Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:They should certainly refrain from doing that.
So you are qualified to diagnose your opponents with mental illnesses, but the mainstream media aren't?
Almost everyone is mentally-ill, Kevin. You know that. Or at least you used to know it. Only Buddhas are truly sane.

I won't be participating in this topic any further. I think I've adequately responded to David's opening post.

There's enough ad hominem attacks, smearing, and diagnosing people with mental illnesses elsewhere on the internet if I ever need it.
You haven't exactly been shy with ad hominem attacks and smearings of other people, particularly when it comes to mainstream journalists.

I guess it all depends on who the target is. The new political correctness evidently makes it permissible for people to smear with impunity anyone who is not aligned with the alt-right.

Milo Yiannopoulos makes a living from smearing people. But since he is so pretty, I'll forgive him.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:Only Buddhas are truly sane.
That's the worst justification for ad hominem I've ever heard. "It's not ad hominem unless the person is a Buddha!".

. . . particularly when it comes to mainstream journalists.
Ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than what they are saying. I only criticize what journalists are saying. I'm not diagnosing them with mental illnesses, or commenting on how pretty they are.

Milo Yiannopoulos makes a living from smearing people.
If you believe that's true then criticize him for smearing people. It's not difficult. Try to take the moral high ground.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote: I’m not sure why you would think my comment here would be controversial.

I'm not disputing that a politician lies. I'm disputing whether you are qualified to determine whether such lying is "pathological".
I am an insightful thinker with a large amount of wisdom. Isn't that qualification enough?
But in your fundamental disagreement with Kevin lies a complete disregard for such thing as qualification in this matter. Unless one starts distinguishing between people who used to be insightful and wisdom, and thus qualified, and those who aren't any more sufficiently and as such unqualified. However by doing so, one has to first assert oneself as the one who still is insightful and wise, while the other not enough for disagreeing.

The qualification of being an insightful thinker with large amounts of wisdom is in this particular discussion not a reasonable argument at all.

Same for "almost everyone is mentally-ill" since obviously the degree of this would matter in judging the political scene at all. If there's no distinction, preferring one politician over another based on his capacity for reason would be ill-founded since he would not have the mental health to apply that reason to distinguish himself.
David Quinn wrote: Real journalism involves spending time and money on proper research and exposing what is going on behind the scenes. Anyone can do this, provided they have the time and money. It is not exclusively confined to either the mainstream or alternative medias
David Quinn wrote:I agree with her that political reporters tend to form cliques and their questions tend to be uninspired
In a roundabout way you're just saying that yes "mainstream media" is a clique, uninspired and lacks sufficient real investigation, in other words, not sufficiently reliable or truthful. The New York Times demonstrated the problem leading up the invasion of Iraq with Judith Miller leading the way, writing whatever the White House was leaking to her and then the administration turned around to quote the "established" New York Times. The problem is, to my knowing, after it was exposed by far and large, the Times never made any attempt to clean this mess up. In other words, despite the occasional quality reporting they should not be relied on that much by people looking for deeper insight on the backgrounds. The source is tainted and does not show signs it can correct itself or reform. One cannot expect anything different then in current years.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:The biggest issue currently facing journalism is dwindling sales and resources, which makes proper investigative reporting too prohibitively expensive for most outlets. Unfortunately, we are living in an age where lazy, sensationalist, click-bait reporting is more lucrative than serious journalism. A story cobbled together in 5 minutes cut and pasted from other media outlets can provide more clicks and thus more revenue than an investigative article which has taken three months of painstaking work to put together. Through sheer economics, editors are being forced to focus almost exclusively on the click-bait stuff.

