rationalskepticism.org

mindhack wrote:
I think I've sensed from Mike_L's posting history that it's the multi-polar world narrative.

If I may hazard a guess I suspect at some point far back in time, Mike_L, having become aware of so many injustices,
commited by elements of the US-empire, its international malpractices and human rights abuses, he accepted the narrative as an essential step forward to a better world. Where a better world equals an end to US imperialism. So the narrative from team-Putin was accepted.

Yes; what Mike doesn't seem to appreciate is that it's not binary. One can be critical of US imperialism AND still find Russia's annexation of Crimea deplorable, and its treatment of opposition to be autocratic. In fact, that's the opposite of hypocrisy - it's treating all similar topics with the same standards and values. That tendency to point to another country and say look at them, they're bad too, as if that then makes Putin's Russia's actions acceptable is exactly what caused the clash. Mike's not expressly stated it but has tossed out several times the implication that others are pro-US or its policies, whereas there's no sound reason for this. In fact, I would say that the membership of this forum is nearly universally critical of US foreign policy, and would be just as loud and critical of the US annexing a chunk of a sovereign nation as they are of Russia doing it. It's Mike who wants to criticize the US/NATO/Rest of the World but deflect any and all negative perspectives on Russia; it's hypocrisy, and I can see no reason why it shouldn't be called out, regardless of whether he's 'one of us' or not. If a new member came and tried out that hypocrisy, I expect people would be a lot more robust in their engagement, so my question is why substantive criticism of Mike's position should be anything other than that.

I've never been into the 'us and them' mentality. I'll always argue my position regardless of whether it's popular or not, whether that be here or in RL. Examples here include me rejecting whole-heartedly the idea that babies and bricks are atheist - it may not be the popular viewpoint, but I am not going to pretend to concur just to be one of the gang. Similarly, even though it netted imaginative depictions of me being burned alive, I refused to go along with a certain sub-section of the forum's populace viewpoint that the Muslims are coming and they want to murder us in our beds. So I reject the blossoming notions introduced earlier in this thread that there's an 'approved' position by the forum and we're all trying to maintain the echo chamber in ape-group grooming fashion.

Rather, from my perspective, I see parallels between Mike's methodology and the Creationist wedge style strategies, the teach the controversy rhetoric which has been latched onto by the far-right in Europe and the US. The idea is that there's another story, a set of equal alternative facts, and that refusing to acknowledge them is close-minded, unfair, and excludes honest discussion. It's a manufactured, self-serving controversy, and the reason why it gets criticized is because it doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny and cannot survive rational debate.