[nodata]

people voting this up are very evil or very very very stupid, which these do you up-voters prefer to be?

I wouldn't want to be seen as stupid! I'd better agree with you!

Your comment reads like a rant: how about some links to educate us?

[madair]

do your own homework. i'm not the one voting up the world bank. the voter uppers have the burden of responsibility for advocation. not all ideas are equal.

this site does not allow me to vote down, this means an unequal burden in defense of a down vote versus an up vote, despite an up-vote being an positive advocation. (this is not a brainstorming session, this is life)

and please note that i'm being called upon to carefully document a response to propaganda on top of defending an idea against anonymous up-votes. hmmm. can you smell the bullshit? can you taste it? all i smell and taste are kangaroo court judges in a carefully constructed technolalaland.

and since the dumbsters really won't get it: if your head is appointed by the president of the united states, not to mention if only americans can be head, then this marketing effort is dictionary definition of propaganda, that's not an opinion statement. (it's amazing how often one needs to pull out the dictionary in this joint)

[nodata]

it's amazing how often one needs to pull out the dictionary in this joint

Leave the dictionary: just give us some links to backup what you claim.

Look at it this way: you're complaining that people don't do X. You want them to do Y, and are annoyed that they don't. It would therefore benefit you to educate people about why X is bad and Y is good. If you don't at least try, I'm not sure you get to complain any more.

Let's avoid the name calling and rhetoric, recommend us some good reading.

[madair]

no, i'm complaining that people DO X, please get it straight. They DO advocate X. They DO advocate the world bank marketing effort, which is governmental making it intrinsic propaganda.

Back up YOUR up-votes. why is the world bank a good thing to support? i mean, it's been around 50 years or so, you know, european post-war reconstruction all that. so...tell me, all the poverty...getting worse, yeah, so, how's that whole world bank working out for you, tell me?

i mean, i don't have to get into the neo-colonialism angle. as an atheist i can say to the christians in the bunch by their fruits ye shall know them.

so, you're backing up something, you think it's a good idea to read about, support, take action for. or no, it's just interesting in some faux-amoral sense. but you still think that it's valid to accept that on face value, and you're doubtful about the concept of deceptive & self-serving propaganda as something to guard carefully against.

well, tell me, what do you know about this program? what independent analysis have you seen? why are you advocating? why are you so sure the dissent has the burden of proof when the dissent is not actually taking any actions except to dissent in response?

there is a rhetorical paradox presented here. also known as hypocrisy (since we're speaking of dictionaries)

p.s. as you can see, i think the weaknesses in our frameworks for debate are a far bigger problem than advocating the world bank. we propagate bullshit for generations. our frameworks are broken. our well annotated frameworks are broken. we're deceiving ourselves with some pseudo-victorian genteel ideal.

speak your fucking mind. why are we letting taboos rule our time? micro-managers rule our time.

we are screwed if we don't break free from this hypersensitivity and inability to consider and face our problems with our attempts to improve quality of life for more than just a few technostartopoliptocrats.

what good is free speech if we fear the inconvenient as much as this?

[madair]

the construction of voting on this site is intrinsically skewed toward bad ideas. sure it may seem awesome for awhile, i mean, yeah, we do have to put up with penis enlargement pills from the 4-hour work-week guy every now and then...

but seriously, does anyone expect that to last when it's so much easier to advocate using anonymous votes than it is to detract where you're called upon to carefully annotate any dissent.

is it really that great a system?

sure it works to keep out the trolls -- oh those horrible trolls, god protect our thin hides and sensitive complexions from those horrible trolls -- but at the expense of accepting a wealth of propaganda and spam in fancy dress?