Mike_L wrote:
...and I'm using it to draw a logical conclusion: that the typical Western media depiction of Putin's Russia as a rampaging menace is just facile propaganda.

Yeah, nothing menacing about clandestine military action and robbing your people blind Well, as long as Putin's doing it, in your case...

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:But Russia pushing it's agenda and promoting instability is totally fine by Mike, as he's made clear repeatedly. If the USA does it, he screams bloody murder, but if Russia does it, then it's totally justified. That is, of course, if he can get past his extreme skepticism of anything about what Russia's done and his extreme willingness to accept whenever someone tells him the US has done something bad. He's got an endless list of articles full of breathless editorializing, short on facts and long on telling you what to think, to "support" his claims.

But don't take my word for it, open up any of his links on the last few pages and look at all emotional pandering, note how infrequently any sort of verifiable fact is presented, and note how they pretend to be well-sourced by linking to still more articles full of still more breathless editorializing.

Just don't click on any of the Wikipedia links I included... links to entries that starkly reveal the results of Washington's global meddling and gun barrel diplomacy.
Stick with the likes of CNN and MSNBC... establishment media that slavishly bashes the Trump-shaped piñata while venerating war criminals like John McCain. In short, stick with the 'news' media that's indistinguishable from the shows of John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, etc.

You do know how ridiculous this looks while you regularly slurp up whatever RT, aka Kremlin News Network, throws at you, right? All you can do is "Hurr durr, CNN MSNBC!!" whenever someone points out the hypocrisy of you decrying propaganda while wholesale swallowing it when it suits your preferences, even if they haven't mentioned CNN or MSNBC.

MSNBC (e.g. Rachel Maddow) and CNN are regularly referenced in this thread.

But you were talking to me, and you told me to stick with them. Thanks for making my point, and keep attacking with straw men whenever someone points out your ridiculous claims about propaganda while you slavishly swallow it yourself.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler: compressed

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
Just don't click on any of the Wikipedia links I included... links to entries that starkly reveal the results of Washington's global meddling and gun barrel diplomacy.
Stick with the likes of CNN and MSNBC... establishment media that slavishly bashes the Trump-shaped piñata while venerating war criminals like John McCain. In short, stick with the 'news' media that's indistinguishable from the shows of John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, etc.

You do know how ridiculous this looks while you regularly slurp up whatever RT, aka Kremlin News Network, throws at you, right? All you can do is "Hurr durr, CNN MSNBC!!" whenever someone points out the hypocrisy of you decrying propaganda while wholesale swallowing it when it suits your preferences, even if they haven't mentioned CNN or MSNBC.

MSNBC (e.g. Rachel Maddow) and CNN are regularly referenced in this thread. They're prime examples of a corporate media that doesn't need to be government-owned, because it's voluntarily between the bedsheets with Washington anyway. It's like MSNBC's Phil Griffin told a demoted Cenk Uygur: "Outsiders are cool, but we’re the establishment".
They'll even rise above their antipathy toward Donald Trump to wax lyrical about the "beauty of our weapons" when he launches them in violation of international law.

Also, It's interesting that you can't tell the difference between being critical of the actions of the US government and slurping Putin's toes, as you do so regularly. I take the sensible position of being able to be critical of both when they do terrible things that hurt people.

Criticism is one thing. But what's wrong with applause? Notwithstanding Putin's "robbing", he has been profoundly good for the Russian people, largely lifting them out of the misery that Washington stooge Boris Yeltsin inflicted on the country.
Putin earns further plaudits for thwarting the USA's regime-change agenda in Syria. As John McCain lamented: the Russians are sticking "their thumb in our eye" by bombing "the people we are supporting and arming and training".

Mike_L wrote:
Russia is obviously far from perfect, but its current president supports a multipolar world order -- as opposed to a unipolar world order with star-spangled boots stomping across the globe.

There's no way you take the absurdly naive position that Putin somehow wouldn't have his own version of star-spangled boots stomping across the globe if given the opportunity. He can't even keep from robbing his own people blind!

So, not content with plain whataboutism, you're now going for hypothetical whataboutism!

Nothing at all hypothetical about his clandestine military operations in Ukraine and robbing his people blind. But hey, keep crying "whataboutism!" when folks point out the plain, absurd hypocrisy of your position

False equivalency. Russia's "clandestine military operations in Ukraine", even if they can be authenticated, still don't put it in the category of global hegemon.
As for "robbing his people blind"...
Yes, I'm sure Putin has squirreled away no small amount of lucre. I don't condone that. It still has nothing to do with Russia being a hypothetical global hegemon.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

But okay...
Yes, you're right! With his nearly 800 Russian military bases in more than 70 territories around the world, Vladimir Putin is poised to take over the world any day now!

