While there are plenty of examples all over social media, I'll point out two that stand out.
1. People who've spent the last couple of years bitching about "toxic masculinity" are now swooning over Zelinsky and other Ukrainian leaders who have the courage to stand up and fight for the people they represent. They're the same folks posting all sorts of examples of brave men defending their homeland.
2. The Twitter account called "Occupy Democrats" has a bit of a problem. They Tweeted the following a while back.
"No civilian needs an AR-15, regardless of whatever mental gymmnastics you do. "
Then this recently.
"Breaking: Ukraine's Interior Minister announces that 10,000 automatic rifles have been handed out to the civilians of Kyiv as they prepare to fight tooth and nail to defend their homes against Putin's invasion."
On a slightly more serious note. Biden has been sending troops to Europe without any indication of what their role might be. What Biden needs to be sending is Javelin and Stinger missiles, 7.62x39mm, and 9x19mm ammunition.
I am confused as to why these unprecedented sanctions specifically exempt certain commodities including oil.
"This Twitter thread featuring nuclear-advocate Michael Schellenberger explains:
After Russia invaded, a few people demanded that Europe stop buying its natural gas, but European utilities snatched up long-term Russian contracts, and the White House said, “Our sanctions are not designed to cause any disruption to the flow of energy from Russia to the world.”
People who believe that nothing could have been done to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine thus imply that Russia’s chokehold over European energy supplies was inevitable, but it wasn’t. Europe could have easily increased, rather than closed, nuclear plants and natural gas."
" Britain could have increased fracking for natural gas but didn’t. Why? Because Russia pumped $95M into anti-fracking advocacy. Noted the head of NATO, Russia “engaged actively with environmental organizations… to maintain Europe’s dependence on Russian gas”."
" Efforts to make Europe less energy independent, and thus more dependent on Russian gas imports, were led by powerful banking interests in coordination with climate activists and center-Left parties around the world."
https://winteryknight.com/2022/02/28/global-warming-activists-attacked-fracking-and-nuclear-energy-paid-putin-to-invade-ukraine/
Is it possible that the "Green/Global Warming/Climate Activists" bear some degree of responsibility for funding Putin's recent invasion? Hell. the US imports oil from Putin, while preventing US oil reserves from being accessed. But it's ALL Trump's fault, right?
I do have to wonder if we'd see the same sort of rush to defend the US if we were invaded. Obviously, we'd see the professionals doing their jobs to defend the country, but I find it hard to believe that we'd see the same level of civilian rushing to arms that we've seen in Ukraine. In all honesty, there's probably a bunch of folx who we'd probably be better off without, and a bunch of folx who'd be happy to let the invaders win.
15 comments:
There is so much which blows the mind trying to keep it all straight with regard this invasion situation. One could take Putin completely out of the picture and still it would've been stupid to close the Keystone pipeline and other drilling projects, which affects the price of oil, as well as removes the option of foreign nations, including European nations, from buy our oil instead of oil from jerks.
Art,
Clearly it should be a no brainer that energy independence is better than energy dependence. Of course, the Keystone pipeline would still be engaged in transporting imported oil into the US, which doesn't really solve the problem. Further, after the recent spate of totalitarianism in Canada, I'm not sure how to regard them at this point. But, yes it's better to source our energy needs from places that are closer and more friendly to us, than further away and less friendly. But none of that is as stupid as continuing to buy oil from Russia, while virtue signaling by pouring out vodka that's already been purchased.
But that's only one aspect of the independence Biden negated. Don't forget the drilling and fracking.
The only pouring out of vodka I'll be doing would be down my own gullet. I'll bet the Russian distilleries are really crying that anyone is pouring out the booze after paying the distilleries for said booze. "That'll show 'em!!"
Craig... "People who've spent the last couple of years bitching about "toxic masculinity" are now swooning over Zelinsky"
You all just have a hard time understanding words and concepts and making reasonable distinctions.
Toxic masculinity is not defending the defenseless in the case of an attack has this happening in Ukraine. Do you understand that?
Toxic masculinity is when a 17 year old boy decides he needs to go with a gun into a city that he isn’t from to defend against imaginary scary black people. In other words, there was no imminent threat and yet he created a dangerous situation with his toxic masculinity that he was raised with.
That's different than defending against an actual attack.
Different concepts.
Likewise, recognizing that white men in the US legislated and benefited from and maintained a very evil slavery institution based upon racism is not saying that all white people today should feel guilty for that.
Different concepts.
I could go on, but why bother?
Dan,
I'm sorry, did I say that it was? Or was I pointing out the reality that the folks who whine about "toxic masculinity" are now in love with Zelinsky?
Are you suggesting that you approve of Zelinsky, and other government leaders as well as citizens taking up arms to fight Putin's military?
Interesting that you weren't paying attention in the trial. You must have missed the part where Rittenhouse was attacked with at deadly weapon and defended himself from attack. They literally have video and contemporaneous witnesses who confirm that Rittenhouse was literally under "actual attack".
You could go on spouting nonsense and disagreeing with everything, and you likely will.