It is the main reason why I began subscribing to the New York Times back in December. I wanted to do my bit to financially support the kind of serious journalism that will put a handbrake on Trump's most destructive actions. If serious journalism is going to survive in the future, then digital subscription by civic-minded readers will probably be the way to go.
Actually, the biggest issue is what people want, viz. being pandered to with illusions and lies versus being informed. The NYT panders to an aging liberal readership because not many others read their paper. Even the aging liberals aren't being replaced by their millenial counterparts because the NYT smeared and insulted Bernie in order to elevate Hillary to the nomination.
Kevin Solway wrote:Serious journalism is supposed to report the truth. It's not meant to "put the brakes" on someone.
Putting the brakes on those who are deceptive and want to harm the community is part and parcel of reporting the truth. Serious journalism constitutes a vital part of the checks and balances in a democracy. A democracy cannot function without it.
No, the job of a reporter of truth is to report the truth. At best, his reports can aid those whose job it is to put the brakes on illegal activity.
Dan Rowden wrote:It seems to me that Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric, and cleverly developed persona around it, has seduced all sorts of people, including those you would imagine to be too wise to fall for it.
It seems to me that you and David are using your self-proclaimed credentials of sagacity to pass false judgements on Kevin, myself, Diebert and others who refuse to join you in a Trumphobic orgy. All the forum members you are accusing of loving Trump or falling prey to Breitbart far-right propaganda have shown you, both directly and indirectly, why your accusations are wrong. Yet you persist in doing so with casual abandon. You even descend so far as to appeal to sentimentality and old times, as if that even matters in the context of this forum - a context which you claim also governs your daily lives. And now, David is citing his "large amount of wisdom" (which is itself a nonsensical concept) to justify an unnecessary and uncalled for mental diagnosis of Trump.

Your claim that a single one-paragraph article about a phone call is "entirely indicative" of Breitbart's output is one more in a long list of stupid and baseless accusations. I wonder if this thread was intended to be a safe space for people who derive pleasure from insulting and degrading people they hate or disagree with. If it was, then let me join Kevin in notifying David and you that such safe spaces already exist aplenty.

@David, your statement about "almost everyone" being mentally ill is a red herring. Pathological liars are not "almost everyone".

Anyway, this is my last post on this thread. I've participated until now because I wanted to analyse David's accusation that Kevin is brainwashed by the Trump-Breitbart Axis of Evil in the light of Kevin's own words about Trump. Since Kevin has spoken for himself, I have no reason to continue posting.

I have seen nothing in Kevin's posts that is remotely indicative of right wing bias or sympathy. If anything he was complacent when dealing with, among other things, David's implication that he has been seduced by Milo Yiannopoulos who is, apparently, "such a pretty boy". Truly a touching (without consent) piece of Zennish insight, which made me cringe with the joy of knowing Truth.

I've suspected from the beginning of this thread that the real motivation behind D'n'D's attacks on Kevin is not at all what they keep saying it is, i.e. distancing themselves from Kevin's conservofascist views and other such nonsense. I've come to the conclusion, especially after reading their reactions to Kevin's recent posts, that the motivation is personal and sentimental. In my opinion, they interpret any action or view of Kevin's (and supposedly also of forum members who agree with Kevin to any extent) which seems to them to be radically different from their own as betrayal or "selling out". Such reactions may derive or extend from real life tensions, or from ingrained emotions of friendship and nostalgia, but investigating their causes isn't my place or concern. Nevertheless, that is the only motivation I can think of as being the likely cause of all the absurd accusations.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:I've suspected from the beginning of this thread that the real motivation behind D'n'D's attacks on Kevin is not at all what they keep saying it is, i.e. distancing themselves from Kevin's conservofascist views and other such nonsense. I've come to the conclusion, especially after reading their reactions to Kevin's recent posts, that the motivation is personal and sentimental. In my opinion, they interpret any action or view of Kevin's (and supposedly also of forum members who agree with Kevin to any extent) which seems to them to be radically different from their own as betrayal or "selling out". Such reactions may derive or extend from real life tensions, or from ingrained emotions of friendship and nostalgia, but investigating their causes isn't my place or concern. Nevertheless, that is the only motivation I can think of as being the likely cause of all the absurd accusations.
Well said. That this thread is a sticky in the main forum is plenty proof of this.

I think it deserves to be stated, or repeated, that this also shows just how powerful the media, mainstream or alternative, has become at riling up such emotionalism. Perhaps we all need to go camping on some remote island.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Only Buddhas are truly sane.
That's the worst justification for ad hominem I've ever heard. "It's not ad hominem unless the person is a Buddha!".
You are spiraling out of control there, Kevin. Let's step back a bit:

A judgement about a person’s behaviour is not an ad homnem if it is true.

Pathological lying is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.