Again, you must have no idea how ridiculous it looks to know of Russia taking clandestine military action against one of its neighbors in the last few years, and then whining about how people are concerned about poor ol' Russia's military action. I mean for fuck's sake

And more of the same! Your response doesn't even relate to what you quote me saying.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
...and I'm using it to draw a logical conclusion: that the typical Western media depiction of Putin's Russia as a rampaging menace is just facile propaganda.

Yeah, nothing menacing about clandestine military action and robbing your people blind Well, as long as Putin's doing it, in your case...

And three time's a charm! The same line, again so divorced from my statement and its context that only the inclusion of makes any kind of sense.

We've had this run-around before, SaM.
Yes, there's plenty of evidence that Putin has his fingers in the corruption pie. Yes, he has supported Russian separatists in Ukraine.
But no, that doesn't make him a Russian imperialist with ambitions to usurp the US in the role of global hegemon.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
Just don't click on any of the Wikipedia links I included... links to entries that starkly reveal the results of Washington's global meddling and gun barrel diplomacy.
Stick with the likes of CNN and MSNBC... establishment media that slavishly bashes the Trump-shaped piñata while venerating war criminals like John McCain. In short, stick with the 'news' media that's indistinguishable from the shows of John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, etc.

You do know how ridiculous this looks while you regularly slurp up whatever RT, aka Kremlin News Network, throws at you, right? All you can do is "Hurr durr, CNN MSNBC!!" whenever someone points out the hypocrisy of you decrying propaganda while wholesale swallowing it when it suits your preferences, even if they haven't mentioned CNN or MSNBC.

MSNBC (e.g. Rachel Maddow) and CNN are regularly referenced in this thread.

But you were talking to me, and you told me to stick with them. Thanks for making my point, and keep attacking with straw men whenever someone points out your ridiculous claims about propaganda while you slavishly swallow it yourself.

No, I wasn't talking specifically to you.
You were addressing the readers of the thread:
"But don't take my word for it, open up any of his links on the last few pages..."
My response:
"Just don't click on any of the Wikipedia links I included..."
...was likewise directed at readers of the thread.

Mike_L wrote:Well the supposedly ominous Aleksandr Dugin seems to be good for comic relief...

According to Dugin, the whole Internet should be banned: "I think that Internet as such, as a phenomenon is worth prohibiting because it gives nobody anything good." In June 2012, Dugin said in a lecture that chemistry and physics are demonic sciences, and that all Orthodox Russians need to unite around the President of the Russian Federation in the last battle between good and evil, following the example of Iran and North Korea. He added, "If we want to liberate ourselves from the West, it is needed to liberate ourselves from textbooks on physics and chemistry."

-- Wikipedia

In the Wikipedia entry on him, he further comes across as a sort-of Russian equivalent of the US's Sean Hannity.
Hannity's possible influence on Trump is probably of greater concern than Dugin's on Putin.

Well, there’s banning the internet and then there’s murdering journalists. How do you say “Hold my beer” in Russian?

Spearthrower wrote:I'm essentially none of those things, and barely even grasp half the lingo, but this reality-denial still smells bad to me.

That's exactly why I linked to a news and analysis article to help people to have the tools to stop denying reality.

But I find that rather than being grateful for more information some decide to pitch a fit.

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler: compressed

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
You do know how ridiculous this looks while you regularly slurp up whatever RT, aka Kremlin News Network, throws at you, right? All you can do is "Hurr durr, CNN MSNBC!!" whenever someone points out the hypocrisy of you decrying propaganda while wholesale swallowing it when it suits your preferences, even if they haven't mentioned CNN or MSNBC.

MSNBC (e.g. Rachel Maddow) and CNN are regularly referenced in this thread. They're prime examples of a corporate media that doesn't need to be government-owned, because it's voluntarily between the bedsheets with Washington anyway. It's like MSNBC's Phil Griffin told a demoted Cenk Uygur: "Outsiders are cool, but we’re the establishment".
They'll even rise above their antipathy toward Donald Trump to wax lyrical about the "beauty of our weapons" when he launches them in violation of international law.

Also, It's interesting that you can't tell the difference between being critical of the actions of the US government and slurping Putin's toes, as you do so regularly. I take the sensible position of being able to be critical of both when they do terrible things that hurt people.

