Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Greenwald u0026 Halper Defend Ilhan Omar From Bogus Attacks" video.

  1. Halper knows how to play the rhetorical game: keep on talking, talk louder when you are interrupted. Know your soundbites very well - so you can deliver them decisively when interrupted or when the other guest or the host are bullshitting. [Edit: Katie countered b.s. with a lot of talking over and interrupting. Usually the rightwingers and neo cons are better in that art ; ) ] Hosts and think tank trained shills have a way of interrupting to control what information can be heard by the audience. They do not want to "win" the argument, the main goal is to prevent the other person to make a good and consistent argument that would sound CONVINCING to the AUDIENCE (or have them question what they took for granted). Some just interrupt in the heat of the moment - but I also see it done, when I recognize that the person speaking is about to deliver a good and strong argument. Well trained shills recognize that too - and use interruption techniques. Well trained guests can cope and will make their point regardless. But it is a skill (thinking on your feet quickly) - that does not mean you are right. It is a valuable gift, however.. Unfortunately - because less eloquent or witty persons can be right - but wit, and good rhetorical skills beat substance in those formats. And most people (even eloquent ones and experts on certain issues) need some training to cope with unfair tactics and limiting settings. Ben Shapiro is a fast talking bullshitting device. But it is hard to cope with that - and to biased or misinformed or uniformed persons that comes accross as convincing. A nuances fair exploration of an isssue is limited by short time they give to the interviews. The propaganda machine has put out their soundbites and THOUGHT STOPPING CLICHÉS for decades. If a guest wants to debunk what seems self evident to the audience (but isn't if you THINK about it and dig into it) the guest will need more than 30 seconds (even if they are lucky and will not be interrupted). Noam Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent): Concision is very valuable to control public opinion. When you deviate from CLAIMS that people hear all the time you better have your arguments ready and EXPLAIN what you mean and cite your facts. You cannot debunk "common wisdom" in 30 seconds because you have to debunk all the wrong assumptions (that have been repeated so often that they are "taken for granted" without much thinking about them). In 30 seconds you can only voice same old, same old. It is hard to challenge conventional wisdom. These short format are ideal for indoctrination and for control of public opinion [I paraphrased freely, it is the combination of a few statements of N.C.] There is a clip. The beauty of concision. For cults experts use the term THOUGHT STOPPING CLICHÉS. You find a lot of that in the economic and (foreign) policy discussion as well. The U.S. allegedly would promote democracy in Venezuela, Syria, Libya. Rreally ? And how come not in the many other dictatorships (I do not think Venezuela qualifies as dictatorship). We need to compete with other countries ? - Is that so ? - only when you let their goods into the country. For that a balance can be found - it USED to be that way.  High taxes for the rich and profitable businesses are bad for the economy. both claims did not apply in the Golden Era after WW2 - and that experiment lasted approx. 30 years and included the U.S. Austrailia, Canada, NZ, Western Europe, .... Competition will lead to more cost efficiency and better products, services Now, only a little common sense AND observation how (large !) companies behave will inform you a) in theory why the free market CANNOT work for certain products and services (healthcare being one of them - a fact that most nations considered after WW2 - that is why they all went the public non-profit route) and b) you can watch what the companies are DOING (not only in healthcare). Corporations first and foremost want to maximize profits. That is the core principle of Capitalism. They will do everything (incl. heineous and criminal acts) if they only think they can get away with it. Especially large companies. They do not WANT to compete, or serve the customer or have the best possible product. They also are not always for innovation (not when it is the innovation that could make their investments and patents obsolete. If they invent something of that kind they will hold it back - the car industry did with efficient motors. A start-up they will buy OR they will try to ruin them. Or use their leverage over the poltical process to crush their competition). What we are sold as traits of Capitalism (free market, good products, innovation, ...) is often necessary - but they work hard at eliminating those OBSTACLES to MORE profits. And the larger companies get the more likely they can avoid to be subject to the free market. Large companies WILL squeeze their workers and other (smaller) suppliers. BUT: if only a few giants are left in the field they usually peacefully co-exist and prefer to avoid a battle of the giants. They take it out on the consumers and if possible they hijack the political process for subsidies that are funnelled towards their profits (see internet, cable and telephone in the U.S., see healthcare). It is not rocket science and one does not need to follow politcs or the news closely to figure out how companies REALLY BEHAVE. What is REALLY the core principle of Capitalism. Capitalism also does not mean to be for political freedom and democracy (that is another very popular myth. Popular because the media regurgitates it all the time - because it sounds good and the unwashed masses with be more willing to accept the flaws of Capitalism. A strong democracy usually means that business owners cannot pollute, they may be held accountable for product failures (if they are negligent) and workers can organize in unions. It reduces PROFITS and increases the burden of responsibility (product safety, making your plants safe, taking care of your waste responsibly). Capitalism goes along very nicely with dictatorships IN the country or doing trade with such economies (therefore profiting from the lower prices possible because of dictatorships. See China - only in recent years wages were raised. But the workers in China are not allowed to unionize.
    1