the post of tom joad
- 0 Posts
- 21 Comments
The important thing for you to consider is if i did, would what i just said be less true? I invite you to consider this, and not in an Internet fight way where we flex our shit talking muscles at each other, but in a “hey, maybe there is a point worthy of debate” kinda way.
Like id be interested in considering the point that "the messenger does matter. I’m sure there are cases, but they’d be extreme cases to my mind.
Don’t apologize, you did a great job. Now id like you to read the entire chain along with snowden’s words so you can catch up on the whole point of this thread. Do this and you’ll be less “object lesson” and more “lesson learned”.
I’ll edit my comment too. See how this commenter is doubling down? They offer nothing, (even couched within their ad hominem), of substance. I mean to say that they disparage the “message” as having "less meaning"without really explaining why.
Indeed, the commenter invites the reader (by agreeing with them) to engage in ‘virtue signaling’ (by again saying without saying), conflating their distaste for corporate sponsorship and expensive tickets (something we all share) with a reason to not listen to RATM at all.
It’s another great example of bad reasoning one might fall prey to if one doesn’t engage in critical thinking.
There’s lots of em, some are in the replies you got before mine. The point isn’t whether you believe them, the point of them is to make you not want to listen to RATM. Hell after 9/11 there was a memo put out asking radio stations not to play certain 'anti establishment songs, but only one band was called out specifically for total blackout. Wanna guess which it was?
Their message is powerful, and getting more obviously true every day. I dont give a single fuck about whether they for paid for being a successful band, and neither should anyone with a modicum of understanding in the message they speak.
Regardless, thinking they’re hypocrites isn’t what matters, people are free to think that. The only thing that matters is whether thinking that way stops one from listening to their words, which are true no matter what you think of them. If one decides not to listen don’t because someone said they’re now RWTM, somebody in psyops is happy for their ignorance
You’re just like the ones i hear saying RATM went soft. Stop being a dumbass, it’s infectious for some and the rest of us are embarrassed for you.
This comment isn’t just to get you angry, though it is that too. The second part, here is to tell you that ad hominem is a widely used propaganda method to shut down thought on important topics.
Does where snowden decides to post his message reduce, at all, the content of that message?
Easy! No. Not at all.
So don’t carry water for the ones who silence dissent. It makes you useful to them, and useless to the rest of the world
Propaganda worked on those people. I remember the news back then, it all focused on Snowden himself, rather than the revelations. Lots and lots of FUD in the opinion shows, all the talking heads were spending the bulk of their time opining on him, instead
Like the fact he left the us to escape prosecution, his landing in Russia. Remember they even tracked down his girlfriend or something ridiculous? I know I’m forgetting some of it. Anyway all that crap was designed to shift people’s focus away from looking into his proof, and towards doubting the intentions of the person providing it. And boy, did it.
It worked, on a lot of people.
I still hear folks call him a traitor to this day, and they always parrot the FUD talking points i remember from back then to a T.
Perhaps not to destroy it but to make a new business model, selling the ability to get names for lawsuit purposes, and rather than users are going after a profitable extortion racket like yelp did where in exchange for a one time (or even monthly) fee will protect your business from bad reviews.
That’s my guess, i couldn’t read the article (paywall)
Then rather than engaging in an emotional battle, read the content of his statements and judge their veracity as an idea separate from the man. If motive is impossible to discern from the data you have, you need more data, right? At least if you know what it is that he is accusing the govt of, specifically, will help to determine more of the motivations behind his choice, right?
I’m not saying read them and believe them, but rather cast your critical eye upon his focus, and then perhaps you can poke holes in his conclusions or discern what, if he’s lying, those lies are meant to achieve