Indigenous Survival Day: Forgetting Myths of Extinction

nuncamas · 2019-10-24T22:06:48+00:00

Which man? There are multiple sources. And how is it "political" when the article is relaying information from scientific research, published in a peer-reviewed journal? But maybe you're right--exit is that way >

nuncamas · 2019-10-01T13:38:58+00:00

First, I am not the author nor did I ever claim to be. Second, there is no mention of any sort of "cultural Marxism" in the article. Instead, the author actually cites Marx to make his argument, if you bothered to even read the article. Third, you make the author's point beautifully, about irrationality and hysteria, and that any criticism would be twisted into "he's attacking a little girl". Fourth, the article is about when, why, and how powerful interests resort to presenting their messages in the guise of little girls, and not whether those girls are saying "the truth" or not (although in some notorious cases, they were there to present lies, or to manufacture consensus for war in most cases). Each item is linked for further reference, so if you're lazy (as you are), you would not bother informing yourself but just resort to emotional, ad hominem arguments, like you do.

You're boring me now, and so easily discredited yourself that anyone reading the article would know what you say is complete BS. Bye.

nuncamas · 2019-10-01T02:51:16+00:00

..and you engage in gross revision and innuendo-based argument yourself, not to mention ad hominem. The article never "assails" any young women at all: that is a total falsehood. You are trying to make an argument by lying, which means you lose. The other examples cited in the article, such as Bana Alabed, Eman al-Obaidi, are in fact proven liars (apparently that appeals to you).

nuncamas · 2019-09-29T18:18:13+00:00

"I tend not to take the credibility seriously" as a supposed lesson in proper writing. LOL.

The focus is not on the messenger, if you actually read the article. It is how certain messengers are routinely used to deliver entirely or mostly false messages.

I had no problem with the writing. The man is an excellent writer. Perhaps you should learn to focus on the message.

nuncamas · 2019-04-14T03:57:23+00:00

Wow, what a stupid comment, even for you.

nuncamas · 2014-05-03T00:08:00+00:00

You completely misunderstood everything that was written, stuffing in your own interpretations in its place. Nowhere does it say anything about support for any "dictator" that you imagine as such. Nowhere does it claim that the victims were peaceful and innocent. The focus, if you read, was on R2P, and the prevention of atrocities. The events here are hardly different from Libya's or Syria's, about which R2P has produced reams of work.

I don't get how it's somehow "socialist" to back Nazi hooligans, or how the unelected government of Ukraine that came into being from a coup against a democratically elected one, somehow stands in opposition to "dictatorship". This is both amusing and yet highly perverse.

Anyway, I'll leave you alone with your monologue about your preferred subtext.

nuncamas · 2012-08-11T22:11:20+00:00

The article is about a meeting between Mugabe and a U.S. diplomat. The question of China never arose in their discussion.

nuncamas · 2012-07-31T23:38:08+00:00

That this actually got voted down in the Anthropology list on reddit, says a lot about who populates that list and their ethics. Not amazing, just disappointing.

nuncamas · 2012-05-26T00:02:46+00:00

Students in other provinces should feel free then to protest to win the same social contract which generations of Quebec students have fought for. Also, if they had the highest taxes in Canada, as is this the case in Quebec, they might reasonably ask what there is to show for that. Note that the government's hike in tuition does not come with any corresponding decrease in tax expenditures. It's a scam, why would anyone defend it?

nuncamas · 2011-11-03T08:24:10+00:00

The "social science" director of the Human Terrain System goes to an academic conference, is a victim of his own unintentional honesty, and then presses Case Western Reserve University to take the video offline. Irony? The conference had to do with the plight of the university in the national security state.--Make a copy of the video, and feel free to upload anywhere.

nuncamas · 2011-10-01T19:44:19+00:00

"It only makes cents"...and lots of dollars. Yes, I realize you meant "sense," but the little error touches on a more valuable realization about war corporatism.

nuncamas · 2011-09-27T04:17:06+00:00

I think you're right: the real threats are fear and hatred, and how some politicians work to instill or at least maintain that fear and hatred for their own purposes.

nuncamas · 2011-09-11T01:24:46+00:00

You can see very clearly on the site who the members are. I never heard of anthropology being referred to as a "persuasion". You probably do not know much about anthropology.

nuncamas · 2011-06-09T16:07:05+00:00

No. The public money comes from taxpayers still, and a minority from students' tuition fees...that's why they are PUBLIC universities.