Tony Abbott lies habitually, so habitually that even he was eventually forced to concede that his words could never be trusted.

Thus, the statement, “Tony Abbott is a pathological liar”, is true.

Kevin Solway wrote:
. . . particularly when it comes to mainstream journalists.
Ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than what they are saying. I only criticize what journalists are saying.

You automatically dismiss a whole group of people without even reading their work, or even giving specific evidence for why you would dismiss them. You have even decided - already, now - that everything they say from now on is worthless.

I know that if I was a honest, hard-working journalist, I would be offended by your unjustified, politically-motivated comments. (Well, no, I wouldn't, actually. I would just reject them for the clap-trap that they are.)

I'm not diagnosing them with mental illnesses
While calling people fakes is ok?

As Dan has hinted, there is a double standard weaving right through the centre of your whole approach to these matters.

, or commenting on how pretty they are.
It’s called humour. You may have heard of it. I was being provocative. A “provocateur”.

<head bent down, cheeks blushing, eyelashes fluttering> “Atheists are so easy to wind up. They are brought together by wispy facial hair, terrible spectacles of long ginger ponytails, terrible thin-skinned demeanor, hair-trigger tempers…. it’s funny to take the piss out of them.” <tilts head to one side and smiles winsomely>

No?

It seems to work for Milo, but I guess you have to be young and pretty and blush a lot to pull it off.

I don’t think you can divorce Milo’s “truthful comments” from his gay, camp persona. He deliberately uses this persona in his role as a provocateur and it is a big reason why he riles up the left so much, and also, in an interesting psychological twist, why the normally-homophobic rednecks have come to adopt him as one of their own.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Glostik91 wrote:Even the most effeminate man possesses a higher degree of masculinity than the most masculine woman, and in this sense Trump does possess a degree of masculinity which I don't think you give him credit. He is conscious of his own death, conscientious of his legacy, acquainted with authentic Sein-zum-Tode, inner thoughts structured to the task, and single-minded in his ambition. There is no way a woman would be capable of running a campaign like Trump's, no matter how aggressive or masculine she is. Trump's being-toward-death is single-handedly taking a sledgehammer to American politics in order to gain himself a legacy, and it is all his own. If that's not masculine then I don't know what is. But I don't think masculine necessarily implies enlightened. Masculinity gives one better odds of becoming enlightened, but only if the energy is pointed in the right direction. Concerning Trump, he is definitely not pointed in the right direction. But perhaps some good will come of it. Kevin seems to think so.
I hear what you're saying. It is true that he had single-mindedly sought the presidency for a long time. And it takes a lot of balls to stand up in front of the American people and lie shamelessly day after day after day, and to keep repeating the lies even when there is no evidence for them or when they are shown to be false. To keep repeating these unfounded lies over and over again while maintaining a straight face is certainly a very remarkable quality.

On the other hand, it is not uncommon for women to lie this shamelessly as well. There was recently a case here in Australia where a woman, Belle Gibson, built an entire lifestyle around the lie that she had recovered from brain cancer. Trump is merely pushing this kind of approach to another level. In effect, he combines a very womanly turn of mind with a very aggressive, single-minded approach, and thus it is not unlike watching an inverse drag performance.

Also keep in mind the role of luck in all of this. Trump is someone who happens to be in the right place at the right time. He is a very unusual person who fits snugly into a very unusual period of history. He tried to run for the presidency in the past, but failed at the first hurdle, and if it had been 2020, instead of 2016, he most likely would have failed at the first hurdle there as well. His singular personality has precisely caught the zeitgeist of the current times.

This mirrors Hitler's rise in Germany in the 1930s. Like Trump, Hitler was an ambitious, buffoon-like character who, in normal times, nobody would have taken seriously. But he benefited from having been around during a desperate period in German history. If Hitler had tried to launch his political career at any other time, he most likely would have been dismissed as a clown. (This is not to equate Trump with Hitler, of course; he is as different to Hitler as he is to Bush Jr.)

