A bungling young adult and a story they can use to vilify the DPRK. And if he actually succeeds? Someone they can escalate with, trying to get him to do more and more. Frats sometimes do hazing type things that are of a similar nature (“steal such and such from so and so”) and they aren’t even that serious as orgs go. I’m genuinely confused as to why it’s so out there to you.
They don’t need a one millionth story like this, and successfully stealing a sign doesn’t give them one, anyway. It’s a sign, not a state secret.
You’re right that stealing a sign is basically a frat prank, and no one gives you a car or $10k for one of those. Say this happened in the U.S., and some frat bro got busted for stealing a sign from a post office or whatever – would “I was actually offered $10k and a car to do this” strike you as a likely story?
Then there’s the question of if you’re already paying the guy for a story, why not just have him make one up? South Korean media already does this with defectors – no proof is needed because there’s zero scrutiny in most media.
and successfully stealing a sign doesn’t give them one, anyway.
I didn’t say it does. Reread what I wrote.
In any case, if you’re going to overthink this so hard, at least apply some of it to the other end. Why would the DPRK go to great lengths to “coach” him on… what exactly are you implying? A needlessly complex story, when they could coach him with a much simpler one? And to what end? What exactly would they gain by putting so much energy into such a story? Contrary to how the west acts, the world does not actually revolve around it and the DPRK has matters of its own people to attend to.
Say this happened in the U.S., and some frat bro got busted for stealing a sign from a post office or whatever – would “I was actually offered $10k and a car to do this” strike you as a likely story?
Yes, actually. People lie sometimes. I don’t get how you can understand more generally than people can lie, but find it sooo hard to believe someone could do so to a young adult with a false offer. Genuinely being given $10k and a car would be harder to believe, but still possible if coming from an org that has a lot of money; however, at that point, I’d assume the point is to get them on the hook mafia style (which is not out of the realm of possibility for how US interests operate, at all).
“This doesn’t pass the sniff test” isn’t overthinking, it’s applying the minimum level of skepticism that should be applied to every story.
As for what really happened: I don’t know, but it’s also an assumption that the DPRK is who fabricated this story. Maybe Warmbier did, the DPRK had no way to disprove it, so they had him state it for the public. A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie is probably the simplest explanation.
With all due respect, this is nothing more than “I am an independent thinker and I can be neutral” mistake in thinking.
“A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie is probably the simplest explanation.” isn’t “the minimum level of skepticism that should be applied to every story”, it’s a specific bias toward believing that out of at least 3 different parties involved in the story (Otto, the DPRK, and anyone he knew in the US), he’s exclusively the liar. And him coming up with a lie that elaborate is not a “simple explanation,” it’s a bizarrely specific story for anyone to invent, much less a seemingly random 21 year old. The kind of thinking you’re applying here is not skepticism across the board or you wouldn’t be reaching for your end statement explanation. What it suggests is an unwillingness to believe in certain capacities of the US and what kind of behavior can come out of it, not skepticism inherently, which I frankly don’t understand because as ridiculous as some things can sound on the surface, we’re talking about the country that actually did stuff like MKUltra. If it were anyone else, I would more understand being in doubt, but the story actually fits the plausible deniability gangster state character of the US and its history like a glove.
it’s a bizarrely specific story for anyone to invent
It’s a bizarre story, period. When anyone comes to you with a bizarre story, you don’t just take them at their word.
This is more of a “it comes from a country I generally support and is against a country I generally oppose, so I’m not going to look to closely” mistake.
Now you insist on a universalized principle that a story can be objectively recognized as bizarre and then one is supposed to be dismissive of it or there is something wrong with their thinking. This is more shallow pretense of neutrality that doesn’t exist. I repeatedly bring up MKUltra because it is a perfect example of something that can sound hard to believe, but actually happened. Sometimes things that stretch our personal sense of credibility do occur and I say “personal sense of” because that is what it is in reality most of the time, not something universal. It might be shocking for a westerner, for example, to learn about the atrocities imperial Japan did to China. But for someone who has grown up being taught about it and being surrounded by people who are connected to its consequences, it would likely be less immediately shocking, being disseminated more gradually, while also being uniquely disturbing, being more personal. This is just one example of the relativity of perceptions of information and how people come in contact with it, and it is also why I emphasize the gangster state character of the US; another example of the relativity of perception is surrounding context. It would not be strange to hear that a geographical area that tends to be very cold has gotten snowed on. It would be strange to hear that a geographical area that is never cold enough for snow has gotten twelve inches of it. Universality exists, but is not something to be taken for granted lightly, contrary to what western thought tends to have people doing.
If you were to believe the MK Ultra story based solely on a well-rehearsed press statement from one single person, yes, there would be something wrong with your thinking. We believe MK Ultra happened because there’s evidence of it beyond just the story. Without that evidence, skepticism is warranted.
We’ve already been over why you are not applying skepticism here and you aren’t being impartial. When it’s really broken down past the empty insistence on objectivity and universality, your argument amounts to “this didn’t feel true to me, so I’m going to spend post after post trying to rationalize disbelieving after the fact.” Skepticism is just doubt, that’s it, it is not a position of asserting alternative positions of your own without evidence, such as you did in saying the likelihood is a “A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie”. It is not asserting garbage like “well-rehearsed press statement”, as if you know without evidence that he was coached and are starting from that premise.
