Indoctrination is the enemy of the world, inventing narratives for people to be biased towards so they won't criticize what is actually going on, as well as making sure conspiracy theories won't blind people from real issues. Governments of the world must be somewhat glad about the extreme spread of conspiracy theories because they know those groups won't ever have enough power, but also that they get all the attention of the media and social media so that real issues and agendas become easier to hide. — Christoffer

It is good to seek agreement here: yes, it is highly probable that education, like other systems of government, serve to promote a certain agenda.

I have a theory about conspiracy theories and proponents of conspiracy theories: the survival of the fittest. Those websites that are seen as fit to survive are exactly the ones that promote far out theories that do not stand up to any reason alongside more credible issues. These entire sites can then be easily dismissed, like the tabloids of old. In fact, it may be a requirement to put forward absurd stories alongside ones that are very close to the truth in order to survive.

Unfortunately it is only war and human suffering that breaks the illusion: something can't be right if people are getting killed, so there is no argument that can work around that fact.

Like how many are unable to criticize Russia enough for their actions in Ukraine, always moving into whataboutism because they've been critics of the US for so many years they've forgotten about Russia, even stood by Russia because they oppose the US. Epistemic responsibility works in every direction. — Christoffer

Just to be clear, I stand with the UN Charter. I think there has been enough time and material to decide on the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan, but only the next few years will reveal the complete story of the Russian SMO in Ukraine. At that time I was so impressed with the narrative on Iraq that I saw Iraq and Afghanistan as 'us' vs 'them'. I have since made up my mind. In the same way, once I have a look at the information concerning Yemen, I will make up my mind.

On balance, however, given President Zelenskyy's performance and his actions, doing things I would neither do as a person, nor want my elected officials to do, make me doubt that President Putin had any options.

It is a very curious fact, I ask again and again, what options did President Putin have? Not to 'invade'? Would we have to wait until Ukraine joins NATO and Ukraine re-takes Crimea and stations missiles in Ukraine, accompanied by popular uprising in Russia because President Putin would not stand up to them? I do not know, just raising the possibility.

I am quoting again the agreement between Ukraine and the United States, below, including the laughable statement of non recognition of "attempted" "annexation" of Crimea. Students of the English language and logic should be able to see the contradiction here, language driven by rabid ideology rather than sense. To me, and this is my opinion, these are fighting words.

The following is the text of the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership signed by U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in Washington, D.C. on November 10, 2021.

Emphasize unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and extending to its territorial waters in the face of ongoing Russian aggression, which threatens regional peace and stability and undermines the global rules-based order.

The United States and Ukraine intend to continue a range of substantive measures to prevent external direct and hybrid aggression against Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for such aggression and violations of international law, including the seizure and attempted annexation of Crimea and the Russia-led armed conflict in parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, as well as its continuing malign behavior.

The United States does not and will never recognize Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and reaffirms its full support for international efforts, including in the Normandy Format, aimed at negotiating a diplomatic resolution to the Russia-led armed conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine on the basis of respect for international law, including the UN Charter.

The United States intends to support Ukraine’s efforts to counter armed aggression, economic and energy disruptions, and malicious cyber activity by Russia, including by maintaining sanctions against or related to Russia and applying other relevant measures until restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/

Didn't Oliver connect the rhetoric similarities, not the people, in order to show how the rhetoric, their actual arguments, and opinions share similarities? — Christoffer

Exactly. @Baden is confusing a topical argument with an ad hominem.

As warned about by Kissinger, the only way for Ukraine to survive was to pursue neutrality. The US made that impossible. — Benkei

I believe Kissinger's statements were part of a conspiracy or a public relations effort to produced a feigned balance to the Obama regime's and the Biden Regime's intentions. I do not believe a patriot such as he is would ever stop serving US interests- it will make his life much easier.

We would do well to question every statement as a lie or a gimmick and work from there. There is a war going on, for sure, and that is undeniable. Neither side has declared victory. Who is supporting whom is not known.

So the correct thing to do is to rather ask the question... Why is their rhetoric similar to "that group"? — Christoffer

No, the correct thing to do is address their arguments, which stand on their own merit.



You connected them in order to discredit your opponents.

