antonim

It took them some time, huh?

Wouldn't it be fine to just let people post their small questions as their own threads? There's not a ton of activity here (yet), and the questions would thus get more exposure while not really hindering the visibility of other threads.

Ehh sorry. I assumed/hoped you were talking about something more, that I wasn't aware of. I know of these protests, but they were not nearly intense enough to disrupt the system. Much of the urban youth that might have led the protests has left the country in the meantime too, so I wouldn't be surprised if the next round of recruitment is met with even weaker resistance...

Maybe I should just Google it but... do you remember any specific cases of this pushback?

It's not even "both sides" necessarily, to me that sounds a bit too elaborate for the rather dumb forces at play. It could be just "whichever side is more economically/politically useful at the moment". After years and decades of LGBT activism, companies turned to LGBT acceptance to give themselves a more tolerable human face (after someone else has already done the work of humanising LGBT, but the companies want some of that aura). When they feel that it's not politically profitable anymore, they just switch back to homophobia. Case in point: Musk who used to tell people not to buy his cars if they don't support LGBT.

I don't get the impression the people who've downvoted this have read the second part of the comment.

Over time people’s memories of Obama have been more nostalgia for the times rather than an honest assessment of his actions.

Hell, at this point I've seen people being kind of nostalgic even about Bush...

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

No it isn't synonymous. Evidence is in principle unambiguous, whereas merely "suggesting" something could be more or less ambiguous. And I think that if you put down the raw facts on paper, i.e. described exactly what the document says, nobody could call that "evidence", and some number of people would probably agree that it might be only a "suggestion".

yes, my meme wasn’t 100% accurate

That heavily downplays its actual rhetorical effect. It's not accurate, but it makes a big attention-grabbing dramatic statement. In other words, it's in line with the usual methods of conspiracy theories based on bullshit reasoning.

Literally how many times have you brought up one simple typo

No more and no less than twice. Once in my very first comment, and second time in the previous comment. I mostly tried to ignore it, and I brought it up again to underline your general carelessness in treating of the issue. (And it's not a typo, it's a factual mistake, as you've said.)

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

There's a few issues here. I haven't simultaneously claimed to be a leftist and that leftists should be experts in world history and economics, while you did, so this contradiction is only your own. I don't think I'm an expert on history and I'm afraid I never will be. However, since I have indeed not investigated the history of CIA, that's exactly why I've made only minimal statements about CIA history, statements that should be correct regardless of various other information on its history. I said that: CIA supported some Hungarian dissidents in 1963 (as evidenced by the document in OP), and that CIA spread some radio programs in 1956 Hungary in order to stoke the revolt (as is widely accepted and found on Wikipedia). Everything else I wrote is conditionals based on reasonable assumptions and general knowledge that I am aware is not backed by more precise info on my part: yes, it seems perfectly reasonable that CIA has supported anti-communist movements (I haven't read about that in any detail but I've heard of that happening and it seems to be widely agreed on, so I didn't problematise it), and it could also be that it has done the same in 1956 Hungary (correct, as it has turned out).

This is simply intellectual carefulness. I'm not appealing to my expertise or wide knowledge, I'm appealing to reading the actual text carefully and extrapolating what can be reasonably extrapolated from it.

I have to be exactly right about everything

In your position, yes you kind of do (even you said: "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." - high standards!). In general, I think everyone should strive to be maximally correct if they make a claim that hundreds of other people see and take for truth.

Try to approach this discussion with a bit more focus on the arguments and the actual words, and less on me and your own perspective in it. At every turn you're attacking me, making a stereotype out of me and claiming I've said things I haven't said in order to make our positions seem more symmetrical (you're trying to argue about what CIA did or did not do, but I'm trying to argue about whether this counts as proof of what CIA did), and conveniently ignoring my key point even when I spell it out in bold letters. Do you find that I've done the same to you, have I ascribed you statements and ideas that you haven't actually previously expressed? (Aside, of course, from the instance where I explicitly announced I would do it by ascribing you the position of those leftists who deride NYT, and in retrospect I shouldn't have done that because it was nothing more than a pointless jab.) At the same time, you seem to be very emotionally invested in this, downvoting me even while absolutely nobody else is reading this dialogue anymore. Cool it down, you don't have to respond to me, just please reflect on your own thinking/reasoning process once more, maybe sometime later when you have some distance from all this.

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.

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!

In Croatian: palačinka (accentuated: palačínka, IPA: /palat͡ʃǐːŋka/, plural: palačínke). The origin is: Greek πλακοῦς (LS: "flat cake"), πλακόεντα > Latin placenta (OLD: "A kind of flat cake") > Romanian plăcintă > Hungarian palacsinta > Austrian German Palatschinke > Croatian palačinka. As Croatia has spent much of its history as a part of Austria-Hungary, its culture has left a strong mark especially on the northern dialects and the culinary practices there.

Sources:

• R. Matasović, Etimološki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika

• PGW Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary

• Walde-Hofmann: Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch

• Liddel-Scott: Greek-English Lexicon

However, Croatian pancakes are very thin and bigger in surface than American ones. They're made of batter, we usually fill them with jam and roll them up and eat like that (some other fillings are in use too, ofc). My sister sometimes buys herself some American pancakes, way thicker and covered in chocolate cream, and the rest of the family is always mildly horrified by them, lol. It's pretty much two different dishes IMO. Palačinke would probably better correspond to crêpes, but we don't have different words to distinguish American pancakes from crêpes...

Antisemitic conspiracy theorists would certainly be glad to send you extensive "evidence" that e.g. the Russian revolution was also supported by Jews, or various other political manipulations that they've supposedly carried out (why only limit it to toppling governments?). Now, as I've talked with these people enough times, I found it is impossible to spend days trying to check all the nonsense they may throw at me, and in general any discussion of any topic ever could be extended into eternity. What is perfectly reasonable is to abstract the individual case and figure out how it may plausibly be explained by itself. Antisemitic nonsense always fails here. In this case, so does your ascription of 1956 to CIA based on this particular document. The wider picture is different, as I've already said, it's simply much more logical that CIA has supported anti-communist movements than that the antisemitic bullshit about the Jews is true. But if your standards are low enough to be convinced by a conjecture as weak as this one, that does lead me to worry about whether your general conviction on CIA's actions is well-founded either.

I mean it is very obvious that you don't want to inquire into this any further or discuss the contents and context of the document, I've simply checked Wikipedia on Kiraly and it looks like I've already done more research about it than you have. All you have are implications, you haven't addressed the chronology, who was active where and when...

if I hear about a black person who was found strung up from a tree in the 20’s, I’m gonna go, “Huh, seems like it was probably white supremacists like the KKK”

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.

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! And if they were active that way, maybe they also funded some of the people and organisations in Hungary at the time? That doesn't sound unreasonable to me as an otherwise uninformed person on the topic. But is that idea corroborated by this new document? No.