Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Guest nsplayr]

Also gotta take my own advice...

[BashiChuni]

10 hours ago, Lawman said:

 Same is true when you are telling us all not to be “fooled by the narrative” and listening to a podcast hosted by RT and funded by mysterious sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"fooled by the narrative"

like the narrative that the ukranian 2023 offensive disastrously failed? that russia has momentum and is advancing?

what narrative are you presenting...are you saying Ukraine is winning and everything is fine? because that's not the facts at this moment.

you guys have this idea that sprinkling magical money into this conflict will generate an auto win for Ukraine. all i'm saying is that will not happen. why does that make me a "russian propaganda agent"?

there are actual FACTS presented in the Duran podcast...not political platitudes being espoused by western politicians...one who finds himself in a election cycle.

 

[BashiChuni]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Bashi is getting a bit close. Continuously proclaiming the inevitability of Russian victory and arguing that Ukrainian corruption sets them up as an unworthy ally. Especially when there are plenty of examples of much bigger countries being defeated/repelled by well-funded underdogs. But he's also just a troll

 

But yeah, the character attacks as Russian shills is getting old.

choose your fighter. i'd take the russian.

[gearhog]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

That’s a lot of noise to tell us we need to accept RT like it’s somehow not a proven outlet of state propaganda while attempting to cloak your BS in “nobody hates America.” And look now youre telling us “approved narratives” and other such tells. Yes obviously you are arguing from a point of honest debate…

Nobody accused you of hating America, I accused Bashi of being a shill and in this case you of being simply contrarian for the purpose of arguing. Whatever your motivations are for doing that it’s your problem.

Nobody can pass judgement on a podcast with direct links to a Russian propaganda outlet? We need to sample stupid from close range to not recognize it from afar? Did you notice I’m not the only one pointing out the nature of the source he openly admitted to following. Man what would cause that… I don’t know the fact some of us have more intimate knowledge of what’s going on over there than some Russia tied podcaster and enjoy the access (along with several others on here) to know that.

By the way you have still yet to admit to whether RT is a reputable source of information or a state sponsored propaganda outfit.

The only person who has mentioned or linked to RT is you. Am I wrong? Quote the post. The best you can do is... stil... a random unsourced screenshot of an unknown person claiming the podcast is linked, but by multiple layers of separation. This is called the "straw man argument" and you can add it to your growing list of dubious debate tactics. It would be so cool if you would just acknowledge, address, and debate the actual specific pieces of information you disagree with. You'll also find it's much easier than using your repertoire of tactics to do anything but.

Yes, RT is an outlet for state propaganda. This is not new information and I thought it was so obvious that I didn't need to make a confession to you. We in the US, also have dozens of media outlets coordinating with government officials to censor dissenting information and distribute approved information. That shouldn't be new information, either. Do you not know this? It's just a fact of life that both sides carry water for both governments. Objectively, usable information can still be gleaned. There is virtually no unbiased information floating around out there. All of it has to be taken with a grain of salt, deconstructed, and it's parts evaluated. Not only do you refuse to do any of this, but admit that you don't even know who has deemed that info as false. And then you wave it around to everyone shouting "PROOF!" It's mind-bending.

I'm not here just to be contrarian. My motivations are not a problem for me or anyone else. I'm not being creative here. Lying takes effort and this is effortless. These things are as apparent to me as going inside, pointing up and saying "Hey, the sky is blue" and being met with a chorus of angry people saying "Why did you go outside? WTF? Putin also thinks the sky is blue you Russian shill! It's not always blue, sometimes it's gray, liar! Whatabout the clouds? They're white, moron!" I only want people to consider than they're being manipulated.

What is the alternative to Bashi or me or anyone else posting here with a different perspective? Would you rather have a little circle jerk with only the people who wear the same blinders you do? That's what it seems like. You're actually arguing that you don't have first hand knowledge or critical thinking skills. You just let other strange people on the internet tell you what info you should and should not look at. I find it fascinating anyone operates like that.

 

[Swizzle]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

choose your fighter. i'd take the russian.

Yeah. About that. Pretty sure I'd take a coalitions' financial and operationally-ready weapons support to the tune of $278B as of Jan 24'....especially American and German tech, they seem historically kick-ass and dominant in lethality and effectiveness. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/these-countries-have-committed-the-most-aid-to-ukraine#:~:text=The majority of committed support,billion in aid to Ukraine.

