Here is the print source list (all mainstream sources) and links to video and podcast:
US threatens war on China over Taiwan – with nuclear implications
The US government has prepared for years for war with China over Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi’s trip was only the latest provocation, including Pentagon war plans, CIA threats, tens of billions in weapons sales, and US military forces on the ground.
Key points: The US is in Taiwan training extremist secessionists (sound familiar?). They have doubled their military personnel in Taiwan this year. The Rand Corporation (associated with Pentagon) wrote a white paper back in 2016 about preparing for war with China. The architects of the Iraq war also want to make this happen. There is support for this from both parties. There is also credible talk about giving Taiwan nuclear weapons (from relevant think tanks).
You annoy me because you continue to judge my posting in negative explanatory terms that you would not use if I agreed with you. It's not true and quite insulting. Kind of influenced by the "Mind of Putin" scholars you admire. The usual co-opting of common sense tone does not help either.
You will not believe anything I say unless I provide an impossible level of detail--while no one else is subjected to this requirement. I spend a lot of time posting and doing research you don't see - reading and watching videos. I will not be spending even more time verifying a stupid post about Trump when I know the big picture is that anything Trump does is bad and anything Biden (Democrats) do is good. I only have so much time and I will spend that on important tasks. I have to let the small potatoes go. You don't watch videos or read outside of mainstream media and you desperately believe the US is a force for good so you have more time.
I rarely spend any time on the MOL search features because I'm more interested in discussing topics than trying to "own" some MOL poster who I never agree with anyway. I don't know if you notice this, but when I am shown to be in the right and others were wrong, I usually don't spend much time rubbing their nose in it--the way they do to me. I'm really here to talk about stuff and I don't expect everyone to be perfect but I wish everyone could be a little less petty.
The Donbas issue is part of the larger understanding that Russia had eight years of provocation before entering this proxy war and that the war was deliberately sought by the US government. They are trying to the same thing in Taiwan. It's right there out in the open but you can't see.
I don't care if you take my claims seriously or not because I don't respect your viewpoint. You seem like an intelligent, thoughtful person, and you enjoy writing online as I do, but you have stubbornly cast your lot with the mainstream view which I know to be false and dishonest. Thus, you probe everything, request absurd levels of detail and try to find some angle from which it can be disputed so you can cling on to this childish fantasy that the US government is an honest actor when it comes to any foreign policy topic. Your road map leads to an acceptance of things I stopped believing in 2016. That ship has sailed.
I haven't figured out the trick of telling someone they're wrong while also having them believe I'm being kind. Maybe there is no trick, and the answer is to simply not engage at all? But you keep coming back to these boards, as do I, so there must be something about engagement that outweighs the downsides.
It would certainly simplify things if we could simply identify which groups are consistently false and dishonest, and which ones are not. Then we could safely dismiss anything that came from the bad and dishonest side, and uncritically accept anything from the honorable side - or at least, anything disagreeing with the dishonorable side.
But unfortunately for us, things are more complicated than that so take more work, so we're left with having to evaluate people and outlets on their factual reliability instead. If you hold up radishes and insist they're potatoes, I can't really agree that it doesn't matter just because they're small. What you call "absurd levels of detail" is my attempting to get us beyond subjective team identification and try to ground things in some more objective, factual basis -- it's something I try to do internally myself when I read about something.
I don't believe the US is either a force for good or evil, I think it's a country pursuing objectives in a large world filled with other countries and groups pursuing their interests. Sometimes I think particular goals are praiseworthy, sometime I find them disgraceful. Sometimes I think the end good and the means bad, or the end neutral and the means good, and all other combinations. Similarly, I don't think Putin is some "Disney Villain" as you put it, but pursuing what he thinks are in his interests. Similarly for Ukraine, or China, or Taiwan, etc. There aren't good and bad people or countries, there are human who act, and we can evaluate and judge those actions.
Here is the print source list (all mainstream sources) and links to video and podcast:
US threatens war on China over Taiwan – with nuclear implications
The US government has prepared for years for war with China over Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi’s trip was only the latest provocation, including Pentagon war plans, CIA threats, tens of billions in weapons sales, and US military forces on the ground.
