Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
While the original posting shouldn't need a lengthy discussion, you're again touching a few general topics, so let's continue the conversation in a more open way. Again, keep in mind I don't deny the criticism per se, but question the unnecessarily exaggerated form in which it was presented, and repeatedly asked for sources so that I can understand your position and better evaluate it for myself, especially to distinguish between the person Obama and the political party / system he's confined in.

I never understood, why anybody need somebody else to give sources of long being proofed stuff?

Maybe that should tell us something about what we think of as "long proven" :).

While Obama certainly played a role in - and has a (partial) responsibility for - the topics you raised, it's far from "proven" he's the mass murdering personification of a devil in your original comment. I already linked to an article with a much more sane and balanced view of one of the points, and therefore questioned the rest of the angry statements.

You weren't born with all your knowledge, you got it from other people, directly or indirectly. For all information and opinions we get we have to judge whether or not to believe them to be true and factual, or whether they are angry hyperbole, fantasy, politically, ideologically or religiously skewed or motivated. The only reliable method is by following the sources to their origin, preferably verifiable facts. Agreed, we obviously don't always do this, instead we trust people we know. Family, friends, public figures we deem trustworthy. It's easy but carries the dangers of in-group thinking, staying in echo chambers, ignoring the filter bubble and falling prey to confirmation bias. We also have a hard time believing some random person on the internet who makes inflammatory comments in a foreign language, which tends to show there's not much interest in a civil discourse.

As for "long being proofed": If it's so clear and obvious, why not quickly give some links to credible sources? As we're not in an academic discussion, even Wikipedia would suffice, and I don't find your allegations there. I'm weary and tired of people who think they don't need to back up their extraordinary claims or opinions with a minimum of information and (pointers to) verifiable evidence, or at least corroborating material. There are so many things a large part, sometimes even a majority of people believe (like the supernatural, gods, homeopathy, astrology), that an easy "everyone knows this" may not be sufficient as "proof".

Everybody can express a query, search, find, read and research on his own…the problem here: it takes more than some mass media or controlled-opposite articles.. it takes effort to search for some truth in history.

It's called "having a conversation". I'm not asking Google. I'm asking you how you've arrived at your opinion that motivates you enough to write angry comments on other people's pages. If it's so obvious to you, and you really wanted to inform and persuade other people, you surely have two or three articles in mind which are well researched, well written and convincing - why not quickly link them, so that we can understand your position? Are you sure that information which is hard to find is more reliable than the readily available? Agreed, history is a topic which often gets vastly simplified, but I'm not talking history here. It's about a contemporary person and the last decade.

Telling someone that truth is hard to find, but if you search long enough you'll eventually stumble upon it is not a convincing proposition, you can find every brilliant or silly opinion with the right search query. The Internet is also full of die-hard conspiracy theorists and outright lunatics who form very vocal minorities and have a wealth of blogs, magazines, discussion forums, even own encyclopedias on their side. For them, this pile of misinformation counts as "proof".

I like historian Noam Chomsky .. he has written over 100 books .. use books .. sources I mentioned before. So the allegation.. I did not gave sources is just not right.

Don't be ridiculous. You wrote "Objective accusations: Books, Studies and reports" and now repeat "use books" as sources? There are literally zillions of books, studies, reports, internet pages available to us. That's just not how it works. Which particular book, study, report or internet page do you recommend so that we can understand your position and how you arrived there?

So thanks for hinting at Mr. Chomsky at last, whom I tend to respect. Finally we've arrived at some simple, tangible information from a credible person so that I have an idea about where in the spectrum of political fanaticism to reasonable criticism we are in this discussion. I've seen a few videos in which he criticises Obama (although he called to vote for him against MacCain without illusions), Democrats and Republicans alike, and the political system of the United States in general. He is among the strongest critics of Obama / the Obama administration, and I can follow and in great parts agree with what he's saying, especially because he does so in a thought-out, civilized manner and also not from a political opposition, as his devastating view of the Republican party shows. What's still in question for me is which decisions were based in Obama's personal views, and which were driven by (or compromises with) his advisors, staff, political party and Congress.
Which ones of Chomsky's books did you read and would recommend the most?

You still sound a little bit (no offense here) like Obama-framed and Trump-primed and I slightly doubt that you can recognize the complete state of the world…

*Laugh* - you are aware how silly and condescending that sounds? And you really want to make that a political conflict? To answer the first part - I was and still am pretty much neutral with respect to Obama. I just like to post quotes with views and statements I share, from whoever happens to be the source, unless I know the person to be dishonest or not respectable in general. An example would be Deepak Chopra, who says many things which sound deep and inspirational, but are just esoteric babbling of someone who seems to have no firm grasp of reality and only wants to sell his nonsense. Do I write (angry) comments on random people's blogs whenever I see a posting with one of his "deepities"? Of course not. And if I would, I'd probably compliment the nice sounding content, and politely provide some hints and links to pages explaining the justified criticism. Hopefully you understand my asking for sources now. As for Trump: His words, actions and behavior speak for themselves. No need to go into that here.

For the second part, be careful with your perceived superiority, it will backfire some day ;). Seriously, I am well aware of my inability to comprehend, recognize, or even only remotely fathom the complete state of the world - are you? That's why I am asking questions, and want to see hints or links to sources I can follow. "The" internet or "books" are just too much to read for one tiny brain :).

