Yeah. I keep noticing that. This forum, and by extension this thread, is not about you and anything you want to talk about. It's a place to discuss the specific topics that are noted in the forum titles. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
I just felt a realistic explanation of shills was in store, since I didn't much agree with the one floating around.
Calling people shills, by any definition, is simply a way to put down and marginalize those who don't believe the same way you do even when they have very good reasons for not beliving what you believe. RWAF claims everyone who doesn't think like him are paid by the government. You believe America sucks, so you think anyone who defends the government, no matter how much evidence there is that the government wasn't involved, is a natural born shill because we were lied to in school about America. How hard is it to believe we, the people who don't believe what you believe, believe what we do because that is what the evidence shows happened? The evidence points to 19 members of Al Qaeda. Repeated requests for evidence that shows it wasn't these 19 hijackers or evidence that the government was involved only got me opinions and outright lies. I have told you time and time again that I am not pro government. The government sucks. I want as little government as humanly possible because the larger the government the more intrusive the government becomes and the more prone government is to abuse of power. You pretending you know me and everyone else because we don't rant about how evil America is is very transparent. You know you can't win the debate based on evidence, common sense, logic, or the truth, so you must attack our base of beliefs by outright lying about our base of beliefs. So how is pretending someone who has no issues at all with blaming the government when they think the government is wrong (which, truthfully, is the majority of the time) is REALLY a pro government shill honest? It doesn't matter if you claim we are paid for it or that we are brainwashed to be pro government. Bottom line is we're not shills. Do you have evidence one or all of us are paid by the government to be here? Do you have evidence that shows one or all of us knows the conspiracy is true yet we continue to 'defend the government'? Or are we going to get yet another one line piece of nonsense that, when one really looks at it, makes no sense whatsoever?
This goes back to what I said about the introspective nature of conspiracy belief, and belief in general. It's impossible for some to directly resolve two diametrically opposed opinions that result from observation of the exact same evidence. Rather then a more careful examination of evidence, the subject tries to reason out how the opposition opinion was formed using the "what would I do" method of hypothetical reasoning. They attempt to hypothetically place themselves in their opposition's shoes in order to find the "flaw" in their conclusions. This is what leads us to such hasty generalization fallacies.
Fine. What then, do *you* call children, like American children, that are taught unbalanced US History (because the textbooks are written in a Pro-United States fashion) either all or the majority of their educational careers K-12? How many teachers teach their class strictly by the book, or as I've heard the teachers in the CMU program say, "teaching by the book." Do you not have children Patriot? Heck, just recall how idealistic children you knew growing up forty years ago. Think about it. If they're being taught the same ole super US message year after year after year, it is going to have an impact on them. How many US History teachers are going to be quoting Chomsky? Nope. It is weird when a young person reads Chomsky for the first time. Any US citizen that has never been exposed to US History greater than high school level, really. It pops a bubble. Same thing with Zinn and Loewen. Eyeopener's. But I was what RTW would call a shill until I started learning more about my country. Learned about all of the lies men like Zinn, Chomsky, and Loewen have awoken people to. It felt that way to me at least, awakening. Nevertheless, I feel that my definition of a shill was correct, poor name though. It is taught, not born into the person. You have seemingly questioned my loyalty to my country, which I can understand - all you have for your analysis is my criticism of the government. That by definition is Anti-Americanism. I have previously admitted to being an Anti-American under the "difference in policy and has anger towards" department. Zero ill will, but a lot of anger, confusion, disappointment, and frustration though. I wonder why? I've gone from "the government is perfect," to, "haha look at the government." I see the mistakes now. I've been exposed to truths hidden from me for years. That pisses me off too! And I won't get into policy. But I will say this, I do love my country. Cause I don't like the government doesn't mean I think America sucks.
You have discovered what most young people realize when they first get to college. Leaving the safety of the nest and being exposed to different cultures and ideas. Still a bad idea to start calling names.
