Comment by neilv
I intended that as the uncontroversial part of the comment.
The article was a story on cia.gov. Are you suggesting that the CIA does things for no reason?
I intended that as the uncontroversial part of the comment.
The article was a story on cia.gov. Are you suggesting that the CIA does things for no reason?
If a company featured an analogous story on their corporate Web site, there would probably be a reason, and one of the likely ones is to promote positive perceptions of the company.
Are you playing devil's advocate? Or do you think the meat of the comment is invalid? Or do you want to derail thought and discussion on the topic?
I am not trying to derail. I am just pointing out the fact that you have no convincing evidence to claim what you are stating.
To me it reads as, "MKULTRA had elements that were universally recognized as being ethically unsound, so we can't talk about it in a neutral light at all".
I think this is a terrible dichomatic way of thinking that supplants neutral interpretation.
Furthermore, I think an appeal to the reputation of the source of information equates to an ad hominem attack and presents no substantive argument against said information.
I assume that most people who'd heard of MKUltra think it was some combination of insane, horrifying, and unconscionable, and therefore a big negative mark on the history of the CIA.
When the publisher of the article was also the actor in that scandal, I don't think it's ad hominem to wonder whether they're trying to whitewash the term.
Are you saying that MKUltra was actually so much more than the scandalous parts, to the extent that the CIA can just throw the term as innocuous into fluff pieces, as if there weren't overwhelmingly negative associations?
No, I am saying not everything they do is a targeted information campaign.