Yes, I'm pretty sure that they will, but so far it has been the investors who have lost quite a lot, more than the share I'd expected they'd end up with. Anyway, it lies in the future, it's not something we can already know for sure.
And I dispute your statements about the anti-americanism point. No, expressing it that way is not a sure sign that the reader is either confused or mendacious. I could have written that sentence, yet I am pretty clear about who screwed up, and have no intention to make people believe that it was those opposing Bush. I don't think the first interpretation is trivial, and even if it were, in the deepest written article you will always have some sentences that are not exactly extraordinary revelations. Neither do I rate the second one as interesting but false, I'd rate it as either dumb or a deliberate misinterpretation in order to make a point. And I say that with the greatest respect for Jérôme's intelligence -I am not for one second suggesting that he may be dumb.
Anyway, my point is that if you look at something where there are huge black spots and some areas that are maybe white and maybe a very light grey, you keep discussing about how much dark there is in those areas, it sort of weakens the description of the black bits.
I dislike propaganda as much as you do. But the axiom that every word in this article must be a deliberate lie is a kind of propaganda too, in the other direction. Mostly, I feel, perhaps wrongly, that by denying the possibility of there being even one neutral sentence in the article we do not greatly enhance our credibility towards those who would not be full converts... "The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"
"perception" did not refer to economic inequality, but to the perception that the less wealthy would end up paying for the crisis.
You're right. I got it confused with the part about "feeling" that there is increasing inequality. My bad. I'll maintain that Jerome's reading is closer to what the piece was meant to convey, however.
And I dispute your statements about the anti-americanism point. No, expressing it that way is not a sure sign that the [author] is either confused or mendacious. I could have written that sentence, yet I am pretty clear about who screwed up, and have no intention to make people believe that it was those opposing Bush.
Alright, I was probably a bit harsh there; the statement by itself isn't necessarily mendacious or confused. But given the context of the rest of the article - that is, given that the rest of the article is brimming with similar evidence of deliberate mendacity or astounding confusion (not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course - just look at Answers in Genesis) - I think that it is an entirely reasonable interpolation to assume that this is also the case here.
Mostly, I feel, perhaps wrongly, that by denying the possibility of there being even one neutral sentence in the article we do not greatly enhance our credibility towards those who would not be full converts...
This is a possibility, of course, and one that should be taken seriously in our communication strategy.
On the other hand, blanket dismissal is an entirely valid strategy when dealing with cranks - even if they may have an innocuous sentence or two buried in their screeds. Because acknowledging the existence of an innocuous (or even correct) sentence gives the impression that the correct bits are in sufficiently reasonable proportion to the incorrect bits to be worth mentioning. This is generally not the case.
Precisely how to balance these requirements in our communication is an issue I will happily leave to those more competent in public communication than myself.
More generally, however, your criticisms of the interpretation given in the diary would be both valid and persuasive if the original article had been written in good faith, by an honest broker in the debate. But the evidence - both in the article itself and given the venue of its publication - points massively to the conclusion that it is neither.
And when you're dealing with dishonest shills, you need to discredit them as fast as possible and as dirty as necessary. Because if you engage them in a reasonable debate, you'll get worn down by simple attrition: Making shit up is a lot faster than rebutting it, and the shills have a lot more manpower (and funding) than we do.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
