Mike_L wrote:

Regina wrote:You do not need to generate traffic for the shysters at rt to get that piece of information.

You're right. I don't have to. But if I first came upon it at RT.com (a news source for which I'm happy to generate traffic) then I see no reason to go searching for it elsewhere.

Mike_L wrote:

laklak wrote:It's not the U.S. government doing it. The Chinese didn't have to sell the masks for the inflated price. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good 'ol USA Bash.

Applicable perhaps to the France-bound masks (which the US intercepted and bought at triple the price), but not to the German case... which Berlin's Senator for the Interior Andreas Geisel describes as "an act of modern piracy".

Spearthrower wrote:RT is bad.

Pretending that the BBC is equivalent to RT is more propaganda bullshit.

It's not just 'national newspaper' therefore propaganda for that nation. It's the format, presentation and quality of reporting. The Guardian is left-leaning, its bias is very clear.

The BBC is pro UK, but less sociopolitical, tending towards a mixture of social positions with respect to equality, but conservative with respect to topics like finance or religion.

Mike_L wrote:Yes, it could've been posted in the 'Trump COVID-19' thread or the even the 'Masks' thread (since it was masks that were swiped)... where it would doubtlessly have gotten the same sort of response... because "RT bad" and all that.

The question raised in respect of that post is whether this direction of plugging Russian propaganda from more than dubious sources happens often enough to be called "spamming".

I suppose I could've posted a link to the Guardian article or to a BBC one, but I didn't feel like plugging UK propaganda.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:RT is bad.

Pretending that the BBC is equivalent to RT is more propaganda bullshit.

It's not just 'national newspaper' therefore propaganda for that nation. It's the format, presentation and quality of reporting. The Guardian is left-leaning, its bias is very clear.

Ah yes, The Guardian... which published outright lies about Julian Assange meeting Paul Manafort and "the Russians".

Mike_L wrote:

The BBC is pro UK, but less sociopolitical, tending towards a mixture of social positions with respect to equality, but conservative with respect to topics like finance or religion.

Ah yes, the BBC, which genuflects to its owner and which (along with others) serves to promote the interests of said owner.

(BTW, none of those three links is an RT.com link).

Thommo wrote:

Mike_L wrote:Yes, it could've been posted in the 'Trump COVID-19' thread or the even the 'Masks' thread (since it was masks that were swiped)... where it would doubtlessly have gotten the same sort of response... because "RT bad" and all that.

The question raised in respect of that post is whether this direction of plugging Russian propaganda from more than dubious sources happens often enough to be called "spamming".

I suppose I could've posted a link to the Guardian article or to a BBC one, but I didn't feel like plugging UK propaganda.

That false equivalence is precisely the point. The control the Russian government has over RT, the way it's funded and used as well as the way it spreads deliberate misinformation is entirely unlike The Guardian or the BBC.

Speaking for myself and the way I perceive the membership I don't think there's a tremendous appetite for fake news and the deliberate spreading of it. I'm sure you'd find a similar response if you approvingly quoted Fox News every other post.

ETA: I see the goalposts have already moved from what the topic is and whether doing the same thing over and over is spamming and that we're now on the tu quoque portion. Fake news is bad regardless. Deliberately pumping false information is bad regardless. And with the goalposts moving, I think the rest of us are best moving on as well.

Thommo wrote:ETA: I see the goalposts have already moved from what the topic is and whether doing the same thing over and over is spamming and that we're now on the tu quoque portion. Fake news is bad regardless. Deliberately pumping false information is bad regardless. And with the goalposts moving, I think the rest of us are best moving on as well.

Spearthrower wrote:No wonder you like Dodo - you both follow exactly the same playbook.

Does any of this - even if it were credible - mean that they're equivalent to RT's propaganda for Putin? Nope.
Does any of this - even if it were credible - mean that RT's not a propaganda outlet for Putin? Nope.

After all, it's pretty fucking obvious you only returned to this site to promulgate more brainwashed propaganda on behalf of the autocratic government of a nation you don't even belong to.

Given Mike's supposed reasons for his previous flounce, I don't know why he's come back just to engage in exactly the same thing... but ideology is a powerful motivator for stupid, self-harmful behaviors.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:No wonder you like Dodo - you both follow exactly the same playbook.

