Roger Waters is very dumb but dumb people tend to like him because he says some things they like. So what happens when he 'debates' an even dumber liberal on...
Roger Waters - Comfortably Numb, Bad Empanada - Confident and Dumb
Banning anyone who is even “slightly pro-Russia” (the vast majority of this site by almost all lib definitions) is Lib shit and he is being a chauvinist ultra
The issue is that most of the lib internet considers stating facts like "Russia probably isn't shelling the nuclear power plant in Russian-held territory with American HIMARS rockets from the Ukrainian held direction" to be "pro-Russia", that's why it's notable.
Right...on it's face, banning 'anyone with pro Russia views' seems to not be terribly awful, seeing as Russia is it's own autocratic shithole.
Until you consider that being against NATO for the role they have played in this conflict (and many others too numerous to list) and espousing views such as 'maybe Russia didn't bomb their own prison' are considered 'pro Russia' takes by every lib
Except that libs like him consider any anti-NATO argument as pro-Russia. You aren’t actually this naive are you? During the Iraq War would you go around banning anyone who is “Pro-Saddam”? Guess what, by fascist American definitions that’s everyone who isn’t marching in lockstep
Except that libs like him consider any anti-NATO argument as pro-Russia.
He literally says in the video that waters is right when he says NATO broke their promise of not expanding eastward. It's very telling you never watched a single video by them lol (not like i could blame you, i have better things to do usually as well)
I don't know about Granit, i highly doubt he would ban SeventyTwo, Z Poster literally supported Russia and were very open about it. You are somewhere there i think as well.
I don't think myself it's principled antiimperialism when we are sincerely hoping one bloc with imperial ambitions (no, putin won't conquer Europe but they are clearly in Ukraine for their own political interest, which are purely capitalistic) triumphs over another but that's a different story and everyone here knows i'm an anarkiddie/trot/ultra anyway :shrug-outta-hecks:
No, it's not. What? The opposite of stanning something would be hating it. In what world is the opposite of uncritically supporting something just supporting it a little? That's not how that works.
I don't know comrade this is ultimately a semantic argument about the situational meaning of "opposite", which isn't that interesting. The opposite of having a highly dogmatic view of a topic is having a nuanced view where you are able to acknowledge both good and bad things about the topic :shrug-outta-hecks:
well, yeah, but the point of my comment wasn't actually about the word. It's that you seemed to be presenting the only alternative to "stanning" Russia as just liking it but less.
I don't think there are any valid reasons from a socialist viewpoint to like Russia at all. You should obviously criticize Ukraine and the US, but there's nothing to gain from Russia.
I’m a revolutionary defeatist, not a western chauvinist, and that’s what matters. Westerners who defend their side or both sides the issue are chauvinists
lmao is badempanada a ukraine flag emoji guy or something now
No, he just isn't stanning Russia just because their interests are running counter to the US', which is a completely reasonable stance to take.
Banning anyone who is even “slightly pro-Russia” (the vast majority of this site by almost all lib definitions) is Lib shit and he is being a chauvinist ultra
Yeah sure
CW hostile, I'm sorry
sectarian go back to your ML only space pls *
Not sectarian: shitting on China all the time and saying they aren’t socialist
Sectarian: that guy sucks
CW hostile, I'm sorry
using ultra is the same as just saying anarkiddy it’s not allowed on this site, you’re not pleasant to be around
Defending BadEmpanada is the same as shitting on the PRC and should not be allowed on this site
That’s just like your opinion. Plenty of people enjoy my slop
CW hostile, I'm sorry
okay sectarian
Ok anti-AES sectarian, I’ll be the pro-AES sectarian if that’s where you and BadEmpanada are drawing the line
The issue is that most of the lib internet considers stating facts like "Russia probably isn't shelling the nuclear power plant in Russian-held territory with American HIMARS rockets from the Ukrainian held direction" to be "pro-Russia", that's why it's notable.
Right...on it's face, banning 'anyone with pro Russia views' seems to not be terribly awful, seeing as Russia is it's own autocratic shithole.
Until you consider that being against NATO for the role they have played in this conflict (and many others too numerous to list) and espousing views such as 'maybe Russia didn't bomb their own prison' are considered 'pro Russia' takes by every lib
Yeah, having watched the video (and other videos of BE) i wouldn't think he would consider that pro-russian.
Who is stanning Russia here?
If no one is, than there's no need to get defensive about him banning russia stans, right? :)
Except that libs like him consider any anti-NATO argument as pro-Russia. You aren’t actually this naive are you? During the Iraq War would you go around banning anyone who is “Pro-Saddam”? Guess what, by fascist American definitions that’s everyone who isn’t marching in lockstep
He literally says in the video that waters is right when he says NATO broke their promise of not expanding eastward. It's very telling you never watched a single video by them lol (not like i could blame you, i have better things to do usually as well)
Tell me he wouldn’t ban SeventyTwoTrillion or Granit or Z Poster or myself. He would in an instant just for saying what we do on the news thread
If his bar for what he bans includes anti-imperialist principled communists then it’s a bad bar
I don't know about Granit, i highly doubt he would ban SeventyTwo, Z Poster literally supported Russia and were very open about it. You are somewhere there i think as well.
I don't think myself it's principled antiimperialism when we are sincerely hoping one bloc with imperial ambitions (no, putin won't conquer Europe but they are clearly in Ukraine for their own political interest, which are purely capitalistic) triumphs over another but that's a different story and everyone here knows i'm an anarkiddie/trot/ultra anyway :shrug-outta-hecks:
Was Russia being imperialist in Syria?
Is Iran being imperialist in Yemen and Palestine?
You're getting angry at a hypothetical ban on a different platform.
I’m pointing out this guy is a breadtube baby
Z-Poster was definitely something of an actual Russia stan. The name is a giveaway.
I do miss their non-harassment contributions to the site, though.
"Even slightly pro Russia" isn't stanning, it's the opposite
No, it's not. What? The opposite of stanning something would be hating it. In what world is the opposite of uncritically supporting something just supporting it a little? That's not how that works.
I don't know comrade this is ultimately a semantic argument about the situational meaning of "opposite", which isn't that interesting. The opposite of having a highly dogmatic view of a topic is having a nuanced view where you are able to acknowledge both good and bad things about the topic :shrug-outta-hecks:
well, yeah, but the point of my comment wasn't actually about the word. It's that you seemed to be presenting the only alternative to "stanning" Russia as just liking it but less.
I don't think there are any valid reasons from a socialist viewpoint to like Russia at all. You should obviously criticize Ukraine and the US, but there's nothing to gain from Russia.
It’s a very common westoid chauvinist lib take to have, that’s for sure
CW hostile, I'm sorry
do you currently live in the west yes or no, you sound like a westerner
I’m not the one siding with the west or sitting on the fence
do you live in the west?
Only west defenders need answer that
okay westerner
I’m a revolutionary defeatist, not a western chauvinist, and that’s what matters. Westerners who defend their side or both sides the issue are chauvinists
deleted by creator
A lot of Maupin types show up in his comments, I assume that's why he has that stance
that makes sense