Developing a mutually beneficial relationship with China will not be easy. But we can do better than a new Cold War.
There's some dumb stuff in this piece, but I'm glad SOMEONE in Washington with influence is speaking out against the emerging consensus. Hooray for Succdem Grampa
It's not a counterfactual because you've basically admitted that Bernie is able to operate outside of the parameters set by media orthodoxy, which clearly isn't the case, and which is what you were arguing against to begin with
OK, so you really don't understand what a counterfactual is.
A counterfactual isn't a scenario that's impossible -- it's a thought experiment along the lines of "what if we had made some other choice?" It's a vehicle for thinking through the implications of that other choice and assessing whether it would have been a good one. If someone started working right after high school, they might think about the counterfactual of "what if I had gone to college?" That's a choice they could have made, but didn't. They think through what might have happened had they gone to college and assess whether they made a good choice.
Bernie could have sent Foreign Affairs some Parenti-esque article, but he didn't. My original comment was thinking through what would have happened had he sent in that type of article. It's not a question of whether he could have got that message out there or not -- he obviously could have -- it's a question of whether doing so would have been more effective than his actual article.
You're not understanding the core concept here. Counterfactuals are something you could have done, but did not do. Bernie could have published some Parenti-style article, but did not.
Back to square one. Bernie couldn't have published a Parenti-style article because there is an Overton window that exists within the current media landscape that would never allow such a thing. On top of that it isn't at all apparent that Bernie would've done such a thing even if it were allowed
Bernie couldn’t have published a Parenti-style article
I pointed out why this is wrong, and you never responded to that besides arguing about the use of the term "counterfactual."
it isn’t at all apparent that Bernie would’ve done such a thing
I never said that it was. The point is that even if he wanted to write that type of article, he'd probably recognize that "everything you know about this is wrong" is a bad communication strategy and write something closer to what he actually did.
I pointed out why this is wrong, and you never responded to that besides arguing about the use of the term “counterfactual.”
And I pointed out why your assumption is wrong because there's a century long history of any radical thought being suppressed by the media. Why would I trust some assumption you're making over real historical reality?
I never said that it was. The point is that even if he wanted to write that type of article, he’d probably recognize that “everything you know about this is wrong” is a bad communication strategy and write something closer to what he actually did.
And my point is that there is no conceivable hypothetical within the current media landscape where Bernie would be even allowed to write that article, so your counterfactual was completely irrelevant. You then went on to basically state that Bernie somehow had some hierarchical advantage where he could've basically had something of the sort published. It's ok if you want to keep propping up Bernie but you're just arguing in bad faith at this point
And I pointed out why your assumption is wrong because there’s a century long history of any radical thought being suppressed by the media.
Again:
You may need to re-read those Parenti books, too. The emphasis is on ordinary journalists and editors – people whose careers are threatened if they don’t fit into a certain ideological mold. An incumbent senator is the definition of someone insulated from that type of threat. There’s a reason the big push for Medicare for All came from Bernie, not from some talking head at MSNBC: it’s easier to draw attention to issues outside of media orthodoxy if you have a position of state power.
I don't think you understand what a counterfactual is.
It's not a counterfactual because you've basically admitted that Bernie is able to operate outside of the parameters set by media orthodoxy, which clearly isn't the case, and which is what you were arguing against to begin with
OK, so you really don't understand what a counterfactual is.
A counterfactual isn't a scenario that's impossible -- it's a thought experiment along the lines of "what if we had made some other choice?" It's a vehicle for thinking through the implications of that other choice and assessing whether it would have been a good one. If someone started working right after high school, they might think about the counterfactual of "what if I had gone to college?" That's a choice they could have made, but didn't. They think through what might have happened had they gone to college and assess whether they made a good choice.
Bernie could have sent Foreign Affairs some Parenti-esque article, but he didn't. My original comment was thinking through what would have happened had he sent in that type of article. It's not a question of whether he could have got that message out there or not -- he obviously could have -- it's a question of whether doing so would have been more effective than his actual article.
You're not understanding the core concept here. Counterfactuals are something you could have done, but did not do. Bernie could have published some Parenti-style article, but did not.
Back to square one. Bernie couldn't have published a Parenti-style article because there is an Overton window that exists within the current media landscape that would never allow such a thing. On top of that it isn't at all apparent that Bernie would've done such a thing even if it were allowed
I pointed out why this is wrong, and you never responded to that besides arguing about the use of the term "counterfactual."
I never said that it was. The point is that even if he wanted to write that type of article, he'd probably recognize that "everything you know about this is wrong" is a bad communication strategy and write something closer to what he actually did.
And I pointed out why your assumption is wrong because there's a century long history of any radical thought being suppressed by the media. Why would I trust some assumption you're making over real historical reality?
And my point is that there is no conceivable hypothetical within the current media landscape where Bernie would be even allowed to write that article, so your counterfactual was completely irrelevant. You then went on to basically state that Bernie somehow had some hierarchical advantage where he could've basically had something of the sort published. It's ok if you want to keep propping up Bernie but you're just arguing in bad faith at this point
Again: