:::spoiler spoiler
Objection
joined 10 months ago
What you expect, am I supposed to be utterly fascinated by your country’s history and read about it extensively just so that we all can be as enlightened as you are?
Yes, if fact, I do! The CIA had an extensive impact on the entire world, it's the same way I have at least a general familiarity with the British Empire, even though I'm not from the UK, and that happened even further back.
Thank you for the recommendation. However, if we’re going to hurl stereotypes at each other instead of arguments, I can’t help but point out that I’ve seen numerous Lemmy leftists claim that NYT is a liberal propaganda rag. So idk if that’s actually a plus for Kinzer.
What an incredibly stupid line of argument. Ok, then go read fucking Grover Furr, for all I care. The point of recommending Kinzer (besides the fact that his work is good) is that he's respected in the mainstream liberal sphere. Obviously, far-left authors like Furr (who I haven't read and don't recommend) or Michael Parenti (who I have read and do recommend) also talk about the CIA's role in coups and color revolutions.
A very, very, very basic concept in evaluating information is to consider what the source is saying relative to the source's bias. If an ancient history commissioned by a king talks about the king slaying a three lions at the same time with his bare hands, we should treat that claim with heavy skepticism. If that same work talks about the king having a big ol' wart on his nose that everyone made fun of, that part's probably true, because it goes against the author's bias.
No source is perfect or without bias, and I'll happily critique the NYT all day long, but when even someone who writes for them agrees with me, I'll also cite them, because that's all the more compelling.
What does this even mean? You brought it up as an analogy, I pointed out that the analogy has been picked to make your primary claim look more obvious and logical than it really is.
If you understood it was an analogy, then nitpicking that the date used in my analogy "wasn't even in the same decade as my source" is utterly irrelevant.
If I believe that the Earth is flat, but then I have a dream where I see that the Earth is actually round, and then I start believing that it is round, does that mean I’m “correct”? Technically maybe yes but based on wrong information/reasoning
Except that my reasoning wasn't wrong. I saw something that suggested there was a connection between the CIA and the uprising, and, based on my prior assumptions of how likey that was and how compelling I considered the evidence to be, I concluded that the connection was there. You jumped in to challenge that it wasn't 100% proof, but also, there is other evidence that does prove it. So my process seems pretty reasonable.
It's funny that you open the comment with, "What, do you randomly expect me to be so fascinated with your country's history that I take a class on it?" while also criticizing me for not doing a thorough enough investigation into Hungary, a country I'm not from and have no connection to. If you're a leftist, you have to be an expert on the history of the entire globe, as well as economics and all sorts of other fields. But if you're a liberal, you can just go along with the status quo understanding nothing and everyone's fine with it.
Government is a tool, and whoever is powerful enough can and will use that tool to pursue their interests. Yes, the government serves the rich under capitalism, but the problem is the power of the rich, not the tool. Throwing out the idea of government or limiting it is foolish because 1) it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and 2) if you're in a position to limit the size of the government, you can just use it to do good things instead.
It's incredible to me how ignorant people are of the CIA's history, to the point of even calling into question whether they were engaged in these sorts of activities in general. This isn't just me saying this or just some fringe group - it's the accepted historical record. The proper propaganda line you're supposed to use here is, "of course they did all those things in the past, but that was a long time ago and they've changed" (despite nobody ever being held accountable and nobody actually doing anything to change it). Deviating into straight up denialism just makes you look ignorant to anyone who's actually informed about it.
If you want a detailed case study of how the CIA operated/operates, I recommend All The Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer, which details the 1953 Iranian coup. Kinzer is a respected journalist who's contributed to the NYT and the Guardian.
Or we could look at different Wikipedia pages that detail the US's involvement in coups and regime changes around the world, all of which will agree with me, that the CIA did these things pretty regularly. You're the one who is deviating from the historical record accepted by actual historians.
This is a good comparison too - “in the 20’s”, you say, but the document you posted is not from the relevant decade, and is even from a different continent
Bruh. That was a separate hypothetical. You must be acting in bad faith.
Besides, even just ctrl+F’ing “CIA” in the Wikipedia article on the revolution shows that yes, CIA did emit materials that were meant to stoke the Hungarians’ desire for revolt. It’s literally on Wikipedia, it’s no CIA-hidden secret at all!