And you trot out the same tripe to me that you do to him.

Mike_L wrote:

Does any of this - even if it were credible - mean that they're equivalent to RT's propaganda for Putin? Nope.

Does any of this - even if it were credible - mean that RT's not a propaganda outlet for Putin? Nope.

Since they've served the purpose of warmongering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, I'd say they're considerably more crap than Putin's RT.com propaganda.

Mike_L wrote:

After all, it's pretty fucking obvious you only returned to this site to promulgate more brainwashed propaganda on behalf of the autocratic government of a nation you don't even belong to.

And I've already stated why (more than once). Putin supports the notion of a multipolar world order. So do I. It's pretty-much here already.

Mike_L wrote:

Given Mike's supposed reasons for his previous flounce, I don't know why he's come back just to engage in exactly the same thing... but ideology is a powerful motivator for stupid, self-harmful behaviors.

Keep on ingesting your Newsguard-approved soup.
Until Ratskep bans RT.com, I'll keep posting articles and opinion pieces from that source.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Does any of this - even if it were credible - mean that they're equivalent to RT's propaganda for Putin? Nope.

Does any of this - even if it were credible - mean that RT's not a propaganda outlet for Putin? Nope.

Since they've served the purpose of warmongering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, I'd say they're considerably more crap than Putin's RT.com propaganda.

Duh wha...?

What about the purpose of warmongering in Crimea and Georgia? Oh wait, not that would be completely irrelevant, wouldn't it? Likewise so is your distraction attempt.

As I've educated you many times before...

...a tu quoque implicitly accepts that the criticism is valid.

Mike_L wrote:I've never claimed that RT.com is not a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. It is... just like the BBC is a mouthpiece of the UK government.

Spearthrower wrote:In terms of what's equivalent, RT is ALL propaganda, all the time. And it's also the dopiest fucking propaganda imaginable.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

After all, it's pretty fucking obvious you only returned to this site to promulgate more brainwashed propaganda on behalf of the autocratic government of a nation you don't even belong to.

And I've already stated why (more than once). Putin supports the notion of a multipolar world order. So do I. It's pretty-much here already.

Non-sequitur - it's completely fucking irrelevant that Putin supposedly supports a multipolar world, as if that's the bar by which we judge whether a supposed news platform is a propaganda outlet or not. And as far as I am concerned, what Putin means by 'multipolar world' is that he will do whatever the fuck he likes in Russia and everyone else can lump it. It's shameful how much Russia has regressed to old form under his rule, and given the circumstances, it looks like the old tinpot dictator's going to be sucking on Russia's jugular for life.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Given Mike's supposed reasons for his previous flounce, I don't know why he's come back just to engage in exactly the same thing... but ideology is a powerful motivator for stupid, self-harmful behaviors.

Keep on ingesting your Newsguard-approved soup.
Until Ratskep bans RT.com, I'll keep posting articles and opinion pieces from that source.

Ratskep isn't going to ban RT - no one suggested so, nice appeal to pathos / conspiracy though. Of course, you are once again supposedly replying to what I wrote and your reply contains nothing relevant to what I wrote.

You also try yet again the fuckwitted appeals to me being a consumer of some kind of mind-controlled news whereas a) I've told you before that I read news from all over the world - I've never only read from one source, and I've told you before that I watch RT sometimes (for comedy value mostly) and b) it's projection - you're the chap who mindlessly regurgitates Kremlin propaganda and buys into it all hook, line and sinker. It's so apparent when you actively seek out sources to support your beliefs and overlook/ignore/aren't aware how lacking in credibility they are. Good old fashioned cognitive bias at work. I would've thought your years here would've given you some protection against this, but apparently not.

Spearthrower wrote:Pop that right back in the sticky hole you extracted it from.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Does any of this - even if it were credible - mean that they're equivalent to RT's propaganda for Putin? Nope.

Does any of this - even if it were credible - mean that RT's not a propaganda outlet for Putin? Nope.

Since they've served the purpose of warmongering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, I'd say they're considerably more crap than Putin's RT.com propaganda.

Duh wha...?

What about the purpose of warmongering in Crimea and Georgia? Oh wait, not that would be completely irrelevant, wouldn't it? Likewise so is your distraction attempt.

