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 (16)
I hope this re-note, isn't aimed at me, @YODL😬.
💯🔥 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.
But, ma pont. Tas ma pont.
sorry, not seeing it
The problem with denouncing generalizations, slapstick irony aside, is that it misses Hegel’s terrific observation that all theory is a kind of generalization.
And I would claim we desperately need theory in this here Information Age when there are so many ways to mislead and misinform the masses based theories that work: poisoning the well, behavioral psychology, scaling effects, pop culture, agenda setting, NLP, captured alignment, fiat incentives …sheet.
I'm not denouncing ALL generalizations only the lazy ones I’m seeing trotted out in response to current events.
If precision is the accepted opposite of lazy, the burden of defining it rests with the accuser, ja?
Without a precise definition of bad theory, the accuser may well be accused of censorship, ja?
the meaning of what I wrote is clear — you are free to disagree with it, but endless semantic pedantry isn’t moving the needle for me.
Sure if you are sure you know what you mean then you’re golden. Why even speak though if you don’t need to define your terms to others?
maybe I should try to define every word in the English language from first principles, fail, find the language wanting and never speak again?
or else bare no responsibility for your attempts to communicate in the medium of language?--meaning is always a negotiation of the middle ground between intention and reception so my attempt to hold you accountable for the fraying of your ideas is balanced by your hesitation to waste time in the labyrinth of semantics ... and so here we are two strangers in a strange landscape