 

[Guest nsplayr]

9 hours ago, gearhog said:

Would you rather have a little circle jerk with only the people who wear the same blinders you do?

Funny enough that’s a BO.net specialty! 🤣

[Guest nsplayr]

9 hours ago, gearhog said:

Yes, RT is an outlet for state propaganda. This is not new information and I thought it was so obvious that I didn't need to make a confession to you. We in the US, also have dozens of media outlets coordinating with government officials to censor dissenting information and distribute approved information.

Saying RT is the same as privately-owned US news outlets working with the government at times is laughable. Especially from a fellow military officer. This is exactly the point of view Russia would like you to have! So well done there.

Reminds me of the video below. While Trump is not technically wrong from a very cynical POV, the worldview is wrong IMHO in that in puts the U.S. government on the same morally equivalent ground as the Russian government, and again, as a mil officer I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe that!
 

 

[gearhog]

30 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Saying RT is the same as privately-owned US news outlets working with the government at times is laughable. Especially from a fellow military officer. This is exactly the point of view Russia would like you to have! So well done there.

Reminds me of the video below. While Trump is not technically wrong from a very cynical POV, the worldview is wrong IMHO in that in puts the U.S. government on the same morally equivalent ground as the Russian government, and again, as a mil officer I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe that!
 

 

 

I am not a military officer.

[Lawman]

 
I am not a military officer.

No kidding, and your lack of access would be why those of us finding your repeated defense of state sponsored propaganda so eye rolling.

Why would we mention clear state funded propaganda like RT when discussing a podcast as radioactive as Duran

Gee I wonder.

Its owner writes for Russia News Now. Their chief operators all have ties to Russian media having either hosted or worked in those circles before.

It has guests on like Scott Ritter to tell you how bad things from Ukraine is, or Cyrus’s Jannessen to provide you in depth analysis on China. If you believe that kind of discourse from sources as bad as that isn’t somehow tainted you’re part of the problem in circumventing Russia and China in their active influence campaigns. You don’t need to go listen to a disgraced spy/convicted pedo who repeatedly bad mouths his country to applause by the Russians to know what he is attempting to package. Duran isnt bringing you some informed perspective because they buck the norm, they are a tool of information warfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Saying RT is the same as privately-owned US news outlets working with the government at times is laughable. Especially from a fellow military officer. This is exactly the point of view Russia would like you to have! So well done there.

Reminds me of the video below. While Trump is not technically wrong from a very cynical POV, the worldview is wrong IMHO in that in puts the U.S. government on the same morally equivalent ground as the Russian government, and again, as a mil officer I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe that!
 

 

the same "privately owned" US news outlets who have CIA officers on the payroll?

[gearhog]

48 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No kidding, and your lack of access would be why those of us finding your repeated defense of state sponsored propaganda so eye rolling.

What is this, a half dozen or so exchanges we've now had? Each time, I ask what is the specific information you're disputing. Each time, you dodge the question and choose the ad-hominem tactic. You're just keep repeating a fallacious argument. Let's look at the information in a vacuum and evaluate the thing you're upset about. So what's it like on the inside of an actual vault? Do you get to see who killed JFK? Is there a top secret file on the Duran that enlightens you to something you can only allude to, but not actually say. I wouldn't know, but I'm mystified and super impressed.

48 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Gee I wonder.

Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours.

What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?

You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question:

What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?

Edited April 23, 2024 by gearhog

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

What is this, a half dozen or so exchanges we've now had? Each time, I ask what is the specific information you're disputing. Each time, you dodge the question and choose the ad-hominem tactic. You're just keep repeating a fallacious argument. Let's look at the information in a vacuum and evaluate the thing you're upset about. So what's it like on the inside of an actual vault? Do you get to see who killed JFK? Is there a top secret file on the Duran that enlightens you to something you can only allude to, but not actually say. I wouldn't know, but I'm mystified and super impressed.

Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours.

What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?

You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question:

What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?

While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard.

 

As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information.

 

As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.

 

 

[gearhog]

28 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard.

As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information.

As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.

There's not enough hours in the day to read all the things I want to read or watch. To be efficient with my time, I make personal choices as to where I get the most value. You likely do the same, but I wouldn't apply a label to you because of where you sift through info. I also wouldn't spend more time ridiculing you for where you seek info than it would take for me to read what you'd be referring to.

