So now we're at the stage of the narrative where the USA is distancing itself from the actions in Ukraine and bad outcomes will be attributed to failures of the Ukrainians. This will lead to the next stage of the narrative where the US uses these failures as justification for unhitching their wagon from what's happening politically. The US will, of course, remain connected to the region through arms shipments, black ops, training, and intelligence, but the form will shift to a loose network of autonomous partisans, like Al-Qaeda.
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
15 points (75.9% liked)
World News
31446 readers
709 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The only narrative I see is you trying desperately to create one.
Right? I'm glad they could take a break from TikTok conspiracy videos and grace us with this gem of a take.
Don’t worry, Ukraine will be totally different from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Vietnam. It’s those stupid tankies who are wrong, not the US corporate press which was never punished for lying about Iraq’s WMDs.
So we go from some form of convoluted and manufactured narrative to you pulling in world history because…?
And why are hexbear users always so aggressive and use arguments like a five year old would, i.e. grab any and anything to try and deflect?
Calling yourself ‘tankies’ is my basis to call you childish btw.
That instance hexbear is an absurd place and a poster child equivalence for trolls.
Is there any chance you can discuss something without throwing temper tantrums?
So we go from some form of convoluted and manufactured narrative to you pulling in world history because…?
Have you heard of context? Did history begin with the Ukraine War?
Calling yourself ‘tankies’ is my basis to call you childish btw.
Hatred of children is ageist.
Well, there it is, proof of the absurdity of the hexbear instance users. Took only a couple of minutes.
There is no context here, you are manufactoring one in your head, just like op did.
And the cherry on the absurdity cake? Calling me ageist. Desperately trying to stick a hate label on me, absurd.
Like I said, discussing with hexbear users is impossible and prone to land you in a world of temper tantrums.
I know. Fish don't know they're wet.
So you are a fish now? You are confusing and seem prone to self inflicted embarrassment.
Why is my feed full of propaganda by @CollisionResistance for the last few days? Is there no moderation here?
WSJ is propaganda? 🤔🤔
Flooding this forum with your deliberate selection of only news that fit your narrative is propaganda. It creates a false balance that is not part of the original individual sources.
If anyone is in doubt, just check his post history.
So you're saying part of the news articles from wapo, wsj, nyt, economist, ft etc etc are propaganda, i.e, part of the mainstream media is propaganda?? 🤔🤔
No, I‘m saying what I said. Please read and comprehend.
There will always be people like you and I do not fault you, personally. But it is proof that this forum needs better moderation and rules to deal with false balance.
I think you need to check the definition of the term 'moderation'. Removing posts because they seem skewed or one-sided sounds a lot like 'censorship'. 😅
Someone who posts cats doesn't get censored (or moderated as you put it) for not posting enough dogs.
Limiting how much one single person can define the narrativ of a forum with clear rules might be a more sensible approach instead of removing posts based on content. Please have a look at the situation: Roughly 40 negative posts about Ukraine/US/NATO in just the last week (and very little else) on a newish account certainly makes me think OP is pushing his agenda, not regularly participating in a forum.
Sure, but anyone can push their agenda which funnily enough is exactly what happens. If OP was actually posting fabricated stories and fake propaganda, yes, that would need to be moderated and censored. But OP is posting news from reputable sources such as WSJ, and even if OP feels a bit differently to us, OP is still nevertheless entitled to post reputable sources to back up their feelings about the matter.
Do you you have anything of value to say, other than "OP is bad" or "source is bad" or "fake news because I don't like it." Something about what the article actually deals with? I guess not.
I didn’t say or imply any of these three things you misquote me on.
Wall Street Journal is Russian propaganda, haven't you heard? Anyone convincing you otherwise is part of a Russian psyop.
I never claimed that WSJ is propaganda. What OP is doing is, though.