TheFonz @ TheFonz @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

1,163

Joined

2 yr. ago

Why can't it be yes, full stop? The same way she did for Biden and Netanyahu?

Saying yes with no many qualifiers is insane level of weaseling.

Heres a simple example:

"did you rape that woman" "yes"

vs

"yes she was asking for it"

Is not the same. That's what she's doing.

Saying yes then loading it with ten thousand qualifiers is not a clear yes. Nice try though.

Wrong. Her answer is 'yes' followed by a million qualifiers. Because for sugar daddy Putin we need to use the softest padded gloves. We're not stupid. The ruse is up.

How come she can give a clear yes for Biden but Putis it has to be surrounded by a million qualifiers? Multiple times.

We all watched the interview. What are you trying to prove.

Give the full exchange. I watched the full interview. She said "we condemn his actions". She never could in a full sentence condemn him. It's gotta be loaded with qualifiers, and even THEN nothing of value comes out of her mouth. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth. It's a simple yes/no.

I only responded to you in this manner because your comment is downstream from OPs catchphrase comment (90% of Lemmy and socia media these days). Soundbytes that sound good, but ultimately mean nothing.

It's likely you were asking in good faith. I could have spent a lot of time typing up a thoughtful and comprehensive response only to find out later you really are here only for more memes. Then I would have lost a lot of time and it would have limited productivity.

It's not personal, but after dozens of typed out discussions that end in "lmao. Genocide Joe tho America Imperialism bad" I've learned that unless someone starts the thread or convo with specifics it will only linger in the realm of memes.

Again, sorry if you feel singled out. I'm just building a stronger filter. And I urge others to do the same. We should all be pushing harder for specifics. I urge you to do the same when arguing with people online. Have the conversation grounded in specifics and not memes.

To summarize: If someone starts with claims that are essentially memes, they should not get detailed responses. Once people start talking specifics we can match the energy.

If you personally want to have a convo with me my dms are open.

Mind telling me how Israel is a table democracy? Or how they create stability? Maybe you can tell me why the middle east is a destabilized region to begin with?

You're asking a rhetorical question in the hopes of getting a gotcha. Because, again, all you guys do is swim in catchphrases and vibes. Your primary goal here is not to deepen any kind of understanding. If you did, you would be a lot more honest in your questions. You'd open up with a clear argument, based on specifics, with dates, people, events etc.

No one is obligated to give you an essay on the last 75 years of ME geopolitics if all you do is start is with catchphrases and gotchas.

You want a nuanced discussion that delves into the specifics of the geopolitics of the region? Start a thread that's not just diluted meaningless sentences, such as this nugget:

Why should the US president be in regular contact with the perpetrator of an ongoing genocide?

It's hopeless, because you guys will bounce back and forth between one catchphrase or buzz sentence without opening a book, or a wikipedia page, or an article, or anything. And you want us to come here and write essays to explain or refute these meaningless sentiments. It's all vibes. You start threads with vibes, you get vibes.

Which territory specifically?

I do mind telling you because I know I won't get an informed discussion out of this thread. You want to talk ME politics? Start a new thread with specifics and let's go over it. I'm not expending energy replying to buzz phrases with detailed responses. I've played this game and it sucks spending time and energy discussing something only to get back.

"lmao. Genocide Joe amirite?"

People use lazy catchphrases to describe me politics: I respond with more lazy catchphrases.

fundamentally they are guys in a militia fighting against foreign invaders and threats to their country

Why do you think this?

If someone starts a conversation in buzzwords and catchphrases I will respond in kind. You don't like it? Feel free to start another thread that doesn't use catchphrase as the foundation and starting point for a conversation on me politics.

You guys want to have your cake and eat it. Pick one. Have a nuanced discussion about me politics or throw memes around. Don't shit yourself because you don't like what you see in the mirror.

It's me. We can smear our feces together.

Haha let's talk about 75 years of ME geopolitics using buzzwords and catchphrases. Haha.

You're asking why the US formed an ally 75 years ago with the only stable democracy in the middle east and has a continued interest in maintaining stability in the region?

Of course not, you can only operate in sound bytes, buzzwords and catchphrases.

Haha no. Take some time and read up maybe? All the info is available. Heck, maybe hop on a call and talk to some people in Lebanon? Anything. Just stop repeating nonsense.

This was an interesting book (although their economic analysis is not great). I think by now all the atrocities of the CIA are pretty well documented and the world is pretty informed. This book focuses on a period that took place about 75 years ago when the US (under Nixon, JFK and Reagan) had a strong anti-communist stance and active policy.

That policy is to longer an actionable framework for the US. It wouldnt be fair to attribute the current agency the same level of culpability. I'm not saying the current CIA is beyond scrutiny but times have changed and the world has moved significantly beyond the so called dangers of the cold war.

That's insane. How do people have this much time on their hands???

I think the term sophist is more apt.

Are they still around though? I think they filed for bankruptcy. The jeezus wannabe ceo was a good con artist.

Yep!

I know. Unfortunately geopolitics is boring and nuanced and not fun. When people resort to sound bytes I've stopped taking the bait so I counter with other sound bytes. When they show a basic understanding of civics and world affairs we can engage but until then it's sound bytes and buzz words.