Hold up, there's a HUGE difference between these two:
A: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia is a current geopolitical enemy to the US, it does some wacky shit, therefore if a foreign government is committing shenanigans there's a chance it's Russia."
B: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia has been somehow giving educational grants to US institutions with the explicit goal of installing a fifth-column of educators who will demoralize young US men with misandry."
Believing A does not imply B.
The parent-poster isn't being vague because the answer is obvious-and-accepted... they're being vague because they want to push the "foreign enemies in our colleges" meme without giving the audience any handles for critical-thinking.
> A: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia is a current geopolitical enemy to the US, it does some wacky shit, therefore if a foreign government is committing shenanigans there's a chance it's Russia."
And that chance is: "probably", where "probably" means it is "basically" a fact. (Specific example: the same historic evidence of Russian trolls/hackers is regularly re-used as proof of new accusations, if any evidence is even provided that is.)
And any challenge to the claim? "Pedantic." (or: silence, highly predictable memes, insults, deflection, etc - ChatGPT would know better than me)
> Believing A does not imply B.
There are (at least) two kinds of imply (and "does not" for that matter):
- the correct, literal, logically perfect interpretation (typically (depends on the claim, of course) "pedantic" and not allowed)
- the colloquial/experiential interpretation (the right way to interpret it, that is probably correct)
> The parent-poster isn't being vague because the answer is obvious-and-accepted... they're being vague because they want to push the "foreign enemies in our colleges" meme without giving the audience any handles for critical-thinking.
What version of "is/isn't" is being used here: literal, or colloquial? :)
That's a shallow understanding of my message. I said that it's the dogma that corrupts minds and makes otherwise reasonable people do wicked things. Who created the dogma is a secondary question, for the US has plenty of enemies. In the near future we'll see how dogmas will become more elaborate, more oppressive, and it's the war of dogmas that will be central to future wars.
Hold up, there's a HUGE difference between these two:
A: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia is a current geopolitical enemy to the US, it does some wacky shit, therefore if a foreign government is committing shenanigans there's a chance it's Russia."
B: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia has been somehow giving educational grants to US institutions with the explicit goal of installing a fifth-column of educators who will demoralize young US men with misandry."
Believing A does not imply B.
The parent-poster isn't being vague because the answer is obvious-and-accepted... they're being vague because they want to push the "foreign enemies in our colleges" meme without giving the audience any handles for critical-thinking.