Twitter

[wholeheartedly]

No, I literally asked you what you meant and to clarify here. Having to disabuse false claims of strawmen seems to not be an uncommon thing here:



Literally trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.


With regards to your link, which goes to a bronze sculpture art site called John Lopez Studio, BTW, you are talking about the rights surrounding labor unions. If you get a job at Dairy Queen and tell customers that your boss is an idiot and you think he pees in the ice cream, you can't get an injunction because he violated your free speech rights when you are fired.

With regards to Elon Musk, if he is banning people for simply making fun of him, then yes, I agree that would be hypocritical. I wasn't aware of any cases where that occured. I believe you though -- can you link one as I am curious. But it seems like this wasn't your beef, it was his firing of the employees and thus violating their free speech rights, which I disagree with you that I don't think they necessarily have.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides protection to employees who wish to join or form a union and those who engage in union activity. The act also protects employees who engage in a concerted activity.[36] Most employers set forth their workplace rules and policies in an employee handbook. A common provision in those handbooks is a statement that employment with the employer is "at-will". In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board, the federal administrative agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA, instituted two cases attacking at-will employment disclaimers in employee handbooks. The NLRB challenged broadly worded disclaimers, alleging that the statements improperly suggested that employees could not act concertedly to attempt to change the at-will nature of their employment, and thereby interfered with employees' protected rights under the NLRA.

I’ve corrected the link.

my only beef is that all of it makes him hypocritical.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[epidural man]

I saw this on Twitter. Also, Apple isn’t pulling Twitter from their store.

 

[vector2]

Days after Elon Musk declared that “comedy is now legal on Twitter,” the platform banned several comedians for parody tweets in which they impersonated its new owner.

Among the suspended accounts were comic Kathy Griffin and internet personality Ethan Klein, who both had verified “blue check” accounts.

“Yes, I could have ended world hunger instead of buying Twitter,” wrote Klein to his 2.3 million followers, after changing his username to “Elon Musk” and his profile picture to a depiction of the billionaire. “But people don’t understand the importance of having a free and open forum. If somebody dies of starvation in Sudan, it won’t affect the world. But being able to say the N-word on Twitter is a right we all deserve.” Shortly after the tweet was posted, Klein’s account was suspended.
​

Twitter Bans Accounts Mocking 'Free Speech Absolutist' Elon Musk

Days after Elon Musk declared that “comedy is now legal on Twitter,” the platform banned several comedians for parody tweets in which they impersonated its new owner

time.com

The Twitter account for h3h3Productions—a YouTube channel and podcast with 2.3 million followers on Twitter—was banned on Monday morning after changing its display name to "Elon Musk" and switching to an outdated Musk avatar. It also changed its bio to clearly say it was a parody account and even changed its banner to an image that says "parody account."

"Even though Jeffery Epstein committed horrible crimes, I do still miss him on nights like this for his warmth and comradery. Rest In Peace old friend," the h3h3Productions account tweeted while parodying Musk, gaining nearly 2,000 retweets and over 12,000 likes. It was banned afterwards.
​

Twitter Bans Users With Millions of Followers for Making Fun of Elon Musk, Who Famously Loves Free Speech

An account with 2.3 million followers was banned for impersonating Musk even though its bio and header image clearly stated it was a parody.

www.google.com

Champion of "free speech" or hypocritical cry baby?

 

[Gern Blansten]

No, I literally asked you what you meant and to clarify here. Having to disabuse false claims of strawmen seems to not be an uncommon thing here:



Literally trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.


With regards to your link, which goes to a bronze sculpture art site called John Lopez Studio, BTW, you are talking about the rights surrounding labor unions. If you get a job at Dairy Queen and tell customers that your boss is an idiot and you think he pees in the ice cream, you can't get an injunction because he violated your free speech rights when you are fired.

With regards to Elon Musk, if he is banning people for simply making fun of him, then yes, I agree that would be hypocritical. I wasn't aware of any cases where that occured. I believe you though -- can you link one as I am curious. But it seems like this wasn't your beef, it was his firing of the employees and thus violating their free speech rights, which I disagree with you that I don't think they necessarily have.

