|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Call for left gatekeeper probability analysis
Diane of the NY City Activist blog related her experiences with gatekeeping at DU, and concluded with
Quote:
I made the following suggestions
Quote:
As predictable as some "debunker" talking points may be, ultimately you can't really know why the divergence occurs unless you study the issues. To this end, it would help if there was extensive interviews of editors of the elite left media, going through the various events I mentioned, point by point, showing us why they rejected serious inquiry into conspiracy angles vis-a-vis 911. The need for real research into the left media/media consumer divergence is evident, whether or not you are a self-assured "debunker", or whether you are a self-assured conspiracy theorist, who just knows (without proof) that it must be due to the neocons, illuminati, NWO, CIA, blah, blah. My guess is that it will be near impossible to get the editors to agree to such interviews (their status as human gatekeepers within a gatekeeper establishment suggests that it is essential for them to be "in on it", even if via having subconsciously internalized acceptable frames), but it may be possible to get reporters who disagreed with their editors to be so interviewed. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,970
|
Quote:
In the US, many who have memories stretching back to the 1970s will know that at times, certain factions have attempted blatant entryism and takeovers of other groups, e.g. the LaRouche movement. If an editor sees that someone like Webster Tarpley is touting 9/11 CTs, then 9/11 CTs are damned by association. Generally speaking, this isn't a bad bull- detector. Likewise, those prone to swallowing CTs whole, or engaging in atrocity denial, or whatever form of crankery you care to name, are more likely to interpret current events in the light of their past interpretations of then-current events. Thus you find the bizarre alternate history timelines spouted by antisemites, or 9/11 kooks, always bring up the same stupid examples, because if you buy into one conspiracy, it's like at amazon - another one will be recommended to you. Another strong possibility with your alleged 'left gatekeepers' is that they're really leftists. Hands up how many of you have actually read the Grundrisse or penetrated that far into Das Kapital, or familiarised yourselves with Henryk Grossman, or Arrighi, or even Zizek. <crickets sfx> Yeah, thought so. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Creativity Murderer
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III
Posts: 7,958
|
Here's a silly question. What does gatekeeper in this context mean?
|
__________________
Don't mind me. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Regardless of what their "own angles" are, they should be able to answer detailed, point-by-point questions which, in the view of conspiracists, either point inescapably to a non-official conspiracy, or at least point to the need for a more penetrating investigation.
E.g., we know that Max Cleland quit the 911 commission, declaring it to be a whitewash. We don't know specifically how he came to this conclusion, correct? Does one really need to be versed in the writings of Marx to somehow understand that a serious investigation would involve, amongst many other things, getting Max Cleland on the stand and asking him what the heck he meant? BTW, Barrie Zwicker, most definitely a leftist, had read just about every major work by Chomsky, before becoming disenchanted not with the left, per se, but Noam Chomsky. Lucky you, you can read the excerpted chapter The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left here: http://leftgatekeepers.com/articles/...rieZwicker.dwt http://leftgatekeepers.com/articles/...rieZwicker.dwt http://leftgatekeepers.com/articles/...rieZwicker.dwt Note: these don't render properly in mozilla firefox; they are OK in MS Internet Explorer Why don't you share with us what your reason or reasons ("blindingly obvious" or not) are for Zwicker joining the ranks of conspiracists? Not to put too fine a point on things, but I'd take whatever answer you cook up more seriously if you took the trouble to talk to Zwicker, himself. Just think how much more convincing your powers of observation re what is "blindingly obvious" would appear to the readers of this thread, if you could do more than vacuously theorize, and instead back up your opinions with quotes from the people you are pronouncing judgements upon. It would also be of interest if you could make a solid point using quotes from Zwicker, e.g. from the links I give above. Finally, note that in the Barrie Zwicker interview by Kevin Barret linked to above, Barret found an almost complete mismatch between the 911 views of the participants in the recent Media Reform Conference that he talked to and the organizer. The organizer cited - you guessed it - Noam Chomsky when "explaining" why there were no sessions on 911 and the media. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
Anyone that hates Bush but claims that the 9/11 crowd are a pack of loons and has a big enough soapbox to say it publically.