Whereas you are pushing for an anti American textbook. I prefer something in the middle. And how is your anti American message much different from what is being taught today? MY guess is you haven't been exposed to the current educational system. Everyone is taught everyone is the same and that includes nationality. Hopefully none. That guy is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot. More bull(*)(*)(*)(*) generalizations from you. Going from a pro American to an anti American source may be eyeopener to the mentally challenged, but the rest of us already knew the answer is in the middle, not in the extremes. I don't believe you. First off, a shill is someone paid by the government to feed misinformation to the masses. You're really going to claim that? Second, you've had an anti American chip on your shoulder since your first post. People tend to gravitate to people who say what they want to hear. The truth is so boring compared to the zealots. So you are going to apply the same ignorance (sorry, there is no better word) to everyone who doesn't believe what you believe to the 9/11 theories? I've told you what I believe. It does not match your claims of what a "shill" believes. I have not heard a single person show the beliefs you pretend we do, yet you preach those lies anyway because it fits what you want to believe, not reality. You show the same behavior on 9/11 theories. I show you tons of evidence Al Qaeda was on the planes, yet you still don't believe Al Qaeda was on the planes. You haven't even touched the evidence that proves they were and are instead basing your beliefs on your OPINION of a piece of evidence surviving the plane crash. I did not seemingly question your loyalty. Your posts show you hate this nation. We agree. This I do not believe. Zero ill will? Then why are you pushing bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories you can't defend that, if enough people believed them, would overthorw the government? Yours is an agenda designed to foment ill will towards the government and America. So you like to pretend everyone was as misinformed as you were before your "aha" moment? Hate to break it to you, but I've known since I was a little child that the US government wasn't even CLOSE to being perfect. I am betting most of the "shills" here have known for a long time our government isn't anywhere near perfect. Your posts paint a very different picture.
I call them a straw man based on hasty generalization fallacy. "American Children" are a diverse group that are exposed to ideologies as diverse as those of the American public in general. I defy you to show empirical evidence that a significant portion of "American Children" are taught an "unbalanced US History". The ideological slant of American text books run the gambit. The American history classroom is as diverse as the teachers that teach it. Parents influence from all walks of life and backgrounds. You tell me. You're the one that thinks the problem is systemic. How many teachers teach history this way? Again, You tell me. I would say this has more to do with your own ideological journey then it does the ideologies you were exposed to when you are young. The human brain does not reach full maturity until the mid twenties on average. Prior to this the average person goes through myriad developmental stages who's outcomes influence political ideology. The causes of such are not so cut and dry as, they were exposed to information A and not exposed to information B. If it were, how do you explain yourself?
Now wait one darn minute. I like Chomsky. I don't know about this. You're expression of distaste for an author I value must mean: 1: Evidence that different people have different views and different tastes. OR 2: YOU ARE AN ANTI CHOMSKY SHILL BEING PAID TO SAY MEAN THINGS ABOUT CHOMSKY BECAUSE IF YOU WEREN'T AN ANTI CHOMSKY SHILL YOU'D AGREE WITH HIM To "truthers" reading: See how ridiculous this sounds?
Let's define my Anti-Americanism. I disagree with policies and have anger towards the United States. I have the Constitutional Right to Free Speech. I mean, if the government is making poor policy decisions, isn't the peoples' responsibility to speak up and demand change? Congressmen Ron Paul is Anti-American because he disagrees with US policies. He has anger. He does not hats this nation, and neither do I. I see the mistakes we've made as a nation, and I want people to know them just as well as I do, as well as the likes of men you scoff at arrogantly. I want my country to change. There was a reason I made the 'Views' thread. I wanted to gauge the depths of many things in the members that post here, most importantly, how they viewed the usage of the United States Military historically, as referenced by the Congressional Research Service link I provided, who are the researchers for Congress. We've been bullies since we got a good Navy. And my American exceptionalism, as delusional as it is, wants to change that. Because I am angry about all of the people our military has killed over the years. All of the women and children, foreigners, sure, but still human beings. Still a life extinguished so an American could have the best kind of banana, or the cheapest but best wood, or lower gas prices. It is morally wrong. And our leaders, the men and women we as a nation vote into office, they tell the world we're different, exceptional, unique - moral. So no, I would not want to warp the fragile little impressionable minds of our American child with "Anti-American" literature, I am more moderate myself, so it would really boil down to context. I do not believe in the way I was taught, which seems to be the way you were taught too. Kids need to know the less fortunate side of things too. Because ultimately, when they graduate, they generally are able to vote. We need as many responsible voters as we can get nowadays - people that are exposed to truths unknown to them. It makes a difference.
