Dr J never said that, he said our propagandists are more sophisticated.editor said:
Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
And he also made a more interesting point that your serf would have been more difficult to hoodwink that your average drowning-in-media citizen.
Some are very susceptible. Take Melanie Phillips. It is very surprising how she bought the WMD and Saddam hook line and sinker. And now she cant retract - she moves from one absurdity to another to avoid having to admit she was hoodwinked.FridgeMagnet said:
Why dont you tell me why you dont believe it? I think you know what I think...
editor
hiraethified
I can't think of any reason why your average uneducated, illiterate, isolated 15thC serf should be "more difficult to hoodwink" than a "drowning-in-media" modern citizen, but if you have some facts or credible research to support this remarkable claim, I'm all ears.Raisin D'etre said:
Have you got any, then?
Why dont you tell me why you cant find a single reason for it, Mr Slippy?
You already said it in one of your earlier posts btw.
That's the one!editor said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Raisin D'etre said:
Not really. The usual accompaniment to a decent intellect is a certain degree of intellectual arrogance.
Makes most "intellectuals" (especially those that rely on their minds for a living) a sucker for buying into ideologies, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes wittingly.
VP those intellectuals who sold the war to the masses through the media had bowed to the WMD and links to SH and AQ put about by USuk govt. They might have resorted to intellectual arrogance to do so, but they bought into the ideologies thinking this war would be another short one and no one would ever question their credentials. It would end quickly and all of us would move on. Well, they were wrong. And now we have the unfortunate luxury of examining their motivations - my conclusion is they are shits.
editor
hiraethified
I make that three posts in a row and not a straight answer or visible point to any of them.Raisin D'etre said:
Is this what you always do when you're stuck for an answer?
I'll try again: DrJ has posited that an 15th C serf would have been more difficult to hoodwink that your average drowning-in-media citizen.
Do you believe that claim? YES/NO?
If your answer is yes, please offer some credible evidence to support this claim, please.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Raisin D'etre said:
Oh I totally agree, that why I made the point about wittingly or unwittingly buying into it. Some get suckered, some choose, for their own reasons, to "believe".
Anyone who did wittingly buy into the WMD story (or the SH + AQ one), like David Aronovitch for example, has been excoriated on this site because plenty of us saw through the propaganda, and so saw that Aronovitch was making his choice for reasons unrelated to having been suckered by the government. He and his ilk (some of whom used to earn an occasional crust writing "radical" political and cultural articles) have locked themselves firmly into the mainstream, because no journal wishing to retain credibility will now take them seriously.
As for "moving on", I'll move on when the cretins who started this war are out of power, not before (however much "the Great Leader" wants me to).
It seems to me that the thing missing from most of those who chose to believe the propaganda was the ability or wish to self-analyse.
hmmm
editor
hiraethified
It would be even better if you had the courtesy to engage with the points you raised.Raisin D'etre said:
You praised DrJ's "interesting point" but now seem unwilling to discuss any element of it, preferring to slap up a string of pointless posts.
Why is that? Why can't you just give me a straight answer to my directly related question?
del post
Fear is a weapon of mass destructionl
I want... more... find out what peace is ...
A 15th century serf. A modern citizen.
It's a toss-up for sure. While the former probably couldn't deal with the written word, the latter mainly reads drivel in tabloids or faux-intelligence in the broadsheets, and worse, listens to the spoken word nightly from the tv news.
I'd say that on balance both are equally susceptible to manipulatory thought and propaganda. It's the nature of the average man/woman.
Today's citizen is confronted with imagery and rhetoric that is clothed in fear, and this message is rammed down their throat at every turn. Perhaps we ought to list all the episodes since 911 that proved to be nothing but fear-mongering.
Eg anthrax in US, tanks on the street outside heathrow, shoe bomber, and so on.
Nah, nearly everybody believes shit, because it makes life so much safer that way. People chase the illusory security, even at the expense of being a free thinker.
And as has been mentioned, the more you have in life, the more you have to lose, and therefore the less likely you are to question the state and its out-of-control propaganda machine.
It's a toss-up for sure. While the former probably couldn't deal with the written word, the latter mainly reads drivel in tabloids or faux-intelligence in the broadsheets, and worse, listens to the spoken word nightly from the tv news.
I'd say that on balance both are equally susceptible to manipulatory thought and propaganda. It's the nature of the average man/woman.
Today's citizen is confronted with imagery and rhetoric that is clothed in fear, and this message is rammed down their throat at every turn. Perhaps we ought to list all the episodes since 911 that proved to be nothing but fear-mongering.
Eg anthrax in US, tanks on the street outside heathrow, shoe bomber, and so on.
Nah, nearly everybody believes shit, because it makes life so much safer that way. People chase the illusory security, even at the expense of being a free thinker.
And as has been mentioned, the more you have in life, the more you have to lose, and therefore the less likely you are to question the state and its out-of-control propaganda machine.
Just like to add that for sure, we have far more chances these days in getting at the truth of things.
But just coz we have that choice doesn't mean we are going to use it.
Libraries for example are all very well, but what percentage of the population use them?
What percentage of the population use the internet to inform themselves of world affairs?
Most people simply don't have the time, nor the inclination, to go beyond their daily paper and the nightly tv news.
Thereby leaving us with a large population walking the streets full of government/establishment propaganda.
And like i said, to question, really question , the voice of the state requires one to sacrifice their security. Not many want to do this.
But just coz we have that choice doesn't mean we are going to use it.
Libraries for example are all very well, but what percentage of the population use them?
What percentage of the population use the internet to inform themselves of world affairs?
Most people simply don't have the time, nor the inclination, to go beyond their daily paper and the nightly tv news.
Thereby leaving us with a large population walking the streets full of government/establishment propaganda.
And like i said, to question, really question , the voice of the state requires one to sacrifice their security. Not many want to do this.
editor
hiraethified
I'm joining you!exleper said:
I was trying to have a grown up debate, but then Raisin D'etre must have taken drugs, got pissed or decided that acting like a disruptive arse was the way forward.
His salvo of gibberish posts has since made any hope of a grown-up discussion nigh-on impossible.
Similar threads
- Locked