3 ms·
That was a gish gallup. I think there is some value in understanding that the CIA is a large enough organization that it does not act with a single mind, nor a
by vorpalhex 5y ago
That was a gish gallup.
I think there is some value in understanding that the CIA is a large enough organization that it does not act with a single mind, nor a single culture. The article attacks the monoculture idea from media well but never matures it.
It unfortunately gets very bogged down in tying the CIA to conspiracies and things the author doesn't care for, in very loose ways that seem more akin to threads on a blackboard than an actual chain of cause and effect.
- willis936 5y agoThe CIA has earned a suspicious reputation. It isn't tinfoil hat territory to suspect the CIA is involved with a secret conspiracy because that is their SOP. They must be involved in dozens right this second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies
- vorpalhex 5y agoTherefore any conspiracy that we can propose the CIA is involved in must be true. I am imagining the CIA being involved in... hm.. yes, I'm getting an image of bears. Bears being trained to sabotage Russian airbase fuel supplies. We have many examples of this happening. We know the CIA employs animal handlers. We know bears are very trainable. Given the CIA's use of Dolphins, it isn't a leap to recruiting Russian bears.
- willis936 5y agoYou sound like an ex-MKUltra subject. Anyway, it should be clear to anyone reading that you are committing a number of informal fallacies. You can be confident that the CIA is conducting secret conspiracies without knowing what they are. You can also speculate what they are by observing the CIA's behavior and observing the world. Just because there isn't proven public knowledge doesn't mean the secret thing is not actually happening.
- t-3 5y agoWhy train bears? They already have Ukranian Nazis, less people will complain when they get shot.
- paganel 5y agoI think the article is pretty spot on, and this is the second time when I go through it. For crying out loud, the State Deparment now has a LGTBQ+ spokesperson (nothing unusual about that) who is a “former” CIA member (that is, or rather was, unusual). The same spokesperson who had this attitude [1] recently, i.e. the professional higher-than-thou attitude that the article writes about. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=xuvb3FEHz3U https://youtube.com/watch?v=xuvb3FEHz3U
- vorpalhex 5y agoYou'll forgive me if I'm critical of using Russia Times's reporting on Russian Disinformation ops. Yes, people in government argue loudly - that doesn't help your case as far as I can tell. My companies LGBTQ+ spokesperson used to be a rodeo clown. Does this mean Rodeo clowns are being trained in subterfuge and corporation espionage to spread LGBTQ ideology? No, it means people change jobs.
- paganel 5y agoI’m on a phone with a small screen (iPhone SE), just copy-pasted the first YT link that google gave me. You can search for the name of the spokesperson (Ned Price) and that of the journalist (Matt Lee) and (hopefully) you’ll get the same video from other, non-Russian, sources.
- tablespoon 5y agoYeah, I don't trust and wouldn't use RT at all for any purpose, but appears they just posted a legitimate video that just happens to fit their agenda. Here's the same thing from CSPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DTSSvtg19I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DTSSvtg19I.