The stalest genre of geopolitcal analysis is the one-note retards who see EVERYTHING as “this is a distraction,” “this is another neo-con forever war,” “this is done at Netanyahu’s behest,” “this is more of the same” no matter what happens.
That’s not to say that these conclusions couldn’t be correct in any given case — they might, and surely they have at times in the past — but applying them lazily to EVERY case is retarded.
The world-weary “I told you so” mantra in the face of ANY development is a tell a person hasn’t looked into what’s going on, and just wants to sound savvy to others.
You are under no obligation to pay attention to geopolitics — maybe you’d even be better off hiking in the mountains and swimming in freezing lakes. But if you’re not paying attention except to headlines and hot takes, why make the discourse dumber?
Thread
Login to reply
Replies (6)
💯🔥 Waiting for facts and little common sense can go a long way. 😀
View quoted note →
That you expect me to have access to more than one freezing lake is really too much Chris.
Real man has access to minimum three freezing lakes. Had a higher opinion of you before this post.
I’m glad we’ve recalibrated expectations.
In which ways are the generalizations you target different than your own generalization? Are you not trying to sound smart and worldly by criticizing others for trying to do the same, both using summarization and synthesis?
I’m not against your critical observation but just pointing out the irony of your own genetic fallacy.
I'm not making a generalization except about generalizations themselves. I’m saying each geopolitical event is unique, to take them case by case.