I think part of the problem here is that John has a different interpretation of critical thinking. You and I share the traditional interpretation, which is to apply a broad set of analytical skills to test the strength of an argument.
I think John is coming from the more recent trend, which initially grew out of Marxist theory. In Marxist Critical Theory, you analyze an argument by 'problematizing' it in the terms of a Marxist view, e.g., what does the argument say about social class, ownership of the means of production, etc. In Critical Feminist Theory, the argument is viewed in terms of its feminist implications. And in Critical Race Theory, everything is viewed in terms of race and ethnicity.
And all of them connect by tending to use language that frames social interactions in terms of power struggles: upper class vs. lower class, women vs. men, white people vs. everybody. In that sense, they are all postmodernist and associate with Foucault, Derrida, et al. Which tends to make their arguments dense, circular, dogmatic, and untestable.
Sadly, that is what passes for the teaching of critical thinking in the current educational system.
I guess you really don't seem to know what an ad hominem is (wouldn't be surprised that you don't).
I'm not arguing your position or argument, I'm DIRECTLY addressing your 'lack of adequate critical thinking skills'. This is my personal observation based on your comment replies to me, not an argument in-and-of itself.
For your reference: Ad hominem is "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument." Since I'm not attacking your 'position or argument in my comment above but rather talking about a completely different issue (that of your CT skills), the logic of ad hominem does not apply in this context.
Of course, you can ALWAYS pretend that EVERY criticism of your logic (and conclusions) is an ad hominem statement. You can pretend that when I point out your 'gaps in critical thinking' (which aligns with your 'hero worship' of certain individuals') is an ad hominem.
Go for it, you've already established a track-record of placing other people's opinions (like Aaron Good's) above 'thinking for yourself'.
Wow. Such a weird way of explaining ad hominem so backwardly yet so thoroughly.
May I quote you?
Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than...
Oh, my. I just realized. You have no idea what the "Deep State" is do you. I'm glad we cleared that up. I should have figured that out many exchanges ago. My apologies to all and to Caitlin for having allowed Chang's temper tantrum to occupy so much space here.
>>"Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than..."
Dude, you have issues (specifically hero worship and 'not thinking for yourself' issues).
BTW, 'Deep State' is a 'catch-all' term for how Empires function (whether it be the U.S. Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire, etc.). There is nothing really 'conspiratorial' about 'Deep States'. What IS conspiratorial though, are the 'theories' about the conspiracies (and not the conspiracies themselves).
There is a DIFFERENCE between 'a conspiracy' and 'conspiratorial thinking that leads to low-quality conspiracy theories'!
▪️ A conspiracy is two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.
▪️ A conspiracy theory is a structured belief about a conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
▪️ A conspiracy theorist, or conspiracist, is someone who holds a conspiracy theory about a possible conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
BTW, people have been analyzing 'deep state' workings BEFORE 'your hero Aaron Good' was born. There's nothing really new he provides, not to mention doing a bad job of synthesizing information provided by so many others (like Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, etc.). And from watching his videos and finally reading his 'American Exception: Empire and the Deep State' book, I have to say that it is QUITE a let-down.
How do you form an opinion this critical of US policy and then back RFK JR.? Embarrassing.
I can sum up Good’s book in my own words as basically stating “America is run by a bunch of rich selfish dudes seeking even greater wealth and power, and they’re willing to trample on the rest of us to get it.” Well, duh. One could more effectively make this argument by avoiding harping on dozens of poorly explained conspiracy theories. I see American Exception actually as a dangerous book, in that it’s likely to turn readers against the basic reasonable argument Good is trying to make, that American democracy is decaying.
Aaron prefers to accept simple-minded conspiracy theories rather than trying to wrap his head around the nuance & complexities of the real world. Because of this he ends up arriving at some incorrect conclusions, and propagating woefully inaccurate & insulting narratives.
In other words, YOUR hero - Aaron Good - is a wanna-be, a hack, a person with 'weak critical thinking' skills. Seriously, stick to more intellectual (and better researched) sources like Noam Chomsky and so many others I've mentioned elsewhere in my replies to you. Or continue worshipping your God - the Great Aaron Good.
Your summary of Good's book is "close enough" for me. Same message Parenti was delivering. Same message Chomsky was preaching. Same as Wolff, Norton, Hudson, Desai, Brar, Berletic.
Why do you endeavor to obscure it?
Whose side are you on?
Are you an Ezra Levine organizing a nationwide protest that accomplishes nothing but allows the protestors to think that they did something so that like well-trained sheep they just "go home"?
Perhaps you are one of those who sabotaged the "Rage Against the War Machine" protest because some of the people who were going to participate didn't recite your catechism word for word.
Is Soros funding you too? Or is it Adelson?
One of the tactics of the NED is to fund competing NGOs to deliver slightly different themes but which results in chaos between people who should have been allies. That way the NED can take over (like "Fuck the EU" Nuland did) and maneuver to get their Nazi clients installed as the government.
Is that you? Don't give me that "I'm not a Nazi" BS, you're constantly claiming "I'm superior to you".
Are you threatening to dox me? Looks like a threat to me.
Are you just jealous because I keep pushing Good and no one endorses you?
Why is it that because I have a slightly different perspective on the wrongs being committed by the USA you take such offense and rabidly attack me over and over again?
Even when I just try to let you get away with your BS, you have to resurrect it and attack again with inane references to "Critical Thinking" as if those two words actually mean anything.
Hey, I get from your comments what I get from your comments.
Your inability to concisely, coherently and explicitly express yourself is not my problem.
>>"Hey, I get from your comments what I get from your comments."
Yes, and you get what you get because you LACK adequate critical thinking skills.