At-will employment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides protection to employees who wish to join or form a union and those who engage in union activity. The act also protects employees who engage in a concerted activity.[36] Most employers set forth their workplace rules and policies in an employee handbook. A common provision in those handbooks is a statement that employment with the employer is "at-will". In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board, the federal administrative agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA, instituted two cases attacking at-will employment disclaimers in employee handbooks. The NLRB challenged broadly worded disclaimers, alleging that the statements improperly suggested that employees could not act concertedly to attempt to change the at-will nature of their employment, and thereby interfered with employees' protected rights under the NLRA.

I noticed you used the straw man tactic.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I’ve noticed that a lot of celebrities have created this scenario where Elon Musk could have ended world hunger but decided instead to buy Twitter and ruin it. If only there were a name to describe this type of fallacy.
If we think that world hunger could be ended by throwing $40 B at it, wouldn’t the world have already done that?

 

[Southpaw]

I’ve noticed that a lot of celebrities have created this scenario where Elon Musk could have ended world hunger but decided instead to buy Twitter and ruin it. If only there were a name to describe this type of fallacy.
If we think that world hunger could be ended by throwing $40 B at it, wouldn’t the world have already done that?

I don't have, and have never had, a twitter account. Sometimes I regret that as I'll get some cool, interesting links from friends. But certainly at times like this I'm thankful to not be involved. I think it's a shame that Elon can't get past himself and just leave the dumpster fire that is Twitter alone. He did such good work with Tesla. Seriously, @pgg said it right, someone should lock the guy in a room and give him nothing else to work on aside from SpaceX. I think he's just bored and needed a new project which may sound crazy but I can't think of any other reason for him to get involved with Twitter.

 

[deleted1147063]

The truth about Elon is somewhere in the middle (I definitely wouldn't trust the current mainstream media narrative).

I follow many financial and medical Twitter accounts in my newsreader, and everything has been working without a hitch.

And I can take that he has an ego. Who wouldn't have low tolerance for BS and disrespect, after paying $40B?

Netflix co-CEO dubs Elon Musk the 'bravest, most creative person on the planet'

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

"Elon Musk is the bravest, most creative person on the planet," Hastings declared, per CNBC. "What he's done in multiple areas is phenomenal."

Hastings added that he is "100 percent convinced" that Musk "is trying to help the world in all of his endeavors," including his Twitter takeover that led to about half the company's workforce being fired and hundreds of further resignations after Musk demanded they work "long hours at high intensity."

"He believes in free speech and its power for democracy," Hastings said, accusing Musk's critics of being "so nitpicky."

"Yeah, sure, the blue check mark — he's making a mess of some things, or not," Hastings said, referring to the chaotic rollout of paid verified check marks that resulted in a wave of impersonators. "But it's like, give the guy a break!"

 

[MirrorTodd]

The truth about Elon is somewhere in the middle (I definitely wouldn't trust the current mainstream media narrative).

I follow many financial and medical Twitter accounts in my newsreader, and everything has been working without a hitch.

And I can take that he has an ego. Who wouldn't have low tolerance for BS and disrespect, after paying $40B?

Netflix co-CEO dubs Elon Musk the 'bravest, most creative person on the planet'

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

"Elon Musk is the bravest, most creative person on the planet," Hastings declared, per CNBC. "What he's done in multiple areas is phenomenal."

Hastings added that he is "100 percent convinced" that Musk "is trying to help the world in all of his endeavors," including his Twitter takeover that led to about half the company's workforce being fired and hundreds of further resignations after Musk demanded they work "long hours at high intensity."

"He believes in free speech and its power for democracy," Hastings said, accusing Musk's critics of being "so nitpicky."

"Yeah, sure, the blue check mark — he's making a mess of some things, or not," Hastings said, referring to the chaotic rollout of paid verified check marks that resulted in a wave of impersonators. "But it's like, give the guy a break!"

That's one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard. lol

 

[deleted1116990]

If we think that world hunger could be ended by throwing $40 B at it, wouldn’t the world have already done that?

If we could spend 40B to eradicate world hunger it would make sense to ask why we are funneling that precise amount from the American tax base to enrich a corrupt Ukranian autocrat instead of sending to a place like Yemen (which got about 2% of that amount in US aid this year) where far worse atrocities are happening that nobody cares about.

But putting a Ukraine flag emoji about a conflict you don't understand is how you show how good you are on Twitter. Just do that. And buy defense stocks. Because that's where all this is going.

