I'm arguing that his analysis is irrelevant and hypocritical in the face of pretty much his entire life of behavior.
You can call him a hypocrite or whatever, but that wouldn't make him wrong on this analysis. I'm still not even sure what your argument is.
I'm also mocking you for trying to praise an enemy for something as banal as describing their strategy.
I'll praise any enemy who describes his strategy, and even buy them a bouquet of flowers. I'd like to know how they're doing what they're doing and how they are getting away with it.
If it's "his own stick", that still means that this is the way that the rulers control discourse.
Which completely irrelevant to his hypocrisy and complicity in doing it.
I don't get it. Are you arguing that his 'hypocrisy' and 'complicity' make his analysis false? If not, then he's right.
I'm arguing that his analysis is irrelevant and hypocritical in the face of pretty much his entire life of behavior.
I'm also mocking you for trying to praise an enemy for something as banal as describing their strategy.
You can call him a hypocrite or whatever, but that wouldn't make him wrong on this analysis. I'm still not even sure what your argument is.
I'll praise any enemy who describes his strategy, and even buy them a bouquet of flowers. I'd like to know how they're doing what they're doing and how they are getting away with it.