Great! So I'm right, it's just like the meme. The only detail that's in dispute is whether or not the document provides further evidence of involvement.
They also purged all the communists as a show of good faith to the government (which, uh, didn't work). Those communists were likely more prone to class solidarity as an ideological commitment and also more willing to fight with radical actions like strikes, but instead we were left with opportunistic leadership that just wanted to secure the bag for themselves, and at best the other members of the union, but had no interest in any building any kind of broad coalition or promoting equality on a societal level - that would make them sound like a Red.
What are we supposed to do, not put golf courses all over the desert?
All libertarians want policies that will allow major corporations to walk all over them, whether they realize it and have a problem with it or not.
You know what I'm noticing? Too many vertical borders in the Middle East. I'm just gonna do horizontal borders, top to bottom, devided up so that each country gets an equal area of land. As for which country gets which sliver, let's just make it simple and do alphabetical order (in English, obviously).
...annnnd done. Looking back over it, I forgot that N comes before Q so Iran and Iraq are switched, but I already drew it up, so, whatever, I'll just leave it that way and leave it up to them if they wanna switch or not.
So their contract states that they'll be paid $0.50/hr more than the wages they negotiated in their contract. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.
This is word for word the logic of right wing conspiracy theorists who ascribe every thing they don’t like to Jews.
Really? Can you name 5 world leaders who were overthrown by a secret Jewish cabal the way I can for the CIA, just off the top of my head? I think, maybe, there might be a little bit of a difference there.
This comparison is so fucking stupid that it ends up being antisemitic, because by equating the two you're implying that this secret Jewish cabal both exists and has similar power and influence as the most powerful and well funded spy agency on the planet that has a very long and well documented history orchestrating coups and color revolutions and successfully covering up their involvement for decades, that also, you know, actually exists. Get a grip!
In court of law, an admission is pretty solid proof. Your meme says the involvement was admitted. I guess it wouldn’t look as convincing or funny if the meme said they admitted they funded some organisation outside of Hungary 7 years after the actual event
Yes, my meme made use of an existing meme and the phrasing of the original wasn't 100% accurate. I apologize because my username and avatar seems to have caused some confusion, but this is actually an online meme community and not a court of law.
See, while trawling through these JFK files right wingers have already found a connection with Jews, as tenuous as it is, and tout it as solid proof it was them who had JFK killed, because after all we already know Jews are nefarious and evil, and clearly any weak connection to JFK’s death is good enough - of course (((they’ve))) scrubbed the proof, etc. so internet randos can go creative. Or maybe some higher standards for proof would be in order…
Again, the difference is I can point to countless times where that actually happened with the CIA and they can't do that with Jews! I stg, it's like, if I hear about a black person who was found strung up from a tree in the 20's, I'm gonna go, "Huh, seems like it was probably white supremacists like the KKK" but apparently you'll then chime in with "wElL hOw Do YoU nNoW iT wAsN't AsIaN sUpReMaCiStS, hUh?" Because one of them is a real thing that actually existed at that time and place with significant power and a track record of doing that sort of thing repeatedly and getting away with it, and the other is a made up delusion.
They've forced children as young as 6 to defend themselves in court with no right to an attorney, and it's been going on for years. The right to counsel isn't applied to immigration cases. It's truly insane, kangaroo court shit.
If the interpretation that they don't need a warrant stands, it means that ICE could walk into anybody's home, abduct their child, accuse them of being an illegal immigrant, do a show trial, and then ship them off to Guantanamo Bay where no press is allowed. Or, for all we know, to Little St. James or anywhere else.
Context:
This comes from a game called "Queen's Wish: The Conqueror," a retro indie RPG. In the game, you play as the third child of the queen of Haven, a large and powerful nation, but up until now you've lived an idle live with little power and few responsibilities. The queen decides to send you off to reestablish control of lost vassals in a remote continent which were abandoned following a major magical disaster.
There are three vassal states and each has two factions who you can choose to support into power, usually one side being more aristocratic and the other being poorer. You also have the choice of how much you actually follow through with your assignment, you can just run around doing your own thing regardless of what the queen wants. But you can navigate a route where you side with the poor while still negotiating agreements as expected of you and feel like it's a "good guy" route. Although the queen would rather you work with the aristocrats, she's satisfied as long as you get either side to win and cooperate, just so long as somebody's keeping the spice flowing, so to speak.