And there it is! The essential format of a Spearthrower "argument". Asks a question and answers it himself. (A rhetorical question, thus used, is just an assertion). Then, when he's contradicted, he dismissively charges that the response is a "distraction".

Mike_L wrote:
It's been an education all right, just not in the way you think.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:...a tu quoque implicitly accepts that the criticism is valid.

Yes, Spearthrower. I said that myself, back in post #1716...

Mike_L wrote:I've never claimed that RT.com is not a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. It is... just like the BBC is a mouthpiece of the UK government.

Mike_L wrote:
Assertions without evidence. Opinions stated as facts. Expansive generalisation. More of the Spearthrower style.

Mike_L wrote:I've never claimed that RT.com is not a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.

Mike_L wrote:

And again! The reference to a multipolar world order explains my support on this forum for President Putin (which you questioned). It's right there in the very line you quote! It's got nothing to do with "the bar by which we judge whether a supposed news platform is a propaganda outlet or not". Christ! You're all over the place with your so-called argument!

Spearthrower wrote:

It follows on perfectly well. You refer to "ideology". I refer to what informs yours.

Mike_L wrote:

You "sometimes" watch RT, and on the basis of these "sometimes" you've decided that RT is comedy and projection (and "ALL propaganda, all the time", as you said earlier). And then you accuse me of cognitive bias.

Mike_L wrote:For a while I thought that that sort of comment was beneath you. Now I realise that it's actually the apex of your style.

Spearthrower wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler: compressed screed

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Since they've served the purpose of warmongering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, I'd say they're considerably more crap than Putin's RT.com propaganda.

Duh wha...?

What about the purpose of warmongering in Crimea and Georgia? Oh wait, not that would be completely irrelevant, wouldn't it? Likewise so is your distraction attempt.

And there it is! The essential format of a Spearthrower "argument". Asks a question and answers it himself. (A rhetorical question, thus used, is just an assertion). Then, when he's contradicted, he dismissively charges that the response is a "distraction".

Blag harder Mike.

I asked you a question - you had your shot... but you responded with a load of ideological guff. So I emulated that guff pointing out that you would immediately reject it too.

Of course, you can't even admit that now, so we're left with you being beaten at your own whatabout game. Feels bad man, eh?

Mike_L wrote:
It's been an education all right, just not in the way you think.

Some people, regardless of the quality of the education they're offered, just can't apply themselves.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:...a tu quoque implicitly accepts that the criticism is valid.

Yes, Spearthrower. I said that myself, back in post #1716...

So your reply is a tu quoque!

Mike_L wrote:I've never claimed that RT.com is not a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. It is... just like the BBC is a mouthpiece of the UK government.

And I said that they're not at all similar in this respect. You'd know that if you read the BBC rather than reading RT's propaganda on the BBC.

For example, there's an article today critical of the British government's handling of Covid-19. RT doesn't run pieces critical of the Putin regime. RT is more KGB than BBC.

Mike_L wrote:
Assertions without evidence. Opinions stated as facts. Expansive generalisation. More of the Spearthrower style.

Is that a request for evidence? Feel free to ask if that's what you want - but it would be weird for you to ask for evidence that you said you've already accepted... you recall writing this?

Mike_L wrote:I've never claimed that RT.com is not a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.

And what form of evidence would you accept anyway? If I post up numerous articles by journalists from all over the world pointing out RT's lack of credibility, overt propaganda for the Putin regime, and specific example of their shenanigans - you've already shown dozens of times what you'd do: engage cognitive bias, claim they're all members of the conspiracy against Russia, and then start tossing out whatabouts.

So be specific here Mike - what is it you want to see? What source would actually make you honestly engage?

Mike_L wrote:

And again! The reference to a multipolar world order explains my support on this forum for President Putin (which you questioned). It's right there in the very line you quote! It's got nothing to do with "the bar by which we judge whether a supposed news platform is a propaganda outlet or not". Christ! You're all over the place with your so-called argument!

It's not me who's all over the place, you're struggling with reading out of desperation to voice your support for Putin. The entire post including the line above was about RT and your unquestioning fealty to it. In reality, your response does not follow from what I wrote, and it's not "right there in the very line I quote" because what I'd written and you responded to with a non-sequtur is:

After all, it's pretty fucking obvious you only returned to this site to promulgate more brainwashed propaganda on behalf of the autocratic government of a nation you don't even belong to.

