|
Condiv posted:it's really hard to gauge the effect of sanctions at all, but at the same time we need more of them Unless you can explore alternate realities where there were no sanctions and observe that they had superior outcomes, you have no choice but to conclude the sanctions cause no harm.
|
#
¿
May 28, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:It's honestly impressive how well they're able to twist things so that obviously the people who aren't screaming about secret commie super weapons are the crazy ones. I remember when this was bring discussed, and a bunch of posters were acting like "it's technically not impossible that Russia could do this" basically means you have to assume they did until proven otherwise. It was always utterly ludicrous, but they enjoy the benefit of being the "default" opinion with mainstream support and it doesn't really matter if they're inevitably proved wrong months later, since they'll have moved on by then. The same thing happens in Venezuela discussions. Maduro being responsible for every bad thing and the opposition being good are always treated as defaults, and by the time individual claims are debunked they've moved on to something else. comedyblissoption posted:1. unleash previously secret high tech supersonic mindray weapon on diplomatic staff The main theory at the time was that it was a side effect of Russian spying technology, so not quite that goofy, but pretty close. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 07:29 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Clip-On Fedora posted:Truly he is the Julius Caesar of our times. While I've seen some of the liberals commenting on this distance themselves from supporting Guaido specifically, you'd think they'd take a step back and think "maybe the people who have been enthusiastically supporting this guy who is obviously both awful and dumb as hell are not reliable sources." But apparently learning anything from past events is the height of cynicism, and the only way to engage in "good faith" is to blindly trust that everyone treated positively by the media and US government is good until the proof otherwise becomes completely impossible to ignore.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:well I mean it depends on how liberals react to this Iran thing. My first response is "they won't believe it because it's Trump telling them it instead of a liberal president" but they were totally down with believing the likes of John Bolton and Elliot Abrahms, so, uh.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
fnox posted:can you at least admit maduro had some fault in this? The point isn't that he has no fault, but that it isn't a situation where "Maduro directly did things that hosed things up in such a way that merely removing him will fix/improve the situation," and your argument requires that this be the case (because you're not just arguing that Maduro has made mistakes, you're arguing that he is a direct cause of the crisis to such an extent that virtually anyone would be preferable, even people who are obviously terrible like Guaido). fnox posted:what about the poo poo I just posted? not grim enough for you? I don't think quelacreo.com is still up but the videos are out there anyway. The bar is high when you're arguing "the current administration is so dire literally anyone would be better," and you would generally have an easier time finding a list of recent atrocities if you literally pulled a random country's name out of a hat than you do with Venezuela. It honestly does not rank high on the list of "countries that do crimes/atrocities." Your argument is heavily dependent upon attributing all indirect harm from economic causes to Maduro himself as a result. It is very easy to pull up a super long list of atrocities in the US, for example, but it would be dumb for someone to be like "and therefore I think we should replace Obama with this Republican, because nothing could really be worse than this" (though this would actually be a considerably more reasonable argument since the US is way worse than Venezuela in terms of being "a country that does crimes both to itself and others"). Your argument is not just "Maduro did some bad things"; it is "Maduro is doing such awful things that even someone as transparently awful as Guaido would be better." That requires an argument not just that bad things have happened, but that any random dubious politician would probably be better. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 19:33 on Jun 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:
Listen, by even suggesting that things can be worse, you are downplaying the current situation. As a result, the only moral thing to do is to make things worse, because to not make things worse would be ignoring the sacrifice of everyone who has suffered under the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2019 18:42
|
|
since people are already going hungry in Venezuela things obviously cannot get any worse and so it's perfectly justified to cut off all food imports.
