0
0

[–] 16306243? ago 

0
0

[–] 16306618? ago  (edited ago)

Uh... "Knee-jerk Isolationist Morons Make Things Worse: And they always have"

Won't argue with that.

Yet, I don't see how pointing out that non-isolationism (or cooperative effort) that leads to interaction with SA is verification that Wictor is a Saudi apologist. I've read a lot of Wictor's writing. Some of it is entertaining, some informative, and some is just ravings of an old madman with very eclectic roots. He no longer has ANY social media presence (by banning and by choice). He contributes to Quodverum, and as far as I can tell, that is his only presence on the web. He publishes his thoughts...some people read him.

I, for one, read Wictor...along with scores of other sources across the spectrum. If he's a propagandist, he sucks at it.

Thanks for sharing your go-to example. There are many more that would likely fit into your preconceived notions.

EDIT: And, no, I am not a Wictor apologist.

0
0

[–] 16307244? ago 

This was just to show you the pattern of what he was doing. Like I said you have to know logical fallacies to really understand it. It seems like you can't break it down but maybe you were focused on using other points. Besides the ad hominem arguments he was making at first, he then goes into a whole "guilt by association" ad hominem by lumping Norris in with Paul starting with "Today's brainless isolationists are no different from the brainless isolationists of the past." In that whole thing he barely mentions any real reasons to be against what he is actually trying to argue against. It's the same as if they tried to compare Trump to Hitler and just began listing why Hitler is so bad. It's trying to hook people emotionally so they ignore the actual substance. It's similar to what John Oliver does with his "comedic" bits. The pacing and cut off points going from 1 aspect to the next are designed to try to get people to forget about the weaknesses of the proceeding claim. In both cases it's not something intellectually honest people do to that extent. You will however find it in a lot of propaganda. (this also is just addressing the surface level issues with the piece and not even getting into other aspects)

0
0

[–] 16306171? ago 

Let me dig out the go-to example I have. As long as you know logical fallacies you should be able to see what it is.