Key points: The US is in Taiwan training extremist secessionists (sound familiar?). They have doubled their military personnel in Taiwan this year. The Rand Corporation (associated with Pentagon) wrote a white paper back in 2016 about preparing for war with China. The architects of the Iraq war also want to make this happen. There is support for this from both parties. There is also credible talk about giving Taiwan nuclear weapons (from relevant think tanks).
We should leave China and Taiwan alone and let them sort this out.
No. Not everybody wants to f*ck over all the people on Taiwan like that.
No, the neocons who control the mainstream media have made intelligent people like yourself think stupid things like going to war with Russia AND China is a good idea.
No. Not everyone wants to F*over all the people in the US like that. But there are too many who think it's a great idea.
Did you notice how many Russian sanctions they are now walking back on the down low?
You can't walk back nuclear war.
None of us here "think it's a great idea" to go to war. Nevertheless, China will go to war if Taiwan isn't able to protect itself. That fact is ignored in all of the above response.
The argument that Taiwan should be left to the mercy of China, to be invaded and conquered, is offensive.
Here is the print source list (all mainstream sources) and links to video and podcast:
US threatens war on China over Taiwan – with nuclear implications
The US government has prepared for years for war with China over Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi’s trip was only the latest provocation, including Pentagon war plans, CIA threats, tens of billions in weapons sales, and US military forces on the ground.
Key points: The US is in Taiwan training extremist secessionists (sound familiar?). They have doubled their military personnel in Taiwan this year. The Rand Corporation (associated with Pentagon) wrote a white paper back in 2016 about preparing for war with China. The architects of the Iraq war also want to make this happen. There is support for this from both parties. There is also credible talk about giving Taiwan nuclear weapons (from relevant think tanks).
That's a Gish Gallop of tankie trash.
that's pretty apparent from the title. some people see that title, snort in derision and look away.
Interesting comments on the Thomas Friedman article from Larry Johnson, interviewed by RT. He also compares the US to the Wicked Witch looking in the mirror saying "Who is the fairest one of all?"
Here is the print source list (all mainstream sources) and links to video and podcast:
US threatens war on China over Taiwan – with nuclear implications
The US government has prepared for years for war with China over Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi’s trip was only the latest provocation, including Pentagon war plans, CIA threats, tens of billions in weapons sales, and US military forces on the ground.
Key points: The US is in Taiwan training extremist secessionists (sound familiar?). They have doubled their military personnel in Taiwan this year. The Rand Corporation (associated with Pentagon) wrote a white paper back in 2016 about preparing for war with China. The architects of the Iraq war also want to make this happen. There is support for this from both parties. There is also credible talk about giving Taiwan nuclear weapons (from relevant think tanks).
That's a Gish Gallop of tankie trash.
I guess you did not watch it. He based all of his statements on mainstream sources. I guess all think TANKs are in danger of being TANKies. Ha Ha.
I guess you did not watch it. He based all of his statements on mainstream sources. I guess all think TANKs are in danger of being TANKies. Ha Ha.
I like how his source for "credible talk about giving Taiwan nuclear weapons (from relevant think tanks)" is the AEI. I guess all the people on this board who consider them a credible think tank on foreign policy will have to... wait, is there anyone on this board who considers AEI a credible think tank on foreign policy?
You annoy me because you continue to judge my posting in negative explanatory terms that you would not use if I agreed with you. It's not true and quite insulting. Kind of influenced by the "Mind of Putin" scholars you admire. The usual co-opting of common sense tone does not help either.
You will not believe anything I say unless I provide an impossible level of detail--while no one else is subjected to this requirement. I spend a lot of time posting and doing research you don't see - reading and watching videos. I will not be spending even more time verifying a stupid post about Trump when I know the big picture is that anything Trump does is bad and anything Biden (Democrats) do is good. I only have so much time and I will spend that on important tasks. I have to let the small potatoes go. You don't watch videos or read outside of mainstream media and you desperately believe the US is a force for good so you have more time.
I rarely spend any time on the MOL search features because I'm more interested in discussing topics than trying to "own" some MOL poster who I never agree with anyway. I don't know if you notice this, but when I am shown to be in the right and others were wrong, I usually don't spend much time rubbing their nose in it--the way they do to me. I'm really here to talk about stuff and I don't expect everyone to be perfect but I wish everyone could be a little less petty.
