To @Brandon Sims (and all others convinced this was a confession)
Here is some extra information regarding sarcasm and the written English language from a genuine word nerd:
You've been quoted as saying, a number of times on this thread, that we cannot 'prove' he was being sarcastic. I think you're right about that to some degree. MB is focused more on empirical evidence, whereas detecting sarcasm (especially when written) is a bit more subjective and open to interpretation.
A pre-algebra teacher wouldn't ask their class to write a 1,000 word essay on why x equals 2 in the equation 127-x=125, would they? There isn't much to say about it because mathematical equations are objective--not swayed by personal belief, just factual. Correct, incorrect. Likewise, an English teacher isn't going to fail every student who doesn't understand that the rabid dog in To Kill A Mockingbird represents the monster within us all, or whatever this particular teacher believes it's symbolic of. That's because this is a subjective subject--it's up for personal interpretation, and merits can be argued on every 'side' of the debate.
Sarcasm is incredibly complicated in all of its forms. When you're face-to-face with someone who is being sarcastic, you can look and see clues as to their sarcasm. They might roll their eyes, raise an eyebrow, smirk, or shrug. If you were on the phone with someone, you could hear their tone change. They might enunciate some words and draw out others. Their volume and infection might change. These are clues.
If I was standing in Starbucks tomorrow morning and I overheard a conversation, I'd be able to hear a woman talk to her friend and have a pretty good idea she was being sarcastic, even without seeing her and knowing her situation. "I can't WAIT to see Scott tonight," she might say, and I'd know she didn't want to see this Scott guy because she put effort on the word 'wait' and said 'Scott' like most people say 'fungus'. These are clues. If I was looking at her while she said this, I'd see that she rolled her eyes. Even though I know nothing about this woman and the state of her relationship with a man named Scott, I can guess that she doesn't like Scott for whatever reason.
Now, if I knew her, I'd know the context: Scott was an old flame that she has to meet for business tonight and he constantly rubs her lack of ability at winning Frogger on Atari 2600 in her face, so she doesn't want to see him.
Now, what about just reading the sentence plain?
"I can't wait to see Scott tonight."
How can we possibly prove OBJECTIVELY that the above sentence is sarcastic, with not even a single emoji or snarkily italicized word to help us?
We can't. We'd have to argue our points using logic and deductive reasoning. We'd have to find a context for this situation. Even if we hacked this woman's computer (which MB members don't and wouldn't do ) and found 12,000 bookmarks about how to win Frogger on 2600 and 200 emails from Scott mocking her pixelated hopping abilities, we still wouldn't be able to prove the sarcasm conclusively without a single shred of doubt. That isn't how sarcasm works. It's subjective.
Again, we need to look at context.
A late-night adventure through a Google Scholar wormhole found a number of other studies relating to the art of detecting sarcasm. Here is another paper about sarcasm. The same beautiful idea comes up in this one, just like the last one I mentioned, here:
Sarcasm sentences can be used almost in all topics. They
can take variable grammatical structures. Also, to under-
stand sarcasm, one has to know the context of the sentence.
For instance, the sentence ”I love being rich” is not sarcas-
tic by itself. However, if you know that the speaker is poor,
you will decide that this is a sarcastic sentence. Therefore, to detect sarcasm, you have to have prior knowledge about
the subject or sarcasm, which might not always be avail-
The point is you took someone's confession in a memoir and applied you own spin on it based on the subtext you read. Based on the conclusions you have drawn not based on any fact or logic that's an assumption to say he was kidding when all evidence points otherwise including his own words. But again. I know what your gonna say
We have to repeat ourselves because sarcasm literally means saying one thing with ones' "own words" but meaning the opposite and to tell if something is sarcastic we have to think about the context (situation behind) and subtext (underlying meaning) of the so-called confession.
We need to look at words to properly "prove" there is sarcasm present.
One such analysis puts it more succinctly than I can:
From this somewhat superfluous sentence that Rockefeller said, we can sense that there's some sarcasm going on, that it isn't an exact confession of exactly what he is meaning.
And we have further evidence and reasoning for this here:
So though we don't have a conclusive test for sarcasm yet that we can dip in a sentence, shake it off a bit and look at it until we see two blue lines for sarcasm and one for a lack thereof, I am pretty sure that we can comfortably say that the evidence we have points to this being sarcasm.
(we can also comfortably say that i get way too excited about the nuances of communication, dear god)
The first one is of dubious origin, supposedly something he said in 1991, but not written down, showing up only in conspiracy literature in 1993. I suspect it is at best a slanted paraphrasing, and at worst an outright fabrication.
The second is real, from his 2002 memoirs, I think here his meaning is that he is trying to "build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will", and he freely admits to that. But he's also gently mocking that some people characterize that as "a secret cabal" and "a conspiracy", which it is only in the loosest sense.