(pssst, between you and me, don’t tell Kevin that I just made a judgment about Trump’s psychology. He doesn’t like it when someone tells the truth and hurts people’s feelings. And especially don’t tell him that I once co-hosted a show called “The Hour Of Judgement”. He would go ballistic.)
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote:I have seen nothing in Kevin's posts that is remotely indicative of right wing bias or sympathy.
He has consistently shown that he is supportive of a presidency which, judging from the cabinet picks, executive orders and recent Budget wish-list, is extremely right-wing, almost fanatically so. I can't see how you can get around that.

I suppose you can just keep blocking it out of your mind. That's certainly one way to go about things.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In a roundabout way you're just saying that yes "mainstream media" is a clique, uninspired and lacks sufficient real investigation, in other words, not sufficiently reliable or truthful. The New York Times demonstrated the problem leading up the invasion of Iraq with Judith Miller leading the way, writing whatever the White House was leaking to her and then the administration turned around to quote the "established" New York Times. The problem is, to my knowing, after it was exposed by far and large, the Times never made any attempt to clean this mess up. In other words, despite the occasional quality reporting they should not be relied on that much by people looking for deeper insight on the backgrounds. The source is tainted and does not show signs it can correct itself or reform. One cannot expect anything different then in current years.
Commiserations on the Dutch elections, by the way. Along with One Nation's failure at the recent Western Australia elections, does this mean that the far right rebellion around the world is starting to lose steam? Fingers crossed!

It goes without saying that I don't approve of sloppy, biased journalism. If what you say about the role of the New York Times during the Iraq war is true, then that is certainly a terrible thing. But nonetheless, it still remains the case that a free press which is willing to fund serious, investigative journalism is vital to a healthy democracy. Without it, we are in a dictatorship. Even if what Kevin says is true and the press gets it wrong 95% of the time, that remaining 5% is still indispensable.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:You automatically dismiss a whole group of people without even reading their work
Firstly, you don't know whether I read or have read their work or not. You are merely speculating, and yet you are speaking as though you know for certain that what you say is true.

And secondly, I have never said or implied that all mainstream journalists are publishing fake news. You have quoted me as saying that only about 95% of it is fake. So you know this.

You have even decided - already, now - that everything they say from now on is worthless.
This is more speculation on your part. And it is false speculation.

Either mainstream journalists will have to stop publishing so much fake news, or they will likely go out of business. The game is up.

I'm not diagnosing them with mental illnesses
While calling people fakes is ok?
I don't recall saying that journalists are "fakes". I have accused the mainstream media of publishing "fake news". Having been a part of the Gamergate movement I am an expert on the fake news of the mainstream media.

there is a double standard weaving right through the centre of your whole approach to these matters.
I don't think so.

It seems to work for Milo, but I guess you have to be young and pretty and blush a lot to pull it off.


What works for Milo is that he is funny, intelligent, insightful, sharp, and right about a lot of things. Most of his audience is cringing when he goes on with his gay routine, and is hoping he moves on quickly to the next segment.

He has consistently shown that he is supportive of a presidency which . . .
I have consistently said that I think Trump lies a lot, and that he is a narcissist, and that he's old and failing, and that I disagree with his ideas on and attitude towards the environment, and that I believe that building and maintaining the entire "wall" will probably be too expensive to be practical, and that I am an atheist who doesn't approve of belief in God, and that I am left-leaning, etc, etc.

If you don't go and kill Trump right this very day then you are consistent in your support of his presidency. That's fallacious reasoning. And that's what you're using.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

The claim that 95% of the mainstream media's output is 'fake news' is utter bullshit. It is clear that those making this claim are really merely saying that the MSM isn't running the narrative they want. That's all. There has been virtually nothing in the coverage of Trump since the campaign that warrants such a label. The quality varies, as it has always done, but 'fake'? Hardly.

In truth, the most constant source of fake news is the White House itself. The life of journalists would be a little easier if politicians weren't such inveterate liars.

As for Gamergate - nerd soap opera. I'm surprised the MSM gave a damn about any of it.

[Edit: this is all contingent, of course, on how we're defining 'mainstream media'. I concede it's possible we include/omit different entities in our personal definitions, which would alter things slightly. I am hesitant, for example, to include MSNBC in my perception of 'mainstream'.]
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

No, the job of a reporter of truth is to report the truth.
I think this is a self-servingly narrow description of the job of a journalist. It just enables you to be able to point to something a journalist has written that you don't agree with and say - lies! Fake news! Raw news reportage ought be as objective as possible, obviously, but that's only part of what journalism is and what the media does. Analysis and commentary have always been an important part of journalism. It's necessarily interpretive and imperfect, but necessary, especially in areas like science, economics and politics.