The Donbas issue is part of the larger understanding that Russia had eight years of provocation before entering this proxy war and that the war was deliberately sought by the US government. They are trying to the same thing in Taiwan. It's right there out in the open but you can't see.
I don't care if you take my claims seriously or not because I don't respect your viewpoint. You seem like an intelligent, thoughtful person, and you enjoy writing online as I do, but you have stubbornly cast your lot with the mainstream view which I know to be false and dishonest. Thus, you probe everything, request absurd levels of detail and try to find some angle from which it can be disputed so you can cling on to this childish fantasy that the US government is an honest actor when it comes to any foreign policy topic. Your road map leads to an acceptance of things I stopped believing in 2016. That ship has sailed.
I haven't figured out the trick of telling someone they're wrong while also having them believe I'm being kind. Maybe there is no trick, and the answer is to simply not engage at all? But you keep coming back to these boards, as do I, so there must be something about engagement that outweighs the downsides.
It would certainly simplify things if we could simply identify which groups are consistently false and dishonest, and which ones are not. Then we could safely dismiss anything that came from the bad and dishonest side, and uncritically accept anything from the honorable side - or at least, anything disagreeing with the dishonorable side.
But unfortunately for us, things are more complicated than that so take more work, so we're left with having to evaluate people and outlets on their factual reliability instead. If you hold up radishes and insist they're potatoes, I can't really agree that it doesn't matter just because they're small. What you call "absurd levels of detail" is my attempting to get us beyond subjective team identification and try to ground things in some more objective, factual basis -- it's something I try to do internally myself when I read about something.
I don't believe the US is either a force for good or evil, I think it's a country pursuing objectives in a large world filled with other countries and groups pursuing their interests. Sometimes I think particular goals are praiseworthy, sometime I find them disgraceful. Sometimes I think the end good and the means bad, or the end neutral and the means good, and all other combinations. Similarly, I don't think Putin is some "Disney Villain" as you put it, but pursuing what he thinks are in his interests. Similarly for Ukraine, or China, or Taiwan, etc. There aren't good and bad people or countries, there are human who act, and we can evaluate and judge those actions.
We are like many families at Thanksgiving all year round.
We will never agree about which groups are consistently false because my #1 choice for that would be mainstream media and you are not going to go along with that. How about Alex Jones? I'm not fond of him. I could give him up!
And what about the cook books? I follow a Keto diet (but I rarely stick to my 20 carbs a day sadly).
I guess you did not watch it. He based all of his statements on mainstream sources. I guess all think TANKs are in danger of being TANKies. Ha Ha.
In general, the tankies who say they're using "mainstream sources" are cherry-picking if not outright lying about the "sources", and also adding their own fabulations to their "arguments".
I guess you did not watch it. He based all of his statements on mainstream sources. I guess all think TANKs are in danger of being TANKies. Ha Ha.
I like how his source for "credible talk about giving Taiwan nuclear weapons (from relevant think tanks)" is the AEI. I guess all the people on this board who consider them a credible think tank on foreign policy will have to... wait, is there anyone on this board who considers AEI a credible think tank on foreign policy?
Hmmm. Let's see. Who has the U.S. giving nuclear weapons do in the last 75 years. Answer. No one. And in those few countries where we have B-61 bombs in storage, they are controlled by American forces.
So anybody who thinks we are going to just give Taiwan nukes is living in an alternative reality. We don't even have any U.S. military personnel stationed in Taiwan besides, I suppose, some spies and liaison personnel.
I guess you did not watch it. He based all of his statements on mainstream sources. I guess all think TANKs are in danger of being TANKies. Ha Ha.
In general, the tankies who say they're using "mainstream sources" are cherry-picking if not outright lying about the "sources", and also adding their own fabulations to their "arguments".
That's your insult laden generalization, not a specific response to the video. But, thanks for playing. We will be sending you off with a home edition of the "I'm a Neocon Who Loves Nuclear War" game so you can play with your friends and family.
We are like many families at Thanksgiving all year round.
We will never agree about which groups are consistently false because my #1 choice for that would be mainstream media and you are not going to go along with that. How about Alex Jones? I'm not fond of him. I could give him up!
