41–50 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
There's very little "misinformation" about him at all. He's cased, and cased correctly. Your own cite demonstrates it amply. You struck me as better than buying this shit. You don't have to care, but I am disappointed.
Also in that article: Dan Lyons is a Milo Yiannopoulos pen pal, who seemed to be obsessed with the gender of GamerGate harrasment victims. He just deleted his Twitter account in reaction to the publication of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying there are no witch hunts on the American right? (Pizzagate, Benghazi, emails?) Nobody with a stable and lucrative career in these witch hunts? (Alex Jones, most of Fox News?) No hobbyists who enjoy witch-hunting on the weekend? (Again Pizzagate - an extreme case of the right-wing “do your own research to pierce the media veil” bullshit rabbit hole.) If that’s not what you’re saying, why is the actual p…
But I could replace your “pizzagate, Benghazi, emails” with “pissgate, Russia, tax returns”. This is a non partisan issue.
Pizzagate - demented and wholly made-up
Benghazi - thoroughly debunked in Congressional hearings
emails - no criminality and no exposure of classified information
vs real news:
pissgate - a well-respected expert on Russian dirty tricks claims among other things that Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to pee on each other. Some of those other claims have been corroborated - and we found out today that the special counsel investigating Trump's Russian connections (a Republican) has met with the author.
Russia - Trump's family, campaign officials, and appointees met with Russian operatives and lied about it repeatedly. His campaign manager offered private briefings to Putin's close ally. His sons bragged about Russian funding that Trump denies.
tax returns - Trump, who has a long well-documented history of shady financing and unsavory deal-making, would have rather lost the election than reveal where his money comes from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't he a straight up monarchist?
[deleted]
I was intrigued by a Moldbug comment (i.e., conveyed by MM himself) on a high-quality politics blog about a decade ago, and followed it up with extensive reading of his site.
Contrary to the comment above, I would recommend NOT diving into Moldbug's works. It really is reactionary bullshit, obliquely conveyed, which piques interest ("just what does he mean by this..."). The intrigue is all in the showmanship - which is considerable, I'll admit.
It is simply a waste of time. I say this as someone who reads a lot, a subscriber to NYRB (where OP was published), and has a lot of patience with unraveling complex ideas, blah, blah, blah. It is valuable time that you won't get back.
Then something cannot be described, it does not become a fact of shared reality. Hundreds of millions of Soviet citizens had an experience of the thing that could not be described, but I would argue that they did not share that experience, because they had no language for doing so. This is a very good point, but is I think a bit obscured because it seems to mistake the map for the territory. I think what the writer i…
The conversation ends up being "is is shitty? yeah its shitty. fuck it." which is the exact state of being that led to trump being elected.
Regarding NPR's choice of words: it is in fact quite common to avoid very direct accusations in politics and news. I really doubt the author came about this for the first time ever, but rather wonder if he detested it as much each and every time earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there is no coherent rightist opposition ... A common tactic of any populist group is to paint itself as a persecuted outsider. The far right and right have possibly never been stronger in the West, in fact. Throughout Europe, right-wing parties run government and far right parties have never had more power since perhaps WWII (and run government themselves in some countries). In the U.S., there is a large, coherent…
> There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); The Kochs fund far-right publications? Which ones? They seem explicitly not far right, or even really right at all.