@clousems said in #47:
> @water22 To some extent, making a targeted political ad implying soldiers are receiving unlawful orders *is* propaganda (albeit not to such a degree that anyone should be rolling out the guillotines or anything).
There have been unprecedented deployments to cities that Federal Judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican Presidents have been pushing back on. The sinking of boats in international waters for alleged crimes that are not capital offenses has already caused one Admiral to resign. So an argument can be made that the military has already been tasked to do illegal things and is likely to be tasked to do more illegal things in the future. In the current state of affairs, it is not propaganda to exhort service members to follow their oaths.
Hegseth says he fired the top military lawyers because they weren’t well suited for the jobs
https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-hegseth-firing-chairman-lawyers-6bead3346b1210e45e77648e6cbc3599?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Trump calls for using US cities as a ‘training ground’ for military in unusual speech to generals
ref: https://apnews.com/article/trump-hegseth-generals-meeting-military-pentagon-0ecdcbb8877e24329cfa0fc1e851ebd2
@CoffeeBeanKiller said in #48:
> > @water22 To some extent, making a targeted political ad implying soldiers are receiving unlawful orders *is* propaganda (albeit not to such a degree that anyone should be rolling out the guillotines or anything).
>
> Could you, for everyone's benefit, clarify a point (I think I kniw the answer but I don't want to assume). If a propaganda is true, is itstill propaganda?
Yes.
This isn’t just in response to the coffee guy, but It’s fascinating that people are so eager to prove the failures of the president that they try to make his opponents unassailable.
It is absolutely propaganda in that it was a statement designed to sway public opinion as well as an actual plea to soldiers.
The irony of people attacking noflaps for irrationally supporting a politician while simultaneously calling me out for not believing in the infallibility of said politician’s opponents is not lost on me.
More perplexing is the fact that people apparently take issue with my post— one which called for immediate censure of the president and implies that anyone who supports Trump’s behavior in this case is a self-deluding idiot— for being too harsh on the DEMOCRATS.
@Gitananda said in #59:
> > > #15
> > > "point things out"
> > >
> > > Isn't #1 "point things out"? Isn't that then good?
> >
> > It's about educating oneself about the world we live in as opposed to this kind of herd mentality of regurgitating what someone else said somewhere as truth without any personal research being carried out, it's lazy and dangerous, and I can think for myself and require no validation to bolster my stance, as I live in truth over illusion and delusion. :).
>
> Brings us to the age-old question - 'What is Truth?' I think that would be a nice topic for a separate thread.
Precisely, and I would rather search for truth than assume I already possess it because someone on TV said something that gains traction among certain mindsets who most of the time don't really even know what they are protesting about, or why they hate certain other people, seems to be more about bandwagon jumping to feel important, and so that they feel part of something, there's multiple YouTube videos where protesters are asked why they don't like someone, and they have no reason that they can explain, yet stand there with a plackard with hateful slogans all day. :).
@greenteakitten said in #58:
> > Maybe one day
>
> You can leave the patronization at home and talk normally, please and thank you.
Saying "maybe one day" is patronising?
> > you can explain to me what is unintentional condescension, if not condescension.
>
> Condescension: Being condescending intentionally.
> Unintentional condescension: Poor word choice and phrasing that leads to the appearance of being condescending despite that not being the original intention.
Yeah, you just seem more and more confused.
> > I understand that you're confused...
>
> Wow, showing the exact same polite smugness that you claim to fight against? Hypocrite much?
Uh you said it yourself
@greenteakitten said in #53:
> I've told ya'll a million times now that I struggle to put my thoughts into words so to take further clarification posts as exactly that.
@clousems said in #62:
> Yes.
Ok, follow-up question. If saying the truth can be propaganda, we arrive at the inevitable alternative that
- either saying the truth can be problematic,
- or propaganda can be justified.
Which one is it?
@greenteakitten condescension is completely unrelated to the question of intention. Condescension is an outlook on one's interlocutor, upon whom by virtue of a superiority (real or imagined), one is looking down.
Condescension is a point of view. There is no intentions in points of view. It doesn't make sense to ask whether a point of view is intentional: it just is.
Where intention enters the picture is that one's point of view can, and often will, determine one's intention. In the matter at hand, noflaps could be expressing his condescension intentionally, or unintentionally. But at the end of the day that doesn't matter. He is condescending, he is looking down on people, and *THAT* is the problem. The problem is not whether he willingly choses to express it or if it just transpires through his writings.
The Trump administration, and Trump personally, at times, has appealed and sometimes won. That is undeniable fact.
Notice the word "appealed" in that sentence.
Do those who disregard and defy courts bother to "appeal" rulings?
Society is AWASH in negative characterization that squints at the facts. And debate is far too often made personal, when the foisted characterizations are challenged.
Forum shopping and lawfare are nothing to be praised and indeed can inspire frustration among those of good faith. Believing that has nothing to do with defying the law itself or defying the judicial branch. To the contrary, it is consistent with great respect for both.
News properly turns into history only in the presence of context, varied perspectives, objectivity and time.
VersionNumber >=3
@Noflaps said in #67:
> The Trump administration, and Trump personally, at times, has appealed and sometimes won. That is undeniable fact.
>
> Notice the word "appealed" in that sentence.
>
> Do those who disregard and defy courts bother to "appeal" rulings?
>
> Society is AWASH in negative characterization that squints at the facts. And debate is far too often made personal, when the foisted characterizations are challenged.
>
> Forum shopping and lawfare are nothing to be praised and indeed can inspire frustration among those of good faith. Believing that has nothing to do with defying the law itself or defying the judicial branch.
VersionNumber >=4
@Noflaps said in #67:
> The Trump administration, and Trump personally, at times, has appealed and sometimes won. That is undeniable fact.
>
> Notice the word "appealed" in that sentence.
>
> Do those who disregard and defy courts bother to "appeal" rulings?
>
> Society is AWASH in negative characterization that squints at the facts. And debate is far too often made personal, when the foisted characterizations are challenged.
>
> Forum shopping and lawfare are nothing to be praised and indeed can inspire frustration among those of good faith. Believing that has nothing to do with defying the law itself or defying the judicial branch. To the contrary, it is consistent with great respect for both.
>
> News properly turns into history only in the presence of context, varied perspectives, objectivity and time.
How many versions are we going to reach in 60 minutes?