Rockefeller is an internationalist, he makes no secret of it. Many people have similar political views.
I think you know you're trying to downplay the significane of this admission so you don't have to worry about its implications, however slight. First of all, very few people hold internationalist opinions outside of pure economic terms and almost none advertise it. Second, Rockerfeller's admission to being a part of a secretive cabal of people working to undermine national governments and move sovereignty to a global level hardly removes the conspiratorial nature of it, by definition. He never says which groups or de facto groups he belongs to. He doesn't mention names, or what he has done or will do. He doesn't say how much money he's given. The fact that a single KGB spy defects doesn't unravel all of the KGB sleeper cells who come out of the woodwork and say "OK you got me!!". You see, with these NWO types you need to hit the nail precisely on the head, and only then will they deflect by saying that "well I don't attend meetings in robes and don't sacrifice children so I guess I'm OK!!". That only absolves him of the comic book characterization, not of the legitimate substantive charges of being a part of a group of extraordinarily powerful elites who are working to break down borders and unite world government with total impunity, with zero oversight, and with power approaching the CIA.
Look, this goes out to anybody listening - there are conspiracy theories, and then there are true stories about people with an ungodly amount of power and wealth and a lot of "ideas" about the way the world should be. Do you want to permanently change your opinion of what's possible in this world? Watch Soros talk about "getting hooked on experimenting with regime change" in third world countries on 60 minutes. And then check him out creating democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe, post-USSR collapse. This is the kind of stuff CIA keeps off its books and calls it "black ops". He just comes right out and says it in "oh so many ways" on tape, not to dissimilar to Rockerfeller. It's like both of them employ the "catch me if you can" motto - if you can get me to an intreview and ask me precisely the right question to a nanometer of tolerance, I'll answer, but that and only that!!
In summary, there is a group of global elites working to create a world government, world law, and a world bureaucracy without telling any of us this and the scope of their activities, and it should freak everybody the fk out. And I'm SURE that they don't think of themselves as such, as can be evidenced by Rockerfeller's reluctant flip-flopping admission, but that is nevertheless who they are. (PS These are the geniuses who decided vacation time off work was a "human right" and the mass relocation of people was considered genocide <facepalm>)
So much of this post is rambling series of claims, I wanted to focus on just this one.
What does it even mean? Are you including religious leaders like Pope Francis?
And what if Rockefeller did hold a purely economic view? Look at the context of the times were are talking about. The conventional wisdom for globalists like him pointed to the collapse of world economic cooperation in the twenties and thirties as the cause of World War II. Their solution was to promote mutual dependency as an antidote to war. We still live in the wake of that idea with NAFTA and TPP.
Of course there are flaws and problems with Rockefeller's approach and its logic, but these are not evidence of a conspiracy.
It's a conspiracy in that he meets with people and discusses what to do. That type of conspiracy happens millions of times a day in business meetings. That's what I meant by a loose sense. He's an internationalist, and he does thing he thinks will promote the internationalist cause. Most of the the things he does will involve other people. In a very loose sense you can say that's a conspiracy.
I was just saying what his meaning seems like to me. But logically the "proof" might be that if he's in a secret cabal, then revealing that fact would make it no longer a secret, so that's inconsistent. If he was simply joking, playing with words, then the sentence makes perfect sense.
Debunking really is not about finding proof that things are not a particular way. It's more about point out flaws in arguments, and noting the absence of evidence. It is obviously impossible to prove that there is not a secret cabal.
How do they control it? If its so obvious and that they dont care if anyone knows, wheres all the evidence to support it? Have you got insider information from the hundreds of organizations that are tied up in this? Do you have statements from the Rothchild family, or The Bilderberg Group that can corroborate your assertions in any way? Or is this your opinion just being stated as fact?
You're on a board dealing with people that demand credible evidence... not just taking the word of someone because they're passionate about it. Wheres the evidence to support your claims.. and I dont mean crackpot cockamamie conspiracy videos from YouTube, or Alex Jones, or Alien Conspiracy websites.. I mean actual HARD evidence.. paperwork from inside the company or their accountants, actual unaltered, unedited recorded audio/video of Rothchild or The Bilderberg Group stating that they're controlling the governments. Do you have anything other than you just saying its how it is?
It's debunked in that it's been explained that he's a globalist. There's no secret about his position. He IS "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will"
It does not, however, necessarily follow that there's a secret conspiracy. He's mocking "we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States". Since obviously he can't be part of a secret cabal and admit its existence - as then it would no longer be secret.
Mocking is your personal interpretation there. I sense no mocking. I believe he is simply acknowledging that a) some believe he is part of a cabal, and b) that given what they believe constitutes to be part of that cabal, he IS part of that cabal. In acknowledging these 2 points, he is undermining the idea that it is 'secret', but I'm not interpreting any mocking there. Maybe his tone of voice would lead me to believe otherwise, but obviously his tone is not available to hear.