And @Crispy75.
Not sure if this is parody or not, but this short film is awful. Firstly; Adam Curtis puts a massive amount of research into his material. Secondly; it wouldn’t be as watchable if presented in a lecture format. Thirdly; if you can’t follow the narrative and only focus on the imagery, then your attention span is probably best suited to the talking heads’ opinions about current events on Fox. Fourthly; this short doesn’t tackle any of Adam Curtis’ points, but attacks style over substance.
If you disagree with some of Adam Curtis’ arguments, then perhaps you’d like to explain why in your own words.
3 Likes
Re: the cost of education.
I believe there are estimates that it would cost the US about $60 billion to make all current public college education tuition free. Of course this isn’t the total cost, because we are already doing a lot of public higher education funding, its just the increase needed to replace the current tuition. As I recall the ‘carried interest’ tax break (used mainly by hedge fund managers) is about $45 billion. So, fix one tax loophole for the ultra-rich and you are 75% of the way there.
It certainly isn’t an unaffordable expense.
6 Likes
Its not like there is much competition 
I am now less dumb. Thanks.
1 Like
But probably slightly more queezy… 
2 Likes
For a better idea of who those people are…
http://thomsie.tumblr.com/post/117817967561/the-truth-behind-the-financial-times-tory
1 Like
3 Likes
It’s satire, and pretty accurate satire at that. The criticism is that Adam Curtis is style over substance. But not only do his films usually lack any form of coherent argument, they are full of falsehoods and misrepresentations of the subject matter (his treatment of game theory in The Trap was atrocious for example). A great irony with Curtis is that the left love him, especially the more radical end, but he’s actually not much of a leftist at all, here’s a good critique of him from that perspective: http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/pandorasdocs.html
1 Like
The only example you give of this is:
I’m not finding any critique of his treatment of Game Theory using Google, other than an initial paragraph in Prospect magazine, which is behind a paywall. All I’m getting is references to Game Theory in his film. Can you give us a link to a critique of this?
A few other examples of where he ‘spreads falsehoods and misinformation’ might help bolster your argument also.
Your laurencetennant link appears to be no more of a critique of his political leanings and seems to be rather tenuous, as the website states “Curtis is deliberately vague about his political views”, which rather paints a guilt-by-association picture of his political outlook.
I’m not seeing any critique of his actual ideas on this site.
So, again, could you either form an argument which explains why his ideas “lack any form of coherent argument” or point me in the direction of an article does just that.
1 Like
I didn’t realise his treatment of game theory was awful by reading an article about it, so I can’t help you there. Maybe you should just read up on game theory then watch The Trap again, and you’ll see why yourself (the main problem IIRC was that he fixated on a single very simplistic model they used, and then erroneously extrapolated out to the whole field, but it’s been a while since I watched it - it was obvious though, and struck me immediately when I was watching it).
Your laurencetennant link appears to be no more of a critique of his political leanings
Which is precisely why I linked to it, it related to my preceding point about the left’s view of his work, not the objective quality of it.
…and seems to be rather tenuous, as the website states “Curtis is deliberately vague about his political views”, which rather paints a guilt-by-association picture of his political outlook.
It’s not in the slightest bit tenuous, why don’t you pick any of the other quotes which are far more specific and obviously counter to standard marxist, and even mainstream social-democratic thinking.
This isn’t a thread about Adam Curtis though, so I’m not going to go into any more detail about why he’s a fraud.
So I’m required to become fluently educated in game theory in order to bolster your argument for which you’ve provided no evidence. I’m sure you can understand that it doesn’t work like that.
So in other words it’s an ad-hominem argument and has no basis on critiquing his work.
Again, no critique of his ideas, only critique of his supposed political leanings.
You’re right, it’s the wrong thread to be discussing this.
You haven’t actually provided any details as to why you think he’s a fraud.
Feel free to open up a new topic though if you manage to come across any, other than you don’t like his editing style.
2 Likes
Please don’t spell nuclear that way, even as a joke. It… hurts to look at.
5 Likes
So I’m required to become fluently educated in game theory in order to bolster your argument for which you’ve provided no evidence. I’m sure you can understand that it doesn’t work like that.
If you want to understand game theory then yes, you should be required to become educated about it, not take the word of a documentary polemicist as gospel. And I have provided evidence.
So in other words it’s an ad-hominem argument and has no basis on critiquing his work.
No, that part of my post had nothing to do with the objective quality of his work. You’re being really obtuse here.
You haven’t actually provided any details as to why you think he’s a fraud.
Feel free to open up a new topic though if you manage to come across any, other than you don’t like his editing style.
Yes I have. If you want to see more you’re welcome to open up a thread yourself. And I actually like his editing style, he’s a talented film maker. It’s the content, or lack thereof, that I have the problem with.
I haven’t read the entire thread, so forgive me if I’m repeating someone else: but when a government claims the right to murder its country’s citizens overseas, announces a trades unions bill that one of its own MPs invokes Franco to describe, and then describes the official opposition as “a threat to national security”, I start to get a little nervous …
5 Likes
Just done that right here. You’ll find my response there.
1 Like
I thought that the warheads themselves are actually under U.S. Control but that the subs and missiles aren’t. The UK did not independently develop nuclear weapons like France did.
Possibly influenced by the song by Sun Ra, Nuclear War. He pronounces it exactly like that. Infuriating. Groovy tune though.
No right wing libertarians in the UK? Lucky you. Over in the states there’s a stealthy campaign to revert to the “Lochner Era”, when such things as child labour laws were looked on with skepticism.
1 Like
I didn’t think many people who aren’t living in the UK or at least have a healthy interest in it would get the reference 
I’d respectfully ask for explanations for similar things in other political posts for those people not living in or near said areas.
(from a personal experience, some of the USA-centric posts can get a bit tenuous at times)
1 Like
