The Far Right's Love of the Kremlin’s Policies

[Jerky]

I hate to say it, but yeah... Burnt Hill is right on the money with this critique. Surely what AD did was NOT worth ban-hammering, no matter how loud Putin's Peanut Gallery screeched and stomped their feet about it.

J.

Then re-read those Weinberg pieces and consider: if 'anti-war' is the wrong approach to take toward Syria, what then is Weinberg implicitly advocating? And if you post such a piece without specifying any objections you have, what are you advocating?

While silence can mean approval I sure did not take it that way.

I thought AD clarified his pov on un-remarked upon c/p posts. That the post is not necessarily the view of the poster.

When I read the two posts by AD from Weinberg, at no point did I think AD was advocating by posting.

SRP, your questions of AD right here are somewhat fair, why did you not give AD the chance to respond?

You just banned someone for not commenting, and assumed bad faith - because, as you have stated your neutrality - "others" have complained.

At this juncture I must protest.

[Iamwhomiam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NXnxTNIWkc

[Heaven Swan]

Wow. I never thought I’d be defending AD, but I looked over those Weinberg articles he posted and don’t get why articles like these would be singled out. IMO we need more of this type of content, this should be a place where we analyze conspiracy content to try to find the truth and develop the critical thinking skills necessary to make sense of all the conflicting info and disinfo.

Sure it would be great if AD wrote more accompanying commentary but who ever said that we should only post things we agree with? The problem here is bullying, hysterical tirades and foot stamping not the posting of articles by people like Weinberg who state original views whether we agree with them or not.

Calmly presenting thoughts, facts and viewpoints in a respectful way creates a satisfying and fruitful exchange. I hope we can get to that here someday but given the current climate it’s easy to get discouraged...

[Iamwhomiam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asXouOHQ61k



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDs2Bkq6UU4

[Elvis]

who ever said that we should only post things we agree with?

The thing is, AD agrees with the Weinberg articles.

Those articles don't directly call for war on Syria, they merely say that calling for no war on Syria is bad.

In other words, they're calling for war.

[Jerky]

How does one "call for war" on a country that's been at war since 2011?

A half-million Syrian civilians have died already. 5 million Syrians have been chased out of the country.

Is it only Americans and other liberal democracies that deserve to be called warmongers (even though clearly waging war seems to be something they are exceedingly reluctant to to in this case, having hemmed and hawed over it for almost a decade now)?

When do we get to call Putin and Assad warmongers? When the casualties reach 1 million?

I mean, if that epithet fits people posting articles from a political point of view that some people here disagree with, then SURELY we can use it for those who are actually waging literal deadly war, no?

J.

who ever said that we should only post things we agree with?

The thing is, AD agrees with the Weinberg articles.

Those articles don't directly call for war on Syria, they merely say that calling for no war on Syria is bad.

In other words, they're calling for war.

[Sounder]

How does one "call for war" on a country that's been at war since 2011?

A half-million Syrian civilians have died already. 5 million Syrians have been chased out of the country.

Is it only Americans and other liberal democracies that deserve to be called warmongers (even though clearly waging war seems to be something they are exceedingly reluctant to to in this case, having hemmed and hawed over it for almost a decade now)?

When do we get to call Putin and Assad warmongers? When the casualties reach 1 million?

I mean, if that epithet fits people posting articles from a political point of view that some people here disagree with, then SURELY we can use it for those who are actually waging literal deadly war, no?

J.

I suppose that as long as supplying terrorists with millions of dollars of munitions does not count as 'war', then sure 'we' are reluctant to 'start' a war.

Western power proxies are being displaced and the hysterics are to be expected. Impotent tho they may be.

[Elvis]

How does one "call for war" on a country that's been at war since 2011?

By advocating direct U.S. military intervention. That's how. (I didn't really need to explain that to you, did I?)

True, the U.S. has already massively escalated the war in Syria by organizing, supplying and training foreign proxy fighters (and their media outlets), not to mention the 25,000 U.S. bombing sorties. But since all that hasn't worked, the howls emerge for putting U.S. military might directly to the task.

The call for all-out war might be understandable if one believes the intense propaganda effort directed against Assad. I do not, and I'm surprised by the number of people here who so readily accept it without question.

[liminalOyster]

</just registering my opinion >AD is one of the most above-board posters on this forum. He's clearly on the side of good. I disagree with his tactical views and he posts a shit ton of pasta but he never acts like a prick to others, which is the most important metric, imo. I'd much rather see mods prioritize banning those who do (act like pricks and treat others nastily) as it actually disrupts discussion. </just registering my opinion >

[MacCruiskeen]

Then re-read those Weinberg pieces and consider: if 'anti-war' is the wrong approach to take toward Syria, what then is Weinberg implicitly advocating? And if you post such a piece without specifying any objections you have, what are you advocating?

