Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

There isn’t “one bad review” or whatever of the given podcast we are talking about. To borrow your metaphor you would have to “ignore multiple closings for health code so you could see yourself what all the fuss is about.”

No we don’t need to waste time and energy deciding of places with records like RT or others have a credible position.

That restaurant metaphor wasn't mine. You seem to have this blind implicit trust in anyone that happens to be in a position of authority. Wouldn't you want to know why something was deemed unsafe rather than just accept anything someone says at face value just because they happen to be aligned with your beliefs? It's easy to fool someone, but it takes 10x the effort to convince most people that they've been fooled. You're so deep into the approved narrative that you're unwilling to even listen.

In this case, the link/play button for the podcast in question was directly in front of your face, one click away. But you chose to navigate away/open up another page, do a google search, screenshot a random claim of that podcast being Russian propaganda, which was substantiated only by other media outlets making baseless claims. Then you had to copy/save/upload/post it, and act all condescending like it was the gospel, while not one step in your entire process contained an original thought of your own, a source, or specific point. It's bewildering that you, a self-proclaimed professional military officer, would try to pass this off as some sort of astute deductive reasoning. It's so glaringly intellectually dishonest, it's insulting that you would expect anyone to even consider that you might have a valid position.

It seems crazy to me that you somehow thought that was the best/most honest COA. If you were correct in your assessment, it would have been far easier for you, and more difficult for me to refute, if you'd have listened to 5-10 minutes and said "Here are some of the claims being made... and they're false Russia propaganda because here are the facts..." I could respect that. But we both know why that didn't happen: When you know your position can't be adequately defended or finding a flaw in the opposing argument proves too difficult... name-calling, hyperbole, and ad hominem are the preferred tactics. Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such.

Many of us here have, however, reasonably argued that our US leadership shares some (not all) amount of the blame for the origination of the chaos and conflict we are experiencing, as well as the continuous funding and intensification of multiple conflicts on multiple fronts. No one here hates America, and no one wants America to fail. But it's easy for our obviously corrupt leadership to lead us further into trouble when they have people like you willing to do these ridiculous logical gymnastics to justify their actions and cock block dissident voices because you don't want to be proven wrong.

[Lord Ratner]

2 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such.

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.

[gearhog]

4 minutes 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.

If it weren't for the US, wouldn't Russia win? Virtually all of our leadership has been saying this. There's countless examples of Ukrainian corruption. It's been over two years. I've lost count of the funding, but I think we're closing in on $200 Billion, yet the front lines haven't moved much at all. What are we going to get for another $200 Billion? Who exactly is bleeding whom dry? It's not apparent. I don't want to believe that maybe we're the ones being played, but I have to wonder.

Just a mention of the players involved elicits an overwhelming bias. If we were somehow able to examine this exact same battlefield scenario while replacing the names of the states involved with Moravia, Tiberistan, etc.. I think many people would feel differently. One of us may post a vid of a Russian plane crash, and another responds with Ukr tank on fire. No one knows what's going on. It's all third hand information. The only thing that can be known is that the war is still raging.. when it shouldn't be. If winning this war was as important as they'd like you to believe - it'd have already been over. As I've said before: there's no money in the cure.

I'd think by now people would understand the playbook. It's just routine now.

1. Find a crisis and exacerbate it. If one doesn't exist, create it.

2. Full-court press on the propaganda front to appeal to public fear and garner support.

3. Transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from the public sector to the private sector.

It's like taking candy from a baby and everyone's falling for it. Every. Single. Time. Let's just admit we're completely lost in apathy and gullibility.

[Lawman]

That restaurant metaphor wasn't mine. You seem to have this blind implicit trust in anyone that happens to be in a position of authority. Wouldn't you want to know why something was deemed unsafe rather than just accept anything someone says at face value just because they happen to be aligned with your beliefs? It's easy to fool someone, but it takes 10x the effort to convince most people that they've been fooled. You're so deep into the approved narrative that you're unwilling to even listen.
In this case, the link/play button for the podcast in question was directly in front of your face, one click away. But you chose to navigate away/open up another page, do a google search, screenshot a random claim of that podcast being Russian propaganda, which was substantiated only by other media outlets making baseless claims. Then you had to copy/save/upload/post it, and act all condescending like it was the gospel, while not one step in your entire process contained an original thought of your own, a source, or specific point. It's bewildering that you, a self-proclaimed professional military officer, would try to pass this off as some sort of astute deductive reasoning. It's so glaringly intellectually dishonest, it's insulting that you would expect anyone to even consider that you might have a valid position.
It seems crazy to me that you somehow thought that was the best/most honest COA. If you were correct in your assessment, it would have been far easier for you, and more difficult for me to refute, if you'd have listened to 5-10 minutes and said "Here are some of the claims being made... and they're false Russia propaganda because here are the facts..." I could respect that. But we both know why that didn't happen: When you know your position can't be adequately defended or finding a flaw in the opposing argument proves too difficult... name-calling, hyperbole, and ad hominem are the preferred tactics. Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such.
Many of us here have, however, reasonably argued that our US leadership shares some (not all) amount of the blame for the origination of the chaos and conflict we are experiencing, as well as the continuous funding and intensification of multiple conflicts on multiple fronts. No one here hates America, and no one wants America to fail. But it's easy for our obviously corrupt leadership to lead us further into trouble when they have people like you willing to do these ridiculous logical gymnastics to justify their actions and cock block dissident voices because you don't want to be proven wrong.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

the duran podcast has been FAR more accurate about what is happening in Ukraine than any western media outlet.

david sacks was recently a guest on their podcast. are you calling david sacks a russian shrill? hardly.

the truth will eventually come out (like COVID) and you will be shown to be a fool. hell you haven't even listened to any of the podcast! just parroting what you have found online that suits your narrative.

[BashiChuni]

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-considers-deploying-more-military-advisers-to-ukraine-russia-2024-4

US considering sending more "advisors" to Ukraine?

gee, where have we heard that before? how'd that work out for us last time?

 

[BashiChuni]

18 hours ago, Lawman said:

In this case you are quoting a literal Russian Psyop outlet.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hmmmm i seem to remember people like you and the western media calling anyone who didn't question the COVID narrative guilty of peddling "fake news" and "misinformation"

hell if you're against the latest Ukranian spending package one finds themselves labeled "pro-russian" and "anti-democracy".

the facts on the battlefield and the analysis done by the Duran podcast match up. if that's considered Russian "fake news" then you're no better than Baghdad Bob.

[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.

 

[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! 🤣

[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 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.