Yes stranger on the internet, the most decorated investigative journalist alive has "gotten sloppy' you say. So who's more credible here, the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, reported on Watergate and the secret bombing of Cambodia, won a Pulitzer and a record five Polk awards, or you, some anonymous commenter on the internet, laughably calling it "weak", "cautioning" against it? You don't think other bootlickers in the past have called his reports on My Lai, Cambodia or Abu Ghraib "weak"?
First you say "they'll never directly come out and say they support Russia, but their criticisms against either countries are one sided against Ukraine, and it's extremely rare they'll say anything about Russia"
But then you also write: "I've not seen any "pro war news". I see news on the war, but I doubt there's many people who want the war."
In this not pro-war news, but "news on the war" that you see, is their criticisms towards Russia maybe one-sided? Would it be fair to say that they'll extremely rarely portray the US and Nato negatively in this war? Why is it that you do not view one-sided reporting from your side of the fence as being pro-war, characterizing it as just "news on the war" as if it's just naturally reporting the facts? Do you not see how that's hypocritical?
I'm firmly against defederating anyone. It's sad that so many just want to remove voices they don't like from a public forum. I believe that we should avoid defederating at all costs, it should be the absolute last measure contemplated after everything else fails. I didn't like their posts for a couple of weeks doesn't even come close to being a good reason IMO.
Ditto, the unapologetic attitude is something I often miss on the left. Everyone on reddit seemed to hold back so that they wouldn't get dog piled by the reactionaries. This is refreshing. Of course there's a lot I don't agree with, but I'm old and most people on there are young I imagine. I used to sometimes say brash and idiotic things when I was younger too. Their heart seems to be in the right place, and the left needs a counterweight to balance the right's efforts to effectively monopolize mainstream online discourse.
Shitting on lemme.ee because of one commenter is about as reasonable as hating on hexbear because of some trolls. Why don't you two just attack each other personally instead of dragging your instances into it? Maybe, just maybe, you guys being immature doesn't represent your whole instance and is just representative of your own shitty attitudes.
ITT: reactionaries being completely oblivious of what Sartre stood for.
How hard could it be to find out that Sartre was a communist? It's like quoting an anti-Semitic speech by Adolf and saying "just change 'jew' to 'nazi' below". This is impressively stupid stuff.
So, no evidence of genocide then. Why are you acting so dense? You know the difference between war crimes and genocide right? No one is denying wear crimes occur, but you just insist on focusing on one side's war crimes and elevating them to the level of genocide despite even institutions controlled by the west denying there's a genocide. And you completely ignore or obfuscate the war crimes of the side you support. Who's being dishonest here? Who's being weaselly?
Reactionaries quoting Sartre is just chef's kiss. They just want to silence any opposition to Nato raping every nation deemed to be non western. It's always the same shit. You were against the invasion of Iraq? SADDAM SUPPORTER! Opposed the Afghanistan invasion? PRACTICALLY A MEMBER OF TALIBAN!
"Either you're with us or you're with the enemy" has always been their mode of operation, and whaddya know, the whole world turns out to be the enemy, because no one outside of Europe wants to be with them.