 

[Twiggidy]

If we could spend 40B to eradicate world hunger it would make sense to ask why we are funneling that precise amount from the American tax base to enrich a corrupt Ukranian autocrat instead of sending to a place like Yemen (which got about 2% of that amount in US aid this year) where far worse atrocities are happening that nobody cares about.

But putting an Ukraine flag emoji about a conflict you don't understand is how you show how good you are on Twitter. Just do that. And buy defense stocks. Because that's where all this is going.

You know the answer but that’s a separate derailment of an already hilarious thread. Ya’ll on here arguing about Twitter lol

 

[deleted1147063]

That's one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard. lol

Mine or Hastings's?

 

[deleted1147063]

If we could spend 40B to eradicate world hunger it would make sense to ask why we are funneling that precise amount from the American tax base to enrich a corrupt Ukranian autocrat instead of sending to a place like Yemen (which got about 2% of that amount in US aid this year) where far worse atrocities are happening that nobody cares about.

But putting a Ukraine flag emoji about a conflict you don't understand is how you show how good you are on Twitter. Just do that. And buy defense stocks. Because that's where all this is going.

The Yemeni did not recognize Hunter's genius.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Mine or Hastings's?

Hasting's lol

 

[deleted1147063]

Hasting's lol

As I said, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I have serious doubts about the stories in the media, simply because the man has proven himself multiple times (not that I like him).

I'll take him anytime over some people-pleaser.

 

[pgg]

If we could spend 40B to eradicate world hunger it would make sense to ask why we are funneling that precise amount from the American tax base to enrich a corrupt Ukranian autocrat instead of sending to a place like Yemen (which got about 2% of that amount in US aid this year) where far worse atrocities are happening that nobody cares about.

But putting a Ukraine flag emoji about a conflict you don't understand is how you show how good you are on Twitter. Just do that. And buy defense stocks. Because that's where all this is going.

Seeing $40B spent on Ukraine help them do that much damage to Russia makes me wish it was $80B. I don't care if or how Ukraine is corrupt. They're doing the world a solid service by wrecking Russian military hardware.

Hunger isn't a money problem, but rather a corrupt local government problem. But you knew that.

 

[deleted1116990]

Hunger isn't a money problem, but rather a corrupt local government problem.

This is a gross over-simplification of the cause of the mass famine in Yemen.
Speaking of gross, ok let's give this guy more of our money. There definitely hasn't been funny business within American money and influence in Ukraine in recent years. Nothing suspicious there. Did I just strawman again? Or just sarcasm? Probably a strawman. Sorry in advance!

 

[pgg]

This is a gross over-simplification of the cause of the mass famine in Yemen.

Yemen's been at war, both internally, and kinda-sorta externally with Saudi Arabia for years. That's a political, government problem.

You'd be nuts to think that throwing money at that problem would solve it.

There's no shortage of food in the world. Even with the Ukraine war going on, interrupting grain shipments in that part of the world, there is enough food. Famines in the last few centuries have nearly always been a political problem, unsolvable with money or technology.

Speaking of gross, ok let's give this guy more of our money. There definitely hasn't been funny business within American money and influence in Ukraine in recent years. Nothing suspicious there. Did I just strawman again? Or just sarcasm? Probably a strawman. Sorry in advance!

I don't know how to be clearer, but I'll try -

I'm totally cool with giving Zelensky a personal commission of a $billion for hookers and cocaine if it means Russian military hardware and troops keep getting chewed up. I'd write him a thank-you note and send him a Christmas card if I had an address.

 

[deleted1147063]

Elon Musk suspends Kanye West's Twitter account after swastika post (and not for fat-shaming Musk)

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

 

[pgg]

And another thing

I miss the days when conservatives could be counted on to oppose communists and authoritarian turds like Putin.

Four+ years of President Trump worshiping and talking up Putin has warped your brains.

How you can watch Putin's evil and almost comically incompetent Blyatskrieg LEEEEROY JENKINS incursion into Ukraine, and then decide western military support to help Ukraine turn Russians into sunflower fertilizer is anything but a great thing boggles the mind. You guys are so wrapped up in some Hunter Biden Ukraine board member laptop Zelensky boogeyman you've forgotten that the whole reason we developed and built all these weapons we're giving Ukraine was to shoot Russians as they rolled their sad asses through Poland toward western Europe. That Putin chose a more southerly route to start rebuilding the USSR by force shouldn't blind you to the bigger picture.

