I think there's a steelman version of that same argument that makes a legitimate point about how Russian disinformation does contribute to the escalation of tensions both in the United States and around the world, and I feel like not only are you not engaging with it, but you're intentionally not doing so.
I say that because you appear to only be willing to address yourself to the completely watered-down version of the caricature argument, even when you're in a thread that directly links to an article that makes some pretty direct points about the reality of actual Russian disinformation.
Like if you could just talk normal for a second, you might say something like, "oh in paragraph three of the article it says this. But actually that's not true and here's my source for refuting it." Or even "well these are all true but I feel like it's emphasizing the wrong things and here's my argument for emphasizing a different thing." Like just any signal, any signal at all, any whatsoever that shows that you're in touch with the same set of facts. But you can't go there, and so you're chasing caricatures instead.
Woah, we even have auto TLDR! That's how you know Lemmy is on the up and up. I was wondered how this worked in the years before Chat GPT, which I assume is still however it works now.
Pretty sure the Scrub Daddy came first! It gained huge notoriety for being on Shark Tank, as one of if not the most successful Shark tank product in history, and it's now in every Walmart and Dollar store in the country.
So the meme treats the derivative like it's the original, which I suppose is true to form as an indicator of how people lose track of ideas as they get constantly recirculated.
Did people forget what divisive means? I would say it's exactly the opposite of divisive, it's a comment that is produced as much singular unified reaction as you could possibly get.
In Tolkien stories, all the good guys are liberals. Saruman and his uruk-hai are perhaps the most leftist things there are in those stories. Elves are moderate conservatives with some questionable histories.
I hope everyone here appreciates what a special moment this is. This has potential to be the most downvoted comment on Lemmy.
Thank you for demonstrating my point without the slightest hint of irony.
Do you really not understand that there's a conceptual distinction there at all? You started out by saying it's a proud leftist tradition to call out other lefties for not being left enough. Which, honestly, fair enough.
But you think even the very idea of a conceptual distinction between liberals and leftists is an example of that? That's fucking nuts, and it's not the nuanced point you think it is.
It's like what Aristotle said about the differences between the Rash, the Courageous, and the Cowardly.
The Rash person thinks the courageous man is too cowardly, and the cowardly person thinks the courageous one is too rash. So everyone will declare that they the others are extreme, and in so doing they build their biases in.
This is the problem with unqualified statements about who's to the left of who, and especially the problem with both-sidesism. The act of making that kind of statement doesn't happen in some platonic realm of innocent and honest self-reflection, and is every bit as poisoned by politicization as every other political activity.
It doesn't mean there's no truth or you can't say stuff like this, but it does mean that we're all within our rights to dismiss you as a bullshit artist if you don't show your work.
They are both carbon-based life forms. Which means that at a psychological level they're probably identical. And there's probably no difference whatsoever between the respective nations cultures, economic or political conditions, or their respective geopolitical interests.
If they're living breathing creatures, and they both rely on carbon to form complex molecules that make up their bodies, it naturally follows that their countries have identical geopolitical alliances.
Agian I ask of Trudeau made the same claim, or the Prime Minister of New Zeeland, would you be making the same argument
Wouldn't that depend on their particular geopolitical interests, which could be entirely different from those of Russia?
I feel like these questions are so absurd sometimes not because an answer is being sought but because it succeeds at the goal of degrading the quality of conversation.
He says he wants blue team to win in 2024, but we are blue team and we hate him!
Well we're off to an awfully bad start because this is about the shallowest bad faith caricature I could possibly imagine. Let's put it this way:
Putin absolutely has a propaganda strategy aimed toward the west that utilizes a number of tools and messaging strategies
Among the strategies reported on, one has been to escalate existing divisions within the United States, with one example reported on being creating opposing conservative and liberal events and scheduling them at the same location
Purin preferred Trump for his first term
Putin preferring Biden can be politically damaging to Biden in the context of domestic politics
a Trump victory could prove exceptionally destabilizing to domestic politics in the United States
I'm not even 100% saying I'm right, but every step of this is perfectly reasonable, it doesn't rely on any outlandish assumptions, and communication about this isn't helped by mocking people with bad faith caricatures and performative incredulity.
This seems to run contrary to everything I've read about Trump's position. The first half of what you said is at least somewhat accurate. But the second half is contradicted by numerous reports from Trump that his approach would have been to "take a deal" and get out, implicitly with substantial land concessions from Ukraine. And then there's the fact that both of them have profess to having positive relationships with one another and admiring one another.
It can be both - a terrible amoral system that concentrates wealth to the point that major world events are driven by wildcard personalities of rich idiots. And then, the rich idiots themselves.
I think there's a steelman version of that same argument that makes a legitimate point about how Russian disinformation does contribute to the escalation of tensions both in the United States and around the world, and I feel like not only are you not engaging with it, but you're intentionally not doing so.
I say that because you appear to only be willing to address yourself to the completely watered-down version of the caricature argument, even when you're in a thread that directly links to an article that makes some pretty direct points about the reality of actual Russian disinformation.
Like if you could just talk normal for a second, you might say something like, "oh in paragraph three of the article it says this. But actually that's not true and here's my source for refuting it." Or even "well these are all true but I feel like it's emphasizing the wrong things and here's my argument for emphasizing a different thing." Like just any signal, any signal at all, any whatsoever that shows that you're in touch with the same set of facts. But you can't go there, and so you're chasing caricatures instead.