While silence can mean approval I sure did not take it that way.

I thought AD clarified his pov on un-remarked upon c/p posts. That the post is not necessarily the view of the poster.

Of course he hedges his bets that way! "American Dream", the voiceless Voice of America, just copies-and-pastes Weinberg's repulsive pseudleft warmongering garbage (along with a dozen other varieties of such stuff) to this Discussion Board, day-in day-out, without even having the courage of somebody else's convictions, never mind his own.

The technical term is plausible deniability, though the deniability is only plausible if you're making a positive effort to avoid paying attention.

Did You Know?

'The expression "plausibly deniable" was first used publicly by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Allen Dulles.'

What a surprise. American Dream's M.O. is the same as Allen Dulles's.

When I read the two posts by AD from Weinberg, at no point did I think AD was advocating by posting.

You must be joking. What did you think AD was doing, then? Why do you think AD took the time and trouble to copy and paste that warmongering garbage and share it with the board, entirely without comment or demurral? AD loves this Weinberg character. AD is a huge fan of his. AD must have posted dozens of Weinberg's execrable screeds here over the years, always -- without exception -- either explicitly or implicitly approvingly.*

To pretend otherwise is just breathtakingly disingenuous, though such disingenuousness is now far from unusual on this sadly-depleted board.

*Search of AD's posts found 65 matches: +Bill +Weinberg

[stillrobertpaulsen]

That is a heavy hand, that bans when a conversation was apparent.
The time to call AD out was right then, not with a ban, but with words.

I don't believe I employed a heavy hand with the ban-hammer, comparatively speaking. In fact, I think I showed restraint, for reasons I'll discuss later. But the time to call out AD was in the past, which I have done twice within the past month, first on March 21, then on April 3. I shouldn't have to repeat myself, so rather than resort to words again, for which I would get words in return, I chose action. Since he posted two warmongering opinion columns without the amending commentary that I requested, I suspended him for the implicit warmongering that his commentary, had he dissented from Weinberg, would have avoided.

Was AD banned for warmongering?
Or for not strictly adhering to a suggestion?

Both issues are related, but probably not in the way you think. It was because AD didn't strictly adhere to a suggestion that I reduced the suspension I gave him. Originally, I was going to ban him for an entire week, which is the standard I have set in my suspension of other members that broke rules after receiving an official warning. While discussing the situation with 82_28, he thought I should give him a warning unless I had done so previously. Since I had, but for a different offense, I decided that three days was a good compromise.

Yes, I understand that you and others here don't agree with my call. But this is an effort on our parts to maintain consistency here - we are not asking American Dream to do anything that we would not ask any other member to do - it's just that we don't have to ask most other members. They just do it on their own accord, either out of a desire to clarify or maybe just simple courtesy. It shouldn't have to be an exercise in pulling teeth. Hopefully as a result of my action it won't be in the future.

[Burnt Hill]

When I read the two articles in question, with the consideration that AD posted them, my thought was that this is more of the insidious bullshit that really is happening in the world. I would not be aware of Weinberg's pov if not for AD's post. I don't mind being made aware of dangerous, stupid ideas.

At no point did I think "that sonofabitch AD is a warmonger".

I don't envy the job of a moderator, and I hate giving you a hard time.

If you truly believe AD is a warmonger than you should permaban him.
.
I share slad's pov that there are no warmongers here.

What about simply saying "Weinberg's commentary is unwelcome here regardless of your reason for posting?"

Plus you just argued against having an open conversation about the issue, it might have been productive.

[Jerky]

Oh wow!

Guess where pro-Assad/pro-Putin "citizen journalist" (aka goofy fake-ass propaganda spewing nutjob beloved by all the Usual Suspects) Eva Bartlett has landed!



That's right, friends! There she is on Nathan something-or-other's ridiculous Youtube show, previously known for its stellar work promoting the Pizzagate psy-op, "Lift the Veil!"

And finally, this video goes out to Sounder.

Trigger Alert: Maximum.

[mentalgongfu2]

Suspended is not banned.

Words have meaning.

Edit: Man, am I late to the party. But just for the record - Sounder, your bit on weightlifting and "poetic justice," aside from being completely off topic, is disgusting. Speaking of showing one's true colors...

[Sounder]

Edit: Man, am I late to the party. But just for the record - Sounder, your bit on weightlifting and "poetic justice," aside from being completely off topic, is disgusting. Speaking of showing one's true colors...

I am sorry for that and agree it was in poor taste, and I do not applaud injury to anyone and think transgender folk should have opportunity to compete.