I think it has more to do with his username than anything - the first word. Chomsky must challenge those deep seated beliefs of his. Calling Chomsky an f'ing idiot is...wow. I'd like to hear an explanation on that one. No, I just have a feeling that Patriot has an inability to regulate some unseen processes taught and instilled into him, like patriotism for example. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America..." So no, I don't think he's a paid shill. But him not liking Loewen and Chomsky does require explanation. Of course, his pride will deny my allegations, that much I expect but I hope for sincerity of why he has so much disdain for Chomsky and Loewen (who he's never read).
You're right, on both accords. I hope you can take my word when I say that when I was describing what I thought, I meant not to 'call names' but to 'define'. As I mentioned, I obviously belonged to that group since I got a public education. My goal from the start was set on improving the standards of US History, as the benefit is better, more well-rounded citizens who will lead us into the future. Those minds *need* to be aware of the problems clogging up the adult world that are waiting for their arrival. But first, one must address that there is a problem. I tried to define it. Poor choice of words, I suppose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Loewen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teach...88725&sr=8-1&keywords=lies+my+teacher+told+me Read the book.
Please point out where I or anyone else has tried to shut you up. I've told you to stop lying, but that isn't the same thing. Yes, and I do that on a regular basis. I am very involved in politics at the local level. My statesmen know me by name and I discuss concerns with them regularly. I have yet start to blame the government for every bad thing that happens despite a complete lack of evidence they are responsible and overwhelming evidence someone else is responsible. I am still on the fence about Ron Paul. I am convinced of you stance because of what you write which is conficting with what you are saying here. By lying your ass off? By pretending every evil is the fault of the government?
What makes you think I haven't read the book? It's a horrendously researched polemic that makes no secret of its bias. It's hardly a scholarly work. Don't you find it ironic that his book exposing inaccuracy and bias is inaccurate and bias?
Patriot, I can't convince you of anything. You say you follow the evidence, so when I provide some, you turn your nose up at it. Call it Anti-American. Question my loyalty. Suggest I move out of my country. The country I've defended. Who do you think you are?
Please read this very carefully. YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. What you have presented is circumstantial events that you ASSUME means 9/11 was an inside job, but have no evidence to back that up. Opinions are NOT evidence. If you claim the war games going on on the morning of 9/11 are evidence of an inside job and then present evidence that shows the FAA response or the NORAD response was somehow delayed by those war games, then you would have evidence. As it is, you have evidence war games were going on at the same time. That's it. So you CAN convince me. You just have to use evidence, not opinions that are, in fact, paranoid delusions because they are not based on reality but Lack of evidence is not anti-American. Your constant diatribes against the US and your feeble attempts to pin 9/11 on the US are anti-American. I don't need to question it. You have no loyalty to the US. You've shown that time and time again by trying to frame the US for crimes it hasn't committed. Now, now, Jango. Be HONEST for once. I did not suggest you move out of the US. I asked you very pointed questions. I don't understand why someone would stay somewhere where they not only hate it, but actively try to foment rebellion by lying about what the government has done. If you actually served, you have my thanks. Your comments lead me to question this, especially since you seemed completely unfamiliar with military operations. Regardless, you defended the country in the past. Right now you are attacking that same country you defended. By pretending the government is behind 9/11, you are asking people to do the only logical thing to do which would be to replace the government with something else. Before you even try to pretend you're only talking about specific people in the government, you have to understand that the entire government has to be behind the conspiracy for the conspiracy to have survived more than a decade now. I am a patriot. I serve America. Not the government. America the people. When the government does wrong, I speak out against the government. When people do wrong like blame innocent people in order to foment rebellion, I speak out against those people. It is perfectly apparent nobody can convince you the government wasn't behind 9/11. You are willing to ignore literally tons of evidence including the words of the people killed on 9/11. Funny how you can do that yet claim I don't look at the evidence. How do you reconcile that fact to yourself?
I haven't read the book (heard of it), but from what I've been reading (reviews) is does sound rather hyperbolic, to put it nicely. I did find this direct criticism of the book however: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26421 If I want a fresh outlook on history and societies evolved, I think I'll stick with Jared Diamond.