And what about the cook books? I follow a Keto diet (but I rarely stick to my 20 carbs a day sadly).
We both have a copy of Joy of Cooking, as I recall.
Well first of all we're going to disagree on the utility of the term "mainstream media." You already know I don't do video, so CNN, NBC, FOX, etc are all sources I won't have an opinion on their reliability since I don't watch them.
In general, I'd say what I look for is places that have reporters on the ground and able to interview people directly involved in the events the are covering. Then an editorial staff to support that, and fact checkers and copy editors. That all tends to cost money, which is what pushes things into "mainstream" for general news, though for smaller, niche beats you can get away with fewer resources.
There's plenty of things I read and follow that don't fall into this, and they can be interesting and even informative, but those serve a different purpose from news. For instance, in domestic politics lots of sources that don't fit the above will often get a hold of potential news -- I treat those as rumors to keep an eye on, but not to make too much of until further verification. I'm not a trader or some other profession where knowing the absolute most recent news makes a difference to any decision I have to make; I can afford to wait until more eyes have taken a look at that.
Magazines are an interesting medium, in that they allow both for more in-depth, but also a more subjective tone. I often post articles from The Atlantic here, for instance. Some of their stories are very much toward the deep reporting side of things -- I found their articles through the height of the covid pandemic excellent, and in general felt very well informed -- twists and turns in the way the virus mutated and how we responded didn't strike me with the kind of confusion it seems to have caused many others. Other times their articles are more toward the making an argument side; I might agree or disagree with the conclusions, but generally find the well written.
For those latter, I tend not to post those here because I don't know that they add too much -- there are plenty of opinions on this board and one more, by someone who's not even on this board to defend their opinion, doesn't seem like it makes much sense to add. I try to post media that adds some factual insight to explain where my opinions are coming from or that others might find interesting in forming their own opinions.
I guess you did not watch it. He based all of his statements on mainstream sources. I guess all think TANKs are in danger of being TANKies. Ha Ha.
In general, the tankies who say they're using "mainstream sources" are cherry-picking if not outright lying about the "sources", and also adding their own fabulations to their "arguments".
That's your insult laden generalization, not a specific response to the video. But, thanks for playing. We will be sending you off with a home edition of the "I'm a Neocon Who Loves Nuclear War" game so you can play with your friends and family.
I can't find an example that disproves the "generalization" in the latest piece you posted from Ben Norton. Maybe you can.
I guess you did not watch it. He based all of his statements on mainstream sources. I guess all think TANKs are in danger of being TANKies. Ha Ha.
In general, the tankies who say they're using "mainstream sources" are cherry-picking if not outright lying about the "sources", and also adding their own fabulations to their "arguments".
That's your insult laden generalization, not a specific response to the video. But, thanks for playing. We will be sending you off with a home edition of the "I'm a Neocon Who Loves Nuclear War" game so you can play with your friends and family.
I can't find an example that disproves the "generalization" in the latest piece you posted from Ben Norton. Maybe you can.
We are like many families at Thanksgiving all year round.
We will never agree about which groups are consistently false because my #1 choice for that would be mainstream media and you are not going to go along with that. How about Alex Jones? I'm not fond of him. I could give him up!
And what about the cook books? I follow a Keto diet (but I rarely stick to my 20 carbs a day sadly).
We both have a copy of Joy of Cooking, as I recall.
Well first of all we're going to disagree on the utility of the term "mainstream media." You already know I don't do video, so CNN, NBC, FOX, etc are all sources I won't have an opinion on their reliability since I don't watch them.
In general, I'd say what I look for is places that have reporters on the ground and able to interview people directly involved in the events the are covering. Then an editorial staff to support that, and fact checkers and copy editors. That all tends to cost money, which is what pushes things into "mainstream" for general news, though for smaller, niche beats you can get away with fewer resources.
There's plenty of things I read and follow that don't fall into this, and they can be interesting and even informative, but those serve a different purpose from news. For instance, in domestic politics lots of sources that don't fit the above will often get a hold of potential news -- I treat those as rumors to keep an eye on, but not to make too much of until further verification. I'm not a trader or some other profession where knowing the absolute most recent news makes a difference to any decision I have to make; I can afford to wait until more eyes have taken a look at that.
