With all due respect, this is nothing more than “I am an independent thinker and I can be neutral” mistake in thinking.
“A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie is probably the simplest explanation.” isn’t “the minimum level of skepticism that should be applied to every story”, it’s a specific bias toward believing that out of at least 3 different parties involved in the story (Otto, the DPRK, and anyone he knew in the US), he’s exclusively the liar. And him coming up with a lie that elaborate is not a “simple explanation,” it’s a bizarrely specific story for anyone to invent, much less a seemingly random 21 year old. The kind of thinking you’re applying here is not skepticism across the board or you wouldn’t be reaching for your end statement explanation. What it suggests is an unwillingness to believe in certain capacities of the US and what kind of behavior can come out of it, not skepticism inherently, which I frankly don’t understand because as ridiculous as some things can sound on the surface, we’re talking about the country that actually did stuff like MKUltra. If it were anyone else, I would more understand being in doubt, but the story actually fits the plausible deniability gangster state character of the US and its history like a glove.
it’s a bizarrely specific story for anyone to invent
It’s a bizarre story, period. When anyone comes to you with a bizarre story, you don’t just take them at their word.
This is more of a “it comes from a country I generally support and is against a country I generally oppose, so I’m not going to look to closely” mistake.
Now you insist on a universalized principle that a story can be objectively recognized as bizarre and then one is supposed to be dismissive of it or there is something wrong with their thinking. This is more shallow pretense of neutrality that doesn’t exist. I repeatedly bring up MKUltra because it is a perfect example of something that can sound hard to believe, but actually happened. Sometimes things that stretch our personal sense of credibility do occur and I say “personal sense of” because that is what it is in reality most of the time, not something universal. It might be shocking for a westerner, for example, to learn about the atrocities imperial Japan did to China. But for someone who has grown up being taught about it and being surrounded by people who are connected to its consequences, it would likely be less immediately shocking, being disseminated more gradually, while also being uniquely disturbing, being more personal. This is just one example of the relativity of perceptions of information and how people come in contact with it, and it is also why I emphasize the gangster state character of the US; another example of the relativity of perception is surrounding context. It would not be strange to hear that a geographical area that tends to be very cold has gotten snowed on. It would be strange to hear that a geographical area that is never cold enough for snow has gotten twelve inches of it. Universality exists, but is not something to be taken for granted lightly, contrary to what western thought tends to have people doing.
If you were to believe the MK Ultra story based solely on a well-rehearsed press statement from one single person, yes, there would be something wrong with your thinking. We believe MK Ultra happened because there’s evidence of it beyond just the story. Without that evidence, skepticism is warranted.
We’ve already been over why you are not applying skepticism here and you aren’t being impartial. When it’s really broken down past the empty insistence on objectivity and universality, your argument amounts to “this didn’t feel true to me, so I’m going to spend post after post trying to rationalize disbelieving after the fact.” Skepticism is just doubt, that’s it, it is not a position of asserting alternative positions of your own without evidence, such as you did in saying the likelihood is a “A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie”. It is not asserting garbage like “well-rehearsed press statement”, as if you know without evidence that he was coached and are starting from that premise.
You’re full of shit on this, is the nicest way I can put it right now. Having doubt alone would be fine, but you’re twisting the meaning of having doubt to serve your own alternative narrative and that’s BS.
With all due respect, this is nothing more than “I am an independent thinker and I can be neutral” mistake in thinking.
“A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie is probably the simplest explanation.” isn’t “the minimum level of skepticism that should be applied to every story”, it’s a specific bias toward believing that out of at least 3 different parties involved in the story (Otto, the DPRK, and anyone he knew in the US), he’s exclusively the liar. And him coming up with a lie that elaborate is not a “simple explanation,” it’s a bizarrely specific story for anyone to invent, much less a seemingly random 21 year old. The kind of thinking you’re applying here is not skepticism across the board or you wouldn’t be reaching for your end statement explanation. What it suggests is an unwillingness to believe in certain capacities of the US and what kind of behavior can come out of it, not skepticism inherently, which I frankly don’t understand because as ridiculous as some things can sound on the surface, we’re talking about the country that actually did stuff like MKUltra. If it were anyone else, I would more understand being in doubt, but the story actually fits the plausible deniability gangster state character of the US and its history like a glove.
It’s a bizarre story, period. When anyone comes to you with a bizarre story, you don’t just take them at their word.
This is more of a “it comes from a country I generally support and is against a country I generally oppose, so I’m not going to look to closely” mistake.
Now you insist on a universalized principle that a story can be objectively recognized as bizarre and then one is supposed to be dismissive of it or there is something wrong with their thinking. This is more shallow pretense of neutrality that doesn’t exist. I repeatedly bring up MKUltra because it is a perfect example of something that can sound hard to believe, but actually happened. Sometimes things that stretch our personal sense of credibility do occur and I say “personal sense of” because that is what it is in reality most of the time, not something universal. It might be shocking for a westerner, for example, to learn about the atrocities imperial Japan did to China. But for someone who has grown up being taught about it and being surrounded by people who are connected to its consequences, it would likely be less immediately shocking, being disseminated more gradually, while also being uniquely disturbing, being more personal. This is just one example of the relativity of perceptions of information and how people come in contact with it, and it is also why I emphasize the gangster state character of the US; another example of the relativity of perception is surrounding context. It would not be strange to hear that a geographical area that tends to be very cold has gotten snowed on. It would be strange to hear that a geographical area that is never cold enough for snow has gotten twelve inches of it. Universality exists, but is not something to be taken for granted lightly, contrary to what western thought tends to have people doing.
If you were to believe the MK Ultra story based solely on a well-rehearsed press statement from one single person, yes, there would be something wrong with your thinking. We believe MK Ultra happened because there’s evidence of it beyond just the story. Without that evidence, skepticism is warranted.
We’ve already been over why you are not applying skepticism here and you aren’t being impartial. When it’s really broken down past the empty insistence on objectivity and universality, your argument amounts to “this didn’t feel true to me, so I’m going to spend post after post trying to rationalize disbelieving after the fact.” Skepticism is just doubt, that’s it, it is not a position of asserting alternative positions of your own without evidence, such as you did in saying the likelihood is a “A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie”. It is not asserting garbage like “well-rehearsed press statement”, as if you know without evidence that he was coached and are starting from that premise.
You’re full of shit on this, is the nicest way I can put it right now. Having doubt alone would be fine, but you’re twisting the meaning of having doubt to serve your own alternative narrative and that’s BS.
I don’t think you watched the video