It's incredible to me how ignorant people are of the CIA's history, to the point of even calling into question whether they were engaged in these sorts of activities in general. This isn't just me saying this or just some fringe group - it's the accepted historical record. The proper propaganda line you're supposed to use here is, "of course they did all those things in the past, but that was a long time ago and they've changed" (despite nobody ever being held accountable and nobody actually doing anything to change it). Deviating into straight up denialism just makes you look ignorant to anyone who's actually informed about it.

If you want a detailed case study of how the CIA operated/operates, I recommend All The Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer, which details the 1953 Iranian coup. Kinzer is a respected journalist who's contributed to the NYT and the Guardian.

Or we could look at different Wikipedia pages that detail the US's involvement in coups and regime changes around the world, all of which will agree with me, that the CIA did these things pretty regularly. You're the one who is deviating from the historical record accepted by actual historians.

This is a good comparison too - “in the 20’s”, you say, but the document you posted is not from the relevant decade, and is even from a different continent

Bruh. That was a separate hypothetical. You must be acting in bad faith.

Besides, even just ctrl+F’ing “CIA” in the Wikipedia article on the revolution shows that yes, CIA did emit materials that were meant to stoke the Hungarians’ desire for revolt. It’s literally on Wikipedia, it’s no CIA-hidden secret at all!

Great! So I'm right, it's just like the meme. The only detail that's in dispute is whether or not the document provides further evidence of involvement.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It’s incredible to me how ignorant people are of the CIA’s history

I'm not from the US and we didn't have a class on CIA history. What you expect, am I supposed to be utterly fascinated by your country's history and read about it extensively just so that we all can be as enlightened as you are?

even calling into question whether they were engaged in these sorts of activities in general

You’re the one who is deviating from the historical record accepted by actual historians.

But I literally haven't done that. If I have, show me the sentence where I did and I'll absolutely take it back. You're reading something into my comments that isn't there - just like you're reading events from 1963 US into 1956 Hungary.

The proper propaganda line you’re supposed to use here is

No, I'm not supposed to act like whatever stereotype/strawman you're imagining in your head. You can fuck right off with this sort of "communication".

Kinzer is a respected journalist who’s contributed to the NYT and the Guardian.

Thank you for the recommendation. However, if we're going to hurl stereotypes at each other instead of arguments, I can't help but point out that I've seen numerous Lemmy leftists claim that NYT is a liberal propaganda rag. So idk if that's actually a plus for Kinzer.

Bruh. That was a separate hypothetical.

What does this even mean? You brought it up as an analogy, I pointed out that the analogy has been picked to make your primary claim look more obvious and logical than it really is.

Great! So I’m right, it’s just like the meme. The only detail that’s in dispute is whether or not the document provides further evidence of involvement.

You might finally start to get it! You accused me of doubting CIA's involvment even though I literally pointed out to you that there is different, solid evidence they were involved! Like how stupid of a CIA-involvment-denier would I have to be to do that? And yet you're still failing to understand that this never was my main point anyway!

If I believe that the Earth is flat, but then I have a dream where I see that the Earth is actually round, and then I start believing that it is round, does that mean I'm "correct"? Technically maybe yes but based on wrong information/reasoning!

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

What you expect, am I supposed to be utterly fascinated by your country’s history and read about it extensively just so that we all can be as enlightened as you are?

Yes, if fact, I do! The CIA had an extensive impact on the entire world, it's the same way I have at least a general familiarity with the British Empire, even though I'm not from the UK, and that happened even further back.

Thank you for the recommendation. However, if we’re going to hurl stereotypes at each other instead of arguments, I can’t help but point out that I’ve seen numerous Lemmy leftists claim that NYT is a liberal propaganda rag. So idk if that’s actually a plus for Kinzer.

What an incredibly stupid line of argument. Ok, then go read fucking Grover Furr, for all I care. The point of recommending Kinzer (besides the fact that his work is good) is that he's respected in the mainstream liberal sphere. Obviously, far-left authors like Furr (who I haven't read and don't recommend) or Michael Parenti (who I have read and do recommend) also talk about the CIA's role in coups and color revolutions.

A very, very, very basic concept in evaluating information is to consider what the source is saying relative to the source's bias. If an ancient history commissioned by a king talks about the king slaying a three lions at the same time with his bare hands, we should treat that claim with heavy skepticism. If that same work talks about the king having a big ol' wart on his nose that everyone made fun of, that part's probably true, because it goes against the author's bias.