Magazines are an interesting medium, in that they allow both for more in-depth, but also a more subjective tone. I often post articles from The Atlantic here, for instance. Some of their stories are very much toward the deep reporting side of things -- I found their articles through the height of the covid pandemic excellent, and in general felt very well informed -- twists and turns in the way the virus mutated and how we responded didn't strike me with the kind of confusion it seems to have caused many others. Other times their articles are more toward the making an argument side; I might agree or disagree with the conclusions, but generally find the well written.
For those latter, I tend not to post those here because I don't know that they add too much -- there are plenty of opinions on this board and one more, by someone who's not even on this board to defend their opinion, doesn't seem like it makes much sense to add. I try to post media that adds some factual insight to explain where my opinions are coming from or that others might find interesting in forming their own opinions.
I love Joy of Cooking, although I can't use most of it anymore. It has so much information. I guess you did not see the movie about the authors-- it was an interesting story. I like the way it is written and I like turning the pages in JOC and my edition has a little built in ribbon bookmark. Most of the cookbooks I get now seem photocopied at best and are full of mistakes and bad ideas.
I know you said you told us why you don't watch video (all visual media?) but I really don't think I read that post. Can you please repeat that again?
I used to love the Atlantic and had a subscription for years. The editor now, Jeffrey (?) Goldberg is a huge neocon so I don't read it anymore. What else do you read?
I wish I could laugh as heartily as sbenois does…because I actually feel bad for you sometimes. As annoying as you can be, I feel someday someone will take advantage of your naïveté…
I love Joy of Cooking, although I can't use most of it anymore. It has so much information. I guess you did not see the movie about the authors-- it was an interesting story. I like the way it is written and I like turning the pages in JOC and my edition has a little built in ribbon bookmark. Most of the cookbooks I get now seem photocopied at best and are full of mistakes and bad ideas.
I know you said you told us why you don't watch video (all visual media?) but I really don't think I read that post. Can you please repeat that again?
I used to love the Atlantic and had a subscription for years. The editor now, Jeffrey (?) Goldberg is a huge neocon so I don't read it anymore. What else do you read?
There's one framework that says there are two types of thought -- fast and slow. Fast thought is instinctive and emotional, slow thought is deliberative and logical
(Thinking, Fast and Slow -- have the book, haven't read it yet. Not qualified to speak to if it's a real thing in biology, but I do think it's a useful framework)
Images, especially video, trigger the "fast" thought system. They're emotional and impactful. That's great for things like sports, movies, etc. And thinking quickly and instinctively is what you want in an emergency, like you're about to be hit by a car and need to slam on your breaks for instance. But it's not great for trying to understand the news, which is not something you're experiencing directly and not something that requires immediate action from you.
So by it's nature, video is already naturally targeted to short-circuiting slower, deliberative thought and eliciting a strong and immediate emotional response instead. Add to that the incentives of our media environment where attention is rewarded by ad dollars or subscribers (whether that's cable, youtube, or elsewhere) and the tendency to sensationalism and blinkered context is amplified. Local news is a good example -- watch that and you'd think our cities are full of burning buildings filled with murdered bodies.
Then when we talk about a discussion board, there's additional weaknesses. If I'm going to post something, both those who agree with me and who disagree with me should be able to check what I'm basing my arguments on -- I'm as fallible as anyone else; maybe I got something wrong, or there are alternative conclusions that better fit the facts than I'm putting forth. If my source is a video, I can't easily excerpt the specific parts that are relevant. Nor does video easily allow for reading through at one's own pace, skipping up and down a paragraph, re-reading the material to understand the context better... In short, video is an experience, and experiences are harder to share and work with as a source. This is true the more complex and detail-oriented -- for instance when numbers are cited. Someone saying a number and throwing up an infographic is much harder to critically examine.
I wish I could laugh as heartily as sbenois does…because I actually feel bad for you sometimes. As annoying as you can be, I feel someday someone will take advantage of your naïveté…
Really, what exactly am I naive about? Are you worried about Communists under the bed?
Those awful Neocons probably did this to get greater access to Taiwanese biscuits.
They're EVIL!