Panama Papers

  On 4/12/2016 at 3:11 AM, caze said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:49 AM, chenGOD said:

You have yet to show one instance of them supporting Putin. Or even doing what you claim they do - seeking out criticisms of Russia/Putin to criticise.

 

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention.

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 3:28 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Lol Chen keep up, m8

I mean, I'm happy to continue defending my thesis

I wasn't done anyway

But you're either not paying attention of you're being disingenuous

I can only assume you're referring to your "LMGTFY" link which doesn't really tell me anything, but just for shits I clicked and read through the first couple of links (which you also later post).

None of those show Greenwald doing what you accused him of doing. (If you read the daily beast article that greewald is responding to you'll see plenty of twists in logic to try and condemn "the left" who report on the US and its human rights abuses/foreign policy).

They do show him agreeing with the criticism of Russia and then using that as a springboard to question why more journalists aren't as critical of the US in terms of human rights abuses and its foreign policy actions.

Again, this does not equate to supporting Putin.

Look how ridiculous your thesis can be:

LimpyLoo must be in favour of the oppression of the Rohingya in Myanmar. He has spoken extensively about what he believes is the Muslim problem, and the rhetoric that the Buddhist nationalists use to oppress the Rohingya is very similar. Therefore LimpyLoo must be in favour of oppressing the Rohingya.

Now obviously you don't approve of the oppression of the Rohingya (at least, I hope you don't). And just because you haven't criticized the Burmese government (both pre and post election) for not doing anything to improve the situation doesn't mean you are in favour of the policies by those governments.

Same applies to Greenwald and JE.

If you don't realise the degree of whataboutism these people engage in, you haven't been paying attention. I haven't read any of the links in this thread, I've seen enough evidence of it with my own eyes before this. I'm not going to go trawling through twitter feeds and articles to find evidence for it, belive me or not, I don't care, but you're in denial.

That is a terrible analogy, Chen.

C'mon mate, you're the smartest person on this forum but you seem to strategically play dumb in debate sometimes

You are making a "yellow, therefor banana" kind of analogy

Like "Elvis sang about love and Charles Manson sang about love therefor Elvis believed in the coming Race Wars"

That is not analogous to my "quick to defend, slow to criticize" thesis

And I don't know if they explicitly support Putin...in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't

But in actual practice, it appears they have a bias

Again, they seek out criticism of Russia to defend against

And they do not offer unsolicited criticisms of Russia

And the solicited, begrudging criticisms are invariably "yeah, but America is worse, so..."

So they are not silent on Russia

They talk about Russia rather frequently

But what they say follows the above pattern

Now, imagine if they often offered unsolicited criticism of Palestine

And sought out criticisms of Israel to defend against

And the rare instances when they were prompted to comment on Israeli wrongdoing

They always said "yeah, but Palestine is worse, so..."

I think if you merely swapped out the country names like that

people would see that bias plain as day

  On 4/12/2016 at 4:31 AM, caze said:

If you don't realise the degree of whataboutism these people engage in, you haven't been paying attention. I haven't read any of the links in this thread, I've seen enough evidence of it with my own eyes before this. I'm not going to go trawling through twitter feeds and articles to find evidence for it, belive me or not, I don't care, but you're in denial.

Ah yes, I'll just take you on your word. That's never turned out badly. And then of course, because you cannot be bothered to bring evidence, I must be in denial.

I think I've heard that style of argument elsewhere....

  On 4/12/2016 at 4:58 AM, LimpyLoo said:

That is a terrible analogy, Chen.

C'mon mate, you're the smartest person on this forum but you seem to strategically play dumb in debate sometimes

You are making a "yellow, therefor banana" kind of analogy

Like "Elvis sang about love and Charles Manson sang about love therefor Elvis believed in the coming Race Wars"

That is not analogous to my "quick to defend, slow to criticize" thesis

And I don't know if they explicitly support Putin...in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't

But in actual practice, it appears they have a bias

Again, they seek out criticism of Russia to defend against

And they do not offer unsolicited criticisms of Russia

And the solicited, begrudging criticisms are invariably "yeah, but America is worse, so..."

So they are not silent on Russia

They talk about Russia rather frequently

But what they say follows the above pattern

 

Now, imagine if they often offered unsolicited criticism of Palestine

And sought out criticisms of Israel to defend against

And the rare instances when they were prompted to comment on Israeli wrongdoing

They always said "yeah, but Palestine is worse, so..."

 

I think if you merely swapped out the country names like that

people would see that bias plain as day

I am far from the smartest person on this forum, and that is neither here nor there in this debate. And the analogy is literally exactly what you posited. That's the literal definition of literally, not the bizarro idiot version of literally.

But at least it's only taken one page for you to go from "greenwald and JE support Putin" to "I don't know if they explicitly support Putin...in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't"

We don't know whether or not the criticisms are begrudged. That's pure speculation.