As to the so called conspiracies listed: 911 - Reality says it was a conspiracy by Al Qaeda JFK assassination - Reality says Lee Harvey Oswald did it, was seen doing it, and did it alone. RFK assassination - Reality says Sirhan Sirhan did it and did it alone, that he'd fantized about doing it for well after a year and a plain grade A nut. Pearl Harbor LIHOP revelations (ala Days of Deceit) - Are a load of rubbish, the closest the US got to knowing was a believe that the Japanese were going to attack Manilla Oklahoma City bombing vs. key facts pointing away from the government official account - Is a bunch of out of context quotes and wholesale lies from a crowd of paranoid loons. Out of all those listed, the only one that really shows a possible conspiracy is MLK, but then I haven't studied the evidence either way on that one. |
__________________
![]() It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
|
metamars, you come up with more ideas to occupy our time (and show no inclination to bother wasting your own) than any other person here. Might I inquire as to why this need to see us doing busywork?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Once again, you failed to understand the purpose of a thread I started, even though I stated it clearly. There's really no ambiguity in
Quote:
If you, or anybody else, is interested in constructing such a page, be my guest. Likewise, if nobody here is interested in constructing such a page, fine with me. My post was originally addressed to Diane, but it's quite possible that a kindred soul, visiting this very message board, would be interested in pursuing my suggested answer to Diane's question. You are obviously not that kindred soul. Neither are you the only person on this message board. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,229
|
A question for you if I may, metamars. Why don't FOX News and National Review report on how FDR just let Pearl Harbor happen? Why didn't Nixon, Reagan, or Bush the Younger release the secret government documents that prove that FDR knew? Why would all these conservatives pass up such a golden opportunity to tear down arguably the greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century? Your "gatekeepers of the Left" theory clearly doesn't apply to them.
|
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
|
I don't understand how DU could be a gatekeeper. How is Diane (or anyone else) prevented from posting whatever they want on the DU forums as long as they stay within the entirely reasonable membership rules?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
To be a left gatekeeper, first you have to be a member of the left. I already listed what I considered the elite left media. It should come as no surprise that Fox is not a member of that group.....
As far as Nixon, etc., go, Ruppert's explanation suits me fine, and in light of Kucinich's reading of 50 articles of impeachment, Ruppert's statement about the system being corrupt is particularly apropos. Surely you know that the Democrats are not going to do a damn thing about impeachment, and if you listen to Sibel Edmonds' recent interview at antiwar.com, you also know that they aren't going to do a damn things about the high level corruption - involving a nuclear black market - that she was privy to. I part company with my fellow 911 Truthers when they over-emphasize (in my view) a push for a serious re-investigation of 911. I think it's a noble cause, but one doomed for failure with the two main political parties as corrupt as they are. That is one reason why I think more effort should go into reforming those parties via ethical people taking them over (and furthermore more effort should go into creating a media replacement, rather than begging the current media to do their jobs). E.g., the Progressive Democrats of America are a bona fide group which looks to remake the Democratic Party in its image. Likewise, though I don't know any details, I have read that Ron Paul is going to try and push Constitution-respecting, libertarian-leaning Republican candidates into office. I very much hope both groups succeed in a big way. In any event, it seems much more realistic to me to view government 911 obfuscation as a reminder that both major parties are in dire need of reform, rather than assume that 911 can act as some sort of Rosetta stone that will lead to truth and light in our government.
Quote:
His wrong prediction about Bush being removed from office doesn't negate his arguments. If anything, it implies that he understated the situation - the system is so corrupt that it won't even remove criminals like Bush and Cheney from office. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
|
|
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif "The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,726
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,726
|
Troofers have this crazy notion that Leftist media outlets (like Democracy Now, The Nation, Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, etc.,) are holding the gate against 9-11 Truth by ignoring the Truthers. If they opened the gate, 9-11 Truth would spread.
In a sense it's probably true. But I think the Leftist media outlets also look at this stuff and realize it's mostly garbage. The few times that they've really looked at it they've been scathing in their criticism--CounterPunch really took a good swipe at the Truthers a few years ago. The Troofers gripe with DU is that 9-11 conspiracy threads get banished to "The Dungeon", a segment of the site that specifically deals with the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories. As I understand it, no posts from The Dungeon can be promoted to the "Best" page, where the hottest topics are collected and debated. Kos is even more adamant; he does not allow Troofer Diaries. Period. There have been a couple times when stuff has been allowed to stand, but for the most part Kos is Troofer free. |
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
Hey. That's MY job. All the rest are impostors.
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,773
|
I've read the opening post four times and I can't for the life of me figure out what he acutally wants.