Criticism is one thing. But what's wrong with applause? Notwithstanding Putin's "robbing", he has been profoundly good for the Russian people, largely lifting them out of the misery that Washington stooge Boris Yeltsin inflicted on the country.
Putin earns further plaudits for thwarting the USA's regime-change agenda in Syria. As John McCain lamented: the Russians are sticking "their thumb in our eye" by bombing "the people we are supporting and arming and training".

There's no way you take the absurdly naive position that Putin somehow wouldn't have his own version of star-spangled boots stomping across the globe if given the opportunity. He can't even keep from robbing his own people blind!

So, not content with plain whataboutism, you're now going for hypothetical whataboutism!

Nothing at all hypothetical about his clandestine military operations in Ukraine and robbing his people blind. But hey, keep crying "whataboutism!" when folks point out the plain, absurd hypocrisy of your position

False equivalency. Russia's "clandestine military operations in Ukraine", even if they can be authenticated, still don't put it in the category of global hegemon.

Of course, nobody should worry! He's only sneaking into and breaking off chunks of sovereign nations! Nothing to worry about here! Seriously, how do you write your posts with a straight face?

As for "robbing his people blind"...
Yes, I'm sure Putin has squirreled away no small amount of lucre. I don't condone that. It still has nothing to do with Russia being a hypothetical global hegemon.

Amongst everything else, including actions aimed at destabilizing a bevy of nations in the west, it does nothing to assure me that he has no interest in global hegemony. I'm reminded of a person who, having found out that one of their neighbors has robbed the person next door to them, blissfully declares "Well they'd never do that to me!"

SafeAsMilk wrote:

But okay...
Yes, you're right! With his nearly 800 Russian military bases in more than 70 territories around the world, Vladimir Putin is poised to take over the world any day now!

Again, you must have no idea how ridiculous it looks to know of Russia taking clandestine military action against one of its neighbors in the last few years, and then whining about how people are concerned about poor ol' Russia's military action. I mean for fuck's sake

And more of the same! Your response doesn't even relate to what you quote me saying.

Because what you've blathered is mindless, irrelevant whataboutism. It has no relation whatsoever to my point that you were responding to, it's just an idiotic tit-for-tat that doesn't even work because I'm not even defending the US' military presence. You haven't said anything that makes it beyond the point I already made, so I'll continue making it until it finally sinks in.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
...and I'm using it to draw a logical conclusion: that the typical Western media depiction of Putin's Russia as a rampaging menace is just facile propaganda.

Yeah, nothing menacing about clandestine military action and robbing your people blind Well, as long as Putin's doing it, in your case...

And three time's a charm! The same line, again so divorced from my statement and its context that only the inclusion of makes any kind of sense.

It's directly connected, you want everyone to just throw up their hands and ignore what Russia is doing because it doesn't meet your ridiculous criteria. There's nothing even vaguely logical about your conclusion.

We've had this run-around before, SaM.
Yes, there's plenty of evidence that Putin has his fingers in the corruption pie. Yes, he has supported Russian separatists in Ukraine.
But no, that doesn't make him a Russian imperialist with ambitions to usurp the US in the role of global hegemon.

It certainly does absolutely nothing to assure me that he isn't. If any other country did the same, you wouldn't trust them any further than you could throw them. But it seems you'll allow for just about anything if it's from your preferred source

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
You do know how ridiculous this looks while you regularly slurp up whatever RT, aka Kremlin News Network, throws at you, right? All you can do is "Hurr durr, CNN MSNBC!!" whenever someone points out the hypocrisy of you decrying propaganda while wholesale swallowing it when it suits your preferences, even if they haven't mentioned CNN or MSNBC.

MSNBC (e.g. Rachel Maddow) and CNN are regularly referenced in this thread.

But you were talking to me, and you told me to stick with them. Thanks for making my point, and keep attacking with straw men whenever someone points out your ridiculous claims about propaganda while you slavishly swallow it yourself.

No, I wasn't talking specifically to you.

Then you might want to try not quoting a specific person's post, and then responding as if you were talking to them.

You were addressing the readers of the thread:

Yes, you can tell because I wasn't replying to quoted text, and I worded it as if I was addressing the readers of the thread.

Regardless, the point stands about your hypocrisy in whining about MSNBC and CNN while regurgitating blatant propaganda sources like RT.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Amongst everything else, including actions aimed at destabilizing a bevy of nations in the west, it does nothing to assure me that he has no interest in global hegemony. I'm reminded of a person who, having found out that one of their neighbors has robbed the person next door to them, blissfully declares "Well they'd never do that to me!"

