Venezuela: The Empanada Summit

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Venezuela: The Empanada Summit

«‹›9 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The rule is there literally to get you to stop doing this. And you know that.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2019 18:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 14:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Helsing posted:

The rule is there to curtail off topic discussion, but as I just tried to explain to you what is or isn't germane to a conversation about Venezuela is going to fluctuate based on what the posters in the thread are actually talking about. That is how conversations work - they are organic and fluid and their focus evolves over time, reflecting both changing events in the real world and also changes within the participants to the conversation. And that is exactly what's happened here.

At the time that Jones made that post back in January most of the thread's discussion was focused on rapidly developing current events: Maduro's new term was just beginning, there were protesters in the streets and Guaido was weeks away from announcing that he was in talks with senior figures in the military. The better part of a year later and there's a lot less daily news flooding into the thread, the immediate possibility of rapid developments has decreased, and the conversation has unsurprisingly started to focus more broadly on what could reasonably be the expected outcome of an American lead intervention designed to oust Maduro now that its clear the Venezuelan military is unlikely to do so on its own, at least for now. Broadly based discussions that previously were outside the scope of the thread have become relevant because in the intervening months almost everyone here has repeatedly brought up their feelings about American foreign policy. This is a natural and frankly inevitable development because there's no road to overthrowing Maduro that doesn't run through the US military establishment. So the reason this became relevant is because the thread regulars made it relevant by talking about it constantly.

I'll reiterate: this is how conversations between normal human beings work. They are messy, they slip over a wide range of related and semi-topics, sometimes they circle back to previously discussed issues and attack them from a new angle, at other times they can be frustratingly repetitive, not infrequently the discussion becomes an argument about what is or is not relevant to the discussion. But it's how people communicate and its not inherently a bad thing! In fact it can help produce a healthy balance between breathless speculative talk about current events and bigger picture discussions of how the international system and interstate diplomacy actually works.

A proper discussion is framed by some broad guidelines but ought to have plenty of room to expand or retract in focus depending on where the individual participants are at. The proper role of moderation, I would argue, is to guide this process, occasionally prodding people back onto topic when the conversation is stuck but otherwise making some reasonable allowances for people to explore the topic in the way that makes sense to them as individuals.

Discendo Vox posted:

The rule is there literally to get you to stop doing this. And you know that.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2019 22:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

We've refuted that guy and articles citing him at least three times now. A quick search says start here.

Without getting into the weeds, individual countries are basically able to create and fund rapporteur offices. A general rule with rapporteurs (or a lot of other specialized roles associated with the UN) is that they're put in place on someone's behalf to promote their goals. I'd encourage folks to look at de Zayas' history of statements before assuming that his title gives him the authority or credibility he claims.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Aug 26, 2019

# ¿ Aug 26, 2019 02:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Helsing posted:

How is that different from literally any other source of official information on this conflict? Also, isn't the "look at their track record to evaluate their current statements" schtik exactly what you've demanded people not do regarding Bolton, Abrams, etc.?

de Zayas is germane to discussion because, as has been the case previously in this thread, he was cited as a source of authority on Venezuela. If you read the sentence immediately before the part you bolded, you will see I am specifically describing the rapporteur format within the UN, which is the source of his authority. And if you read the sentence immediately after the bolded section, you can see I'm referring specifically to de Zayas' track record. (you might also notice this falls under "post about UN poo poo regarding venezuela". Which people did, in this thread. de Zayas has a specific record regarding his statements and reports on Venezuela, and a history which reflects on his credibility as a source on Venezuela. That is what people are discussing.

I have not "demanded" that people not examine the statements and histories of Bolton and Abrams to demonstrate their credibility. No one is citing these people as authorities. It doesn't come up. What I have done is cite the rule posted by a mod to get the discussion on topic, because posters use the thread to discuss the United States, to reduce it to a litigation of the United States; to confound and avoid discussion of Venezuela.

Which you know, because it's what you are attempting to do.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Aug 28, 2019

# ¿ Aug 28, 2019 01:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

punk rebel ecks posted:

gently caress that is disappointing. I love his movie and his speeches. I really hope this isn't true.

It appears he�s scrubbed his account since then (he does it periodically) but you can find people reacting to it with a quick search. Riley has routinely uncritically promoted and retweeted propaganda from TeleSUR, etc.

Edit: example conversation, click through for thread and direct ghouta truther stuff

https://mobile.twitter.com/bootsriley/status/1091129087219838976

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Aug 31, 2019

# ¿ Aug 31, 2019 03:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 14:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I linked a thread where he did it earlier, too.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 16:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Venezuela: The Empanada Summit

«‹›9 »