Perhaps it is no surprise we see so much hypocrisy from those that normalize Russia's aggression actions.

"We speak about manners. Well, our Western counterparts have gotten really bad with these," Mr Lavrov said after Thursday's talks.
"They are not thinking of diplomacy any more; they now only deal in blackmail and threatening everyone else."

This is Russia's foreign minister Lavrov accusing the West of threats; The epitome of irony from the masters of untruth.

Fender, you know I typically dont respond to you. This is because you do not debate or discuss things in good faith. I have said this before to you and I will say it again: In a debate (which this topic is) the expressions "bothsideism" , "whataboutism" and "false equivalence" are simply deflecting away from real concerns that 1 or more parties have.

These words should never be used in a debate subforum as they are deflecting real concerns.

Now YOU dont have to agree with a parties position (for example: Russian concerns re: Nato) but greater minds then yours have acknowledged that the russians do care about this - enough to go to war over it.

Russia is by all accounts not open, and for alot of people, not a great place to be. Everything you said about those countries, compared to western countries media is correct. There is no denying that. This however has no bearing on the argument at hand (the war) and your blurb is in fact an example by you of whataboutism that you love to deride. You quoted a post I made wherein it was highlighted the double standards whereby Western media refuses to publish factual information because its not palatable. If you wanted to refute the example I provided you should have done that, challenging the assertions made in the video. Instead you used YOUR whataboutism to say "here look, russia is just as bad as the West (or worse)!". You would have been on much sounder ground if you had explained why US forces in Syria or why Western Media refuse to publish certain articles relating to the war (in this regard it is frankly amazing that the NS2 story had to be independently published).

Is your blurb correct? Yes. Does it refute what I had stated ? No. is it whataboutism/bothsideism etc? Yes. If you want to refute an argument or position, go ahead. but dont be a hypocrite.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 2 2023 09:04am

Most people don’t care to follow complex causal systems of why certain things are the way they are. It’s much easier to just look at things at face value and form opinions based on that. You’re part of the majority in that respect.

It's much worse than that: There's an agenda to NEVER speak about Ukrainian or Western actions or reasons, or to point out Russian destructive behavior.

It is to always redirecting the discussion to "Nato's fault" or US being responsible.

I see a handful of pro-Russian contrarians ITT, but I'm speaking to society at large (i.e. every major news organization). Whether we side with Ukraine or not, there's obviously more to the story than "unprovoked Russian aggression".

And of course Russian forces are bombing civilians / civilian infrastructure. We live in an age of total war, what do you think we did to Iraq?

YOU are a hypocritical hack. Period

You live in your own reality, where other countries that you don't like are orcs and Ukraine is a testing ground for NATO (imagine fucking stating that kind of shit).

Drone

glad to here that the bolded is well known and recognized, this thread seems mostly RT shills and angry leftists these days.

let's not re-write history here, ferdia. your buddy djunior was the one who originally tried to bothsides the media issue by listing examples of allegedly biased western media reporting - and instead of pushing back against the ridiculous notion that this is just a matter of two similarly biased, opposing propaganda media landscapes, you just accepted that dumb little narrative and further supported it with anecdotes of your own - like you ALWAYS do when someone holds views that benefit russia.

the only times i see you actively push back is against those that harshly criticise russia, and point out that none of the silly excuses and bothsidesisms made here will ever justify the murdering of countless innocent people in order to annex ukrainian territories. you're constantly elevating russia-friendly narratives and those that support them. only when directly called out on that you then backpedal to more reasonable positions and claim you don't actually support their views - but how credible do you think that is?

i said it to ampootin before: you don't have to outright state that you're ok with russia's war. context matters. you're everything BUT impartial, you clearly have a dog in this fight.

ok shall we talk about the banks and jews then?


omg omg so antisemitic!!!

sometimes you habe to give the child a name