In any case, if you're still weepy over our military aid to Ukraine - the honest truth is that the hardware we've given them is probably just a tenth of the reason for Ukraine's successful resistance. Number one, your boy Zelensky's decision to stay and fight instead of living the life of an exile, making speeches from Belgium. And two, after Crimea was taken by that insufferable **** Putin, the Ukrainians got to work remodeling their military in the western/NATO pattern. All the money and time and hardware we gave the Afghans and Iraqis was just wasted, but the Ukrainians were motivated learners.

As sad and ashamed as I was of the Afghan capitulation to the Taliban four minutes after we left, I am equally and oppositely proud to see Ukraine took our military advisors' training to heart and are now kicking the Russians' asses.

Our involvement in Ukraine the last decade has been the single greatest foreign policy success story of the last several decades. We've forged a lasting partnership with an anti-authoritarian people who care to fight for their own future. Everything the neocons hoped Iraq would become when we toppled Saddam Hussein, the Ukrainians have actually realized.

And you partisan hacks can't get your brains past Hunter Biden. FFS get a grip.

 

[deleted1116990]

Yemen's been at war, both internally, and kinda-sorta externally with Saudi Arabia for years. That's a political, government problem.

You'd be nuts to think that throwing money at that problem would solve it.

There's no shortage of food in the world. Even with the Ukraine war going on, interrupting grain shipments in that part of the world, there is enough food. Famines in the last few centuries have nearly always been a political problem, unsolvable with money or technology.


I don't know how to be clearer, but I'll try -

I'm totally cool with giving Zelensky a personal commission of a $billion for hookers and cocaine if it means Russian military hardware and troops keep getting chewed up. I'd write him a thank-you note and send him a Christmas card if I had an address.

No, I heard you. You were very clear. I just completely disagree with you, and you are still way oversimplifying the geopolitical situation in Yemen and that surrounding the strait of Bab el mandeb. How many Americans know about the atrocities in Yemen? How many in Ukraine? Why do you think that is? And speaking of authoritarian communists should we even talk about China, the elephant in the room that makes Russia look like a flea?

You are also way oversimplifying the situation in Ukraine and regurgitating the unprovoked aggression false narrative. There are two sides to that story.

With regards to directing the firehose of American tax dollars to foreign conflicts, lets look at what all of the money we spent in Afghanistan got us. And basically every other foreign conflict after World War 2 and the false flags and propaganda to sell them to the public surrounding nearly all of them (watch Oliver Stone's An Untold History of the United States for an entertaining primer). Somebody is profiting from getting involved in these FUBAR'ed quagmires, and I suspect you know who it is.

We will never agree on this. Zelensky is a POS. Yeah, so is Putin. Got it. I'm aware. This is about way more than Hunter Biden, but continue on with that strawman, and the rest of the public, who don't even know what NATO is, can keep spouting nonsense and wearing Ukraine lapel pins supporting entanglement and further provocation in a conflict they know nothing about. It's so gross.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

, lets look at what all of the money we spent in Afghanistan got us.

Playing a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union? Seems money well spent to me.

 

[deleted1147063]

Playing a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union? Seems money well spent to me.

It didn't.

The USSR collapsed because the Eastern Bloc collapsed, which had nothing to do with the Afghanistan war, more with Gorbachev tolerating the democratic freedom movements in the communist countries, without going full Iran or China on them as in 1956 or 1968. A lot of those regimes were toppled in 1988-89, while the USSR was still powerful. Gorbachev's Nobel Peace Prize was probably the most deserved one in history.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Typical right wing snowflake talking point. Twitter has for sure declined with much more garbage on there now but a left-wing “meltdown” just isn’t there. I assume you are in favor of him reinstating Kanye West?

I guess he’s gone now. Even Elon has his limits.

 

[Twiggidy]

And another thing

I miss the days when conservatives could be counted on to oppose communists and authoritarian turds like Putin.

Four+ years of President Trump worshiping and talking up Putin has warped your brains.