They do not say "yeah but america is worse..." rather they point out that both nations are committing egregious human rights violations and that they feel they can more ably affect change in their own country. And from your wiki linked article on "whataboutism" (a stupid term that the Economist should be ashamed of coining) is this with regards to countering whataboutism: "The first is to "use points made by Russian leaders themselves" so that they cannot be applied to a Western nation and the second method is for Western nations to apply more self-criticism to its own media and government." [emphasis mine]

My initial point was that they were heavily "pro-Putin" as far as how they act,

But I can't read their minds so yes it is presumptuous to say WHY they might have this bias.

And you haven't proven your initial point at all.

The confusion started when "opinion" became "thesis". People don't need proof to have an opinion. In the old days...

  On 4/12/2016 at 10:06 AM, Gocab said:

^

Panamana, doo-dooooo-doo-doo-doo-doo

Panamana, doo-doo-doo-doo

  On 4/12/2016 at 5:49 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 4:31 AM, caze said:

If you don't realise the degree of whataboutism these people engage in, you haven't been paying attention. I haven't read any of the links in this thread, I've seen enough evidence of it with my own eyes before this. I'm not going to go trawling through twitter feeds and articles to find evidence for it, belive me or not, I don't care, but you're in denial.

 

Ah yes, I'll just take you on your word. That's never turned out badly. And then of course, because you cannot be bothered to bring evidence, I must be in denial.

 

I think I've heard that style of argument elsewhere....

It's not really an argument when you say: "believe me or not, I don't care".

  On 4/12/2016 at 12:54 PM, usagi said:

Panamana, doo-dooooo-doo-doo-doo-doo

Panamana, doo-doo-doo-doo

FINALLY

  On 4/12/2016 at 6:57 AM, chenGOD said:

And you haven't proven your initial point at all.

According to you

Tell me then: if a journalist had a pro-Putin bias (for whatever reason), how would you expect them to act? How would it look different than it does now?

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:31 PM, caze said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 5:49 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 4:31 AM, caze said:

If you don't realise the degree of whataboutism these people engage in, you haven't been paying attention. I haven't read any of the links in this thread, I've seen enough evidence of it with my own eyes before this. I'm not going to go trawling through twitter feeds and articles to find evidence for it, belive me or not, I don't care, but you're in denial.

Ah yes, I'll just take you on your word. That's never turned out badly. And then of course, because you cannot be bothered to bring evidence, I must be in denial.

 

I think I've heard that style of argument elsewhere....

It's not really an argument when you say: "believe me or not, I don't care".

Congratulations, you have an opinion.

  On 4/12/2016 at 5:49 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:31 PM, caze said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 5:49 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 4:31 AM, caze said:

If you don't realise the degree of whataboutism these people engage in, you haven't been paying attention. I haven't read any of the links in this thread, I've seen enough evidence of it with my own eyes before this. I'm not going to go trawling through twitter feeds and articles to find evidence for it, belive me or not, I don't care, but you're in denial.

Ah yes, I'll just take you on your word. That's never turned out badly. And then of course, because you cannot be bothered to bring evidence, I must be in denial.

 

I think I've heard that style of argument elsewhere....

It's not really an argument when you say: "believe me or not, I don't care".

Congratulations, you have an opinion.

 

congratulations on realizing, took you long enough to get there.

  On 4/12/2016 at 5:52 PM, caze said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 5:49 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 2:31 PM, caze said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 5:49 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/12/2016 at 4:31 AM, caze said:

If you don't realise the degree of whataboutism these people engage in, you haven't been paying attention. I haven't read any of the links in this thread, I've seen enough evidence of it with my own eyes before this. I'm not going to go trawling through twitter feeds and articles to find evidence for it, belive me or not, I don't care, but you're in denial.

Ah yes, I'll just take you on your word. That's never turned out badly. And then of course, because you cannot be bothered to bring evidence, I must be in denial.

 

I think I've heard that style of argument elsewhere....

It's not really an argument when you say: "believe me or not, I don't care".

Congratulations, you have an opinion.

congratulations on realizing, took you long enough to get there.

When you use the word "evidence" it's an indicator that you have some kind of argument.

And if you truly don't care, you wouldn't bother posting to tell us all.

jesus christ can you guys make your own thread?

i think this one is supposed to be about the panama papers or something

Chen, I don't think there is any possible evidence I could post where you would say "oh shit, you're right"

Unless they literally tweeted "I have a pro-Putin bias"

You missed the evidence I posted, saying I had provided literally none

Then you read one link and said you weren't convinced

Tell me: what possible evidence would convince you?

How about this: I'll post every single one of their tweets regarding either American gov't or Russian gov't

We can tally up pro- and anti- American gov't tweets

And then pro- and anti-Russian gov't tweets

And we can compare how they talk about each

(But again, I don't think anything would convince you that they are softer on Russia than America)

lol, you could try posting any evidence whatsoever.

I already did lol

lol

lol

If you don't like the evidence I posted, that's fine

But I did indeed post evidence

LOL

LOL

Alco and Godel love to just show up and contradict anything I say lol

Without ever addressing any of my actual points lol