I understand the concept of a liberal gatekeeper but I'm baffled as to what he actually wants done about it. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
The burden of legal proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." It has nothing to do with ad hoc probabilities pulled out of thin air by conspiracy theorists and fed through and equally ad hoc formula, in an attempt to fit one's ideology to events of the past.
Any such "left gatekeeper trial" based on such methods is bald-faced fascism. Do not attempt to apply probability theory to situations where it cannot be evaluated. Especially if it is a thin excuse for your ideologically-driven sense of retribution. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
|
Do you think maybe it's the 'strange bedfellows' problem?
Not a lot of my old cronies on the left (and Nick, I go back to 50s and 60s)are are going to be real comfortable with groups that cozy up to white supremacists, neo-nazis, and holocaust deniers. Just saying, y'know. |
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Critical Doofus
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
|
|
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
How about a trial for all the truthers who seven years later haven't done a single constructive* thing to get that "new independant investigation" started?
What about their impotence and silence about KSM and friends risking the death penalty? Isn't that criminal incompetence, or criminal indifference? * "constructive" as in: things other than heckling at rallies, giving pamphlets on the street, posting youtube videos and trolling on internet boards. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,287
|
We really need a smiley depicting the point whooshing over somebody's head. It's fairly clear that SpitfireIX was pointing out that there is an asymmetry here between left wing conspiracy theories, such as 9-11 and JFK, which the left gatekeepers are somehow suppressing by ridiculing them, and right wing conspiracy theories such as Pearl Harbor, which wouldn't be subject to left gatekeeping because no serious leftist would consider them for an instant. Where are the right gatekeepers who are covering up the truth about Pearl Harbor, and should they be subject to the same Emperor of China analysis that you're proposing for the left gatekeepers?
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
I didn't view a people's trial of left gatekeepers (or anything else) as having to have the same standards as a real trial, in a real court, where subpoenas can be issued. Meanwhile, if you relax the burden of proof so much that, in the eyes of most people, it becomes laughable, then your people's trial will serve no purpose (other than to reinforce the pre-existing suspicions and conclusions of the people carrying out the trial).
Quote:
Quote:
Certainly you agree with me that the reporting on the conspiracy friendly events (CFE's) I mentioned, of the left media, is no accident. Lacking a thorough investigation into how these media outlets arrived at the conclusions they did, one can guess that they were essentially wrong or essentially right, and furthermore guess as to what the probability is that their wrongness (or rightness) is the result of innocent misjudgement (or judgement). The probabilities that the user of the web page I describe are encapsulating are their assumptions in the form of probabilities. If you want to claim that they pull these "out of thin air", go right ahead. You're mostly correct, because these users will not have the benefit of the thorough investigation of the editorial and reporting processes at each of the left media outlets.
Quote:
Quote:
As long as one doesn't treat the web application I suggest as a slam-dunk proof of anything, I don't see the problem. It is, rather, suggestive, a diagnostic tool more than anything else, and a complete skeptic who rejects all CFE's as conspiracies will doubtless reject the computed net probability of CFE reporting by elite left media, when the results reflect inputs by individuals who are not complete skeptics. But not everybody is as rigid as a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic or a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist. For people in between, who believe that the fairest estimation of CFE is that the associated reporting has some chance of being true, and also some chance of being deliberately false, (and both probabilities are non-trivial), the web application might be very eye-opening. As for "retribution", there is no retribution to speak of, lacking state power. Speaking for myself, I have no interest in retribution even were official, state-sanctioned trials ever to come about. I want evil-doers disempowered. Period, end of story. Heck, I'd be all for giving perpetrators a reward, provided they were ejected from the government, and all ties with it were severed, should this be the easiest and most thorough way to proceed. Which I suspect it is. ( Admittedly, this may be a minority position. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,229
|
I never said they were "left gatekeepers." I want to know why you think they are/were protecting FDR's reputation by not exposing the "truth" about Pearl Harbor. I told you that Ruppert's claims are utter garbage when you brought them up on BAUTforum.com two years ago. The "evidence" that Massen presented to the Democrats is quite frankly laughable, as I demonstrated; therefore, Ruppert's claim that they're ignoring that "evidence" because they're just as corrupt as the Republicans is wholly unsupportable. Perhaps this time you'll be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that.