How you can watch Putin's evil and almost comically incompetent Blyatskrieg LEEEEROY JENKINS incursion into Ukraine, and then decide western military support to help Ukraine turn Russians into sunflower fertilizer is anything but a great thing boggles the mind. You guys are so wrapped up in some Hunter Biden Ukraine board member laptop Zelensky boogeyman you've forgotten that the whole reason we developed and built all these weapons we're giving Ukraine was to shoot Russians as they rolled their sad asses through Poland toward western Europe. That Putin chose a more southerly route to start rebuilding the USSR by force shouldn't blind you to the bigger picture.

In any case, if you're still weepy over our military aid to Ukraine - the honest truth is that the hardware we've given them is probably just a tenth of the reason for Ukraine's successful resistance. Number one, your boy Zelensky's decision to stay and fight instead of living the life of an exile, making speeches from Belgium. And two, after Crimea was taken by that insufferable **** Putin, the Ukrainians got to work remodeling their military in the western/NATO pattern. All the money and time and hardware we gave the Afghans and Iraqis was just wasted, but the Ukrainians were motivated learners.

As sad and ashamed as I was of the Afghan capitulation to the Taliban four minutes after we left, I am equally and oppositely proud to see Ukraine took our military advisors' training to heart and are now kicking the Russians' asses.

Our involvement in Ukraine the last decade has been the single greatest foreign policy success story of the last several decades. We've forged a lasting partnership with an anti-authoritarian people who care to fight for their own future. Everything the neocons hoped Iraq would become when we toppled Saddam Hussein, the Ukrainians have actually realized.

And you partisan hacks can't get your brains past Hunter Biden. FFS get a grip.

No, I heard you. You were very clear. I just completely disagree with you, and you are still way oversimplifying the geopolitical situation in Yemen and that surrounding the strait of Bab el mandeb. How many Americans know about the atrocities in Yemen? How many in Ukraine? Why do you think that is? And speaking of authoritarian communists should we even talk about China, the elephant in the room that makes Russia look like a flea?

You are also way oversimplifying the situation in Ukraine and regurgitating the unprovoked aggression false narrative. There are two sides to that story.

With regards to directing the firehose of American tax dollars to foreign conflicts, lets look at what all of the money we spent in Afghanistan got us. And basically every other foreign conflict after World War 2 and the false flags and propaganda to sell them to the public surrounding nearly all of them (watch Oliver Stone's An Untold History of the United States for an entertaining primer). Somebody is profiting from getting involved in these FUBAR'ed quagmires, and I suspect you know who it is.

We will never agree on this. Zelensky is a POS. Yeah, so is Putin. Got it. I'm aware. This is about way more than Hunter Biden, but continue on with that strawman, and the rest of the public, who don't even know what NATO is, can keep spouting nonsense and wearing Ukraine lapel pins supporting entanglement and further provocation in a conflict they know nothing about. It's so gross.

The thing is, there's a nuanced discussion where certain points that both you are making are correct and it starts to seem like you're arguing past one another. I see both sides here absolutely. My first thought when I saw Yemen brought up was, "Yep. Imagine if Nigeria decided to invade Ghana for some odd reason." I'm willing to bet our government would be the Seinfeld "That's a shame" meme and highly doubt I'd see Ghanian flags hanging outside West Village windows, but again, discussion for another thread, but that's generally the "What about Yemen?" point. In contrast, I 100% agree with that conservatives suddenly defending Russia and shaming the current government for helping prevent what looks like a slow burn start of World War 3 (even if that is a bit hyperbolic) is odd if not hypocritical. It just shows that currently, in this country, it's more important WHO's side you're on than being on the side of what's right. In Biden's case he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, because if he's he helps then he's wasting (arguable) American tax dollars, but if he doesn't, he's a weak President.

I'll dismount by saying I don't not claim to be an authority of Eastern European politics or Middle Eastern politics.

 

[deleted1116990]

Playing a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union? Seems money well spent to me.

I think you know that wasn't the specific US involvement in Afghanistan I was talking about. But if you want to talk about the ramifications of the US supporting Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, go for it. The US involvement to prevent Soviet encroachment in Southeast Asia and Latin America worked out real well too. The Cold war ended a very long time ago along with the Soviet Boogeyman. Their country's GDP is pathetic. They are not emerging into a top world power any time soon. Reality check.

Regardless, looks like I'm pretty alone in the echo chamber on this topic and the permawar hawks on both sides will never be convinced otherwise. So I will bow out. And I know the small group that thinks like me will lose. So load up on LMT and NOC.

