TheNorthman 6y ago
  Your rejection of Pilger is baseless and your reduction of his works as dealing with `economic issues' is equally so. Your comments reminds me of Slavoj Zizek's phrase: ideological par excellence in that while you're free to think of Pilger as you want, even biased, you're not absolved of similar issues. Putting the topic on its head, he is still widely respected in academia by amongst others, IIRC, Chomsky
  - andrewjl 6y ago
    I never reduced his works to dealing with economic issues and saying so is a misreading of what I wrote. What I meant was that the aspects of his work that do focus on economic issues betray a lack of technical understanding and a clear ideological agenda that biases presentation. The former is especially useful to the latter in that it uses deliberate ambiguities to allow one to sprout falsehoods via false analogy and omission. One can then lie by stating facts, selectively. If that's what you enjoy watching, that's cool man, but just keep in mind it's fiction and is of very little practical use besides entertainment value. Definitely don't try to build a political movement based on it! Unless you want it to fail. Repeatedly.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Maybe microdosed on some stuff, listening at double speed, skipping, fast forwarding. Essentially turning it into something from Mickey Mouse, while talking about warped realities with a straight face.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago

There’s plenty of valid criticism of the IMF and World Bank policies beyond John Pilger. And this makes sense as they wield incredible power especially against poorer nations. In particular they use the power of a small but influential cadre of wealthy people to make huge changes in foreign countries. To say, as you’ve done down thread, that this is mere fiction I think is wrong. It sounds more to me like a viewpoint you’re unfamiliar with. Here is more reading on the topic: http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Brief_Hx_StrucAdj_DGE.html http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Brief_Hx_StrucAd... http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v12/1/globalization.html http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v12/1/globalization.html

andrewjl 6y ago
I'm well familiar with this viewpoint. I was and still largely am sympathetic to its (at least idealized) intentions, however too often it became obvious that those who hold it forget all about Hanlon's Razor. Not every policy failure is a deliberate conspiracy and to paint them as such is dishonesty. More often than not, those who subscribe to these conspiratorial views of "big evil Capitalism coming to get you" become blinded to actual solutions and end up perpetuating the very problems they purport to wish to solve.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  I mean even these avowed anarcho-capitalists have pretty much the same criticism of the World Bank as John Pilger: https://c4ss.org/content/80 https://c4ss.org/content/80 How do you feel about The State as an institution?
  - andrewjl 6y ago
    I'm not an anarcho-capitalist if that's what you're asking. Anarcho-capitalism is a great idealization but remains unsuitable for the real world. It's very hard to discuss the State without referencing Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, etc. Over the past century min-anarchism (of which I at least consider anarcho-capitalism to be a variant of) in general has not offered anything convincing to solve the issues they raised. I'm not optimistic it will do so in the next century either. I'm open to having my mind changed though. How does one assure security with a minimal "night watchman" State? Note that security does not just mean physical security, but also an intangible feeling of safety in the sense that one can go outside without fear of anything untoward happening to them. And I'm well familiar with Ben Franklin's aphorism. Nevertheless it is a real issue and one that the U.S. Constitution solved reasonably well. Edit: Also I find it hard to take seriously anybody that references "neoliberal policies" as that article does. What does that even mean? Free markets? Property rights? Movement of capital? All those things are ingredients to prosperity, in my view. Often "neoliberal" ends up just being those parts of capitalism that one doesn't like. And of course everyone has their own subset. Mass confusion, non-stop arguments over I'm not sure what exactly ensue.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Would you say that about [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit... and [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine too?

andrewjl 6y ago
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit... "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." [1] "Although the accuracy of the content has been questioned, the book did well in terms of sales, placing on the best-seller lists of both the New York Times and Amazon." [2] Who needs evidence and reasoning when vacuous, fact-lite writing makes for great sales! > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine "Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies." [3] "Klein isn’t an economist but a journalist" [3] Stiglitz (cited by the author herself!) states that Shock Doctrine contains no understanding of actual economics. I'm sure the spy thriller narrative makes up for it though. "Friedman and the other shock therapists were also guilty of oversimplification, basing their belief in the perfection of market economies on models that assumed perfect information, perfect competition, perfect risk markets." [3] Ah when you've nowhere else to turn, let's do some what-about-ism. We cannot back up our arguments, but the other side cannot either! It's rich to accuse Friedman of oversimplifying when his own writing shows otherwise. He is against precisely what he is being accused of supporting. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story! "I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation in terms of industrialist versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and it can’t get away with something except by producing a better product at a lower cost; and that’s why I don’t want government to step in and help the business community." [4][5] It helps to read multiple perspectives on an issue as complex as economics and development. It may not provide the easy answers we crave but it does act as an immunizer to shallow, doctrinaire thinking displayed in these "works". I'll forgive the downvotes if you'll read a book by Friedman (or Hayek or any economist with whom you disagree) for every one you've read that's critical of him. Then make up your own mind. We might still not be in agreement, but at least we can have a factual discussion. [1] Sebastian Mallaby https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601265.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/0... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit... [3] https://tsd.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/bleakonomics.html https://tsd.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/bleakonomi... [4] Milton Friedman: Free to Choose [5] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp102.pdf