"Hay AOC! Say the word!"
-
I really wish this generation was better at critical thinking. Instead, they just take a look at surface details and don’t dig any deeper. It’s allowing them to be led and manipulated in dangerous ways.
@LuFins-Dad said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
I really wish this generation was better at critical thinking. Instead, they just take a look at surface details and don’t dig any deeper. It’s allowing them to be led and manipulated in dangerous ways.
tl;dr
-
I really wish this generation was better at critical thinking. Instead, they just take a look at surface details and don’t dig any deeper. It’s allowing them to be led and manipulated in dangerous ways.
@LuFins-Dad said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
I really wish this generation was better at critical thinking. Instead, they just take a look at surface details and don’t dig any deeper. It’s allowing them to be led and manipulated in dangerous ways.
It's hard to know, but I wonder how different it used to be in the good old days. There were plenty of people unwilling to accept how awful Hitler, Stalin etc. were in the 30's, and lefties in particular were more than willing to overlook the purges going on in the Soviet Union. Another example, British Communists went overnight from protesting against the war against Germany (during the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) to 'SECOND FRONT NOW' immediately after the USSR were invaded, and prior to WW2 many on the right tacitly supported Hitler as being an enemy of communism.
Also, the British press at least were frequently happy to toe the establishment line and not make the unwashed masses aware of what was actually going on.
The idea that the great mass of people used to have wonderful critical-thinking skills is nice, but I'm not sure it stands up to scrutiny.
I was only joking
-
@LuFins-Dad said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
I really wish this generation was better at critical thinking. Instead, they just take a look at surface details and don’t dig any deeper. It’s allowing them to be led and manipulated in dangerous ways.
tl;dr
@89th said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
@LuFins-Dad said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
I really wish this generation was better at critical thinking. Instead, they just take a look at surface details and don’t dig any deeper. It’s allowing them to be led and manipulated in dangerous ways.
tl;dr
Lol
-
@LuFins-Dad said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
I really wish this generation was better at critical thinking. Instead, they just take a look at surface details and don’t dig any deeper. It’s allowing them to be led and manipulated in dangerous ways.
It's hard to know, but I wonder how different it used to be in the good old days. There were plenty of people unwilling to accept how awful Hitler, Stalin etc. were in the 30's, and lefties in particular were more than willing to overlook the purges going on in the Soviet Union. Another example, British Communists went overnight from protesting against the war against Germany (during the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) to 'SECOND FRONT NOW' immediately after the USSR were invaded, and prior to WW2 many on the right tacitly supported Hitler as being an enemy of communism.
Also, the British press at least were frequently happy to toe the establishment line and not make the unwashed masses aware of what was actually going on.
The idea that the great mass of people used to have wonderful critical-thinking skills is nice, but I'm not sure it stands up to scrutiny.
I don’t believe either that the critical thinking skills of the vast majority of the population were any better in past than now. Common folk in past - and by past I mean the last 200 hundred years - may have had a more practical savy with everyday manual tasks or skilled trades, but for more abstract endeavours such as political discourse, I don’t think they saw the world or understood it much differently than people today. As for the intelligentsia, it too grappled with pretty much the same opposing ‘isms and multitude of ideas as people now. My own grandparents’ generation produced defenders of democratic institutions and liberalism like Churchill and Attlee as well as FDR, Truman and Eisenhower. That generation also produced the extremist populism of Marxism-Leninism and fascism that spawned the unthinkable brutality of totalitarian governance and global war.
-
The thing that generally gets overlooked when people talk about the book 1984 is that the proles really don't give a shit. Orwell must have based that idea on something
-
The thing that generally gets overlooked when people talk about the book 1984 is that the proles really don't give a shit. Orwell must have based that idea on something
Likely. I would add that left alone, the outlook of the vast majority of people can be described as laissez-faire libertarian; that is, at least until such time that they are not either laissez-faire or libertarian.
-
@Renauda @Doctor-Phibes I would use your arguments as support for mine. The very fact that we have these examples in the past and so many fail to pay heed suggests to me that the problem is worse.
The Brad
-
@Renauda @Doctor-Phibes I would use your arguments as support for mine. The very fact that we have these examples in the past and so many fail to pay heed suggests to me that the problem is worse.
I would agree that it is on a larger scale than in past partly because populations have grown. I would also maintain that the speed, scope and accessibility of mass communications has shrunk the world and facilitated more people to become engaged be it productively or, unfortunately, destructively.
-
@Renauda @Doctor-Phibes I would use your arguments as support for mine. The very fact that we have these examples in the past and so many fail to pay heed suggests to me that the problem is worse.