 

[Twiggidy]

Playing a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union? Seems money well spent to me.

I think he was referring to the '00s Afghanistan situation

 

[deleted1116990]

I 100% agree with that conservatives suddenly defending Russia and shaming the current government for helping prevent what looks like a slow burn start of World War 3 (even if that is a bit hyperbolic) is odd if not hypocritical.

There are those of us (all over the political spectrum) who were vehemently opposed to the Bush-era Iraq and Afghanistan wars and were highly suspicious of the rationale for getting involved in those conflicts. And again can see the absolute f---ery that is going on in Eastern Europe.

 

[Twiggidy]

It didn't.

The USSR collapsed because the Eastern Bloc collapsed, which had nothing to do with the Afghanistan war, more with Gorbachev tolerating the democratic freedom movements in the communist countries, without going full Iran or China on them as in 1956 or 1968. A lot of those regimes were toppled in 1988-89, while the USSR was still powerful.

Agree

 

[deleted1147063]

In case of Ukraine, I think one should also look at the military-industrial complex. We are not spending hundreds of billions just to prop up democracy in a remote part of the world (to us). It's not like Russia would attack NATO next.

It's funny that the left, which whines from reducing taxes for the rich even by 1%, has no problems putting much more money in their pockets. Because we're supporting "justice".

God forbid somebody questions the rationale of sinking those hundreds of billions there, instead of investing in our own citizens.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

It didn't.

The USSR collapsed because the Eastern Bloc collapsed, which had nothing to do with the Afghanistan war, more with Gorbachev tolerating the democratic freedom movements in the communist countries, without going full Iran or China on them as in 1956 or 1968. A lot of those regimes were toppled in 1988-89, while the USSR was still powerful. Gorbachev's Nobel Peace Prize was probably the most deserved one in history.

Yes it did:

The War in Afghanistan and its Effects on the Soviet Economy | Guided History

blogs.bu.edu

Afghanistan: Soviet Withdrawal Hastened Collapse Of Communism

Prague, 15 February 1999 (RFE/RL) -- Ten years ago today, the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan in the final act of a war which sped the collapse of the Soviet Union and so destabilized Afghanistan that it has remained in conflict ever since. The withdrawal ended a debacle for the Soviet...

www.rferl.org

https://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf

That last link is the best but its long and somewhat dull.

 

[deleted1116990]

Yes it did:

The War in Afghanistan and its Effects on the Soviet Economy | Guided History

blogs.bu.edu

Afghanistan: Soviet Withdrawal Hastened Collapse Of Communism

Prague, 15 February 1999 (RFE/RL) -- Ten years ago today, the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan in the final act of a war which sped the collapse of the Soviet Union and so destabilized Afghanistan that it has remained in conflict ever since. The withdrawal ended a debacle for the Soviet...

www.rferl.org

https://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf

That last link is the best but its long and somewhat dull.

If you google "did afghanistan cause the collapse of the soviet union" you get all three of those links on the very first page (out of curiosity, I wanted to see what this would result in given the tendency in online debates to just google a bunch of stuff to cherry pick support for the argument you have posted). I am sure you were familiar with these three specific articles previously.

Interestingly, you did not post the links suggesting it did not: The Soviet Experience in Afghanistan: Getting History Right
Or was multifactorial: THE QUICKSAND OF AFGHANISTAN: THE IMPACT OF THE AFGHANISTAN WAR ON THE BREAKUP OF THE SOVIET UNION | ANIL ÇİÇEK | IJORS International Journal of Russian Studies

The collapse of the Soviet Union was obviously multifactorial, largely economic due to incredibly stupid policy, and it's a real stretch to imply that the more dramatic cessation desires of the Eastern republics would not have happened without Afghanistan. Certainly the Soviet war in Afghanistan was not an inconsequential event, but it's nuts to suggest the USSR would still be around if they had not gotten involved there. Regardless, that's one heck of a derail as it was obvious I was talking about the US involvement post 9/11. Well done.

 

[Bryan O’Blivion]

And another thing

I miss the days when conservatives could be counted on to oppose communists and authoritarian turds like Putin.

Four+ years of President Trump worshiping and talking up Putin has warped your brains.