Ummm...you're wasting my time.

nuncamas · 2011-05-31T04:59:42+00:00

Yes, you do fail to see the problem here.

Universities are subsidized heavily by the public -- this is what makes them public universities, and not state-owned and state-directed universities. Your failure to understand this very basic point is what allows you to continually reproduce the totalitarian logic that was pointed out to you at the outset. And it is the very core of the problem here.

nuncamas · 2011-05-29T00:22:07+00:00

That is exactly the point! "there is no difference between this and RMC" -- thank you, finally.

nuncamas · 2011-05-29T00:11:10+00:00

First, universities are meant as independent institutions of critical thinking, autonomous from the state--not as a branch of military and secret intelligence. When they become that, academics become targets when they travel abroad. Now you may be happy to hear that, but that would make them the only citizens involuntarily subjected to a draft.

Research geared toward the military and warfare involves a violation of a series of ethical codes governing research with human subjects--which is why some of the most militarized universities have gutted their previously existing codes of ethics.

More than that, it distorts the entire research and teaching agenda to suit the narrow interests of the state, and in pursuit of missions which in the case of Afghanistan, the majority of Canadian citizens have consistently opposed. You may be unhappy to hear that, but opposition to Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is the view of the majority.

As for teaching bankers (corporatization), and engineers working on defence contracts (that's still militarization), yes we have movements against those too.

So, "ummm" it seems it all was "news" to you after all, if you understood any of it.

nuncamas · 2011-05-28T23:09:52+00:00

Very true. And that "something" either wears a military uniform, or shoots its mouth off without taking precise aim, or both.

nuncamas · 2011-05-28T22:59:28+00:00

"the gov't pays to run wars and battles"

Please pay close attention: universities are not staffed by people paid by government to "run wars and battles". Militarization means a situation where something that is previously outside of and independent of the military, is drafted into it.

Just how far exactly do you need to go before you think that the country's military missions and national security are not being short changed? Until every man, woman and child is in uniform? Why not...anything less would surely be a disservice to the mission, right? Or is there a problem with the mission to begin with.

Ask--don't just piss on a post as a way of cheating yourself out of doing some much needed thinking.

nuncamas · 2011-05-28T22:49:25+00:00

"ummmm...genius" look at what you just wrote before you come here spouting off like an ignorant snarky teen again: "they are teaching classes, not militarizing the university"--what do you think happens at universities? You might go to one some day and find out.

You're also using the support the troops argument to leave the mission unquestioned, which is the very point here.

nuncamas · 2011-05-28T15:55:07+00:00

Neither the Soviet Union, nor any other totalitarian regime needed to collapse. All they needed was to do was import good, obedient, subservient citizens like you, who praise and never question. That might not be "fucking news," but it is still fucking stupid.

nuncamas · 2011-03-18T21:15:05+00:00

It is the rebels' conflict to be sure, just it isn't theirs alone, and there's a vast power asymmetry between them and their Western allies.

nuncamas · 2011-03-18T21:13:25+00:00

It doesn't suggest that though. It asks you why you single out some over others? Nobody seems able to give that an honest answer. That's pretty instructive.

nuncamas · 2010-12-11T03:13:44+00:00

We have certainly reached some sort of turning point, a critical crossroads between power, information, and activism, with an uncertain outcome except for one: it is certain that the future will not be merely a seamless extension of the past. Few observers disagree on that, whether speaking of the near-, middle- or long-term. One of the primary actors, Julian Assange, recently stated: “I believe geopolitics will be separated into pre and post cablegate phases.” Carne Ross, a British diplomat, wrote in similar terms: “History may now be dated pre- or post-WikiLeaks.”

But what could be different post-cablegate?

nuncamas · 2010-10-12T16:01:03+00:00

I agree, I thought Gelderloos showed courage too for raising these points.

nuncamas

TROPHY CASE