|
Don't forget Snowpiercer! Also by Bong Joon-ho.
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am not, anywhere, saying that we can't discuss the subjects of defects in US policy. We do not need to rely on propaganda to do so. If you find yourself needing to rely on the propaganda of foreign authoritarian governments as the sole source of "leftist" media, then you may have some underlying problems with both your media diet, and your understanding of leftism! I am not opposing the use of disinformation because it's "hostile to the US", I'm opposing disinformation because it's disinformation. Like Rall, we become mediators of the same false framing when we choose to spread it, and we share in his calculated bad faith. This seems like an odd point of contention to me. Who here is relying on Ted Rall of all people for their political opinions? Who here is relying on Russian media "as the sole source of leftist media"?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
This is a discussion forum, where people discuss often contentious issues. The people who you are speaking for should be prepared for and willing to discuss objections that are raised to their mockery (or at least not complain that objections are raised to begin with). Otherwise you just have an echo chamber. Besides, this is a very uncharitable framing of what usually happens in the political cartoon thread, at least from my perspective, as there are many, many Rall cartoons that get posted that don't get defended. Also, if you could respond to my previous question when you have the chance I'd appreciate it 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am confident the political cartoon thread is able to discuss things other than endorsing disinformation without being an echo chamber, in much the same way that I don't think it will become an echo chamber by not debating the merits of Day by Day or Sinfest. On the other hand, you are suggesting by proxy that Rall comics should not be defended, are you not? Why bring up these other people who are apparently frustrated by sometimes receiving counter-arguments against their mockery? That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of a discussion forum. Obviously there are some limits to what can and should be discussed, but I don't think that Rall crosses any of those lines. You're also making a pretty brazen assumption about the intentions of people trying to discuss these things ("people still cannot resist defending its framing of issues because they find it rhetorically convenient.") What do you base this assumption on? Also I don't see where you responded to my previous post at all. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
What rules are being broken? Serious question. The conversation seemed cordial enough to me. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, "but the authoritarian propaganda has a point" isn't how good faith argumentation works. If it's a good point, you can find other people to make it than the propagandist. I don't really understand the logic here. If people are only discussing the point being made, and not the person who made it, then why does it matter who made it? It would be one thing if someone said "this point is correct because the authoritarian propaganda said so" or "the authoritarian propaganda is right about this issue, therefore it's also right about other issues", but that's not what's being stated here. I think it's possible to discuss the merits of a particular point in good faith regardless of the source. I also don't understand why you would need to find another person to make the point. If you are capable of articulating why the point is correct, couldn't that other person just be you? I guess this ties in to my other objection with your argument, which is that you seem to be assuming, when people agree with propaganda that happens to be correct, that they are using the propaganda as their sole source and logical foundation for agreeing with the point. Obviously that can be the case sometimes, but it is not a good general assumption. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 17:47
|
|