|
comedyblissoption posted:i shouldnt be surprised a d&der doesn't understand whether or not venezuela news and journalists are paid propagandists is completely irrelevant Yeah, it always gets me when people are like "uh that's propaganda, ergo it should be 100% ignored." Like, you should apply skepticism to literally all media, since no such thing as un-biased media exists and all media is varying degrees of propaganda. I mentioned before that the last time I had a discussion about this with one of these people (Discendo Vox specifically) his criteria to distinguish something like RT as "propaganda" and US media as "not propaganda" is whether the media outlet is "intentionally misleading." Which is stupid both because 1. he can't read minds and doesn't know if any of these media organizations are purposefully lying and 2. it's irrelevant either way, since media where someone is intentionally lying is no less reliable than media where someone is saying false things because they've just been properly indoctrinated. As a result, there's never a reason you shouldn't just treat any media the same in terms of evaluating how reliable is claims are. And when it comes to US reporting on foreign policy issues, it is at least as unreliable as RT (or whatever). And undeniably even worse on the specific topic of foreign policy, since the attitude of "Russians with the intent to make the US look bad" is generally going to be closer to reality than whatever is coming out of US media.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:I absolutely love d&d libs accusing cspam of groupthink. It's my favorite kind of projection I understand where they're coming from, even if it's extremely dumb and wrong. To those people, we're literally like people denying that the US Civil War happening or something. To them, we're taking a contrary position to something so incredibly self-evident that that's no need to provide direct evidence for it. I can sympathize with it to an extent. These people have been taught to always support things with evidence, but they can't comprehend that reliable unbiased evidence simply doesn't always exist. There is no Reliable Source where you can get the unfiltered True Scoop about Venezuela, and they aren't willing to acknowledge that US media like WaPo or the NYTimes is literally no more reliable than Telesur on the topic of Venezuela (and honestly probably significantly less reliable). edit: Probably the #1 biggest flaw in their logic is that they seem to believe that, in the absence of reliable evidence, you should just believe whatever seems to be the mainstream consensus. Like when that "aid truck" was set on fire, they assumed that the default truth should be the perspective set by the mainstream media (that Maduro or his supporters did it), and that evidence must be supplied proving otherwise. If we hadn't been lucky enough to have access to actual video directly proving that narrative wrong, they would have continued believing it. Reasonable people who aren't idiots might see this and come to the conclusion of "you shouldn't believe anything US media says about this stuff absent very clear and direct evidence." But these people are not the sharpest tools in the shed, and they keep returning to the default perspective of "believe what the media says until proven otherwise," even when the standard of proof they require often doesn't exist and the media in question has been shown to repeatedly lie. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 21:54 on Aug 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
It seems like one of the biggest issues with the logic of people like the ones who post in The Other Thread (though this is an issue throughout all mainstream media, etc) is that they're incapable of understanding that, using their reasoning, you can create a basis for overthrowing the government of almost every poorer country on the planet. To them, showing that there's any unjust and/or undemocratic behavior in a country (or any harm that can't be 100% proven to be caused by the US or external forces) is sufficient to make the argument that its government should be deposed, but you will be extremely hard pressed to come up with a single country where you can't come up with a list of crimes and abuses its government has committed (and by "be hard pressed" I mean it's literally impossible). But these people have been trained to deflect any attempt to put things in context as "whataboutism." You can't talk about how their logic can be applied to every poor country on the planet, because that's "whataboutism." Heck, you could apply it to the United States. This is a large part of how these idiots end up with distorted worldviews. Not only do they often assign credibility to sources in deeply questionable ways, but they don't realize how the media can manipulate them through simply selectively focusing on the things that are convenient for the US government. The worst part is how condescending they are while being destructive idiots. It's seriously the absolute worst, and is the reason why I very rarely read or post in the other thread.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
Feel bad for Boots, trying to use facts and logic against these people
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