Let's start with the Introduction: This is his thesis; the subject of his polemic. It is a very subjective and opinionated message. Who is he to decide what high school students "need to know about the American past?" Has he conducted a study to determine what students need to know about the American past? Is there some scholarly work that shows what high school students require of a high school history class? No. There hasn't been. This is a political message, not a scholarly one. Not only is the "flag waving campaign" comment a very biased, and subjective claim, he goes on to assert that the purpose of teaching American history is to create good political beings. How can you disagree that this is a biased polemic?
I've been meaning to get to some of his stuff, which has criticism too. Guns, Germs, and Steel if I recall. I think you should give Loewen a read though. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Most of the criticism with regards to Diamond is his overemphasis on the importance of geography from what I've read. I had an interesting conversation with a friend of my wife's who's a PhD in Anthropology with an emphasis on Meso America. She gave me some more specific criticism of Diamond (when I brought him up), but her criticism was on some very specific details that I would never have known about (considering what she does for a living). I like Diamond's work (also read Collapse) mainly because he's taking a fresh outlook on history and what drives it. Not that I would completely bite down on his hook. This appears very different from Loewen's work however (again I'm going off what I've read about it). It appears to be more a "Tell All" book in it's approach, rather than taking a scholarly approach to history. That type of work is always based on some bias, and should be taken with a big grain of salt. I'm sure there are many nuggets of truth (which one can find out on their own if they are actually interested), but the unecessary baggage attached to that type of work is very bothersome to me, almost like an "unauthorized biography" approach to history. Seductive yet misleading.
It is not just the "nuggets of truth" that are misleading, but the complete lack of overall context. For example, when Loewen makes the claim that the civil war was not about slavery, he is partially correct. Was slavery an aspect of the civil war? Absolutely. Was it the main reason? No, but it was A reason that most people at the time could identify with and understand. Is there any ONE main reason? No. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of reasons that led to the civil war. Some major. Some minor. The civil war and the events leading up to it are incredibly complex and multifaceted. For someone like Loewen to pretend that the other history books got it wrong and he got it right because of X, Y and Z when NEITHER go into the detail one needs for a true understanding of an event is dishonest to a degree. One should not believe what one reads in a textbook that gives brief overviews of historical events PERIOD. If you want the truth, get the whole story through research or a class dedicated to the event, not from a summary from a book trying to cram American history into 300 pages. There is a reason grade school kids are given a brief overview of history where information is summed up into concepts a child can understand. At their age they're not going to understand the political maneuverings that accompany almost every historical event or reaction to a historical event, nor are they going to have time to dive into any one event in detail, much less ALL events in detail. That is why kids don't just have one history class, but numerous history classes that get into more and more detail as they get older. I remember quite well my high school American history classes that spanned four semesters and how I was amazed at how much more there was than the soundbites one hears like "the Civil War was all about slavery". I don't need a book like Loewen's that tries to convince everyone that America only has a dark side. I don't need a kids textbook that glosses over history to the point one only gets a glimpse at what happened. And I don't need someone preaching to me about what I do or do not believe based on their pre-conceived notion that I only believe America does good despite all my posts to the contrary.
Loewen's answer to this is not to sell kids short. In order to explain that kids can understand these nuances, he gives an example of a teacher who, (despite his assertion that teachers don't do this) told her students that founding fathers were also slave owners. The students, according to Loewen, were nonplussed by this, as they had all assumed that their textbooks surely would have mentioned something like this. The teacher then assigned independent study to let the students learn more specific aspects of individual founding fathers. They all compared notes and the students were apparently "outraged" when they discovered that their text books did not include this information. Of course, not only does this example contradict Loewen's premise that teachers only teach the textbook, it completely fails to define how this experienced "outrage" gave the students a better understanding of the founding fathers. What was the lesson they ultimately learned? How does simply knowing that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, for example, give you a better understanding of the politics of Thomas Jefferson, his defense and application of the rights of man, or even his specific struggle with slavery? What about the other aspects of Jefferson's life that are left out of textbooks? Is it more important to know that he was a slave owner, or is it more important to know about his opinions of slavery as a lawyer in the House of Burgesses?
