The Socialist Response

[American Dream]

Just for the casual reader's benefit, Mac and BS are the two current posters who are on my block list and they have been for a long, long while. Therefore I will not be responding to any posts from them.

I strongly feel that this is my right and that it is good for the board that I exercise this right. Elvis and Sounder are not formally blocked by me but I have been considering it due to the negative way that everything interacts.

Therefore, as you might guess, it's not so likely that I'll be responding directly here.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Can someone not on AD's 'Block List' (or on the cusp of landing on AD's 'Block List') kindly present the questions raised by me and/or Mac? I understand that may limit the pool of qualifying candidates at this point.

Those that remain on this board would do well to note there are no personal attacks in the content raised upthread. Simply direct questions.

(There was a time when this long-running charade would have passed for satire. That ship has long sailed. A microcosm of America, indeed.)

[American Dream]

Just for the record, I'm not much interested in a conversation on these themes with either Sounder or Elvis. I might do a little something with someone else but not a big back and forth because in my experience that never seems to go well here. So you'll just have to take what you get as I feel no obligation to give more than seems helpful to me and to the board.

[Elvis]

It should be obvious by now that AD avoids defending his imperialist/neoliberal-leaning articles and neocon-like claims with rational arguments because he doesn't have any rational arguments in their defense. If he did, and assuming he actually wants to persuade anyone to his view, why wouldn't he post them? The articles themselves merely regurgitate USUK propaganda.

I see that the White Helmets by now have recieved $200,000,000 in funding from USUK. Where is that critical piece of information in AD's flood of disinfo pieces? They are disinfo pieces because they omit that kind of critical information for a reason: it runs counter to their propaganda narrative and raises uncomfortable questions about the true nature of the White Helmets.

These questions below are fair to ask, but, sadly, I think, a waste of time if you want straight answers or a rigorous discussion from the source.

.

I don't love the White Helmets personally, I just think most of the Assadist type claims against them them are based on sketchy logic and/or evidence.

1. What do you mean by "sketchy", exactly?

2. What do you mean by "Assadist type claims", exactly?

^^^^
Indeed.

I don't love the White Helmets personally

Your love (or hate) of the White Helmets has no bearing on their reported role in service to propaganda. Frankly, this statement has no meaning and provides no clarity as to your position.

I just think most of the Assadist type claims against them them are based on sketchy evidence.

"Assadist type claims" . What about the NON-"Assadist type claims" against them? There's ample information along those lines within these forum walls. What's your opinion on those claims?

Or is this your (vague) way of suggesting that ALL claims against the White Helmets are "Assadist type claims" ?

(Relatedly, how would you define an "Assadist type claim" ?)

If so, that's a patently wrong supposition; even a cursory review of the content within this forum, and broadly across the internet, provides non-Assad sourced arguments -- sound arguments -- that the White Helmets are part of the Imperial Agenda.

All that said, you have an OPPORTUNITY here to state your case: please outline for us the evidence you find "sketchy" and why you find it "sketchy" .

You see, saying something in and of itself doesn't make it true.

SHOW US WHY you think the evidence is sketchy, and not simply by pasting more biased/shallow content that only attempts to reinforce your stance (while providing minimal, if any, evidence or researched analysis supporting the content's claims).

I know you won't be replying to any of these questions; I am commenting here as further testament to your unwillingness to answer direct questions with direct answers.

One would understandably surmise that, given the sheer volume of your output here, consisting overwhelmingly of material pasted from elsewhere, that you have actually read most of the content you paste. Operating under this assumption, you should be abundantly qualified --- equipped with ALL THAT SOURCE MATERIAL -- to state your position FIRMLY, with clarity.

[Sounder]

Soon we'll find out who are the real revolutionaries...

AD appropriates the suffering of refugees to imply that he is a real revolutionary?

What would be real revolutionary would be to show respect and support for folk to live in their existing homes and communities.



Yet instead, we all see more flavors of neo-con warmongering that produces the refugees.

[Rory]

He means true revolutionary in the sense he'd have everyone on this forum against the wall, post revolution.

His is the only path. Anyone questioning it is to be silenced

[peartreed]

It has always been abundantly clear to me that AD and SLAD both usually source the articles, media and reporters behind the news items they copy and paste here. So do other members.

By posting an article or news item of interest to share does not automatically mean the person sharing that story here for discussion endorses its author’s view, angle, politics and personal perspective. They do not need to defend the content of the material posted as if it represents their own personal view, nor should they be coerced into arguing/defending its rationale and merits with clear antagonists.

The moderators have already alleviated the volume of “copy/pasta” on the main discussion board by setting up criteria to move a lot of it to the Data Dump, and both AD and SLAD have complied with that format and rule change supported here by the members. Those of us who rely on that news coverage can find it there as well.