It might be said that the line between raw news reportage and comment has been blurred somewhat (thanks Rupert), but if you can't tell the difference there's not much hope for you anyway.

Has the media come to rely too heavily on the op-ed? Possibly. If you want to see what journalism expressly isn't, spend a day of social media sites and private political blogs. Frankly, 10 minutes at those places gives you a rewewed regard for mainstream journalism.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

jupiviv wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:It seems to me that Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric, and cleverly developed persona around it, has seduced all sorts of people, including those you would imagine to be too wise to fall for it.
It seems to me that you and David are using your self-proclaimed credentials of sagacity to pass false judgements on Kevin, myself, Diebert and others who refuse to join you in a Trumphobic orgy.
A tad sensitive, aren't we? I was speaking specifically about Kevin, who has openly stated and defended his belief that Trump and his regime's anti-establishment agenda will, or potentially, be a good thing. You noticed that, right? Go back and re-read my metaphor and apply it to Kevin's stated position. But yes, to the extent that either you or Diebert agree with this 'tear it all down' paradigm, to that degree my metaphor also speaks to you. If you do not, then it doesn't.

Oh, and I made no 'appeal to sentimentality and old times' whatsoever. It is simply that you did not get my point, which I concede is partially my fault for not expressing it explicitly.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You automatically dismiss a whole group of people without even reading their work
Firstly, you don't know whether I read or have read their work or not. You are merely speculating, and yet you are speaking as though you know for certain that what you say is true.
I'm fairly certain, yes. It is plain to me that you are very ill-informed about what is going on with Trump’s presidency and thus, combined with your overall attitude towards the media, it is only natural for me to conclude that you are habitually avoiding all forms of media that are not spruiking the basic alt-right narrative. Whenever, god forbid, you are forced to read a mainstream article, it is most likely done with the intention to find fault with it so as to reinforce the perception that it is all “fake news”.

It is as though you have locked yourself tightly within a subuniverse, one that gravitates around the SJW issue, and it has made you oblivious to everything else.

And secondly, I have never said or implied that all mainstream journalists are publishing fake news. You have quoted me as saying that only about 95% of it is fake. So you know this.
I was trying to put you in the best possible light. I mean, if I went by the comment you made yesterday . . .
  • I think your "serious journalism" is a kangaroo court whose sole purpose is to put people on trial so they can be found guilty. It doesn't have anything to do with truth.
. . . . I wouldn’t have even been able to eek out that paltry 5%.

Either mainstream journalists will have to stop publishing so much fake news, or they will likely go out of business. The game is up.
They have to raise their standards with respect to the truth, I agree. But that doesn’t just apply to journalists. It applies to all of us.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:I'm not diagnosing them with mental illnesses
While calling people fakes is ok?
I don't recall saying that journalists are "fakes".
It is implied when you say things like "serious journalism is a kangaroo court whose sole purpose is to put people on trial so they can be found guilty”.

I don’t care if you implicitly call them fakes or not, but at least own up to it when you do
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:Commiserations on the Dutch elections, by the way. Along with One Nation's failure at the recent Western Australia elections, does this mean that the far right rebellion around the world is starting to lose steam? Fingers crossed!
Although most media would focus on that, the most significant element to me was the complete destruction or fracturing of the mainstream left/liberal PVDA. What was basically the Dutch equivalent of the more institutionalized US Democrats might never recover. On the whole, the far right did grow, quite steadily, just not explosively and it won't be part of government. But no credible progressive movement has been seen rising as counterweight. And that's what one would need if the far right has to be challenged in the future in a thoughtful, rational, non-populist way. If there's no alternative, nothing with a bit of controversy, a bit of vision, those rawer, cheaper populists will keep gaining.