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX
Yes, for two reasons. First and foremost, there is no compelling evidence that any crimes were committed by Bush. Abuses of power, perhaps, but all abuses of power do not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors." Name any US President besides William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, and I'll find you at least one action that his politicial opponents considered an "abuse of power." Impeachment should be reserved only for the very worst cases (and please don't beg the question of whether Bush and company staged the September 11 attacks; as has been demonstrated ad nauseam, there is no real evidence; only the paranoid suspicions of certain conspiracists). Second, the Democrats know that a majority of the American people don't want Bush to be impeached, and that if he is impeached, the Democrats will suffer the consequences in the next election. You will doubtless characterize this as political cowardice; I say it's democracy working as intended. You're begging the question of whether her allegations are substantially true. How do you know she didn't misinterpret some of what she saw and heard? Did it occur to you that some of the wiretapped conversations she translated could have involved people who were mistaken or lying? Black-market scams involving bogus nuclear materials are quite common; in fact, many of them are perpetrated by Western intelligence agencies in order to smoke out terrorists and illicit weapons programs. According to an article from the Institute for Science and International Security:
Quote:
Further, as noted, Edmonds has testified before Congress and the September 11 Commission. Again, your "evidence" for this corruption appears to consist primarily of the fact that they don't agree with your interpretation of certain events, or with your worldview. By "ethical" do you mean "people who agree with my ideology"? It's clear from your OP that you use failure to publicize various conspiracy theories as evidence that the media are not doing "their jobs". You seem to be utterly incapable of considering the possibility that that failure might be due to those theories' utter lack of merit. Careful; your agenda is showing.
Quote:
It should rather serve as a reminder that politicians and bureaucrats (like most human beings) have a natural tendency to want to cover their posteriors, and will tend to resist releasing information that might potentially be used, fairly or unfairly, as evidence of their complacency, bad judgment, or incompetence. To reiterate, the "evidence" presented to the Democrats is ridiculous, and their failure to act on it was perfectly reasonable. |
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Critical Doofus
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
|
|
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,229
|
|
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,244
|
The reason Chomsky, Zmag and the others don't buy in is because of a fundamentally different worldview - they tend towards a systemic analysis of world power, whereas truthers focus on individuals and their connections ("connect the dots!") to explain why things happen.
As such, studying why a cabal of individuals (may) have conducted a false flag operation is less important to them than understanding the underlying structures of capitalism, the history of power, and the kind of activism that works for real change in people's lives (anti-poverty) rather than the kind of activism that effectively thwarts progressive change (NWO types wanna throw the baby out with the bathwater with revolution, with 9/11 being seen as the kind of catalyst that can "wake people up" to this reality) -> Chomsky and others believe in incremental change. They're just coming from a whole different viewpoint, one I don't think you could understand given what I've read here (or dismiss as much as they dismiss yours). |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Ah, I see. Well, I'm not familiar with the National Review. My exposure to conservative political thought is mostly via chroniclesmagazine.org and amconmag.com. My favorite writer for Chronicles Magazine is Trifkovic, who did, indeed, write a serious column on Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor perfidy. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be displaying his columns before 2007, so I can't link to it. (Meanwhile, another Chronicles columnist, Paul Craig Roberts, could be fairly described as a 911 Truther).
I would also like to see a serious analysis of elite right wing media vehicles vis-a-vis CFE's. I'm not sure why the focus has been on left gatekeepers, but I can guess - a lefty expects a capitalist government to crush human beings in it's quest for ever expanding markets, and furthermore a leftist is expected to raise hell about this. A righty, on the other hand, even if he/she has similar expectations, will be inclined to be mum about them, perhaps considering it the natural order of things. That is a generalization, and probably not a very compelling one. I am attracted to brilliant and creative thinkers of both the right and left, whose philosophy is not too abstractly presented, and whose reasoning is clear and consistent, in so far as I can tell, with what their principles are. I care less about the particulars of their philosophical orientation are, than I am about their honesty and clarity in applying those principles to whatever topic they're discussing. (It also helps if they have a pragmatic streak. Ideologues who have no sense of how even a good idea can become a very bad one, if pushed too far, are harder to take seriously.) Thus, if you read enough in Chronicles Magazine and the American Conservative, you will see Bill O'Reilly and his like referred to as "blow-hards", and the conservative bona fides of both him and Bush are questioned. Frankly, the paleo-conservatives would probably find it not just mistaken, but insulting, to be confused with the likes of a Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. And I would agree with them. I view both O'Reilly and Limbaugh as shameless propagandists and smear merchants. One shouldn't forget, also, that as Chomsky has reminded us, the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" have been fluid, historically speaking. Anyway, I doubt that I answered the question at all adequately, and I doubt that I can answer the question adequately. While I reject the identification of the CFE conspiracy theories as left wing or right wing, (since they ultimately seem to reflect an amoral, unprincipled, collective will to power, which reflects no philosophy* worthy of the name, either of the right or left) ultimately I'd like to see the question of CFE denial in media addressed throughout the political spectrum. Maybe if enough people seriously looked into this, I could manage a more informed answer! * Philosophy means "love of wisdom"..... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Critical Doofus
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
|
|
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,538
|
I'll say again, if you're gonna try ANYBODY, I'm your guy. I'm the only OFFICIAL Gatekeeper Of The Left, and I really should sue all the rest for trademark violation.