Further it’s very interesting that you know how I used cognitive dissonance and are right away able to put it within the right argumentation segment…

Sounds like you are surprised that anyone knows anything, which should tell you something about yourself and your prejudices. I am serious, please think about that.

but are not able to criticize your master … so for me these are only allegations (indoctrinated by the ruling class) without justification.

Alright, now you're just impertinent. Without knowing anything about the person on whose personal blog you commented with unreasonable rudeness, obviously neither inviting nor expecting any reply or serious conversation, you think everyone who questions your statements or opinions must automatically be inferior to you (see above) and be some master's slave or a puppet of some perceived mighty adversary, a media-brainwashed zombie incapable of own thought. This is an untenable stance. This attitude is a big part of what's wrong with the internet, and increasingly with society.

The argumentation line, the wording and text design still looks & sounds either like a: a paid agent or b: a strongly let’s call it mind controlled person…no offense or bad criticism here.

Well, repeatedly saying it's not meant as offense or "bad" criticism is simply dishonest. It obviously is, and is meant that way, which I find both sad and amusing. So let's summarize. For daring to reply to your comment on my own page and not immediately completely agreeing with you, even asking for more information, I must either be a) a troll, b) a mentally challenged person, c) brainwashed by mass media, d) incapable of understanding the world, e) someone's slave f) indoctrinated by some ruling class, g) a paid agent or h) a mind controlled zombie. Don't you see how incredibly ridiculous, patronizing, self-absorbed and inflammatory that sounds? Seriously, and as well-meaning advice: take a deep breath and read this: I am not your enemy. Asking for sources and "food for thought" is no opposition. Not sharing an opinion is ok and does not automatically make the other an opportune target for hate.

And - *laugh* - what on earth is wrong with the argumentation, the wording or the text "design"? Asking for sources to better understand a topic and the other's point of view is bad argumentation? Providing a source which puts into perspective one of the points? Doubting the hyperbole in an angry comment? What about the wording - English obviously is not my native language, and I'm trying my best to put my thoughts into words, which will undoubtedly be full of mistakes and ambiguities. Last, "text design", hmmm. I'm daring to use both italics and paragraphs, two totally unusual modern typography inventions only several centuries old... ;) May be surprising in the SMS and Twitter age, but would you really prefer an unstructured, hard to read mess?

I like sources, I give everybody 3:

No you don't. No, you haven't, so far. Remember your very first sentence?

1 A book from the father of PR: Edward Bernays - Propaganda -> free pdf in the internet (and Bonus http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html) ;
2 A book from the military strategist of 6 presidents Zbigniew Brzezinsk: The grand chessboard -> free pdf in the internet
Report: IPPNW Body Count First International Edition -> free pdf in the internet

Thank you, now was that so difficult? I'll look into it and see what it's worth.

Maybe after reading you hopefully get my point why I assume that posting „an inspirational quote“ of a mass murder and thinking it’s a balanced view and further sees criticism as hyperbolic/hate is kind of …. let’s call it disturbing to me.

You got many of the points slightly backwards, I don't know how much was lost in translation. "Mass murderer" is your easy, simplified view of the world. The "balanced view" was the source I've given about the doubling of the united states' debt. I do not think criticism is hyperbole, but I do think your original comment, and parts of your later replies are.

So anyway… No Democracy, no Free Mind, no Peace… just Mind Control, Money, Power, War and Evil…big time. Simple as that.

Easy answers for complex questions. Too simple a world view for an intricately interwoven and interdependent world. I still think we probably would have many thoughts, ideas and concepts in common. But sadly, real conversations should not start with the posting of untenable extreme positions, treating disagreement with hostility, confusing futile (but admittedly quite amusing) personal attacks for arguments and mistaking simple questions for weakness.

Well… I do not like it that way. I like harmony, humanity and peace and when I see evil I expose and change it. I do not care about the Obamas or Trumps or whatever, but I care what other good humans think about evil persons, especially when indoctrinated by a brainwashing media.

And I agree overall, sounds like humanism. Though I care even more for this unique planet with all the zillions of non-human species who have an equal right of existence in the universe, and stabilize the biosphere on which we depend and are a part of. Humans are currently on an unsustainable growth and "business as usual" path which has a depressingly considerable probability of disrupting physical and natural systems on Earth in a way that may render large parts of our technological civilization unsustainable and untenable, threatening us with economical, ecological and humanitarian catastrophes we can't imagine, as soon as within the next 100 years. With our current priorities I don't see how we can avoid large scale collapse of at least some political, financial and ecological systems.

One of the more interesting "great questions" I occasionally like to return to and think about is the Fermi Paradox, which may appear silly or theoretical at first. The deeper point though is the notion of a "Great Filter" which prevents technological civilizations to either arise or persist in the universe. Is long-lasting, relatively unperturbed and stable habitability of a planet the problem? Abiogenesis? The evolution of complex multicellular organisms, which took an eternity on Earth? Something on the way to a technological civilization? Or do those civilizations vanish again after a relatively short time, because they annihilate themselves e.g. in nuclear war or by destroying the ecosystems on which they depend. Currently I'm afraid the Great Filter, or one of many bigger filters, may yet be in our not too distant future. The silence should tell us something.

There, that's a small facet of one of my many narrow views of the world. I'm really more interested in discussing ideas and concepts than persons or opinions, though I value both if presented in a friendly and informative way.

Let's see whether there's a last drop of life left in the deteriorating Soup platform and I can even submit this wall of text. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to think and write about some topics, I wish you a pleasant week.
Reposted bypaket paket

Don't be the product, buy the product!