no, i'm complaining that people DO X, please get it straight. They DO advocate X. They DO advocate the world bank marketing effort, which is governmental making it intrinsic propaganda.
Back up YOUR up-votes. why is the world bank a good thing to support? i mean, it's been around 50 years or so, you know, european post-war reconstruction all that. so...tell me, all the poverty...getting worse, yeah, so, how's that whole world bank working out for you, tell me?
i mean, i don't have to get into the neo-colonialism angle. as an atheist i can say to the christians in the bunch by their fruits ye shall know them.
so, you're backing up something, you think it's a good idea to read about, support, take action for. or no, it's just interesting in some faux-amoral sense. but you still think that it's valid to accept that on face value, and you're doubtful about the concept of deceptive & self-serving propaganda as something to guard carefully against.
well, tell me, what do you know about this program? what independent analysis have you seen? why are you advocating? why are you so sure the dissent has the burden of proof when the dissent is not actually taking any actions except to dissent in response?
there is a rhetorical paradox presented here. also known as hypocrisy (since we're speaking of dictionaries)
p.s. as you can see, i think the weaknesses in our frameworks for debate are a far bigger problem than advocating the world bank. we propagate bullshit for generations. our frameworks are broken. our well annotated frameworks are broken. we're deceiving ourselves with some pseudo-victorian genteel ideal.
speak your fucking mind. why are we letting taboos rule our time? micro-managers rule our time.
we are screwed if we don't break free from this hypersensitivity and inability to consider and face our problems with our attempts to improve quality of life for more than just a few technostartopoliptocrats.
what good is free speech if we fear the inconvenient as much as this?
Back up YOUR up-votes. why is the world bank a good thing to support? i mean, it's been around 50 years or so, you know, european post-war reconstruction all that. so...tell me, all the poverty...getting worse, yeah, so, how's that whole world bank working out for you, tell me?
i mean, i don't have to get into the neo-colonialism angle. as an atheist i can say to the christians in the bunch by their fruits ye shall know them.
so, you're backing up something, you think it's a good idea to read about, support, take action for. or no, it's just interesting in some faux-amoral sense. but you still think that it's valid to accept that on face value, and you're doubtful about the concept of deceptive & self-serving propaganda as something to guard carefully against.
well, tell me, what do you know about this program? what independent analysis have you seen? why are you advocating? why are you so sure the dissent has the burden of proof when the dissent is not actually taking any actions except to dissent in response?
there is a rhetorical paradox presented here. also known as hypocrisy (since we're speaking of dictionaries)
p.s. as you can see, i think the weaknesses in our frameworks for debate are a far bigger problem than advocating the world bank. we propagate bullshit for generations. our frameworks are broken. our well annotated frameworks are broken. we're deceiving ourselves with some pseudo-victorian genteel ideal.
speak your fucking mind. why are we letting taboos rule our time? micro-managers rule our time.
we are screwed if we don't break free from this hypersensitivity and inability to consider and face our problems with our attempts to improve quality of life for more than just a few technostartopoliptocrats.
what good is free speech if we fear the inconvenient as much as this?