I think part of the problem here is that John has a different interpretation of critical thinking. You and I share the traditional interpretation, which is to apply a broad set of analytical skills to test the strength of an argument.
I think John is coming from the more recent trend, which initially grew out of Marxist theory. In Marxist Critical Theory, you analyze an argument by 'problematizing' it in the terms of a Marxist view, e.g., what does the argument say about social class, ownership of the means of production, etc. In Critical Feminist Theory, the argument is viewed in terms of its feminist implications. And in Critical Race Theory, everything is viewed in terms of race and ethnicity.
And all of them connect by tending to use language that frames social interactions in terms of power struggles: upper class vs. lower class, women vs. men, white people vs. everybody. In that sense, they are all postmodernist and associate with Foucault, Derrida, et al. Which tends to make their arguments dense, circular, dogmatic, and untestable.
Sadly, that is what passes for the teaching of critical thinking in the current educational system.
I know what ad hominem is.
Do you?
It is used when you've lost an argument.
I guess you really don't seem to know what an ad hominem is (wouldn't be surprised that you don't).
I'm not arguing your position or argument, I'm DIRECTLY addressing your 'lack of adequate critical thinking skills'. This is my personal observation based on your comment replies to me, not an argument in-and-of itself.
For your reference: Ad hominem is "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument." Since I'm not attacking your 'position or argument in my comment above but rather talking about a completely different issue (that of your CT skills), the logic of ad hominem does not apply in this context.
Of course, you can ALWAYS pretend that EVERY criticism of your logic (and conclusions) is an ad hominem statement. You can pretend that when I point out your 'gaps in critical thinking' (which aligns with your 'hero worship' of certain individuals') is an ad hominem.
Go for it, you've already established a track-record of placing other people's opinions (like Aaron Good's) above 'thinking for yourself'.
Wow. Such a weird way of explaining ad hominem so backwardly yet so thoroughly.
May I quote you?
Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than...
Oh, my. I just realized. You have no idea what the "Deep State" is do you. I'm glad we cleared that up. I should have figured that out many exchanges ago. My apologies to all and to Caitlin for having allowed Chang's temper tantrum to occupy so much space here.
>>"Or is it that you're angry because I think Good provides a better understanding of the "Deep State" than..."
Dude, you have issues (specifically hero worship and 'not thinking for yourself' issues).
BTW, 'Deep State' is a 'catch-all' term for how Empires function (whether it be the U.S. Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire, etc.). There is nothing really 'conspiratorial' about 'Deep States'. What IS conspiratorial though, are the 'theories' about the conspiracies (and not the conspiracies themselves).
There is a DIFFERENCE between 'a conspiracy' and 'conspiratorial thinking that leads to low-quality conspiracy theories'!
▪️ A conspiracy is two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.
▪️ A conspiracy theory is a structured belief about a conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
▪️ A conspiracy theorist, or conspiracist, is someone who holds a conspiracy theory about a possible conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
BTW, people have been analyzing 'deep state' workings BEFORE 'your hero Aaron Good' was born. There's nothing really new he provides, not to mention doing a bad job of synthesizing information provided by so many others (like Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, etc.). And from watching his videos and finally reading his 'American Exception: Empire and the Deep State' book, I have to say that it is QUITE a let-down.
How do you form an opinion this critical of US policy and then back RFK JR.? Embarrassing.
I can sum up Good’s book in my own words as basically stating “America is run by a bunch of rich selfish dudes seeking even greater wealth and power, and they’re willing to trample on the rest of us to get it.” Well, duh. One could more effectively make this argument by avoiding harping on dozens of poorly explained conspiracy theories. I see American Exception actually as a dangerous book, in that it’s likely to turn readers against the basic reasonable argument Good is trying to make, that American democracy is decaying.
And guess what JohnOnKaui or John Zwiebel (or whatever your name is), all of this information is available elsewhere in a better format (see my comment here -> https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-fictional-mental-illness-that/comment/129984941)
Aaron prefers to accept simple-minded conspiracy theories rather than trying to wrap his head around the nuance & complexities of the real world. Because of this he ends up arriving at some incorrect conclusions, and propagating woefully inaccurate & insulting narratives.
In other words, YOUR hero - Aaron Good - is a wanna-be, a hack, a person with 'weak critical thinking' skills. Seriously, stick to more intellectual (and better researched) sources like Noam Chomsky and so many others I've mentioned elsewhere in my replies to you. Or continue worshipping your God - the Great Aaron Good.
Well, Duh!
Your summary of Good's book is "close enough" for me. Same message Parenti was delivering. Same message Chomsky was preaching. Same as Wolff, Norton, Hudson, Desai, Brar, Berletic.
Why do you endeavor to obscure it?
Whose side are you on?
Are you an Ezra Levine organizing a nationwide protest that accomplishes nothing but allows the protestors to think that they did something so that like well-trained sheep they just "go home"?
Perhaps you are one of those who sabotaged the "Rage Against the War Machine" protest because some of the people who were going to participate didn't recite your catechism word for word.
Is Soros funding you too? Or is it Adelson?
One of the tactics of the NED is to fund competing NGOs to deliver slightly different themes but which results in chaos between people who should have been allies. That way the NED can take over (like "Fuck the EU" Nuland did) and maneuver to get their Nazi clients installed as the government.
Is that you? Don't give me that "I'm not a Nazi" BS, you're constantly claiming "I'm superior to you".
Are you threatening to dox me? Looks like a threat to me.
Are you just jealous because I keep pushing Good and no one endorses you?
Why is it that because I have a slightly different perspective on the wrongs being committed by the USA you take such offense and rabidly attack me over and over again?
Even when I just try to let you get away with your BS, you have to resurrect it and attack again with inane references to "Critical Thinking" as if those two words actually mean anything.
You have an ego larger than Trump's