So, Truthers. Bring. It. On. |
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
I do not have unlimited time for discussing, in this thread, any and all evidence for 911, the mysteries of right vs. left, the real reason that Democrats do what they do, what you think you've already demonstrated, etc.
This thread is about a suggestion that I made to Diane for overcoming an intellectual segregation and avoidance found in some online forums, regarding CFE, 911. Since I think the forums' governance are likely inscrutable, and they are relatively insignificant, anyway, my suggestion to Diane focussed on the left media. My reasoning is that a public less enamored of the left media will be more likely to recreate it, as well as forums with the same readership. (There's also the fact that media bias is intrinsically worthy of study.) If you have anything substantial to add along these lines, please do so. This is possible - notice that Mackey stuck to the subject. Regardless of what you think about particular CFE's, you are offering nothing in the way of evidence or useful suggestion(s) to find out either a) what makes the elite left media so uniform when it comes to CFE's or b) can we detect bias using probability theory. I find it striking that you - like so many "debunkers" - show no interest in having real research done on the subject. You want us to believe - perhaps because you really believe it, yourself - that you actually know the answer, with such a high degree of certainty that no further inquiry is necessary. Nonsense. Indeed, in the case of the MLK trial, Dr. Pepper has told us what flesh and blood reporters told him about why they weren't going to cover the full story. They didn't want to lose their jobs! So, not only is it possible to get comments out of flesh and blood reporters to explain their actions wrt a CFE, in at least this case, the nature of their comments most certainly pointed to a control mechanism of some type, and not, as you monotonously seem to fantasize, it's simply a case that "that failure might be due to those theories' utter lack of merit." If there was a body of research literature that showed that American reporters and editors had seriously looked into 911 and other CFE's, as evidenced by current and former such individuals revealing their research activities in extensive interviews, think how great that would make your position. Instead of just implying that the media does it's job, you could instead point to solid evidence and state, unequivocally, that the media DID it's job. You also lost your chance to be the first to question the very applicability of probability theory to b), having been scooped by Mackey. Also, although he commented around the issue, it's certainly relevant to question the usefulness of a citizen's trial, even when you get past the fact that it has no legal teeth. Ultimately, I am not interested in cursory explanations, and even if one could make a strong claim of bias from a probabilistic analysis, that still wouldn't tell us anything about why and how there was such a bias. As for the why and how, I don't see how this can be definitively answered absent extensive interviews of editors and reporters. BTW, I asked Diane to either post the rest of her comments, or allow me to quote them. Finally, I'm very interested in media bias and censorship even when the subject has nothing to do with the murders of Americans. In particular, I'm interested in the claims of Walter Burien re the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. If fact, being a "follow the money" kind of conspiracy theorist, I think of this as the mother of all conspiracies And, to hear Walter Burien tell it, it shares with 911 and other CRE's 1) failure by Congress to enforce accountability and - drumroll, please - 2) media censorship. But that is the subject of another thread. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,229
|
These two paleoconservative publications are hardly representative of the conservative movement; rather, they represent the Pat Buchanan reactionary fringe (in fact, Buchanan founded TAC). So-called "paleos" are forever attempting to pass themselves off as the "true" conservatives when they're in fact way out in right field. Circulation figures: National Review(2004): 155,271 The Weekly Standard (2006): 73,655 The American Conservative (2004): 12,600 Chronicles (1999): 5000 Here's David Frum's take on the "paleos" from a 2003 article that appeared originally in National Review:
Quote:
Here's a copy of of Trifkovic's article. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "serious" that I wasn't previously aware of. ![]() And you still haven't answered my question: why would mainstream conservatives continually pass up such a golden opportunity to attaint FDR of treason? I'm rather perplexed as to how you could believe that a non-trivial number of "brilliant and creative thinkers of . . . the right" could be found by only looking at paleoconservative sources. See above. They've been reasonably stable since about 1900, IMO. That is certainly an acceptable response; however, I would ask you to consider whether the fact that you don't believe you can answer ought to lead you to reexamine your premises. I'd say the above sums up conspiracy theories very succinctly. I'd have to say, in all frankness, however, that it also sums up many conspiracy theorists' motivations very succinictly. Again, you're begging the question of whether any of these theories even have any merit. |
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
Use the search function, these subjects have been debated to death. It's not because the overall conclusion disagrees with your opinion that these subjects have been "avoided".