This conversation occurs with a sage/scholar working in one of your forts in that region, who refers to "The Theory of Inevitable Decay." It's missable, but it's a crucial line of dialogue that recontextualizes everything that you're doing. From the beginning, you see a lot of the mess that was left behind and the power vacuum from when the kingdom pulled out before, but then, it sorta seems like you're fixing things, getting rid of bandits and warlords and establishing order, traditional fantasy hero stuff, and with a kinder, gentler hand, even. But even if you as an individual have the best intentions, you're still kind of setting things up in a way that's dependent on a great power a long way away. Haven has its own stuff going on and it probably isn't going to be knowledgeable about the region, interested in it's long-term well-being, or accountable to the people who live there. Sooner or later, it'll get a ruler who doesn't give a shit about a given vassal, and the vassal will fall to ruin - or so the sage suggests.
Anyway sorry I posted this in the wrong comm, this is just an interesting bit of dialogue from a video game with absolutely no relevance to modern day politics 😇
0
"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Ursula Le Guin
Lots of things are impossible until they happen and become inevitable. The human mind has a tendency to place things in that box that don't really belong there. We can see it in people's personal lives, "Oh, I could never possibly stand up to my parents!" and then they do, and the chips fall where they may. "I could never leave everything behind and move to another country/city" but you take a leap of faith and you make it work. "Oh, I could never become a soldier," but then you find yourself in the trenches and you become one. Humans are far more adaptable than we give ourselves credit for.
But the things that need to happen are things that we have determined rationally. The bias that exists in our minds when there is such a conflict is to ignore reason and evidence and think that we have to follow our self-imposed restraints and limitations, and if that's not enough, well, too bad, maybe it'll still be fine somehow. It is easier to simply pretend a physical problem doesn't exist then it is to confront a psychological barrier - but the physical problem remains whether we acknowledge it or shove it aside.
It is abundantly clear that there is a mismatch between what the US political reality is capable of delivering on and what actually needs to happen, on an increasingly large number of issues. Wealth inequality increases every year, and there is no path to stopping it. Every year we get closer to ecological collapse, heading towards tipping points that will spiral out of control. And of course, the military-industrial complex gets larger and larger, now fueling a genocide with overwhelming bipartisan support.
All of these things need to change, but it is also impossible for them to change. So we have no choice but to do the impossible (see the invisible, row, row, fight the powah). It is impossible that we could convince the democrats to change, they are too attached to their corporate donors. Too bad, we'll get them change anyway. It is impossible that we could build a third party, it isn't viable in FPTP. Too bad, we will build it and make it viable anyway. It is impossible that we could resist the strength of the military and police. It is impossible to organize a general strike. Boycotts can never work. The king would never allow us to have a constitution. Too bad.
The limits of existing political systems have been overcome in the past even when they seemed impossible, and the desperate need for change means that the limits of this one will be too. Shit is headed towards the fan, and things will change, for better or worse. The longer we wait, the more shit will build up. Only by finding a breach in "impossibility" can we start to address any of these problems.
Where will that breach be found? Who knows? All we can do is search for cracks and hit them as hard as we can until we find a way to break the limitations. We can discuss where to focus our efforts and that's a valid and important discussion to have. But we cannot allow the functions of the existing system to limit our efforts to break out of it. You cannot be so concerned about damaging an already sinking ship that you won't rip off a plank to hold on to.
I don't really care who you vote for or don't vote for. Follow your conscience. What's important is that you have your head in the game. What matters is recognizing the the things that what needs to happen is a function of immutable natural laws while what can happen is a function of mortal laws and conventional wisdom. When there is a mismatch, to uphold the ideas of "what can happen" is to reject that "what needs to happen" is actually real, which is no different from thinking you can change the laws of physics by passing a bill in the senate. The "reason" of conventional wisdom must be kicked to the curb in favor of actual reason that says things need to change, and that it's necessary to go beyond the impossible to make it happen.
How would you answer this, and how would you expect Chinese netizens on Xiaohongshu to answer?
I will link to the thread in the comments because I want you to take a moment and think about it first.