How you can watch Putin's evil and almost comically incompetent Blyatskrieg LEEEEROY JENKINS incursion into Ukraine, and then decide western military support to help Ukraine turn Russians into sunflower fertilizer is anything but a great thing boggles the mind. You guys are so wrapped up in some Hunter Biden Ukraine board member laptop Zelensky boogeyman you've forgotten that the whole reason we developed and built all these weapons we're giving Ukraine was to shoot Russians as they rolled their sad asses through Poland toward western Europe. That Putin chose a more southerly route to start rebuilding the USSR by force shouldn't blind you to the bigger picture.

In any case, if you're still weepy over our military aid to Ukraine - the honest truth is that the hardware we've given them is probably just a tenth of the reason for Ukraine's successful resistance. Number one, your boy Zelensky's decision to stay and fight instead of living the life of an exile, making speeches from Belgium. And two, after Crimea was taken by that insufferable **** Putin, the Ukrainians got to work remodeling their military in the western/NATO pattern. All the money and time and hardware we gave the Afghans and Iraqis was just wasted, but the Ukrainians were motivated learners.

As sad and ashamed as I was of the Afghan capitulation to the Taliban four minutes after we left, I am equally and oppositely proud to see Ukraine took our military advisors' training to heart and are now kicking the Russians' asses.

Our involvement in Ukraine the last decade has been the single greatest foreign policy success story of the last several decades. We've forged a lasting partnership with an anti-authoritarian people who care to fight for their own future. Everything the neocons hoped Iraq would become when we toppled Saddam Hussein, the Ukrainians have actually realized.

And you partisan hacks can't get your brains past Hunter Biden. FFS get a grip.

I’ve read this 5-6 times now. Well said. I salute you, sir.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

If you google "did afghanistan cause the collapse of the soviet union" you get all three of those links on the very first page (out of curiosity, I wanted to see what this would result in given the tendency in online debates to just google a bunch of stuff to cherry pick support for the argument you have posted). I am sure you were familiar with these three specific articles previously.

Interestingly, you did not post the links suggesting it did not: The Soviet Experience in Afghanistan: Getting History Right
Or was multifactorial: THE QUICKSAND OF AFGHANISTAN: THE IMPACT OF THE AFGHANISTAN WAR ON THE BREAKUP OF THE SOVIET UNION | ANIL ÇİÇEK | IJORS International Journal of Russian Studies

The collapse of the Soviet Union was obviously multifactorial, largely economic due to incredibly stupid policy, and it's a real stretch to imply that the more dramatic cessation desires of the Eastern republics would not have happened without Afghanistan. Certainly the Soviet war in Afghanistan was not an inconsequential event, but it's nuts to suggest the USSR would still be around if they had not gotten involved there. Regardless, that's one heck of a derail as it was obvious I was talking about the US involvement post 9/11. Well done.

More or less. I'd read a book on the subject several years ago but didn't feel like going home and transcribing the pertinent parts so did a quick and dirty Google search.

I didn't need to post any articles saying it was multifactorial because my initial post said it played a role, not that it played the sole role.

Playing a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union? Seems money well spent to me.

Playing a role, not the sole role or the only role. Obviously it was multifactorial, I thought that was pretty much universally agreed upon.

Moving on...

Your first article doesn't seem complete.

Let's take this part: "The Soviet Union crumbled because of a complex set of reasons that included: political and ideological factors, including years of relentless suppression of political opposition followed by Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring); economic challenges from a state-run economy; military factors, including the country’s exorbitant defense spending; and social factors like endemic corruption and the desire of ethnic communities in Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Western republics, and the Baltics to become independent."

I agree with that completely, and your 2nd article (and my 3rd) do a decent job of explaining how Afghanistan contributed to much of that. The first article ignoring how Afghanistan influencing so many of those factors is a bit weird.