Quote:
These things have been debated to death.
Quote:
Quote:
If you have any evidence, show it.
Quote:
Now stop procrastinating and get that "new independant investigation" started. Your cowardice is showing. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 619
|
I would like to know why libertarian Metamars is worrying about the Left gatekeepers and not the right gatekeepers. It's the libertarian truthers targeting of the left which i find fascinating. Why don't they target the right? Aren't the so called gatekeepers on the right even more against 911 conspiracies?
http://www.leftsanepeople.com/ |
__________________
"Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!" - Groucho Marks "The A.D.L. is the scum of the earth."... "You aren't going to use that last line out of context, are you?" - Alex Jones http://www.debunking911.com Try the new POWER Debunker search engine! http://www.jod911.com |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Incorrect, as stated. Obviously, there is a huge amount of information in the public record. There's probably more relevant information that is hidden. Consider what Mike Gravel said just recently in his June 17 Democracy Now interview, entitled Former Senator Mike Gravel Calls for Independent 9/11 Investigation and Prosecution of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Quote:
E.g., do you even know the name of the man who asked Cheney "do the orders still stand?" I don't. A real investigation would reveal the name, call him to the stand, and ask him "What were those orders, exactly?". In that interview, I found it fascinating that no less a non-conformist than George McGovern had been approached, before Gravel, to read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, and had refused. If Gravel and everybody else had also refused, who knows how much longer the Vietnam war would have dragged on?
Quote:
Quote:
Again, the way to find out why the masses of foreign reporters and editors behave the way they do is to do detailed interviews of them. Can you imagine how ridiculous your arguments would appear in, say, a conference on the subject attended by scholars who specialize in studying the media? Your arguments (what I can glean of them; I haven't taken up your invitation to use the search function, as you've presented not even one compelling quote that would tempt me to do so) are self-serving, but very unimpressive.
Quote:
As with many real world problems, money can solve them, or at least make them much better. To that end, I requested budget information from the 911 ballot initiative people, and got back the following:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, let's see if you can summon up the wherewithal to answer my very simple question, viz.,
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Though a fan of antiwar.com, I not only don't consider myself a libertarian, I consider some of their ideas ridiculous. I don't want to comment too much on the subject, though, since I don't know all that much about it.
In point of fact, I don't consider myself left-wing, right-wing, or libertarian, though I find attractive ideas in all of those ideologies. At least what I understand of them..... I would suggest that you not repeat this spurious characterization of me. That was done by a bozo at physorg, and after the second time, I called him a liar. Which he was, but at least a clever liar would be more subtle. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
One man, wow, your evidence is overwhelming.
Quote:
Quote:
It's not my problem if you can't handle the answers.
Quote:
Any reporter would jump at the chance to get this scoop of the century. Pullitzer Prize rings a bell?
Quote:
Quote:
You see, the TM doesn't have a system in place, it doesn't have any clue of how to get their investigation going.