You’re full of shit on this, is the nicest way I can put it right now. Having doubt alone would be fine, but you’re twisting the meaning of having doubt to serve your own alternative narrative and that’s BS.
A bungling young adult and a story they can use to vilify the DPRK. And if he actually succeeds? Someone they can escalate with, trying to get him to do more and more. Frats sometimes do hazing type things that are of a similar nature (“steal such and such from so and so”) and they aren’t even that serious as orgs go. I’m genuinely confused as to why it’s so out there to you.
They don’t need a one millionth story like this, and successfully stealing a sign doesn’t give them one, anyway. It’s a sign, not a state secret.
You’re right that stealing a sign is basically a frat prank, and no one gives you a car or $10k for one of those. Say this happened in the U.S., and some frat bro got busted for stealing a sign from a post office or whatever – would “I was actually offered $10k and a car to do this” strike you as a likely story?
Then there’s the question of if you’re already paying the guy for a story, why not just have him make one up? South Korean media already does this with defectors – no proof is needed because there’s zero scrutiny in most media.
I didn’t say it does. Reread what I wrote.
In any case, if you’re going to overthink this so hard, at least apply some of it to the other end. Why would the DPRK go to great lengths to “coach” him on… what exactly are you implying? A needlessly complex story, when they could coach him with a much simpler one? And to what end? What exactly would they gain by putting so much energy into such a story? Contrary to how the west acts, the world does not actually revolve around it and the DPRK has matters of its own people to attend to.
Yes, actually. People lie sometimes. I don’t get how you can understand more generally than people can lie, but find it sooo hard to believe someone could do so to a young adult with a false offer. Genuinely being given $10k and a car would be harder to believe, but still possible if coming from an org that has a lot of money; however, at that point, I’d assume the point is to get them on the hook mafia style (which is not out of the realm of possibility for how US interests operate, at all).
“This doesn’t pass the sniff test” isn’t overthinking, it’s applying the minimum level of skepticism that should be applied to every story.
As for what really happened: I don’t know, but it’s also an assumption that the DPRK is who fabricated this story. Maybe Warmbier did, the DPRK had no way to disprove it, so they had him state it for the public. A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie is probably the simplest explanation.
With all due respect, this is nothing more than “I am an independent thinker and I can be neutral” mistake in thinking.
“A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie is probably the simplest explanation.” isn’t “the minimum level of skepticism that should be applied to every story”, it’s a specific bias toward believing that out of at least 3 different parties involved in the story (Otto, the DPRK, and anyone he knew in the US), he’s exclusively the liar. And him coming up with a lie that elaborate is not a “simple explanation,” it’s a bizarrely specific story for anyone to invent, much less a seemingly random 21 year old. The kind of thinking you’re applying here is not skepticism across the board or you wouldn’t be reaching for your end statement explanation. What it suggests is an unwillingness to believe in certain capacities of the US and what kind of behavior can come out of it, not skepticism inherently, which I frankly don’t understand because as ridiculous as some things can sound on the surface, we’re talking about the country that actually did stuff like MKUltra. If it were anyone else, I would more understand being in doubt, but the story actually fits the plausible deniability gangster state character of the US and its history like a glove.
It’s a bizarre story, period. When anyone comes to you with a bizarre story, you don’t just take them at their word.
This is more of a “it comes from a country I generally support and is against a country I generally oppose, so I’m not going to look to closely” mistake.
Now you insist on a universalized principle that a story can be objectively recognized as bizarre and then one is supposed to be dismissive of it or there is something wrong with their thinking. This is more shallow pretense of neutrality that doesn’t exist. I repeatedly bring up MKUltra because it is a perfect example of something that can sound hard to believe, but actually happened. Sometimes things that stretch our personal sense of credibility do occur and I say “personal sense of” because that is what it is in reality most of the time, not something universal. It might be shocking for a westerner, for example, to learn about the atrocities imperial Japan did to China. But for someone who has grown up being taught about it and being surrounded by people who are connected to its consequences, it would likely be less immediately shocking, being disseminated more gradually, while also being uniquely disturbing, being more personal. This is just one example of the relativity of perceptions of information and how people come in contact with it, and it is also why I emphasize the gangster state character of the US; another example of the relativity of perception is surrounding context. It would not be strange to hear that a geographical area that tends to be very cold has gotten snowed on. It would be strange to hear that a geographical area that is never cold enough for snow has gotten twelve inches of it. Universality exists, but is not something to be taken for granted lightly, contrary to what western thought tends to have people doing.
If you were to believe the MK Ultra story based solely on a well-rehearsed press statement from one single person, yes, there would be something wrong with your thinking. We believe MK Ultra happened because there’s evidence of it beyond just the story. Without that evidence, skepticism is warranted.
We’ve already been over why you are not applying skepticism here and you aren’t being impartial. When it’s really broken down past the empty insistence on objectivity and universality, your argument amounts to “this didn’t feel true to me, so I’m going to spend post after post trying to rationalize disbelieving after the fact.” Skepticism is just doubt, that’s it, it is not a position of asserting alternative positions of your own without evidence, such as you did in saying the likelihood is a “A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie”. It is not asserting garbage like “well-rehearsed press statement”, as if you know without evidence that he was coached and are starting from that premise.
You’re full of shit on this, is the nicest way I can put it right now. Having doubt alone would be fine, but you’re twisting the meaning of having doubt to serve your own alternative narrative and that’s BS.