One of the most insane takes I've seen from this whole thing has to be "this Venezuelan says racism isn't a thing in Venezuela, and it's paternalistic of you to claim it is." I could maybe understand giving some weight to that if the person in question was a black/dark-skinned Venezuelan (though I still wouldn't take it as some kind of gospel), but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's probably not the case in 99.9% of these situations (because if it was, the people in question would probably mention it). Like, jesus christ, it is not reasonable for your default assumption to ever be "racism isn't a thing unless you can prove it to me," especially in a region of the world with a long history of racial tensions. There's nothing you can really say against the logic of "this ex-pat says a thing, and you can't contest it unless you're also living in that country." It's utter lunacy on its face, and it's scary to see because it makes you realize that these gullible fucks could be manipulated into virtually anything; all you need is a literal handful of voices from the target country. It seriously disgusts me to see progressive language used to justify this sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's the same gaslighting southernors use here. Hey, they're not supporting US intervention. They just think it's wrong to oppose US intervention and insist that Maduro be removed by external forces! It's also a total coincidence that they never speak out against people who support US sanctions/intervention and focus 100% of their negative attention on leftists who oppose it. Also, the majority of Venezuelans who appear to oppose US sanctions? Fake news. This SA poster is 100% sure that all the people in Venezuela agree with him, and you're denying his lived experience if you don't agree with everything he says.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
fnox posted:oh yeah one more thing before I come back to the equally dull D&D thread. what even is your end goal? do you just wanna seem smug to each other? there’s clearly no discussion to be had because even if you’re proven completely loving wrong you choose to repeat things ad nauseum. never a retraction, nothing, just hold the party line. We are opposing sanctions and other foreign intervention. There is nothing particularly confusing about this. I think the better question is what you (and those like you) are trying to accomplish. What are you concerned about the anti-sanctions/intervention people doing? Do you think that, if not for them, Venezuela would be saved from Maduro and would prosper? What exactly is it that you want? At worst you people seem to be advocating for things that are directly bad, like sanctions or (even worse) military intervention, and at "best" you seem to be just sort of insinuating that those things are necessary. brugroffil posted:in "the other thread" fnox seemed to completely reject the idea of sanctions having a material impact, and instead blamed Maduro (again) for forcing the US to impose sanctions by being a bad leader. idk for sure because he constantly talks out of both sides of his mouth and won't ever defend any actual specifics beyond vague notions like "international pressure" The strategy they use is to simply treat "sanctions don't cause harm" as a default and demand an impossible level of evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:They believe that every bad thing you describe is already being perpetrated by Maduro himself. Yeah, it seems like the logic is that things literally cannot possibly get worse than they are, and if you imply that they can be worse you're a piece of poo poo who is downplaying the status quo. There's not really any way to argue against this, since it's kinda obvious from historical precedent that it's entirely possible for things to be worse, and that a hypothetical Guaido (or whatever) government would basically be "the status quo, except poor people starve even more and the rich benefit from selling the country's resources off to Western corporations," but these people will only accept an impossible level of proof (that will only exist in hindsight 10+ years from now) that this is the case.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:fnox was weirdly reticent about how a "web developer" with no certs was able to hang out in sweden for a year with no job. I'm generally inclined to trust these claims (since it's not that inconceivable that someone who experienced legitimate hardship might respond by developing hardline pro-regime-change views towards their country's government, and I'll end up looking like a huge rear end in a top hat if I assume otherwise and am wrong), but I'm aware that I'm probably being overly naive by doing this. I definitely do feel disgust towards a bunch of privileged white-collar liberals using a handful of Venezuelan ex-pats to justify harming millions of people through sanctions or military action, though. It seems like this is a fairly frequent trend among these types, where a bunch of white managerial-professional goons all glomp onto a handful of minorities who agree with them and use that to justify their toxic/harmful political views. It also happened/happens with the anti-Sanders folks. I really can't understate the visceral disgust I feel towards these people.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm legit sad that the Other Thread is closed now. Nah, nothing would come of this. People would just say "so what, Maduro Bad."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Um excuse me, that is a tweet from the website venezuelanalysis which is PROPAGANDA so everything it says is bad and nonsense and by posting it you are "useful idiot."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:everyone who maxes out for bernie should get a sword. not that i think bernie is a friend to maduro, i just want one. Everyone who maxes out for Bernie gets a Kalashnikov Hell, just everyone who donates
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
There seem to be two liberal opinions on this: - This is good because Morales was bad and unsupported by The People, which I know because some expat on the internet told me so - No one can really say whether it's good or bad, because it's impossible to prove that Morales wasn't bad and that this wasn't The Will Of The People