That fragmentation is something I see as the main underlying force around the world. This is what the US will have to face.
But nonetheless, it still remains the case that a free press which is willing to fund serious, investigative journalism is vital to a healthy democracy. Without it, we are in a dictatorship. Even if what Kevin says is true and the press gets it wrong 95% of the time, that remaining 5% is still indispensable.
But I don't think anyone was arguing for less serious, investigative journalism. I just don't see any big differences with what Kevin says about the leading media outlets or lets say what Seymour Hersh or even a Julian Assange are saying about it. For example Hersh maintains the NYT especially was dangerously uncritical under Obama, his secret drone wars, the dubious background to the Bin Laden raid story, all the activities in Syria, Ukraine and Libya and so on. He would make the argument, and I largely agree with him, that the leading media have become indeed so bad that one could question if it's a "healthy democracy" simply because people hardly know what's going on any more. Governments increasingly provide their sexed up, ideological interpretations of events with little opposition. And if 95% really gets it wrong, you'd have a real problem, worth speaking about. That 5% won't save you from for example starting another needless war or interventions, sparking more terrorism, and so on.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

You get 1,080,000 results when you Google 'Obama drone attacks' so I'm not sure how 'secret' they are, but I agree critical media analysis of this aspect of US geo-politics is inadequate. However, we have to take into account, with respect to Obama, the total fucking mess he inherited both economically and geopolitically and the social culture in which he was forced to operate.

But again, with regard to such analysis we run into what seems to be an issue with how that should look. It seems based on mere googling that every attack has been reported. What else is there for the media to do that won't attract accusations of bias? Our own judgements about the 'adequacy' of the media necessarily comes from a place of subjectivity and bias. This isn't philosophy we're talking about. What is it we want from the media?

To be honest, I don't know what the hell some of you actually expect from the media. I really don't, beyond that of the desire that they better reflect your own thinking and desires.

It's complex. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... ing-legacy

Sorry, that's the NYT so it's apparently nominally fake.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:It seems to me that Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric, and cleverly developed persona around it, has seduced all sorts of people, including those you would imagine to be too wise to fall for it.
It seems to me that you and David are using your self-proclaimed credentials of sagacity to pass false judgements on Kevin, myself, Diebert and others who refuse to join you in a Trumphobic orgy.
A tad sensitive, aren't we?
I am. But to continued lies and fallacies from you and David, not false judgments on my positions.
I was speaking specifically about Kevin, who has openly stated and defended his belief that Trump and his regime's anti-establishment agenda will, or potentially, be a good thing.
Right after calling me sensitive, you go ahead and prove my point by equating two radically different positions, viz., Trump regime is good in itself *because* right-wing vs Trump's regime *may* cause *some* good things *despite* flaws. It is abundantly clear that Kevin's position is the latter.

My reference was to false judgments throughout this thread.
But yes, to the extent that either you or Diebert agree with this 'tear it all down' paradigm, to that degree my metaphor also speaks to you. If you do not, then it doesn't.
What the hell is a "tear it all down paradigm"?
Oh, and I made no 'appeal to sentimentality and old times' whatsoever. It is simply that you did not get my point, which I concede is partially my fault for not expressing it explicitly.
The wall-of-text featuring old forum members wasn't making any point other than your attachment to old times and the welfare-supported lifestyle orbiting the "liberal establishment". Kevin's support for Trump, the evil conservative welfare-hater, is a "betrayal" of the worldview which he (seemingly) shared with you in the past. This thread has nothing to do with Trump or the alt right, and everything to do with this sense of betrayal. In your mind, if Kevin doesn't accept your position of utter contempt for and alarm over Trump's irrationality *above* that of everyone else (like his enemies), he is a Breitbart acolyte. I'm even willing to bet that you invented that position out of anger over Kevin's support for Trump or Milo.

If you wanted to argue about Trump, you could have done so a few months ago in a thread created by Diebert for precisely that purpose. Exactly one person other than Diebert posted in that thread: me. Where was all this supposed alarm over the Golden Golem of Re-Greatification back then? Apparently, it only materialised when Kevin allegedly expressed unquestioning devotion to said Golem and his Machiavellian minions in an email.