In this case, the podcast that has his panties in a twist looks to be about 20 min long. The title is "Preventing Ukraine Collapse during the US election." That could be the title of any Western Neocon slanted podcast. Lawman isn't ignoring information that doesn't meet a standard, he's waving his arms like a crazy person shouting "Don't look over here!". At some point, one has to ask, "Well... why?" Now I want to know what you're acting all weird about.

So if the content hasn't met a standard, can I at least know what the standard is? Maybe a few examples? That's not an unreasonable request. Pretending to be indignant because someone has the audacity to ask what your problem or why the content hasn't met your standard, doesn't automatically grant you credibility. If one of the standards is having an active interest in the conflict, shouldn't we condemning a few US media outlets as well? That's just a test for hypocrisy. If Lawman is unwilling or unable to name any, then he's a hypocrite, and deserves to be relegated to the status of RT, Pravda, and the like. He is no more honest than they.

[Lawman]

Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours.
What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?
You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question:
What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?

I like the part where you cut the entire part of my post out answering the questions you are now asking. Go google the names I mentioned that appear on the Duran and tell us why we should listen to them peddle their argument.

Like I said I don’t think for a second you are arguing from a point of intellectual honesty, I think you’re just trying to be contrarian and are willing to ignore all the declassified info on Russian IA operations and demand further context to meet some impossible threshold.

As was mentioned directly above, I don’t need to care if Alex Jones also thinks the sky is blue, there are plenty of places I can find the same information from somebody that doesn’t think things like chemtrails are making the frogs gay. Getting your “in depth analysis” of the Ukraine war from a podcast with direct ties to Russian state media/propaganda and acting like you’re informed because of it falls in that same category.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

There's not enough hours in the day to read all the things I want to read or watch. To be efficient with my time, I make personal choices as to where I get the most value. You likely do the same, but I wouldn't apply a label to you because of where you sift through info. I also wouldn't spend more time ridiculing you for where you seek info than it would take for me to read what you'd be referring to.
In this case, the podcast that has his panties in a twist looks to be about 20 min long. The title is "Preventing Ukraine Collapse during the US election." That could be the title of any Western Neocon slanted podcast. Lawman isn't ignoring information that doesn't meet a standard, he's waving his arms like a crazy person shouting "Don't look over here!". At some point, one has to ask, "Well... why?" Now I want to know what you're acting all weird about.
So if the content hasn't met a standard, can I at least know what the standard is? Maybe a few examples? That's not an unreasonable request. Pretending to be indignant because someone has the audacity to ask what your problem or why the content hasn't met your standard, doesn't automatically grant you credibility. If one of the standards is having an active interest in the conflict, shouldn't we condemning a few US media outlets as well? That's just a test for hypocrisy. If Lawman is unwilling or unable to name any, then he's a hypocrite, and deserves to be relegated to the status of RT, Pravda, and the like. He is no more honest than they.

So now you want to play the “I was just asking a question” victim card?

There are multiple alternatives mentioned in the just last few pages not alone this whole thread.

Podcasters like
Peter Zeihan

Think tanks like
Institute for study of war
CSIS
Brookings institute
Council on foreign relations…


Or maybe just use any number of media bias checks that exist that would tell you things like business insider and dubiously linked podcasts probably isn’t the place to be getting in depth truthful foreign policy analysis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

Just now, Lawman said:

I like the part where you cut the entire part of my post out answering the questions you are now asking. Go google the names I mentioned that appear on the Duran and tell us why we should listen to them peddle their argument.

Like I said I don’t think for a second you are arguing from a point of intellectual honesty, I think you’re just trying to be contrarian and are willing to ignore all the declassified info on Russian IA operations and demand further context to meet some impossible threshold.

As was mentioned directly above, I don’t need to care if Alex Jones also thinks the sky is blue, there are plenty of places I can find the same information from somebody that doesn’t think things like chemtrails are making the frogs gay. Getting your “in depth analysis” of the Ukraine war from a podcast with direct ties to Russian state media/propaganda and acting like you’re informed because of it falls in that same category.

False. You didn't answer those questions. You just named a few more sources that shouldn't be listened to without substantiating it.

Now you're telling me to Google your defense. "Whatever pops up on Google Search results is what my position is." LOL Really? You can't form an original critical thought of your own? "If you want to know what I think, Google it." For the third time, you should reread your posts before you hit submit reply.

