Quote (Hobbiks @ Apr 3 2024 05:51pm)
"You continuously take a dump on others mentioning "their world views" which means you think your world views are superior to others." - Thats your framing, You quite literally put quotes implying I had said something. I don't know if you understand how a citation works, but it should be exact. You were literally twisting my words while asking me not to do so to you, it was the height of irony and honestly pretty funny. You're the gift that keeps on giving!
"I don't care if Galloway presented something on RT and it's no reason to dismiss him anyways. Are we also going to dismiss CNN for example because of all their pro-Ukraine presentations???" - Wow, you are learning about source credibility for the first time. So lets take this step by step, I'm super glad you bring this up:
1) So just so everyone understands: " I truly don't care if it's Galloway's reaction or any other guy" - You don't care who presents you with information, just as long as that information backs up your worldview? You just affirmed that by saying "I don't care if Galloway presented something on RT". You are uninterested if someone is a paid propagandist who earns their money from working with a state actor affirming their position in an ongoing conflict. Again, just be honest about it.
2) We SHOULD be critical of CNN, ofcourse. There are major differences between how CNN gets funded and the media systems they exist under as compared to the Russian one (which you can learn about if you want, i happen to be sitting on quite a few articles about eastern european media systems from contemporary media studies). With that said, there are several works VERY critical of american media culture, among others Manufacturing Consent which was written 50+ years ago. CNN should not be trusted blindly and neither should a state actor with absolutely no expertise in the topic at hand. Instead, being source critical, we should ask for primary sources or multiple framings of the same story.
"I said several times now that the point I made is the 1.5 Billion and that the UK is giving this money to Ukraine" - Completely uninteresting point nobody is discussing. I asked you about your choice of sourcing and you deflected, sorry snowflake, that one isn't gonna work on me. I know how dishonestly you operate now and will always put your back against the wall by repeating my question until you answer it or simply leave the conversation.
"Scott Ritter together with others have pointed out many times that Russia will outproduce the West" - Hunter Biden said that there will be rain in the coming year, does that mean Hunter Biden is right about everything? This is just strange anecdotal evidence that doesn't prove that Ritter is a) always right or b ) a trustworthy source and not a paid actor who has a vested interest in one part of the ongoing war.
"Secondly you don't dictate what source people here watch or post no matter how much you dislike that" - I've never done that, thats your strange reading or apparent illiteracy. Again, just putting words in my mouth. By all means, watch as much Ritter as you want, regardless of how much you watch it will still be a pretty untrustworthy source and I think people are smart enough to see through the bullshit and not just uncritically follow some pedo just because you say he's smart sometimes. Up to them though.
YOU tried to twist my words by (on purpose) leaving out what mattered namely the 1.5 Billion which I have reminded you several times now.
This is literally the point
I made and to which you responded, you saying that "nobody is discussing this" shows 100% you're shit posting
I'm not interested in your tears, it's completely clear your feeling were crushed because I posted a source that you don't like.
First Ritter, now Galloway. And you call me a snowflake?
