4 ms·

> The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. The author makes specific claims about the exact ways tha

by shkkmo 3y ago

> The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. The author makes specific claims about the exact ways that the CIA tried to suppress the novel and author. Do you dispute any of them? It's pretty rich to talk about "easily fact checked" when you don't engage at all with the factual basis for the claims your are disputing.

dragonwriter 3y ago
[flagged]
- Convolutional 3y ago
  > Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.
    - Convolutional 3y ago
      > The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        It claims the suppression was “specifically” by the CIA, and the first example of this suppression by the CIA it gives is the publication delay, ascribed to actions of a group, which it ties into the thesis by saying was later identified as a CIA front group.
        the_af 3y ago
        I assume you mean this paragraph from TFA: > But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA. I think it's clumsily worded. There was suppression of the novel and the author was exiled (the novel was self-published in Mexico in 1946, out of the author's own pockets). Guatemala's dictatorship was behind this and the US helped them. But the international discrediting of the author was orchestrated by the CIA through a front, and this took place many years after. So "this" suppression that the CIA aided is not just 1946 -- that's poorly worded -- but in the ensuing years, after the CIA was already formed.
        jjk166 3y ago
        No, in context "this suppression" is clearly referring to the disruption of the novel's genesis and the sending of its author into exile performed by the dictators in that period prior to 1946. The dictators are the censors and exilers being referenced in the next sentence. It would have been easy to say that those actions were part of a broader suppression, or even just aiding in suppression with no qualifier, but specifying "this" makes it unambiguous that they are still talking about the same thing.
        the_af 3y ago
        I think if you take the full article as context, where they mention specific incidents in the 50's onwards, the context is not the period prior to 1946. I think it's just this specific paragraph that's clumsily worded.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- the_af 3y ago
  > Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. This is false. The CIA didn't exist when the book was written, but its suppression activities of the author and its book by the CIA and its front started after the CIA was funded, and the article gives dates.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > The fact that the group specifically identified as the actual vehicle of suppression was “later” (date unspecified, but presumably after the CIA existed) revealed to have been operating as a CIA front doesn't mean that what they did before the CIA existed was on behalf of time travellers from the future when there was a CIA. It's not clear that you mean by "the group" but CCF, Cuaderno, PEN and Mondo Nuevo were all founded after the CIA. > Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. This is a farcical argument. You seem to struggle with the concept that an organization can work to suppress something that already existed when the organization was formed. There are specific claims that are made about the steps that groups led by CIA operatives took to suppress the book and author. All of these events happened AFTER the CIA was founded. You either lack basic reading comprehension / logic or are trolling.

by shkkmo 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

[flagged]

Convolutional 3y ago
> Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.
  - Convolutional 3y ago
    > The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      It claims the suppression was “specifically” by the CIA, and the first example of this suppression by the CIA it gives is the publication delay, ascribed to actions of a group, which it ties into the thesis by saying was later identified as a CIA front group.
      - the_af 3y ago
        I assume you mean this paragraph from TFA: > But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA. I think it's clumsily worded. There was suppression of the novel and the author was exiled (the novel was self-published in Mexico in 1946, out of the author's own pockets). Guatemala's dictatorship was behind this and the US helped them. But the international discrediting of the author was orchestrated by the CIA through a front, and this took place many years after. So "this" suppression that the CIA aided is not just 1946 -- that's poorly worded -- but in the ensuing years, after the CIA was already formed.
        jjk166 3y ago
        No, in context "this suppression" is clearly referring to the disruption of the novel's genesis and the sending of its author into exile performed by the dictators in that period prior to 1946. The dictators are the censors and exilers being referenced in the next sentence. It would have been easy to say that those actions were part of a broader suppression, or even just aiding in suppression with no qualifier, but specifying "this" makes it unambiguous that they are still talking about the same thing.
        the_af 3y ago
        I think if you take the full article as context, where they mention specific incidents in the 50's onwards, the context is not the period prior to 1946. I think it's just this specific paragraph that's clumsily worded.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
the_af 3y ago
> Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. This is false. The CIA didn't exist when the book was written, but its suppression activities of the author and its book by the CIA and its front started after the CIA was funded, and the article gives dates.
shkkmo 3y ago
> The fact that the group specifically identified as the actual vehicle of suppression was “later” (date unspecified, but presumably after the CIA existed) revealed to have been operating as a CIA front doesn't mean that what they did before the CIA existed was on behalf of time travellers from the future when there was a CIA. It's not clear that you mean by "the group" but CCF, Cuaderno, PEN and Mondo Nuevo were all founded after the CIA. > Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. This is a farcical argument. You seem to struggle with the concept that an organization can work to suppress something that already existed when the organization was formed. There are specific claims that are made about the steps that groups led by CIA operatives took to suppress the book and author. All of these events happened AFTER the CIA was founded. You either lack basic reading comprehension / logic or are trolling.