Your standard for intellectual honesty is "Do you agree with me?".  If content doesn't agree with your opinion, it's obviously Russian propaganda. If someone listens to that content, they're obviously a shill. And you're calling me a contrarian? Ridiculous and hypocritical. Of course I am aware of all the Russian IA. But you act as if coming into contact with it carries the same risk as getting herpes from your mom. We're all adults and we can discern the risks and bad information. Have you not also read the chilling ways in which our own Intel agencies influence public opinion? I'm not talking about Russians. F them. I mean the ways in which our govenment manipulates our people. It's out there classifed and unclassifed. "Google it."

At this point, it's obvious you don't even know what the "in depth analysis" is. You've adopted a weak position and you'd rather die defending it than abandon it an seek a better one. Par for the neocon adjacent.

19 minutes ago, Lawman said:

So now you want to play the “I was just asking a question” victim card?

There are multiple alternatives mentioned in the just last few pages not alone this whole thread.
Podcasters like
Peter Zeihan

Think tanks like
Institute for study of war
CSIS
Brookings institute
Council on foreign relations…

Or maybe just use any number of media bias checks that exist that would tell you things like business insider and dubiously linked podcasts probably isn’t the place to be getting in depth truthful foreign policy analysis.

Another dodge. Accuse me of "playing victim" for asking a question, so as to not answer the question again.

I'm subscribed to Zeihan and have been since someone else on this forum recommended him about a year ago. He has some great points. He also comes up with some BS while stumbling through the mountains. I also read and have even posted content from those other sources here on this forum. Yes, there's a lot of good stuff, but there's some questionable stuff as well. I'll read it all.

Again, you appear to outsource all of your bullshit detection to third party internet websites. Media bias checks? Why wouldn't you just read it for yourself and decide? You're like drop-shipper of BO.net. You're just marketing and selling other peoples products, or critical thinking skills.

[Lawman]

Another dodge. Accuse me of "playing victim" for asking a question, so as to not answer the question again.
I'm subscribed to Zeihan and have been since someone else on this forum recommended him about a year ago. He has some great points. He also comes up with some BS while stumbling through the mountains. I also read and have even posted content from those other sources here on this forum. Yes, there's a lot of good stuff, but there's some questionable stuff as well. I'll read it all.
Again, you appear to outsource all of your bullshit detection to third party internet websites. Media bias checks? Why wouldn't you just read it for yourself and decide? You're like drop-shipper of BO.net. You're just marketing and selling other peoples products, or critical thinking skills.

Your exact statement “there isn’t enough time”

Those are your words as to why you don’t cull more sources to form a broad collective understanding (you know what we do in the intelligence disciplines).

So you’re going to waste that finite resources to listen to a podcast with direct ties to Russian media that has the aforementioned hosts on. Again, we don’t need to listen to Jones/Tucker/Maddow’s episode on a subject to understand the slants and bad research or blatant fabrications that will be baked into it. Because it isn’t news. Duran has exactly that problem only worse because of their direct ties to a geopolitical foe with an active IA campaign against NATO, Europe in general, and our own country/population. If you’re dumb enough to have to sit and listen too it in order to attempt to discover what’s real and what’s fake or highly corrupted in that, you’re wasting time, same as you’re doing here. But if you want to listen to Scott Ritter be interviewed in his opinions don’t waste the rest of your time here. You’ve got big important “facts” to discover.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, Lawman said:

Your exact statement “there isn’t enough time”

Those are your words as to why you don’t cull more sources to form a broad collective understanding (you know what we do in the intelligence disciplines).

So you’re going to waste that finite resources to listen to a podcast with direct ties to Russian media that has the aforementioned hosts on. Again, we don’t need to listen to Jones/Tucker/Maddow’s episode on a subject to understand the slants and bad research or blatant fabrications that will be baked into it. Because it isn’t news. Duran has exactly that problem only worse because of their direct ties to a geopolitical foe with an active IA campaign against NATO, Europe in general, and our own country/population. If you’re dumb enough to have to sit and listen too it in order to attempt to discover what’s real and what’s fake or highly corrupted in that, you’re wasting time, same as you’re doing here. But if you want to listen to Scott Ritter be interviewed in his opinions don’t waste the rest of your time here. You’ve got big important “facts” to discover.

I wasn't going to, but I am now. I want to see for myself what it is you're so afraid of. Actually, you do need to listen to something to understand it. Otherwise, aaagain.... you're only regurgitating someone else's conclusion.

