Comment by neilv
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?
> 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.
No one working at the CIA today was there during MKULTRA, which was founded around the time Eisenhower was elected.
> 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?
Again, I am saying that you don't know or have not presented convincing evidence otherwise, and to me, it sounds like you are just saying speculative shit.