Quote:
Quote:
You're the one on a witch hunt, trying to put on a mock trial the people you disagree with.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Critical Doofus
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
|
|
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
(emphasis mine)
Donahue and Pozner interview Chomsky at the following links: http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=385x149062 http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=385x149064 http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=385x149542 http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=385x149546 http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=385x149760 http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=385x149764 In the 5th segment, Chomsky mentions the media's "remarkable subordination to power". I wonder if there has ever been a dyed-in-the-wool "debunker", on JREF, who would admit this much? (Not holding my breath...) In the last segment, Chomsky addresses a spurious charge by Tom Wolfe that Chomsky claims a "high cabal" is behind media bias, even though he says exactly the opposite. Chomsky continues, "The point is that any analytic commentary on the institutional structure of the country is so threatening to the commissar class they can't even hear the words." I think this is an exaggeration - not in the case of Tom Wolfe, perhaps, but if this were universally true of workers in the media, then investigating media bias (wrt 911 or any other topic) via numerous, detailed interviews of flesh and blood reporters and editors, would be hopeless. They would all have so thoroughly internalized the institutional biases necessary for them to maintain their employment that none of them would be aware that such an internalization had occurred. The main reason I'm posting these links, though, is because of what Chomsky relates about media coverage during the virtual "controlled experiment" of Cambodian genocide contemporaneous with the East Timor genocide. About 4:50 into the last segment, Chomsky says,
Quote:
The key point, for the purposes of this thread, is that not just US, but Canadian and Western media coverage were helping maintain a picture of the world that was, let's say, "remarkably subordinate to power" - meaning US power. The US likes to project itself as a benign influence in the world - certainly not an enabler of genocide. Certainly we all know the drill - "freedom", "democracy", blah, blah. I don't have the time or sufficient interest to research whether this was a one-off 'follow the leader' constellation of media events, but do note that we are talking about coverage of genocide. If genocide is not a worthy topic of objective coverage, then I don't know what is. I have put the question about additional examples (not involving E. Timor) to Chomsky (as well as what he thinks about doing extensive interviews of reporters and editors to detect and explain media bias). We'll see what he says. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
If only it was that easy. Elections are just a start. It is a problem in at least some democracies that unelected bureaucrats, who have seen elected officials come and go, can stymie the efforts of the elected officials. This was the case, e.g., with trade agreements that the Japanese government signed in the 70's or 80's. The Japanese trade officials did not follow up, as expected by the Americans, signed pieces of paper by their presumed superiors notwithstanding.
If those bureaucracies have deep black budgets, and have additionally been engaged in murderous and arguably treasonable activities, and if even the non-black portion of the bureaucracy show signs of dominating ideal activity of elected officials (even if just by virtue of it's effects on local economies - see Chalmers Johnson), things get even stickier. I am, of course, referring to the US military. There has been some bitter discussion on dailykos.com lately re the Democrats capitulation on FISA (misleadingly referred to as a compromise). People that are basically for Democrats have been quite open about Pelosi and Reid needing to be defeated, and that they have been compromised by being privy to illegal activities by the Bush Administration. You could say that, by keeping their mouths shut for so long, they are "in on it". If this is the case, even if the FISA-get-out-of-jail-free bill doesn't pass, would a President Obama instruct the Justice Department to prosecute not only Republican law breakers, but also Pelosi and Reid? Fat chance..... And if he was foolish enough to only prosecute Republicans, they would scream bloody murder (not to mention sabotage him on the legislative front) and for damn good reason. (BTW, I recall Obama, on one occasion, making noises about reviewing illegal activity during the Bush administration, but I don't take him seriously.) My prediction for the US government doing a serious investigation of 911, after Jan 2009, remains unchanged. The chances are near zero - the Democrats will do absolutely nothing. Only if the NY ballot initiative came to pass, and if it wasn't stymied, or if some other equally dramatic turn of events comes to pass, would we see a thorough investigation at the federal level. Having said all this, it's irresponsible of American citizens not to engage more fully in the political process. One can certainly do so, without embracing 'high strangeness' issues like 911 Truth. That means that American JREFer "debunkers" are eligible! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
The supposed "flaws" in the official narrative of OKC are wildly specualtive rumors, based on the inability of the morons pushing them to figure out that a BATF office would have bomb-like devices lying about, and that, because there were no BATF agents present to identify them, the local police had to treat them as they would an actual, verified bomb. Standard operating procedure. But tell that to someone with the IQ of a typical twoofer.
As for the "evidence" pulled out of Benton Partin's pants, there is a good reason for leftist journalists to throw that pile of compsot out with the yard wastes. Partin is a liar and a supporter of terorist organizations world-wide, including UNITA in Angola, and was sympathetic with the South Africans in putting down the popular uprising in Namibia. He's a Dominionist and no friend of the left. Why would any decent person want to give that thug a venue? Let the white nationalists and Dominionists waste their own money spreading their disinfo. As for Barie Zwicker, he is out of his intellectual depth and spews garbage about things he does not even begin to comprehend. Twoofers need to stop whining about liberal journalists whose minds are not wide open to the BS. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|