As I said, we also have intel and propaganda campaigns. Would you say those are more or less robust than those of Russia? I say more. It's also a well documented fact that those tools have been used on our own citizens. I don't give the first flying fuck about any Russian politician, soldier, or citizen. The direct threat they pose to my life is insignificant compared to my own government and people who would advocate for censorship. And I'm definitely not going to allow them or you dictate to me what I can and can't think. Wish no one would listen to Duran? Wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.

Perhaps you saw it, but I posted this earlier today. It's an excerpt taken from the The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. John Madison, June 29th. You should read some of it if your online bias check website deems it safe for you.

The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke.

What I am suggesting here is nothing new. This was a big issue 237 years ago among our founding fathers as much as it was an issue a thousand years ago. That you so aggressively, yet naively assert that we have only the most noble of intentions on a rapidly growing list of conflicts is just proud ignorance. If I want the truth, I have to consider the perspective of someone on the outside looking in. I have a strong marriage of 26 years. Due in large part in our ability to listen and try to understand another perspective even though it may be flawed.

I'm not wasting my time here. The ideas I'm submitting are for your benefit least of all. You're unreachable. You can go listen to or not listen to whatever you want. Participate in your own delusional projection of calling other people shills while simultaneously engaging in it yourself. Do not care. What you are is a generic amalgamation of bad faith and bad reasoning. Sort of boiled down Great Value version of every neocon in position of power, and I have the opportunity challenge it. Some people may not agree, but I think it's going really well.

[Guest nsplayr]

58 minutes ago, gearhog said:

I'm not wasting my time here.

My man, I say this with more experience than 69% of the people here...you abso-fucking-lutely are wasting your time here. I would know!

Edited April 24, 2024 by nsplayr

[Splash95]

I've listened to the Duran podcast a bit, likely because it got brought up here. It certainly takes the general viewpoint that things are going badly for Ukraine/The West and well for Russia. 99.8% of what I've read, heard and watched since 2022 takes the general viewpoint that things are going well for Ukraine/The West and badly for Russia. Wars will always be accompanied by propaganda on both sides. As someone predisposed to look at news from a pro-American (and certainly not pro-Russian) perspective when this all kicked off, I've become more aware day by day that the news getting blasted to essentially all Americans/Westerners who don't bother to dig deeper is often less reliable than purported. This assessment will not get me many upvotes, but gearhog and Bashi have a point.

[Lawman]

I've listened to the Duran podcast a bit, likely because it got brought up here. It certainly takes the general viewpoint that things are going badly for Ukraine/The West and well for Russia. 99.8% of what I've read, heard and watched since 2022 takes the general viewpoint that things are going well for Ukraine/The West and badly for Russia. Wars will always be accompanied by propaganda on both sides. As someone predisposed to look at news from a pro-American (and certainly not pro-Russian) perspective when this all kicked off, I've become more aware day by day that the news getting blasted to essentially all Americans/Westerners who don't bother to dig deeper is often less reliable than purported. This assessment will not get me many upvotes, but gearhog and Bashi have a point.

No… they don’t…

Again, the particular podcast in question is linked directly to Russian state sponsored media and has frequent guests that are so corrupted as to have registered under the foreign agents act or to have been flat disbarred/disgraced or fled western countries and now shill so as not to be extradited.

These aren’t viable/reliable sources of perspective just because they enjoy internet popularity. These are highly compromised individuals providing an outlet for a foreign power’s influence campaign which is designed to erode confidence and cause civil resistance and government disfunction.

And no… you don’t need to listen to a broad depth of content from an Alex Jones type character to know it’s nonsense and bullshit. Similarly you don’t need to listen to not just pro but deliberate government controlled/influenced media to “get the real story” or whatever other BS. That’s like choosing to eat what is clearly a turd in between two slices of bread to find out for sure if you do or don’t like the taste.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

My man, I say this with more experience than 69% of the people here...you abso-fucking-lutely are wasting your time here. I would know!

Yet here you are. Again. Claiming that participating in this forum is a waste while you, yourself, participate in the forum. How many times have you quit the forum forever now? 4,5? But I'm glad you're here. It means you read what I posted. I'm not asking expecting you to agree with it, only think about it.

4 hours ago, Lawman said:

No… they don’t…

Again, the particular podcast in question is linked directly to Russian state sponsored media and has frequent guests that are so corrupted as to have registered under the foreign agents act or to have been flat disbarred/disgraced or fled western countries and now shill so as not to be extradited.