No mention of why you support Putin at all, no question as to why you support him, no request for you to do anything - in fact, the post wasn't even written to you.

So pull the other one Mike - it's got Ivan the Great's bells on it.

Spearthrower wrote:

It follows on perfectly well. You refer to "ideology". I refer to what informs yours.

No it doesn't. Raising the suggestion that Ratskep is going to ban RT is nonsensical, and while it's actually readily apparent that you support RT, your contention that I thereby subscribe to some other opposite ideology is bollocks - it's standard conspiracy claptrap where your cognitive bias is working overtime to protect you from criticism.

Mike_L wrote:

You "sometimes" watch RT, and on the basis of these "sometimes" you've decided that RT is comedy and projection (and "ALL propaganda, all the time", as you said earlier). And then you accuse me of cognitive bias.

You sound like Ken Ham and his "see there's this Book". There are other books, Mike. I don't need to read the Bible all the time to know it's full of shit. Similarly, I don't need to watch RT all the time to see it's lacking in any credibility whatsoever - you can flick onto it at any time during the day and it will be raving about something nonsensical, whether that be what a big failure the EU is, or how fucking fantastic Russia is in comparison to another country, or chucking out insinuations about the motivations or malignancy of some other country.

Your 'argument' appears to suppose that I am obliged to watch RT all the time before I am permitted to criticize it. That is, of course, completely fucking nonsense, and in fact, watching it all the time is probably what caused you to fall down the rabbit hole bashing your head on every rabbit all the way down.

Mike_L wrote:For a while I thought that that sort of comment was beneath you. Now I realise that it's actually the apex of your style.

It's not beneath me Mike - I am not some vaunted epitome of gentile discourse. I treat people's arguments exactly how they deserve, which is why yours are being laughed at for their terminal inadequacy.

So pull the other one Mike - it's got Ivan the Great's bells on it.

Your 'argument' appears to suppose that I am obliged to watch RT all the time before I am permitted to criticize it. That is, of course, completely fucking nonsense, and in fact, watching it all the time is probably what caused you to fall down the rabbit hole bashing your head on every rabbit all the way down.

It's not beneath me Mike - I am not some vaunted epitome of gentile discourse.

Fallible wrote:SO ANYWAY, COVID-19.

Nerve agent Novichok found in Russia's Alexey Navalny: Germany

Tests performed on samples taken from prominent Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny showed the presence of the Soviet-era nerve agent Novichok, the German government said.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said in a statement on Wednesday testing by a special German military laboratory had shown "proof without doubt of a chemical nerve agent from the Novichok group".

"It is a dismaying event that Alexey Navalny was the victim of an attack with a chemical nerve agent in Russia," Seibert said. "The German government condemns this attack in the strongest terms. The Russian government is urgently requested to provide clarifications over the incident."

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia was not informed of the German findings and had no such data, the TASS news agency reported.

But the German chancellor did not mince words.

"This is disturbing information about the attempted murder through poisoning against a leading Russian opposition figure," Merkel told a news conference. "Alexey Navalny was the victim of an attack with a chemical nerve agent of the Novichok group."

....

...a chemical nerve agent from the Novichok group.

Developers of ‘Novichok’ say Navalny's symptoms aren't consistent with poisoning by their deadly creation, reject German claims

2 Sep, 2020

If Alexey Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, he'd be dead already. That's according to the creators of the lethal chemical, who say the Russian opposition figure's symptoms suggest German assertions on Wednesday are inaccurate.

Berlin insists its Bundeswehr [military] laboratory found traces of poison from the Novichok family in the anti-corruption campaigner's system. Chancellor Angela Merkel has condemned the “attack” and demanded an explanation from Russia.

But the scientists behind its development – Leonid Rink and Vladimir Uglev – have dismissed the German claims. They say Novichok is supposed to be an extremely deadly nerve agent and there's no way Navalny could have survived its application. Furthermore, Uglev has pointed out that others who interacted with the Moscow protest leader after he fell ill – fellow plane passengers, ambulance crews, etc. – would also have been contaminated.
...

Mike_L wrote:

Leonid Rink and Vladimir Uglev – have dismissed the German claims.