Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
I know that people who openly do not support the Party line are a problem. They are certainly among the first candidates for concentration camps in more rigid totalitarian regimes.
Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
But you openly support the US Party line, regarding AGW. So no problem for you, eh?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Only in your fantasy. Instead, I have direct evidence that I have violated the Party line, given first hand from a rigid Party soldier, who has accused me of being a "denier". Which is the totalitarian code word for the first candidates for their concentration camps. (And some of them are already imprisoned in Germany).
But I don't have to care - I will never visit the US again anyway, and visit Germany only during short visits to my mother.
Once again you substitute incompetent and uninformed evaluation of ephemeral media for observation of physical reality, with predictable results.
To highlight the absurdity, your "argument" is circular: I am identified as a defender of "the Party line" by what I post, and what I post is identified as defense of "the Party line" because it comes from me. Nowhere in there does reality intrude, with its awkward facts - including AGW itself, which is not going to go away because some Eurofool labeled it a "Party line".
The fact that what you post here is the closest thing to "the Party line" we have in the US - it's even particular to an identifiable Party: you are posting the Republican Party line on AGW, which is the corporate authoritarian Party line in the US - is quite obvious to anyone informed about the political discussion around AGW in the US.
That the Republican Party and the corporate authoritarian Right has been in power and in at least veto control of all manner of funding and scientific opportunity, with only short and confused interruptions, for years now (the House of Representatives and President control the budget) is one of the factual observations you should have made before arriving at an assessment of the "pressures" put on US scientists and researchers in the AGW field. But prattling about media you haven't followed carefully is more your style -
and better protects your ignorance, which you depend on for self-respect by now.
Absurd denial is not only flamboyantly obvious - it's foolish.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
I do not at all argue about this - I take it as already well-known and obvious to the reader that you are a Party soldier defending the Party line. That you don't like this way to characterize your person and your behavior I know. This does not make the claim wrong. I have provided a lot of evidence for various elements in your argumentation which use totalitarian techniques, and consider this issue as settled.
What I have argued about was something completely different. The fact that you have used, against me, all the time the accusation of "denial", which is already today used to imprison some people, is a fact of reality, and the one which is relevant here, because it strongly suggests that I would be endangered if I would appear somewhere where your Party rules.
As with so much of what is "obvious" to you, the claim is wrong. It is also wrongheaded - the absurdity of your denial of AGW remains regardless of my political alignments.
You are engaged in denying AGW, and posting anything at all, no matter how foolish, to protect that denial.
It's like watching somebody "doubt" the existence of trains while standing on the track as a locomotive bears down on them.
This has nothing to do with "party lines" and everything to do with claiming you get the right to bitch while you sit on the sidelines and do nothing.
Nobody is buying it Schmelzer... you are, at best, fooling only yourself.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Oh, I have no right to bitch? That's already very interesting. The totalitarians become more and more open.
Indeed, if you don't do anything to try and correct the problem, then you have no right to kick back in your privileged little world and bitch about the problem.
Want to earn that right? Go out and do something about it. Write your representatives, go out and educate people, something, anything.
In the immortal words of Reddit - FTFW.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
To cut parts of what is said with the aim to distort what is said seems to be the new level of American journalism. http://russia-insider.com/en/politi...gyn-kelly-good-ratings-and-warmongers/ri20062
So Kittamaru can be proud. Following the latest trends of high quality US journalism.
So Kittamaru can be proud. Following the latest trends of high quality US journalism.
Ah, except I didn't cut anything - it is right there for all to see. I merely added a bit of grade-school level English class style correction to it.
https://www.thoughtco.com/strike-through-1691996
Now, given your apparent preference for intentional ignorance, I am not surprised you would be unaware of this bit of literary markup...
That, or, you knew full well, and were being intentionally dishonest. Hm... which is it Schmelzer?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Learn to read. I have made a comment about cutting parts of an interview as the new method of American journalism. This was not about you, but about Megyn Kelly. One can accept such cuts if a whole question would be cutted completely. But not if the question is there, and the answer is cut.
Your "style correction" distortion was, of course, less despicable than what NBC has done, given that the quoted text contained yet, in a distorted way, the original text. Nonetheless, it is a distortion of the quote, and not indicated (the usual way to mark such modifications is, for example, "emphasis mine" if one emphasizes some part of the quote), thus, a false quote.
Note also that your justification of this manipulation as "style correction" is nonsense, because the modification was clearly and intentionally distorting the meaning. So, naming this "style correction" makes it an intentional lie. If you would be usually a civilized contributor, I would accept this as a sort of joke. Not in this case.
Your "style correction" distortion was, of course, less despicable than what NBC has done, given that the quoted text contained yet, in a distorted way, the original text. Nonetheless, it is a distortion of the quote, and not indicated (the usual way to mark such modifications is, for example, "emphasis mine" if one emphasizes some part of the quote), thus, a false quote.
Note also that your justification of this manipulation as "style correction" is nonsense, because the modification was clearly and intentionally distorting the meaning. So, naming this "style correction" makes it an intentional lie. If you would be usually a civilized contributor, I would accept this as a sort of joke. Not in this case.
Right, right, if you say so. Certainly had nothing to do with what I had posted, nor was it aimed at me (even though you mention me by name - curious that).
And no, it wasn't any sort of joke - just calling it as I see it. You distort facts, ignore facts, and downright bend your perception of reality to suit this inane narrative you have going on, to what end only your own mind can fathom.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
So, fine, it is "as you see it", but it was presented as a quote. So, a clear case of intentional falsification of a quote. Thus, after this clarification, I have to correct myself, this is even worse than simply cutting the answer as NBC / Megyn Kelly have done in the Putin interview.
Except by "correcting yourself", you are speaking falsely.
The main lesson available from your practice of posting as sincere belief and relevant information the silliest, crudest, and most obviously coordinated of those Western media lies
is the range of their influence.
There also seems to be a more vague and oddly deep lesson buried in the coordination of what might seem superficially to be completely different delusions - a priori there seems little reason to expect a US racism denier to be any more likely than average to deny AGW, for example: but the pattern is obvious.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
From your point of view this may be strange, but that there will be a strong correlation between various types of "deniers" is something I have always predicted and explained.
There is simply some initial trust in the media, comparable to a child trusting its parents. To understand that media lie, in an organized and coordinated way, is something one has to learn by experience. But once this has been reached, one will no longer trust the media, and the result will be that one does not support many different media lies. Given iceaura's definitions, this makes one a denier of everything she defends. Of course, that is totalitarian exaggeration. But that one will not support many media lies, and that one will be open to counterarguments - with the result that counterarguments will be probably successful not only in one case, but in several different cases, is what one has to expect.
So, the difference between the media believer, the sheeple of the Party line, and the media non-believers, which do not support Party lines without hearing and evaluating counterarguments, is what makes it probable that an "AGW denier" will be also a "racism denier" and so on.
And there is also a second explanation for such a correlation. Namely, the readiness to support dissident positions openly. In a totalitarian society this is really dangerous, in the US this can already lead to serious negative consequences too - you can be fired. In such situations, there are many people who don't believe the Party line, but hide this, out of personal security.
how pray tell do you educate anyone when your so piss ignorant?