The cry of the conspiracy theorists!! “THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES” “FOLLOW THE MONEY”!
Please stop with this disingenuous strawfolking. If you have questions about what I said you can just ask me.
I’m not fighting you. I’m not even debating you. Let’s just talk.
Why do you think I’m saying the Guardian is involved in a conspiracy? I agreed they can be just doing factual reporting and also that this reporting happens to be useful to people who want to justify the US and Israel’s actions.
That’s the context of how nothing is ever “just” a pure piece of reporting, released into a vacuum only read by 100% politically neutral readers.
Why do you think I’m saying the Guardian is involved in a conspiracy? I agreed they can be just doing factual reporting and also that this reporting happens to be useful to people who want to justify the US and Israel’s actions.
This is the “I’m just asking questions” wing of conspiratorial thinking. What you’re missing is that there’s absolutely no reason to be bringing any of this up at all. The connections you’re making are spurious. It’s also super common (and annoying) in on-line conversations of any sort when politics is being discussed. When maga does it leftists cry “conspiracy theory” (rightly so). When leftists do it and I point out the conspiracy thinking I get “you’re so naive! you can’t see that these things are related!?!”
BoTh SiDeS are absolutely guilty of conspiracy thinking. They just like their conspiracies and feel justified. Introspection is not a common talent.
Ok, so we agree there’s no conspiracy. I agree no one is immune to conspiratorial thinking.
Do you agree that some stories, regardless of how factual they are, are politically useful?
Like a story about Zoran Mamdani kicking a dog might be true (it’s not afaik) and also very useful to his neoliberal opponents. Even thought it’s “just” (and actually “just” I’m not saying ““just”” like hmmmmmm isn’t it convenient — I’m not saying that) truthful, factual, honest reporting. That’s the context.
It can be true but also propaganda, or just coincidentally the kind of news Zionists would like to see (truthfully). It’s hard to tell.
I think it’s worth including this meta context when discussing the article.
It can also just be an article about an objectively totalitarian regime doing horrible things.
Sometimes a banana is just a banana.
You don’t think it’s both true and useful to bad actors?
Nothing is “just” anything. We live in a society etc
The cry of the conspiracy theorists!! “THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES” “FOLLOW THE MONEY”!
Please stop with this disingenuous strawfolking. If you have questions about what I said you can just ask me.
I’m not fighting you. I’m not even debating you. Let’s just talk.
Why do you think I’m saying the Guardian is involved in a conspiracy? I agreed they can be just doing factual reporting and also that this reporting happens to be useful to people who want to justify the US and Israel’s actions.
That’s the context of how nothing is ever “just” a pure piece of reporting, released into a vacuum only read by 100% politically neutral readers.
This is the “I’m just asking questions” wing of conspiratorial thinking. What you’re missing is that there’s absolutely no reason to be bringing any of this up at all. The connections you’re making are spurious. It’s also super common (and annoying) in on-line conversations of any sort when politics is being discussed. When maga does it leftists cry “conspiracy theory” (rightly so). When leftists do it and I point out the conspiracy thinking I get “you’re so naive! you can’t see that these things are related!?!”
BoTh SiDeS are absolutely guilty of conspiracy thinking. They just like their conspiracies and feel justified. Introspection is not a common talent.
Please I’m begging you to talk like a regular person and not like you’re doing a reaction video
So just ignoring everything else then.
Thanks. I’ll take it.
Ok, so we agree there’s no conspiracy. I agree no one is immune to conspiratorial thinking.
Do you agree that some stories, regardless of how factual they are, are politically useful?
Like a story about Zoran Mamdani kicking a dog might be true (it’s not afaik) and also very useful to his neoliberal opponents. Even thought it’s “just” (and actually “just” I’m not saying ““just”” like hmmmmmm isn’t it convenient — I’m not saying that) truthful, factual, honest reporting. That’s the context.
Where do you stand on the conflict btw?