17
Add "Havana Syndrome" to the list of fake stories that you're not allowed to question on .world
(lemmy.ml)
The first sentence on the Wikipedia page for it calls it "a disputed medical condition." Even the CIA itself has admitted that cases are not caused by "a sustained global campaign by a hostile power." The State Department similarly released a report that it was highly unlikely the symptoms were caused by any sort of directed energy weapon. In fact, seven different US intelligence agencies released a consensus statement saying, "available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents."
But the clowns on .world don't care about things like truth or evidence, or even direct statements from the people who's boots they have in their mouths. If it makes an enemy of the US look bad, then it is absolute truth, and anything short of complete faith and loyalty must be purged from conversation.
Rare video clip of a .world mod
:::spoiler Offending post
This one included.
Before I begin, I have a confession: until recently (until today, in fact), I was a tankie. But this morning I just woke up and realized everything I believed and everything I'd been saying was wrong, and my critics were right about everything. And so, I have decided to completely and totally adopt their way of thinking.
The above image is an example to illustrate how my thinking has changed. You may be familiar with "Russell's Teapot," a thought experiment from Bertrand Russell where he imagines that someone says that there is a tiny, invisible teapot, floating out in space. He argues that while such a claim cannot strictly be disproved, it can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He goes on to explain that while he could not disprove the existence of God, he still considered himself an atheist, because he did not see sufficient evidence for the claim of God's existence to be credible.
In my previous (tankie) way of thinking, I would have agreed with this idea, that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I now understand that this made me a Bad Person. Suppose that, as in the beautiful diagram I drew in MS Paint, the claim is not only that the teapot exists, but that inside of the teapot, there are a bunch of tiny invisible people who are geopolitical enemies of the United States and they are committing genocide against innocent people. Again, before, I would have said that that only makes the claim more implausible and would require extraordinary proof. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and I can only say that I deeply regret and apologize for my statements. The existence of the teapot can be proven incontrovertibly, by the following logic:
-
If you claim that the teapot does not exist, you are denying that the genocide inside it is happening.
-
If you deny the genocide is happening, you are a genocide denier and therefore a fascist.
-
Fascism is wrong.
-
Therefore, it is impossible to correctly deny the teapot's existence.
As a brief aside, I should mention that in addition to my political conversion, I have also experienced a drastic change in my religious beliefs, as it is now trivially easy to prove that God exists. According to the Torah, God flooded the world, wiping out virtually all of humanity, including countless ethnic groups. To deny the existence of God makes you a genocide denier and a fascist. However, it should be added that to worship God is genocide apologia, which is also fascist. The only non-fascist belief, which is necessarily correct, is that God exists and is evil. Moving on.
Before, I believed that it was ridiculous for the US to spend as much on the military as the next 9 countries combined. I wanted to slash the military budget to fund domestic spending, schools, hospitals, making sure bridges don't collapse, helping the poor, etc. I see now how wrong I was. The Genocide Teapot exists, somewhere out there in space, in fact, there could be countless numbers of them out there. Therefore, the real progressive thing to do is to further cut domestic spending and have everyone tighten our belts so that we can produce as many missiles as possible, to be fired out into space indiscriminately, in hopes of hitting a Genocide Teapot.
However, we must also consider the possibility that these teapots could be located here on Earth too. Teapots are a form of china, which is a very suspicious connection. Clearly, the US must be permitted to inspect every square inch of China in search of these invisible teapots, and refusal to comply should be considered an admission of guilt. But we should not, of course, limit ourselves to China. Perhaps there are Genocide Teapots in Russia, or Brazil, or Germany, or Canada, who knows? I do, because to deny that Genocide Teapots exist in all of those places is genocide denial, which is fascist and wrong.
In conclusion, we should bomb every country in the world simultaneously, including ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with me is a war-loving fascist.
Thank you.
view more: next ›
If it suggests a connection, that's synonymous with it being evidence.
Again, we've been over it, yes, my meme wasn't 100% accurate, it was based on an existing meme.
Your whole line of criticism is pedantic whining and after this I'm done entertaining it. Literally how many times have you brought up one simple typo, that was only off by three years anyway? Would you also bring it up this many times if I mixed up they're and their? Maybe you would, if you're that kind of annoying pedant, but if you ask me this nonsense has more to do with latching onto something, anything that you can use to punch left.
Just like you justified your lack of investigation into the CIA while also making statements about CIA history.
It does matter if you try to enforce a hypocritical double standard where I have to be exactly right about everything and you don't need to know basic historical facts.