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:i like to think i'm actually pretty educable and appreciate the effort by the dudes in the dnd thread when i ask questions or when things happen i don't ask questions about, i'm just not terribly interested in enduring performative jeers hereabouts so I mostly just lurk and read the occasional actual content The issue is that there's a built-in higher level of trust in mainstream narratives that will repeatedly and inevitably lead you to the wrong conclusion on issues like this (or previously Venezuela). It's understandable to have this flawed perspective at some point, since most people in the US do, but it stops being an excuse after you've engaged with people arguing from other perspectives and see the extent to which all mainstream US reporting on these topics is propaganda to an extent likely exceeding that of sources like teleSUR (largely because the US is coming from a significantly worse ideological perspective, what with being explicitly right-wing and all). In practice, a "US media is flawed/biased, but so is teleSUR and Morales maybe had some issues so who can really say what the truth is" opinion is a right-wing one, in the same way that it would be right-wing if someone said "well, I don't trust white supremacists, but these non-white supremacists are also sometimes iffy so who can really say who is right and who is wrong." The most important take-away from these situations should be that you should always default to opposing any sort of US-approved "regime change"/coup, especially if the government being replaced is even remotely considered left-wing. It isn't somehow more reasonable to be "neutral" on the topic, because "neutrality" in these situations is effectively support for the status quo. Non-democratic change of remotely democratic government is the sort of thing that should always be treated as a bad thing absent some extremely strong proof that it's "valid," and "bad things about the prior government" do not constitute an excuse for a coup (and that's even if you believe such things, when most sources for that kind of information should be taken with a huge grain of salt). It isn't somehow rude or bad to not blindly trust what some random English-speaking person from the country in question says; the voices of the supporters for coups or US intervention have always been used to try and affect US public opinion, even with stuff like the Iraq War.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Way to tell on yourself then, 'cuz I'm mostly referring to the D&D doctrine of "respect nationals no matter what." There's also a weird sort of racist patronizing angle to that sort of thing, because these same people would likely rightfully scoff at someone being like "as a person from France, you must trust my judgement on all French politics and cannot contest anything I say."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Al! posted:looking forward to bernie sanders being deposed by a military junta because of "voting irregularities" and liberals defending the reimposition of the lesser of two evils, donald trump As long as you can name a single thing that could possibly be considered "somewhat fishy" and can't absolutely prove it's not true, it is justifiable to overthrow a government with force. That is why liberals also supported a coup against the Obama administration.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:even if it's not fishy as all, as long as you say it is it's fine Have you been to Bolivia and literally observed Morales 24/7? Then you can't prove he didn't do something fishy and the coup is justified.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
Al! posted:i like that this guy, a bolivian living in the united states with extensive ties to bolivia but who recognizes that their centrist family is just spouting bullshit On the upside, it's not as one-sided as the Venezuela discussion was and the people defending the coup (or attempting to muddy the waters) seem to be a minority. Granted, that's probably largely because the typical types to defend this are still waiting on the mainstream talking points explaining why actually this is Fine and Good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
I'm actually an Admiral in the CIA, so I can say firsthand that these NGOs are CIA-linked.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Dipshit liberals like greyjoy are just the PR arm for empire. They can mr. bean it up everywhere, throw up their hands, and pretend or try and gaslight you like none of this poo poo is happening Many people have internalized this idea that withholding an opinion is somehow the most intellectual option through it's "neutrality" (even though in practice that's effectively approving of what's happening). ...except when they don't do that. For some reason people like him suddenly have plenty of moral clarity on a topic like Tulsi Gabbard (or pretty much every other issue that doesn't have the backing of mainstream media and the US government). I don't think this is a conscious decision on their part - I think they're just rubes who have no clue how much they're manipulated by the media ecosystem they get their information from. They generally have just enough intellectual honesty to admit when they're flat-out proven wrong about something, but they will always demand proof (and a sometimes impossible level of it) that the official line on issues like this isn't true and immediately lap up any excuse to believe the mainstream government messaging. If the government and media manage to come up with a convincing line justifying this, or if we get more people like that one guy popping in to talk about how, as people with family in Bolivia (or whatever), they think Morales is bad, you'll likely see them decide that suddenly the truth is nuanced again and maybe this isn't bad or a coup.