We can read the exact same kind of crap here — Olivier5

Your ridiculous denials are amusing but eventually you will have to address your opponents' arguments on their merits or you will simply be seen as someone who has no ability to do so. Your choice.

You can argue that these atrocities mirror those in Iraq and elsewhere but you can't argue that they are not the current narrative. That horse has left the stable and they have to be addressed. The question is how does that play out? I see brick walls to progress everywhere at the moment.

Look, I appreciate often what you bring to the table from a historical perspective, but when this exact situation has been predicted for over 25 years as a result of NATO expansion I'm going to go with the theory that was actually accurate. I wrote a paper as part of my studies in 1998 predicting that treating Russia as a de facto enemy to be contained would be tantamount to a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I argued for economic integration before it got to that point. Even at 20 years I wasn't so blind as to think that NATO was purely a defensive organisation. Just like in chess, how you can attack without actually taking a single piece. And yes, I'm waaaaayyy more cynical about Western power since then. Colonial history is a big part of Dutch history and as an international human rights lawyer I'm well aware of all the abuses that happened in the past 30 years. Happy to share some book titles with you that got me this cynical about the exercise of Western power (with the US taking center stage).

Crimea was annexed because it contains Russian naval bases giving it access to the Mediterranean and I think the worry of Russians living thereseeing right sector ultra-nationalist and flags and symbols associated with Nazi collaborators in Maidan square honestly were worried. So an easy sell and it sold well, his approval ratings sky-rocketed.

I don't think Putin's musings on the artificiality of Ukraine inform actual policy. Just as his waxing lyrical about the USSR doesn't. I see nothing in circumstances and facts that reinforce this as important. But of course Putin is a habitual liar and we shouldn't believe anything he says except when it fits a specific narrative. You can't eat your cake and have it.

Yes. But is Olivier5 trying to smear me, Benkei and boethius by association with Carlson and Taylor Greene, or is he trying to smear Carlson and Taylor Greene by association with me, Benkei and boethius! — Isaac

I suspect you are Tucker Carlson, so the difference is moot. :eyes:

You connected them in order to discredit your opponents. — Baden

My opponents, as you say, are parroting the FSB and Carlson. I ask them to do better than that.

Your ridiculous denials are amusing but eventually you will have to address your opponents' arguments on their merits or you will simply be seen as someone who has no ability to do so. Your choice. — Baden

Thanks for the advice. I've been doing just that but apparently you didn't pay attention. I conclude that nothing I can do will ever stop you from misjudging me.

I wrote a paper as part of my studies in 1998 predicting that treating Russia as a de facto enemy to be contained would be tantamount to a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I argued for economic integration before it got to that point. — Benkei

If you knew that, or thought it highly probable,then don't you think the people running NATO would have known that, and thought it highly probable as well? Doesn't it follow that they were playing Russian Roulette? I don't understand.

I don't disagree with your assessment and not pretending there are no atrocities. But the problem in my view is the hawks in the guise of "moral knighthood" will use it as an excuse to stall and not engage in necessary talks to negotiate a ceasefire. The problem towards peace isn't the atrocities themselves, it's relevant parties using those atrocities as an excuse to do nothing.

There's also a sort of hubris in it where the powers that be are outraged on behalf of dead victims who no longer have a voice without any view on the living victims and what they want. It's like being outraged about abortion but not willing to spend money on taking care of children's education or orphanages.

It's the reason why we can assume bad faith or stupidity on the part of the US.

The problem towards peace isn't the atrocities themselves, it's relevant parties using those atrocities as an excuse to do nothing. — Benkei

No comment -- this speaks for itself.

If atrocities were the issue no war could ever result in peace. But hey, don't let that stop you from emoting another useless contribution.

The war itself is one big atrocity, so if atrocities are not the issue, there is no reason to stop the war. Logic anyone?

No, the correct thing to do is address their arguments, which stand on their own merit. — Baden

Hasn't he done that as well? I understand when the fallacy is used as initial counters as ways to discredit before engagement, but if their arguments have been countered properly, and they just keep repeating the same things over and over without adjusting to the objections and counterarguments, sometimes directly quoting from the people in "that group", isn't questioning that rhetorical similarity part of pointing out the inability of proper discourse on their part?