Not only was Rittenhouse himself under "actual attack", so was Kenosha by those Dan defends as if they were freakin' freedom fighters. And of course, he ignores actual facts of the case...assuming he ever took the time investigate what would interfere with his support for blacks and their allies who loot and destroy because another thug was shot while resisting arrest. The kid didn't bring the weapon. The kid has relatives in the Kenosha where he worked, his job being close to his own home just a half-hour drive away. As these facts have been brought up before, we can just say Dan is intentionally lying yet again. It's what he does. Trump's an apostle of Christ compared to this guy.
Craig... "I'm sorry, did I say that it was? Or was I pointing out the reality that the folks who whine about "toxic masculinity" are now in love with Zelinsky?"
What you said:
"People who've spent the last couple of years bitching about "toxic masculinity" are now swooning over Zelinsky"
AS IF there would be some inconsistency in supporting a person defending against a lethal attack for those opposed to toxic masculinity. Why WOULDN'T we be supportive of such actions?
Craig... "Are you suggesting that you approve of Zelinsky, and other government leaders as well as citizens taking up arms to fight Putin's military?"
I've always been quite clear that I think it's reasonable when people are under an actual attack through no fault of their own, for such people to take reasonable steps to protect themselves. For nations/people under physical deadly attack, shooting back at those doing the shooting is not unreasonable.
The difference is that this Rittenhouse boy had NO BUSINESS taking a gun into a volatile situation he was not prepared/qualified to be in. HE BROUGHT the violence when HE brought the gun. THAT is toxic masculinity - thinking one needs to insert themselves and their lethal weapons into a situation where that lethal weapon and their presences is likely to increase the likelihood of deadly violence.
In the Ukraine case, the violence was already there and they're only returning fire.
Don't know how to help you understand the difference, but there is a significant one.
So, you are now suggesting that my premise is True. That those who bitch about toxic masculinity are now swooning over Zelinsky. Thanks for agreeing with me. FYI, I'm referring to those people who I interact with in various ways, who might not share your views on toxic masculinity and probably wouldn't be thrilled with you trying to speak for them. Perhaps you should just speak for yourself, not try to make it seem like you represent others.
Of course that's what you've always suggested. It fits perfectly with your strict pacifism, and obsession with NVDA.
I'm confused, are you suggesting that the very fact that Rittenhouse was peacefully carrying a gun for the defense of others justifies people attacking him with deadly weapons? That he brought it on himself? The there was absolutely zero potentially deadly violence before Rittenhouse showed up? That's quite a claim. Thank goodness you weren't on the jury.
It's reassuring that you do finally acknowledge that there are some situations where violence is appropriate and necessary. I guess Pearl Harbor/The Philippines didn't quite justify the same response.
Art,
This ability to reconfigure facts in order to support one's biases and prejudices is genius if you ask me. The reality is that Rittenhouse wasn't threatening anyone when he was attacked. The reality is that he hadn't broken any laws with his actions. But clearly some internet rando knows much better than the jury what actually happened.
What are the odds that Dan would pick up a weapon of any kind to defend anything?
I wouldn't wager on any odds where an irrational person like Dan is involved, but I would that he'd rationalize any action he'd take and find a lame way to distinguish it from a case like Rittenhouse, who as a young man with solid, moral and tradionally American principles chose to step up in defense of citizens and businesses threatened by the very people Dan defends.
Craig... "you are now suggesting that my premise is True. That those who bitch about toxic masculinity are now swooning over Zelinsky. Thanks for agreeing with me..."
I'm telling you quite frankly that you have a deep inability to understand words and concepts. You read but don't have understanding.
I don't believe that you're able to understand these other people you're referencing any better than you have demonstrated beyond a doubt you're able to understand my words.
The evidence is the way you keep saying, "so you're saying… " and yet are inevitably ass-backwards wrong.
Excellent job there Dan. Your insistence that you can somehow know more about me and my lived experience than I do is quite the bit of hubris. But hubris is what I expect from you. So, maybe calling you merely doing what is expected of you "Excellent" is a bit of an overstatement, it's more like average.
I don't suppose you see the irony of you - someone who has repeatedly misstated, misunderstood and misrepresented my actual beliefs - calling my misgivings about your understanding (because of MY lived experiences of you misunderstanding me over and over again) hubris?
Speaking of hubris:
"I don't believe that you're able to understand these other people you're referencing any better than you have demonstrated beyond a doubt you're able to understand my words."
Dan supposes he expresses himself intelligibly. But as I always say, we do indeed understand him. He just can't handle how his positions sound when we serve them back to him.
Dan,
This new tactic of simply parroting what I've said, occasionally slightly altered, to make yourself the focus is amusing because of it's complete lack of credibility. The irony is that you have deluded yourself into thinking that you really do know more about me than I know about myself and that your delusions represent reality.
The problem is not that we don't understand Dan's words (hell, I regularly quote them), it's that Dan seems to have secret meanings that only he knows about and that he won't share when questioned about them. Either that, or he's just regurgitating one of his stock complaints without any actual proof that it's accurate.
Post a Comment