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:they're going to murder tens of thousands of people and the world will never really know the extent of it But have you considered term limits? Really, it's impossible to say what''s good and bad in this situation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:As an ex-liberal I can assure you, it doesn't occur to them to question why the news is all in agreement, because to them that just means it's obviously true. The idea of media bias only comes up as a way to disparage conservative and leftist outlets, so mainstream reporting gets about as much ideological scrutiny for international news as it does for the weather report or sports scores. The key flaw in their worldview is that they assume that facts about situations must always be available from the media (because they've always lived in a society with pervasive media telling them that they have the facts). As a result, when it comes to foreign situations, they feel that they have to believe something. So their choices are then US mainstream media and foreign media (usually in English). They've been taught to fully dismiss left-friendly foreign media as worthless propaganda, so that leaves them with only US media. And they're usually not savvy enough consumers of media to recognize the extent to which their perception is distorted by things like tone, etc. The end result is that they decide the left-wing side is bad and have a set of facts (that are possibly true) to support that. They've defined putting things in context as "whataboutism" so you can't counter their claims with "the alternative is a bunch of right-wing sickos who are way worse."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:As an ex-liberal I can assure you, it doesn't occur to them to question why the news is all in agreement, because to them that just means it's obviously true. The idea of media bias only comes up as a way to disparage conservative and leftist outlets, so mainstream reporting gets about as much ideological scrutiny for international news as it does for the weather report or sports scores. There's also the fact that these people have been primed to view statements like "mainstream media is essentially propaganda and can't be trusted" like un-serious conspiracy theory nonsense. They generally view the idea that mainstream sources aren't trustworthy as similar to being a 9/11 truther or something. It's ridiculous on its face to them, in a way that doesn't need any further explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:A discouraging aspect of spending a lot of time reading about Latin American policy is that some liberals suffer "come back and become better well-read until you agree with me" syndrome, where I could go through PDFs like http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11.pdf?v=2 and will go "well Western leftists can't possibly know as much as the Bolivian small business owners who have mineral rights I hear from through the New York Times anyway". When liberals find a member of a minority group (or foreign country in this case) who agrees with them, it's "listening to peoples' lived experiences." If the left does the same, it's malicious tokenism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
BEAR GRYLLZ posted:this whole farce should be good for showing libs how the right weaponizes their naive belief that people fundamentally operate on good faith, if only they'd listen They are incapable of learning from the past because, at the end of the day, they just don't care. To them, it's simply about feeling like a good person in the moment. It's not about reality or the people harmed by these circumstances. It's about getting to feel like you're a good ally listening to The Bolivian/Venezuelan/etc People. If you bring up how they were wrong and are using the same logic that made them be wrong before, then you're just being a weird person who is "sea lioning" them. The only way to approach the topic is to just realize that these people are fundamentally no different from Freepers or any other group of dumbasses who are wrong about everything. I personally have trouble doing this and continue to argue with these people like a moron, but it's ultimately all pointless. comedyblissoption posted:maybe you can get a liberal to question for a moment their unshakeable trust in these liberal institutions by pointing out the insane iraq war propaganda: It's a lost cause, because they won't contest that WaPo (etc) are bad sometimes; they just still think that they should be treated as true by default until proved otherwise. The idea that you can possibly just not know for sure what's happening is insane to them, so they have to choose something to trust, and they sure as hell aren't going to trust any non-mainstream media. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 20:33 on Nov 15, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:ya, the critical thing to understand about liberals is that they don't actually BELIEVE in anything, it's all a narrative to them and they're the ones writing it The bolded is really the biggest reason why it's pointless. They don't care about being consistent, in the same way as conservatives don't care. They might be temporarily embarrassed in a conversation, but all of these topics aren't actually important to them. Their emotional reaction to politics isn't to the politics themselves, but to people. They don't hate conservative ideology - they hate conservatives (or a particular stereotype of them). Same with leftists - they despise a certain idea they have of what leftists are like. Trying to engage with them like they're being motivated by ideology is pointless, because their only real ideology is a sort of risk aversion. Everything else is adopted on the fly to the extent that it's convenient to demonize the people they dislike.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:I don't know if these are necessarily true. I almost exclusively lurk but I feel like a combination of the US coverage of Turkey's invading Syria and finding this thread a couple weeks ago has fundamentally changed how I see things. Like another poster up thread called it I guess you could say it was a crack*ping moment and they definitely happen. Oh, it's absolutely possible for people to go from being wrong about these things to having a better understanding of them, and I imagine most people posting on this forum had dumb political views at some point. I think what I said mostly applies to the people who actually engage in arguments with the left over this, since those people have actually seen the sort of points you mention and instead choose to double-down. Mister Bates posted:the whole bed thing is legitimately hilarious to me because that is easily