P.S. - can either Kevin or David post the emails, i.e., both David's inquiry and Kevin's response? I'm only asking for the parts relevant to Trump, not personal details etc.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Go take a Xanax, Jup. Seriously. Maybe two.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:
No, the job of a reporter of truth is to report the truth.
I think this is a self-servingly narrow description of the job of a journalist. It just enables you to be able to point to something a journalist has written that you don't agree with and say - lies! Fake news!
It is a very accurate description of a reporter of truth, not a journalist. It doesn't allow me to falsely accuse *anyone* of lying.
Analysis and commentary have always been an important part of journalism.
Analysis need not be at odds with reporting truth. It's only when analysis disregards the truth in favour of a narrative that problems arise.
Has the media come to rely too heavily on the op-ed? Possibly. If you want to see what journalism expressly isn't, spend a day of social media sites and private political blogs. Frankly, 10 minutes at those places gives you a rewewed regard for mainstream journalism.
That's a red herring - my favourite logical fallacy. The job of social media and private blogs is not to report the truth, whereas that of mainstream journalism - in theory - is.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

jupiviv wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
No, the job of a reporter of truth is to report the truth.
I think this is a self-servingly narrow description of the job of a journalist. It just enables you to be able to point to something a journalist has written that you don't agree with and say - lies! Fake news!
It is a very accurate description of a reporter of truth, not a journalist. It doesn't allow me to falsely accuse *anyone* of lying.
Then congratulations, you have created a self-serving fiction with which to strawman journalists.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
No, the job of a reporter of truth is to report the truth.
I think this is a self-servingly narrow description of the job of a journalist. It just enables you to be able to point to something a journalist has written that you don't agree with and say - lies! Fake news!
It is a very accurate description of a reporter of truth, not a journalist. It doesn't allow me to falsely accuse *anyone* of lying.
Then congratulations, you have created a self-serving fiction with which to strawman journalists.
Unless you believe that journalists *only* report the truth - which you evidently don't - that's a strawman of my argument.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:You get 1,080,000 results when you Google 'Obama drone attacks' so I'm not sure how 'secret' they are
You did realize it was about the numbers of flights, kills and "collateral damage", right? There are many journalists, even in the mainstream (gasp) openly doubting Obama's final release of numbers. Of course no way to source them because they all relate to secret missions and also secret reconnaissance and secret analysis of that data. Good luck googling that!
However, we have to take into account, with respect to Obama, the total fucking mess he inherited both economically and geopolitically and the social culture in which he was forced to operate.
In my view, by not opening an inquiry into the Iraq war and potential war crimes by the former administration, just so that he could have his eight years of "legacy" makes him fully responsible of everything Bush GW might have done in that regard. But yes, I know politics is a dirty business, going in with ideals and truth loving, one will not get far at all and someone else will take the spot, someone way crazier than you. Yes I do realize that conundrum.
It seems based on mere googling that every attack has been reported.
If you read carefully, it was in most cases reported by the ones sending the drones, not those at the receiving end. In this case I really think you're underestimating the problem by not giving it enough thought.
It's complex. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... ing-legacy

Sorry, that's the NYT so it's apparently nominally fake.
Yes, well the NYT opinion pages, which I don't think was being criticized. Oh well, it just repeats what I wrote "Americans will never know much more about these operations than what the Obama administration has selectively revealed". Perhaps they should give Dan Rowden a call, as he appears to be able to Google secrets. :)
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Perhaps we should google: 'statistics on drone attacks that no-one knows anything about'
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

Dan Rowden wrote:Gamergate - nerd soap opera.
Insulting people is never going to win people over to your side. It has never worked, and never will.

I'm surprised the MSM gave a damn about any of it.
They gave a damn about it because they saw how damaging it was to themselves.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:Perhaps we should google: 'statistics on drone attacks that no-one knows anything about'
I think you grossly misinterpreted the term "secret drone wars" and created yet another straw man out of it. Moreover, you need to be close to being drunk to assume I was referring to it being completely and utterly secret right now when I wrote it. You are implying you went back years in time, googled the reports and reported back to me in 2017. Well done, if true!

Just for your information the data on the strikes between 2009-2015 were for the first time released in 2016. And those numbers are even being questioned as they don't match the little independent reporting on the ground that has taken place. All sources remain classified and cannot be verified by anyone else but the ones who sent the deadly drones in the first place. The name for that is: "secret". Please Dan, google is not just a friend: it also can rot the brain.
Locked