WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

Al-Boneman, your purpose here is not to advance our mutual capacities to make sense of the problem of how to determine truths (a better word is accuracies), and your will is set against it — like a stubborn child.

You’ll have to overcome yourself first.

Here I assess you. Is it interpretation in your usage of that word?

I don’t think it is. I think it is accurate and fair representation of what you are doing.

That game doesn’t interest me. I’ll get nowhere by agreeing to involve myself in your childishness.

[attofishpi]

..next time I am in England - I WILL round them up - the Muslims will succumb to the Wrath of GOD that I will bring..

..it will go along the lines of --> 6

to ---> 6

to --> 6

[Alexis Jacobi]

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
~ George Orwell, 1984

[FlashDangerpants]

..next time I am in England - I WILL round them up - the Muslims will succumb to the Wrath of GOD that I will bring..

..it will go along the lines of --> 6

to ---> 6

to --> 6

Are you trying to get put on a terrorist watchlist now?

[RickLewis]

Are you trying to get put on a terrorist watchlist now?

attofishpi is taking a little holiday starting now. He might be back in a while, or not. It depends.

[Immanuel Can]

You're contradicting yourself.

Not at all. I'm sticking to my guns. You know how to find the proof, and you can find it for yourself. Make a case you'll believe. Apparently, nobody else can.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Patience, people. It takes time to work out the narrative line of obfuscation. Coherent sophistry is harder and harder to come by! Let Ibn-Wilbur Al-Boneman’s mental wheels whirl.

An INTERMISSION is appropriate.

[Will Bouwman]

You know how to find the proof, and you can find it for yourself.

You're quite right; I do know how to do research. The problem is I cannot find the sort of evidence you say is easy to find. Given that you decline to provide the evidence, a reasonable conclusion is that it does not exist.

Make a case you'll believe. Apparently, nobody else can.

That certainly seems to be the case.

[Will Bouwman]

Patience, people. It takes time to work out the narrative line of obfuscation. Coherent sophistry is harder and harder to come by! Let Ibn-Wilbur Al-Boneman’s mental wheels whirl.

Make your mind up Gus. Only yesterday you were saying this:

I’ll get nowhere by agreeing to involve myself in your childishness.

[Immanuel Can]

You know how to find the proof, and you can find it for yourself.

You're quite right; I do know how to do research. The problem is I cannot find the sort of evidence you say is easy to find.

Then, as I said, you don't have a problem. Perhaps the particular news media you trust are an exception, and are completely trustworthy. Keep on relying on them, then, if you think that's the thing to do.

I don't ask you to believe anything you can't find evidence for. I don't think you have to go far to find that evidence. Still, if you've never seen it, you've never seen it.

I'm not going to tell you what you've seen.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Patience, people. It takes time to work out the narrative line of obfuscation. Coherent sophistry is harder and harder to come by! Let Ibn-Wilbur Al-Boneman’s mental wheels whirl.

Make your mind up Gus. Only yesterday you were saying this:

I’ll get nowhere by agreeing to involve myself in your childishness.

Exactly so. You leave me with the role of the adult here. But when it is made evident that your will is absolutely set against sensible progress, I will exit the “conversation”.

I am more interested in the mechanisms (if that is the right word) of miscommunication and, in your case, that will to refuse to understand, combined with a fixed will not to cooperate.

I am interested in this in this context:

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

~ George Orwell, 1984

[Will Bouwman]

You leave me with the role of the adult here.

Must be dizzying.

I am more interested in the mechanisms (if that is the right word) of miscommunication and, in your case, that will to refuse to understand.

I am interested in this in this context:

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

~ George Orwell, 1984

Well here's the thing. If someone makes a claim that sections of the media are lying, I really don't think the onus is on anyone but them to do the heavy lifting to support that assertion. That would take references to articles that are demonstrably lies. It's quite a high bar as they would need to show, not only that the journalist wrote something that was untrue, but that the author knew at the time of writing that it was untrue. Immanuel Can and you keep insisting that doing so is easy, but while there has been some hand waving towards sections to the right of the media, I have yet to see anything substantial. It's as if you want me to just accept your party line. I would like to think the irony isn't lost on you.

[Will Bouwman]

I'm not going to tell you what you've seen.

Who knows? It could jog a memory, but of more immediate interest is what you have seen.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not going to tell you what you've seen.

Who knows? It could jog a memory, but of more immediate interest is what you have seen.

You know where to look if you want to see. If you can't see, I can't help you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well here's the thing. If someone makes a claim that sections of the media are lying, I really don't think the onus is on anyone but them to do the heavy lifting to support that assertion. That would take references to articles that are demonstrably lies. It's quite a high bar as they would need to show, not only that the journalist wrote something that was untrue, but that the author knew at the time of writing that it was untrue. Immanuel Can and you keep insisting that doing so is easy, but while there has been some hand waving towards sections to the right of the media, I have yet to see anything substantial. It's as if you want me to just accept your party line. I would like to think the irony isn't lost on you.

Note that what IC described, I think accurately, could include lies, but as I see things the issue of lack of integrity and honesty involve misrepresentation, deliberate selection of cherished facts, distortion and part-truths.

I (likely) differ from IC about the question of who the “masters” are in respect to Gaza and Israel reporting. But i accept the reality of “framing”.

IC wrote:You have selected the major media, which used to be regarded as impartial, but have been exposed as ideologically coded with the dominant narratives of the ruling elite lately. Examples abound, including practically all their coverage of things like the elections, the demonstrations, the COVID 'crisis,' and the Ukraine and Gaza wars. They're shilling for their masters.

I think that if you examine them, you will find that you will not be told the truth by these sources. But to our good fortune, the legacy media is all in a death-spiral right now, as a crisis of public confidence in their reliability is upon them. We will soon find that they will collapse financially, or at least be so thoroughly rejected as a source of public information that they will no longer retain their utility to the powers that be. And that, as it turns out, will be a very good thing. It's past time that the monopoly on information they used to hold was broken.