If so, he has *got* to use another term. If you say "Saddam Hussein had WMDs", that justification has a very specific cultural context and you do not get to complain when people think you're regurgitating discredited lies.
-
-filtering out the rare person who simply ill-spoke when they said that. Like how if a public physicist says "Einstein was wrong about relativity", there may be technical reasons they're not wrong. But it's still a reasonable red flag criteria for a lay person to stop listening.
Paul Poast is an associate professor of political science at UChicago and a foreign policy fellow on the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and has written three books on IR. He an FA's 'best of' article in 2019. So it is possible that you may need to refine your heuristic.
-
-
The problem is my ignorance though. I don't know enough about IR to do so. That's an impressive resume, but I don't know enough to distinguish between someone in that position who's comfortable peddling lies and one who's honest. I don't know if those positions adequately-
-
-say if they're a filter for bad actors or people who just won't admit they're wrong about a bad judgement call. So I'm stuck with my heuristic which is definitely wrong sometimes, but nonetheless serves me better than pretending I have the authority to be more discriminating.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.