No source is perfect or without bias, and I'll happily critique the NYT all day long, but when even someone who writes for them agrees with me, I'll also cite them, because that's all the more compelling.

What does this even mean? You brought it up as an analogy, I pointed out that the analogy has been picked to make your primary claim look more obvious and logical than it really is.

If you understood it was an analogy, then nitpicking that the date used in my analogy "wasn't even in the same decade as my source" is utterly irrelevant.

If I believe that the Earth is flat, but then I have a dream where I see that the Earth is actually round, and then I start believing that it is round, does that mean I’m “correct”? Technically maybe yes but based on wrong information/reasoning

Except that my reasoning wasn't wrong. I saw something that suggested there was a connection between the CIA and the uprising, and, based on my prior assumptions of how likey that was and how compelling I considered the evidence to be, I concluded that the connection was there. You jumped in to challenge that it wasn't 100% proof, but also, there is other evidence that does prove it. So my process seems pretty reasonable.

It's funny that you open the comment with, "What, do you randomly expect me to be so fascinated with your country's history that I take a class on it?" while also criticizing me for not doing a thorough enough investigation into Hungary, a country I'm not from and have no connection to. If you're a leftist, you have to be an expert on the history of the entire globe, as well as economics and all sorts of other fields. But if you're a liberal, you can just go along with the status quo understanding nothing and everyone's fine with it.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So you've at least silently dropped the accusation of my denial of CIA's involvment in anything. Good, that's some progress.

What an incredibly stupid line of argument.

Indeed, I did literally declare that it is based on stereotyping as a response to your making a stereotype out of me...

I saw something that suggested there was a connection between the CIA and the uprising

It sure might look like it if you ignore that the uprising happened 7 years earlier and that the organisation CIA supported wasn't based in Hungary. But it looks like you ignored that while reading the document, so the connection seemed much stronger than it really is.

and how compelling I considered the evidence to be

This is literally no "evidence", you yourself said it just suggested a connection, it isn't even close to evidence of it, and your meme straight-up says it was admitted.

If you understood it was an analogy, then nitpicking that the date used in my analogy “wasn’t even in the same decade as my source” is utterly irrelevant.

That's simply not the point I was going for, you've misread it or I should've been more clear. My point was this: your analogy used a time and place where the event is nigh impossible to be ascribed to any other entity than KKK and similar; on the other hand, the event of CIA supporting Hungarian dissidents that is described in the document did not happen in the time and place that is the focus of your theory.

but also, there is other evidence that does prove it. So my process seems pretty reasonable.

No, it is not even remotely reasonable to provide mere indications, weak proof, or non-proof, while you have easily available and already generally-accepted proof at your disposal.

criticizing me for not doing a thorough enough investigation into Hungary

Lol, "thorough investigation", that's not what I asked of you (again, my first comment: "Can’t you just Google one or two key words?"), you didn't even check Wikipedia and couldn't get the year of the revolution right, and, as I said above, made your whole conjecture while likely ignoring the actual content and context of the letter.

If you’re a leftist, you have to be an expert on the history of the entire globe, as well as economics and all sorts of other fields.

But you've just justified your lack of investigation into the topic by saying that you don't have any connection to Hungary, while simultaneously also making a statement on Hungarian history...

And in principle the discussion of whether something did or didn't happen has little to do with whether one is a leftist or a liberal or anything else. If I'm wrong about something, my politics matter fuck all, I'm simply wrong, and the actual facts will speak for themselves.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

This is literally no “evidence”, you yourself said it just suggested a connection

If it suggests a connection, that's synonymous with it being evidence.

and your meme straight-up says it was admitted.

Again, we've been over it, yes, my meme wasn't 100% accurate, it was based on an existing meme.

couldn’t get the year of the revolution right

Your whole line of criticism is pedantic whining and after this I'm done entertaining it. Literally how many times have you brought up one simple typo, that was only off by three years anyway? Would you also bring it up this many times if I mixed up they're and their? Maybe you would, if you're that kind of annoying pedant, but if you ask me this nonsense has more to do with latching onto something, anything that you can use to punch left.

while simultaneously also making a statement on Hungarian history…

Just like you justified your lack of investigation into the CIA while also making statements about CIA history.

And in principle the discussion of whether something did or didn’t happen has little to do with whether one is a leftist or a liberal or anything else

It does matter if you try to enforce a hypocritical double standard where I have to be exactly right about everything and you don't need to know basic historical facts.