Wake up babe, new anarchist theory just dropped!

[u/Blurstee]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/world/middleeast/hamas-hospitals-gaza-israel.html

[u/Blurstee]

I haven't seen the images but even if I did I would oppose bombing hospitals.??? I'm confused what you mean here.

This is the point of the article I posted. It's meant to be used by people to give credence to Israel's genocidal activities.

When someone says, "But they're right! Look at the evidence they gave us!", that person is helping their cause. When that person has a track record of pushing American warmongering propaganda for a couple of years in all its arenas, then yes I think I can call him a "leftist".

I don't agree with their position, I don't believe he maintains the position he pretends to.

[u/FirstnameNumbers1312 → u/Blurstee]

that person has a track record of pushing American warmongering propaganda ... I don't believe he maintains the position he pretends to.

This is where I think you become unreasonably dogmatic. Idk that person but It is far far far more likely that he is sincere and misinformed or just has a different philosophical perspective to yourself than that he is lying to....mislead the Users of r/ROI??? Like??

Not to accuse you of being Paranoid but I'm fairly certain feds have better things to be doing. The revolution will not be born on r/ROI regardless of how honest it's users are with their political positions.

And back to the final point, surely if there is evidence it would be better to engage with this debate in the real world, with the facts and evidence as they are, rather than insisting on denying reality or be labelled a rightist? Like whether it's true or not there's no point sticking our heads in the sand and our fingers in our ears, what Israel is doing is STILL genocide, nothing hamas has done or will do changes that fact.

[u/Blurstee → u/FirstnameNumbers1312]

This is where I think you become unreasonably dogmatic. Idk that person but ...

Well I do. Which is what my opinion is based on.

Not to accuse you of being Paranoid but I'm fairly certain feds have better things to be doing.

Now you're just strawmanning. Nobody is saying Feds anything. At this point, through every single legacy media campaign for western imperialism, Paddy has backed them all, from Peng Shuai to Unprovoked Invasion . You can argue he's an idiot if you like, but I don't think anyone can be that stupid. You need to understand that I'm all out of benefit of the doubt at this point.

what Israel is doing is STILL genocide, nothing hamas has done or will do changes that fact.

Indeed my point throughout this thread.

[u/FirstnameNumbers1312 → u/Blurstee]

Nobody is saying Feds anything

Ok what are you saying? Cos you said you think he's lying, not just that you disagree about the facts or communicate differently or have some fundamental philosophical difference you think he's being dishonest when he says he opposes Israel bombing hospitals. Why? For what purpose? He's not trolling and you don't think he's a fed so what else could it be?

you're just strawmanning

Apologies if I've strawmanned you, but I can't understand what other coherent explanation you would have for the belief that he's lying.

I'll explain what I think is happening here.i don't intend to cause offence but this is my understanding.

You have a dogmatic worldview which isn't capable of accepting much real differences of opinion. As such it can't possibly be that he is opposed to Israel and is opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Your ideology is so rigid that alternate worldviews like this cannot factor in anywhere, and as such you simply must assume it's a psyop or he's a fed or he's lying for some unknown reason.

You have an ideology that pits the world as being some great conflict between 2 sides, everyone is either on one or the other. As such any point where someone adds nuance (or as in this case, disagrees with your understanding of the facts on the ground whilst agreeing with your conclusions) is actually them revealing their secret allegiances to the other side.

I think it's interesting that your worldview actually does have a perfectly rational explanation for this behaviour - Legacy Media Propoganda - and yet you (and many many others) still jump to accusing them of dishonesty. I can only think it's a defence mechanism - if your opponent where honest you would have to engage with their ideas, if they're simply lying then there's no reason to do that - but idk.

[u/Blurstee → u/FirstnameNumbers1312]

Ok what are you saying? Cos you said you think he's lying

I never said that. You just made that up, becoming something of a habit of yours.

Why? For what purpose? He's not trolling and you don't think he's a fed so what else could it be?

Now I need to be a psychoanalyst? You could ask him why he has always, without fail backed the western imperialist narratives in every discussion of geopolitical events in all of his time here. From tabloid gossip to far right conspiracy theories. If you can answer why he does this then let me know, I can only speculate.

You have a dogmatic worldview which isn't capable of accepting much real differences of opinion. As such it can't possibly be that he is opposed to Israel and is opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Your ideology is so rigid that alternate worldviews like this cannot factor in anywhere,

Objective reality and facts are not a "worldview", they exist independently of me and what I think. Rejecting reality and substituting American propaganda for its wars is not an "opposing ideology". Reality is rigid, not me.

You have an ideology that pits the world as being some great conflict between 2 sides, everyone is either on one or the other.

That's correct, it's capitalist barbarism or socialism. You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Legacy Media Propoganda - and yet you (and many many others) still jump to accusing them of dishonesty.

If you have a better theory I'd like to hear it. I don't see the contradiction here. It is dishonest to play along with media propaganda and pretend to believe their far fetched conspiracy theories. You might argue that they're just being dishonest with themselves, but that's still dishonesty.

if your opponent where honest you would have to engage with their ideas, if they're simply lying then there's no reason to do that - but idk.

That's literally most of what I do here?! Engage with "their", "ideas".

There was a lot of debate recently in leftist circles of whether people are "brainwashed" by the media or whether the media simply gives licence to peoples' bigotry. This article that started it you might find interesting.

Talk of “manufacturing” and “inventing” suggests an imposition over and against the individual’s will. I believe that, on the contrary, the process of Western propaganda is better understood in terms of “licensing”: the issuing of moral license for the bourgeois proletariat to profitably go along with bourgeois designs without the feeling of shame overwhelming. In this alternative account people aren’t “brainwashed” insofar as they don’t actually believe the lies, not in the way that we generally understand belief. It’s more correct to say that they go along with them, whether enthusiastically or apprehensively, because it’s actually their optimal survival strategy.