...etc, etc, etc.
SaM's fourth (or is it fifth?) iteration of the same limps of logic...

Putin has pilfered some money, reunited Crimea with Russia and supported separatists in Ukraine, therefore Putin is trying to take over the world!

Mike_L wrote:Putin has... reunited Crimea with Russia...

Onwards to 'reunite' all of 'Russia' aka Soviet Union.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:Putin has... reunited Crimea with Russia...

Onwards to 'reunite' all of 'Russia' aka Soviet Union.

...and then Western Europe and then the rest of the world!

Mike_L wrote:
...and then Western Europe and then the rest of the world!

Well, some of Western Europe was necessarily included in the SU, but regardless of the other stuff, I have a feeling that ex-Soviet States may not quite consider your terminology of 'reunification' to be quite how they'd describe it.

More like 'aggressively annexing', which I assume if the US did, you'd agree was very, very naughty.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:Putin has... reunited Crimea with Russia...

Onwards to 'reunite' all of 'Russia' aka Soviet Union.

Can't wait to see Lorraine and Alsace "reunited" with Germany...

The Sudetenland would be a more traditional starting point for "reunification".

Mike_L wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Amongst everything else, including actions aimed at destabilizing a bevy of nations in the west, it does nothing to assure me that he has no interest in global hegemony. I'm reminded of a person who, having found out that one of their neighbors has robbed the person next door to them, blissfully declares "Well they'd never do that to me!"

...etc, etc, etc.
SaM's fourth (or is it fifth?) iteration of the same limps of logic...

As many times as you fail to counter it. That such "limps of logic" easily steamroll your inept hand-waving should tell you something. As usual, you'll just dismiss without any sort of substance, because aside from inept hand-waving, you haven't got anything.

Putin has pilfered some money, reunited Crimea with Russia and supported separatists in Ukraine, therefore Putin is trying to take over the world!

Pilfered some money! He's made himself and his thief friends some of the richest people in the world off the backs of his people, money he is using for his own pleasure and to attack other countries. Then, you refer to the clandestine military operations, when you'd shriek bloody murder if someone else was doing the same, as "reunification"? Thank you for beautifully making my point, and for making it abundantly clear why nobody takes anything you have to say seriously.

aban57 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:Putin has... reunited Crimea with Russia...

Onwards to 'reunite' all of 'Russia' aka Soviet Union.

Can't wait to see Lorraine and Alsace "reunited" with Germany...

Mongolia calling... hi Russia, we want out land back! Many thanks, sons of Khan.

Wait until the UK gets the reunification bug.

Against the fiction of Russia hacking US elections is the reality of Google planning to do so...

"Using a company's dominance on the internet to sway the outcome of an election... that's their plan. There should be a term for what [Google's Jen] Genai is describing. Turns out there is a term. It's a term you've heard constantly from talking heads on television for more than two years. It's called HACKING AN ELECTION. Google wants to hack our election. They're saying that out loud."
[...]
"The Washington establishment has said they want to prevent election interference. But of course that's a lie. They just want to make sure they control the elections. That's their only goal. That's why they're not attacking the real source of election interference, which is Silicon Valley. Google, Facebook and their ilk... they have far more political power than Russia has, or ever will have. No serious person doubts that."

Mike_L wrote:Against the fiction of Russia hacking US elections is the reality of Google planning to do so...

"Using a company's dominance on the internet to sway the outcome of an election... that's their plan. There should be a term for what [Google's Jen] Genai is describing. Turns out there is a term. It's a term you've heard constantly from talking heads on television for more than two years. It's called HACKING AN ELECTION. Google wants to hack our election. They're saying that out loud."
[...]
"The Washington establishment has said they want to prevent election interference. But of course that's a lie. They just want to make sure they control the elections. That's their only goal. That's why they're not attacking the real source of election interference, which is Silicon Valley. Google, Facebook and their ilk... they have far more political power than Russia has, or ever will have. No serious person doubts that."

You're aware that the frst rule of rationalism is to select your info sources carefully, right ? Because RT, and now Fox News ? It's like you're trying to go the stupidest way possible.

I genuinely would never have believed that even the News, Politics and Current Affairs subforum on Rational Skepticism would see people citing Fox News and RT as if they were credible sources.

Now, the Philosophy forum...

But regardless, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Spearthrower wrote:
Wait until the UK gets the reunification bug.

You can bet Mike will have a lot of harsh things to say about it while glorifying Putin's thievery out of the other side of his mouth

I like how the quote he took from it doesn't provide any evidence, it's just yet another breathless editorial telling you what to think. Typical.