the most modest head-of-state residence I've ever seen, it looks like a room at an above-average Motel 6 or a below-average Holiday Inn. it's actually kind of surprising in its modesty. he was the loving president, ostentatious is what you expect in the bedchambers of a sitting head of state. instead it just looks...functional. it is a room in which you sleep. it has a mirror to check your appearance before going outside and a lamp and a little end table and that's pretty much it. Why didn't they at least put some fancy stuff in the room, lol Chewbaccanator posted:Evidence of what, I cannot imagine – kinda surprised they didn't plant some money or drugs or something at the very least to make the press tour worth it. And if they did the lib response would be "Yes they may have planted them, but we should assume they are real until it has been proven they aren't. Maybe this situation is more nuanced than the left likes to claim." Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 19:57 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:you don't even need to discredit the OAS findings to show that the military coup is bad and that it is a military coup It's pointless to point this out because, in these peoples' minds, even an ounce of "sketchiness" (or, hell, even "the existence of an opposition") is enough to insert "nuance" into the situation and make it one where they don't feel comfortable taking a moral stance. The recent Citations Needed newsbrief on the Bolivia situation was making the point that, in the eyes of these people, something can only be a coup if the coup is happening to a government with literally 100% of the population's support, because the mere existence of an opposition makes it a situation where there was "popular unrest and opposition to the administration" (and that's ignoring things like "the class and racial make-up of the opposition"). CharlestheHammer posted:bad time for her to fold While I wouldn't be surprised by a disappointment from AOC on a subject like this, this is just the account from these people and I wouldn't be surprised if she was just friendly and agreeable with them. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 02:13 on Nov 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
It's funny how the C-SPAM thread has so much more activity than the D&D one in this situation, in contrast with the threads when the Venezuela situation was being most reported on. I guess right-wingers doing a coup in Bolivia just doesn't rile liberals up in the same way as ~a bad left-wing "authoritarian"~ does (especially in light of the fact that the opposition leader they promoted for Venezuela supports the obviously-terrible coup in Bolivia).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 07:28
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:idk I think there's a difference between say US Democrat-style neoliberalism and the rampant christo-fascism we're seeing take over Bolivia I mean, Guaido supports those same christo-fascists so...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:so Greenwald is doing a sit down interview with them next week I guess? What in the world is it with liberals and Glenn Greenwald My hypothesis is that most liberals get some sort of sexual pleasure from the act of "condemning (what they perceive to be) bad people on the left" because someone who sees the bad On Both Sides is clearly the most reasonable and impartial.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:greenwald is wrong about some things but his Brazilian reporting is immaculate and I see no reason why he’d do a bad job on Bolivia It really seems like the most consistent thing about people liberals absolutely despise is disagreeing with US imperialism in some fashion. I imagine that this is mainly just a result of US media strongly opposing such people and most liberals kinda being gullible rubes who are manipulated by media far more than they're willing to admit. Like, Tulsi Gabbard sucks rear end, but the reason most liberals hate her is ironically probably the only remotely good thing about her - her opposing mainstream US opinions with respect to Syria. So this in effect makes her "marginally better than your average Democrat/presidential candidate" (which is still poo poo, but the focus on her is wildly disproportionate).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:liberals are the kind of people who know generally what's right and wrong but would never advocate for immediate courses of action to fix that wrong, because they would never willingly give up their relative comfort in the present day. when it comes to imperialism, they know imperialism is wrong but fear that if their country stopped exploiting the global south there might be some changes to society that result in temporary inconveniences. like, what if you couldn't just pick up a relatively fresh banana any time of the year at any old gas station I think this is overly generous and most of these people probably just think "yeah imperialism is bad, but (insert foreign leader) is definitely evil and anyone arguing against ~regime change~ is clearly a tankie who supports (insert foreign leader) and all the bad things they've done." Basically, the media they consume causes them to see foreign evil (or made-up nonsense like in the case of Morales, but they'll believe whatever the media says) as a clear black/white moral issue, while US evil is perceived as "nuanced" because it's part of the society they live in. edit: Another way of putting it is that they can see the evil of past imperialism because accepting past US evils is at least somewhat mainstream among US liberals, but they don't see current imperialism because their impression of events is entirely manipulated by the media. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 21:40 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
Fast Luck posted:Good idea This is why you have to purge the right-wingers from all institutions (and ideally from this mortal plane).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2019 02:08
|
|