These aren’t viable/reliable sources of perspective just because they enjoy internet popularity. These are highly compromised individuals providing an outlet for a foreign power’s influence campaign which is designed to erode confidence and cause civil resistance and government disfunction.

And no… you don’t need to listen to a broad depth of content from an Alex Jones type character to know it’s nonsense and bullshit. Similarly you don’t need to listen to not just pro but deliberate government controlled/influenced media to “get the real story” or whatever other BS. That’s like choosing to eat what is clearly a turd in between two slices of bread to find out for sure if you do or don’t like the taste.

That's like saying you can't listen to JRE because he's had murderers, anti-semites, drug-users, Jones, Tucker, and other critics of the government. You don't have to agree with any of it. The words aren't going to hurt you, but at the very least, you can learn and understand how words and language are being manipulated to influence you. Again, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. I now know and understand that your method of attempting to convince people to avoid content is not to address the content, but use name-calling, ridicule, ad-hominem, ad-nauseum, genetic fallacies, circular-arguments, generalization, appeal to authority, etc, etc, etc. You appear to have checklist for all the logical debate fallacies and are doing your best to check every single one. I'm not sure if you realize you're doing it. But it's fun to watch someone use the same disingenuous tactics to tell people why they shouldn't watch/listen/read someone else's disingenuous propaganda tactics.

You brought it up: Would you say your comments here are to promote government confidence, suppress civil resistance and support government function? What does that sound like to you?

 

[Lawman]

That's like saying you can't listen to JRE because he's had murderers, anti-semites, drug-users, Jones, Tucker, and other critics of the government. You don't have to agree with any of it. The words aren't going to hurt you, but at the very least, you can learn and understand how words and language are being manipulated to influence you. Again, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. I now know and understand that your method of attempting to convince people to avoid content is not to address the content, but use name-calling, ridicule, ad-hominem, ad-nauseum, genetic fallacies, circular-arguments, generalization, appeal to authority, etc, etc, etc. You appear to have checklist for all the logical debate fallacies and are doing your best to check every single one. I'm not sure if you realize you're doing it. But it's fun to watch someone use the same disingenuous tactics to tell people why they shouldn't watch/listen/read someone else's disingenuous propaganda tactics.
You brought it up: Would you say your comments here are to promote government confidence, suppress civil resistance and support government function? What does that sound like to you?
 

Just one example since you still can’t get it through your head what their guests are doing in that show and what they are advancing.

They have a 25 minute video advancing the narrative that Russia didn’t shoot down MH17 and attempting to discredit the unclassified investigation.

If you believe that it’s because you don’t have access to stuff some of us do, and you’re an idiot swallowing Russian disinformation in an attempt to build distrust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest nsplayr]

4 hours ago, gearhog said:

Yet here you are. Again. Claiming that participating in this forum is a waste while you, yourself, participate in the forum. How many times have you quit the forum forever now? 4,5? But I'm glad you're here. It means you read what I posted. I'm not asking expecting you to agree with it, only think about it.

Look, just because I’m a terrible addict doesn’t mean I can’t tell you that crack is bad.

You are 96.9% likely not convincing anyone of anything who didn’t already agree with you.

You’re also, IMHO, being both a weird contrarian AND a useful idiot for clear Russian IO propaganda, but that’s just my opinion. I admittedly haven’t read your entire library and carefully parsed the facts from the BS. And I don’t plan to.

There is absolutely room for debate on how, when, why and how much we should support Ukraine’s continued fight against the Russian invasion vs other possible policies we might choose instead. But not if the opening argument for that proposed policy change is based on what you heard on the PutinTV.net podcast, that’s just not gonna pass muster in this forum of what should be relatively informed mil personnel, nor should it.

Love you too though 😘

Edited April 24, 2024 by nsplayr

[BashiChuni]

12 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Look, just because I’m a terrible addict doesn’t mean I can’t tell you that crack is bad.

You are 96.9% likely not convincing anyone of anything who didn’t already agree with you.

You’re also, IMHO, being both a weird contrarian AND a useful idiot for clear Russian IO propaganda, but that’s just my opinion. I admittedly haven’t read your entire library and carefully parsed the facts from the BS and I don’t plan to.

Love you too though 😘

this is such a tired trope.

correct the record for us then...is ukraine winning?