261–270 of 279 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You're too naive if you think it's completely true, but too cynical if you think it's completely false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the CIA is impartial? ;)
Do please take note of the fact that I did not include "We should trust the CIA" in my comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
right. because there's zero demonstrative value in USAID giving aid to foreign countries which is why we just left. ...and then china moved in. The real problem is that the problem isnt binary or immediately causal. "This happened, and then that happened". These problems are slowly developing with more than 1 term in the equation. China doesnt build silk road 2.0 because of one little decision. It's an accumulation,…
What's the Chinese version of the factbook? European? Canadian? Why aren't they all moving in on all this sweet soft power?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, not, not allowed. "The concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources originated with the academic discipline of historiography. The point was to give historians a handy way to indicate how close the source of a piece of information was to the actual events.[a] Importantly, the concept developed to deal with "events", rather than ideas or abstract concepts. A primary source was a source that was created at a…
I'd be interested to see how these quotes show that primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia.
Perhaps the jist is more about 'Primary' means different things to different groups in different context. And just saying the plain sentence "Wikipedia doesn't use Primary" is a really shallow incorrect take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
"For example, a memoir is a primary source when it is used to study its author's life or personal relationships, but the same text becomes a secondary source if it is used to investigate broader cultural or social conditions. Thus, the categories “primary” and “secondary” are relative and depend on the historical context and the purpose of the study. "Primary" and "secondary" should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."
Obviously, facts do not play a big role in the current government's world view.
Ironically, most people who think that also think the opposite of the previous administration.
If you happen across a random book burning, can you confidently assume which side they are voting for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do please take note of the fact that I did not include "We should trust the CIA" in my comment
No, but you seemed to imply there are people that aren’t partial. Wikipedia is designed to approach impartiality even if its editors are people like you and me who are far from impartial. Are there better alternatives out there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunate. So many essays that I wrote in school cited The World Facebook as a source. A source of propaganda? There's nothing the CIA does without political motivation.
> There's nothing the CIA does without political motivation. Even then, political motivation in itself does not make it inaccurate. It’s easy to see why a liberal democracy supposed to defend liberty across the globe would be interested in making facts accessible. Facts and education are the best way to fight obscurantism and totalitarianism. It’s also easy to see why a regime sliding back towards autocracy would hav…
Who is supposed to defend liberty across the globe? Do you think the US has been doing that and should be doing that?
The point of OP was that the facts from the CIA can’t be trusted. That they can lie about the facts.
Of all the organisations you’d think the CIA would understand the value of soft power and having some level of control of facts being published
They do understand, that's why they're doing this. This is a fundamentally anti-fact administration — when facts aren't known, you can fabricate reality for the masses, which is what they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Truly dark times when we can't even trust the CIA anymore.
This is a good joke, but it's also true that the whole charade of trying to look "institutional" and "fact-based" was a pretty decent way to go about pursuing the US agenda. "Hey we are the good guys, we show you real numbers" was a good line to push, and it could often show up the opposition as cranks and liars. Nowadays, nobody even pretends to not be a liar, from any side. There is no debate that even attempts to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good joke, but it's also true that the whole charade of trying to look "institutional" and "fact-based" was a pretty decent way to go about pursuing the US agenda. "Hey we are the good guys, we show you real numbers" was a good line to push, and it could often show up the opposition as cranks and liars. Nowadays, nobody even pretends to not be a liar, from any side. There is no debate that even attempts to…
Your grievance is that we won’t have good cover to pursue our interests when they conflict with the sovereignty and security of others? You think it was good to lie and say that we’re the good guys while we inflict harm on others?
That order was not perfect, but the alternative is going back to the naked power struggles of the XIX century, which ended in global carneficine - and the next time it will be so much worse.