I'm all against fallacies, but if countering their arguments just leads them to repeat themselves without ever engaging with those counterargument criticisms, then how do you show the problems with their arguments if they ignore such criticism? Using different examples, like how the rhetoric is similar to other people with clearer agendas can put such counterarguments in another perspective, in the hopes of the criticism getting clearer.

I just mean that if the arguments have been countered over and over, maybe the correct thing would be for them to comply with proper discourse before the one's criticizing their opinions get criticism for their attempts at getting through with that criticism?

I just think that the context of the players and behaviors in the current discourse warrants a rhetorical comparison like Oliver did without it being a fallacy. If he initiated his response to their argument with it, yes, but not after pages of him properly battling their ill-conceived arguments. With their allowed low-quality arguments, I think a different tactic is allowed since it might be the only way to show their opinions and arguments exist within a certain context of bias.

The example on that website is showing an initial response to a first argument, not that the Owl has been discussing the topic for hours or days before the Owl points out that the opponent continues to repeat themselves without taking into account the criticism laid forward and that this is the same kind of repetitious nonfactual behavior... as Dr Corrupt used.

I just think there's some context missing here.

Some of the missing context is indeed that I am tired of making careful arguments only to be ignored or insulted in return, including by petulant mods. There's something rotten in TPF.

What's "the issue" Baden and I were talking about? Maybe try to read instead of trying to score cheap points by deliberately misrepresenting what I say.

I said what I had to say. You may ignore it now.

including by mods. — Olivier5

This I agree with. I think that a definition of being a mod is to at least keep a civil tone and argue for it. Baden does it, Benkei does not.

That's why I could never be a mod on a forum like this, I sometimes fail to keep a civil tone, but I at least try, even in the most stupid situations. But I wouldn't want to fail and have such authority doing so, it reflects badly on the entire community in my opinion. I simply don't think Benkei should be a mod. It becomes a problem when the authority is the one misbehaving so that any criticism of that behavior is filtered through the same person being criticized.

As I mentioned before, it feels like a role-play of authoritarianism.

I simply don't think Benkei should be a mod. — Christoffer

Seconded, he has proved himself unworthy of it. @Baden was more civil but equally biased IMO. He is only looking for 'fallacies' on one side of the debate. There ought to be a fancy name for that fallacy...

I suspect you are Tucker Carlson, so the difference is moot. — Baden

Who does that leave as Taylor Greene? I think I got off lightly there.

if the arguments have been countered over and over, — Christoffer

If we all agreed that the arguments had been countered over and over then we wouldn't still be arguing them would we? So you're just begging the question. Olivier's remarks are a guilt by association fallacy for those of us who don't agree that those arguments have been countered over and over. Those who agree those arguments have been countered over and over need no further encouragement to dismiss them.

So the only people @Olivier5's comments could possibly be aimed at are people who don't yet agree that those arguments have been countered over and over. Hence they are a guilt by association fallacy.

See how pedagogy is failing? I'll repeat again. Something seeming to you to be the case is not the same thing as something actually being the case.

Brutal state oppression from authoritarian police regime:

But I'm sure the American bootlickers can tell us all about the free speech of the West they like to slobber on about.

And of course it's quite easy to dissociate oneself from the American far right. Fuck America and everything that piece of shit country stands for. Ta da. Oh yes, and it's puppet institutions like NATO too.

I liked this one too.

The rouble is back to what it was before the invasion. Remember when Biden bragged and called it the “rubble”? Hilarious.

The rouble is back to what it was before the invasion. — NOS4A2

It's artificial though.

All I am saying is that you guys seem to be parroting the US extreme right. That's objective and verifiable, it's not an opinion.

Ah, the tone police. Mind your manners or someone might be offended! I've been entirely civil, I've exactly called you an idiot once when you were trying to turn this into Idols where we were to choose between either shit or vomit, or the USA or Russia. "Who do you trust more with nukes?!"

The extreme right is the anti-status-quo bloc now. Unfortunately, they're as insane as they can possibly be about it.

They're splitting the GOP., and I guess they'll try to make a third party at some point.

That's good news for Democrats.

Ah, the tone police. — Benkei

It's more the sound of self-loathing, though. Maybe not you so much, but others.