compared2what? wrote:Canadian_watcher wrote:Am I incorrect in my interpretation? Please correct me if I am.
Yes. But it's my fault. I wasn't clear.
I think that he sees them as crisis actors because he's making the same mistake that enabled soldiers in Abu-Ghraib to take wacky photos of themselves torturing prisoners. So I'm not sure there's even one degree of separation there.
I'm still missing it - what is the common mistake?
compared2what? wrote:I don't see how the prospective ease with which tyrants will be able to shut down debate in the future could possibly be very greatly affected one way or the other by my arguing that innocent people should not be hurt now, then or ever.
I'm sorry if I led you to believe that I was saying that you shouldn't argue against innocent people being hurt. I did not mean that in any way. You believe that the people in the photos are all bona fide victims of a terrorist (or other) attack, and so when people question the photos you think they are hurting innocent people. And I suppose that's true.
What I'd like to know, though (and this is important) is how can we question such things, then? Do you allow for the possibility that the government or some agency would ever use actors in these situations?
compared2what? wrote:Incidentally, that tyrant thing is exactly what Zimbardo hypothesizes leads to situational evil -- ie, it's enabled by that kind of alteration to the power dynamic
I do not follow.
compared2what? wrote:The quote from the article, above, can be applied another way, though. It can be applied to the people trying to shame others into not looking into hard to look in to areas - ie the use of actors and props and other propagandistic tools at the scenes of world events.
And that is too. Even more so.
I'm not trying to shame you. I don't see a cause for shame. I sincerely believe you're making a mistake.
don't know what you mean by the first part. As to the rest, I'd like to tell you that you are shaming me and others - most obviously Dave McGowan. By failing to address the substance of his writing and choosing instead to associate him verbally and visually with horrors that have happened in the past you shame not only McGowan, the writer, but also the people who speak up in even glancing support of it. You also prevent anyone else from speaking up in support. (If they are more shy than some of us here, that is)

compared2what? wrote:Also, the Kabbalah thing was an entirely different point.
And there was nothing sly about it. I was wrong to say there was a causal association. But it was an honest mistake. That might be to my discredit. Bu it didn't discredit the basic argument -- ie, that the crisis-actor pitch is very similar to the introductory pitches made by cults -- at all.
A lot of things sound like pitches made by cults. AA comes to mind. Cancer support groups. Every non-cult church on earth. . It's all about making people feel okay enough about their deep hidden questions and curiosities, making them understand that there's a community for them so that they don't feel isolated and alone. I think that's better than the alternative.
Quit slinging mud at me, please.[/quote]