@LuFins-Dad said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
@Renauda @Doctor-Phibes I would use your arguments as support for mine. The very fact that we have these examples in the past and so many fail to pay heed suggests to me that the problem is worse.
I suspect the problem is much the same. The main difference is that nowadays we get to hear what every Tom Dick or Harry thinks about everything, whereas in the past we didn't have the opportunity to listen to their nonsense.
-
-
30,000 deaths over 6 months is not a genocide. It’s a war. A remarkably restrained war considering the weaponry available. The death toll is not even in the same league as the Russian/Ukraine War, Syria, and the current Ethiopian conflict. If Israel wanted a genocide, we would be seeing 30K deaths per month.
-
The 30K figure is actually provided by one of the partisans in the conflict. Any verification has been provided by a UN organization that has been proven not only complicit, but an active participant in the October 7th terror strikes.
-
When placing missile batteries, weapon stockpiles, and such in schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and office buildings, the ethical and moral blame for those deaths falls onto the Hamas authorities and to some small extent on the Palestinian people themselves for continuing to support, promote, and protect these bastards.
-
-
There is no Israeli policy to annihilate Palestinians Arabs. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any intent on the part of the Israeli State to annihilate Palestinian Arabs because they are; a) Palestinian or, b) Arabs or, c) both Palestinian and Arab and therefore deemed racially inferior to Jews and citizens of Israel.
Contrast that with stated policy of Hamas that explicitly calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel and systematic physical liquidation of all Jews residing in Arab Islamic states. All Hamas initiated terrorist actions to date against Israeli citizens individually and collectively or the Israeli state are active expressions in fulfillment of that stated policy.
The only genocidal entity out there is Hamas. It is solely responsible and accountable for sustaining the desperation and collective death of Palestinian Arabs in this conflict. The killing stops when Hamas lays down its weapons and abandons its genocidal objectives.
-
There is no Israeli policy to annihilate Palestinians Arabs. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any intent on the part of the Israeli State to annihilate Palestinian Arabs because they are; a) Palestinian or, b) Arabs or, c) both Palestinian and Arab and therefore deemed racially inferior to Jews and citizens of Israel.
Contrast that with stated policy of Hamas that explicitly calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel and systematic physical liquidation of all Jews residing in Arab Islamic states. All Hamas initiated terrorist actions to date against Israeli citizens individually and collectively or the Israeli state are active expressions in fulfillment of that stated policy.
The only genocidal entity out there is Hamas. It is solely responsible and accountable for sustaining the desperation and collective death of Palestinian Arabs in this conflict. The killing stops when Hamas lays down its weapons and abandons its genocidal objectives.
@Renauda said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
The only genocidal entity out there is Hamas.
There is this guy.
Link to videoGenocidal Congressman Calls for Killing "Hamas"
Ogles responded bluntly: “You know what? So, I think we should kill ’em all if that makes you feel better. Hamas and the Palestinians have been attacking Israel for 20 years. It’s time to pay the piper.”
-
While the esteemed Congressman’s remarks are incendiary and unhelpful, they are not policy statements. If he were to present those ideas for policy consideration on the floor of Congress then a conversation or debate about implications of possible crimes against humanity could and would start.
As it stands, that is just his stated opinion and nothing else. I’ve heard similar emotional irrationality from other, and much less consequential, quarters.
-
It's a little hard to take somebody called Andy Ogles seriously.
Well, it's hard for me. The rest of you are probably used to that sort of thing.
British politicians Chris Pincher and Peter Bone were both accused of sexual misconduct, but what's in a name?
-
It's a little hard to take somebody called Andy Ogles seriously.
Well, it's hard for me. The rest of you are probably used to that sort of thing.
British politicians Chris Pincher and Peter Bone were both accused of sexual misconduct, but what's in a name?
Now that you mention it, there is something not quite right about that surname, Ogles.
With a bit of sleuthing it could actually be found to be a clever manipulation of another and more chillingly notorious surname.
Substitute the “g” with the letter “b” then place the “g” in its upper case in front of the “O” and reduce that “o” to its lower case.
These tweakings result in the surname, Gobles.
Now compare that with the surname, …..Goebbels.
Why would that be?
Coincidence? Or an Ah-ha moment?
You decide. I’m just asking questions
-
According to Wikipedia, Mr. Ogle has a degree in Liberal Studies, so he must be pretty clever. Maybe he knows James Cleverly, another ironically named British politician.
-
@Renauda said in "Hay AOC! Say the word!":
Cunningly clever.
It could be worse. Baroness Susan Garden of Frognal is more commonly known as Lady Garden.
