September 29th, 2010

  • paft

"A Little Fun"

From a 13-page document about James O’Keefe’s plan to “punk” CNN. (seriously, check out the link. This has to be read to be believed) The props for this included strawberries and champagne, romantic music, “fuzzy handcuffs” and a blindfold:

My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort. Abby, who works for Anderson Cooper at CNN, a network notorious for journalistic malpractice, wants to lull me into thinking she's my friend so she can use me and hurt my career.



Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.


Collapse )
Default

Politics as Philosophy: Identifying Bias, Fraud and Deception

Or... In defense of the Chewbacca Defense.

I am going to ask what may seem like an odd question but I'd like an honest answer.

By what process do you determine truth from falsity? Do you have one?

Five years ago it would have never even occured to me to ask. The Answer seemed obvious and universal. Now I'm not so sure. In fact, I now suspect that many functional members of society simply do not or can not of make the distinction.

I am not just talking about the wingnuts that think the world is only 6,000 years old either. I am am talking about friends, family, and regular commentors in this community. Otherwise intelligent people in who seem genuinely confused when I try to point out the difference between perception and reality, or result and intent.

How else do you explain a statement like...

Everyone’s beliefs are equally valid.

To me this demonstrates a critical process failure. To accept it is to accept that the world is flat. Yet you can still find people who will defend it.

Suddenly this all makes sense

Edit: This all pre-supposes a rational and quantifiable reality but lets not open that philosophical can of worms.