Yet the same bullies who berate both AD and SLAD for their prolific posts about fascism and Trump/Russia, respectively – not respectfully – badger on relentlessly. It is tiresome and predictable and petty in the extreme, disrupting what used to be a fairly tolerant and friendly discussion board engaged in mature and intellectual argument about the content - not the character – of the members posting here.

As an example, on this thread, I, for one, remain unconvinced of the source of the Syrian gas attacks, and I’m interested in all articles, pro-Assad, or pro-UKUS, or simply descriptive analysis of the factions fighting and their sponsorship, in order to sort it all out. I’m waiting for the Dutch lab results of chemical analysis and source.

That doesn’t mean I have to defend “UKUS neo-liberal warmongering propaganda” as a member of “The Socialist Alliance with AD” as Mac so ignorantly claims. Nor does AD. Nor do I have to defend Trump from Russian collusion accusations to appease alt-right sympathizers continually attacking SLAD’s information campaign.

We all need to de-personalize the mean rhetoric and ridicule against imagined rivals. It reads like a high school gossip column by pimple-popping prepubescents.

[Rory]

Spare us the pearl clutching pontificating. Your rosy tinted reminiscences for a kinder more illuminated board are not borne out by actual facts.

You're a passive aggressive pest, peartreed. As bad a troll and shitposter as any of the so called meanies you cry your fake crocodile tears about

[seemslikeadream]

trump is stripping legal status from almost 400,000 immigrants over the next two years

[Rory]

trump is stripping legal status from almost 400,000 immigrants over the next two years

How would you frame that in the context of the socialist response?

[Elvis]

Peartreed, with all respect, I can't make much logical sense out of your complaints.

By posting an article or news item of interest to share does not automatically mean the person sharing that story here for discussion endorses its author’s view, angle, politics and personal perspective.

Of course this is quite true, but a cursory reading of AD's comments clearly shows that he endorses the views in the articles he posts. AD himself makes no secret of it. So I can't understand why you keep repeating this bogus point that doesn't apply here.

They do not need to defend the content of the material posted as if it represents their own personal view, nor should they be coerced into arguing/defending its rationale and merits with clear antagonists.

Correct—no one is required to defend or discuss the views or articles they post, or to answer questions posed by other members. Anyone has the perfect right to run away and hide from meaningful discussion of the ideas they post. At the same time, no one is prohibited—nor is it any breach of discussion forum ettiquette—to discuss topics posted. In fact, those interactions are the entire idea behind a discussion forum. So I can't understand why you suggest that challenging the veracity of an idea or a news story is a bad thing. It's what we do on RI.

It is tiresome and predictable and petty in the extreme, disrupting what used to be a fairly tolerant and friendly discussion board engaged in mature and intellectual argument about the content

You refer to me, but I do address AD's content—but AD won't (which is of course his right). It is AD who refuses to engage in mature and intellectual argument about the articles he posts, and when he does respond, he engages in subtle bullying with his name-calling insinuations—never intellectual argument. So I don't understand your complaint.

I’m interested in all articles, pro-Assad, or pro-UKUS, or simply descriptive analysis of the factions fighting and their sponsorship, in order to sort it all out.

Articles, descriptions—but not group discussion?; is that what you mean? You seem to be suggesting that group discussion is a hindrance to understanding. I don't understand that reasoning, if there is any behind it.

And, "sorting it all out" includes dissecting articles and sources, discerning intent, weighing credibility. I do not agree that we must throw up our hands in despair and say, "We can't know anything!" as an excuse not to critically evaluate sources.

We all need to de-personalize the mean rhetoric and ridicule against imagined rivals. It reads like a high school gossip column by pimple-popping prepubescents.

Yikes. Would you like to reconsider those two sentences? Unless you mean "pimple-popping prepubescents" as a compliment and not mean rhetoric.

[seemslikeadream]

trump is stripping legal status from almost 400,000 immigrants over the next two years

How would you frame that in the context of the socialist response?

[Rory]

trump is stripping legal status from almost 400,000 immigrants over the next two years

How would you frame that in the context of the socialist response?

A gif of the world reknowned, respected socialism authority, Chelsea handler? Why yes - Trump, plus deportations are an obvious contribution especially without context, and responded too with the immortal, idiomatic American phrase "do the math".

Thank you. Much insights gleaned

[seemslikeadream]

it's a shame you can not gather context from deporting 400,000 immigrants

[Rory]

it's a shame you can not gather context from deporting 400,000 immigrants

Sure I can. It's 400k people being deported. That's the beginning and the end of context right there. How that relates to this thread beats the hell out of me