 

[deleted1116990]

Well if nothing else we are all refreshed on our history of the Soviet Union in that era, although I'm sure there is someone who did a master's thesis on this who will drop by and own everyone. I am far from an expert on this topic but somewhat informed and averse to simple thinking of X happened because Y: We invaded Iraq because we wanted oil, the USSR collapsed because they invaded Afghanistan, Trump got elected because the Russians hacked the election, Putin invaded Ukraine because he is a simply a bully who wants to steal sovereign land, etc. It's always more complicated. However, when there is fighting, it is always a massive boon to defense contractors, maybe that's a coincidence.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Well if nothing else we are all refreshed on our history of the Soviet Union in that era, although I'm sure there is someone who did a master's thesis on this who will drop by and own everyone. I am far from an expert on this topic but somewhat informed and averse to simple thinking of X happened because Y: We invaded Iraq because we wanted oil, the USSR collapsed because they invaded Afghanistan, Trump got elected because the Russians hacked the election, Putin invaded Ukraine because he is a simply a bully who wants to steal sovereign land, etc. It's always more complicated. However, when there is fighting, it is always a massive boon to defense contractors, maybe that's a coincidence.

Agreed, its almost never a simple X because of Y.

Interestingly, Gorbachev tried to blame the collapse in large part on Chernobyl (which from an economic perspective has merit) but in the same interview on the subject he tried to say this his perestroika didn't really impact things as much so it makes that whole point somewhat suspect.

 

[deleted1147063]

And another thing

I miss the days when conservatives could be counted on to oppose communists and authoritarian turds like Putin.

Four+ years of President Trump worshiping and talking up Putin has warped your brains.

How you can watch Putin's evil and almost comically incompetent Blyatskrieg LEEEEROY JENKINS incursion into Ukraine, and then decide western military support to help Ukraine turn Russians into sunflower fertilizer is anything but a great thing boggles the mind. You guys are so wrapped up in some Hunter Biden Ukraine board member laptop Zelensky boogeyman you've forgotten that the whole reason we developed and built all these weapons we're giving Ukraine was to shoot Russians as they rolled their sad asses through Poland toward western Europe. That Putin chose a more southerly route to start rebuilding the USSR by force shouldn't blind you to the bigger picture.

In any case, if you're still weepy over our military aid to Ukraine - the honest truth is that the hardware we've given them is probably just a tenth of the reason for Ukraine's successful resistance. Number one, your boy Zelensky's decision to stay and fight instead of living the life of an exile, making speeches from Belgium. And two, after Crimea was taken by that insufferable **** Putin, the Ukrainians got to work remodeling their military in the western/NATO pattern. All the money and time and hardware we gave the Afghans and Iraqis was just wasted, but the Ukrainians were motivated learners.

As sad and ashamed as I was of the Afghan capitulation to the Taliban four minutes after we left, I am equally and oppositely proud to see Ukraine took our military advisors' training to heart and are now kicking the Russians' asses.

Our involvement in Ukraine the last decade has been the single greatest foreign policy success story of the last several decades. We've forged a lasting partnership with an anti-authoritarian people who care to fight for their own future. Everything the neocons hoped Iraq would become when we toppled Saddam Hussein, the Ukrainians have actually realized.

And you partisan hacks can't get your brains past Hunter Biden. FFS get a grip.

I sincerely hope you're right. But I think you're way too optimistic. I don't want to be rude, but it's very typical of the US to get into a conflict without understanding local histories and customs. Americans are naive. There is a saying in developing countries, about foreign aid: we say like them and do like us. The way Sam Bankman-Fried fooled everybody, by saying all the right things.

First of all, Ukraine is a big country. And only half of them want Western-type democracy, the other half have nostalgias. And they will have even bigger nostalgias after the war, because they will be poor. And their young people will probably stay abroad if they can, because YOLO and for the sake of their children.

Even after the war, Ukraine will cost a sh1t ton before becoming a success. And we have our own financial problems, if you haven't noticed our national debt, which will start costing much more if the interest rates stay high. What bothers me the most is that, again, the EU is paying mostly lip service, while we are spending some serious money. Like with NATO (Trump had a point). And it's not like this country doesn't need some serious money, too, for its poorest citizens.

And again, I'll get back to customs, traditions, mentalities. That's Eastern Eastern Europe. It's orthodox. It's more of a bazaar mentality than the Western cathedral type. It's more corrupt, less democracy-loving. Translation: Ukraine will be a big money pit, the military-industrial complex and some big corporations will become richer, and all of us poorer.

When a country is relatively (un)successful historically, there are usually cultural and historical reasons. And it takes a lot of time (many decades/centuries) and money to change those, because... TRADITION. One can take somebody out of his country, but not his country out of him. That's why American democracy survived despite Trump.

 

[MirrorTodd]

I sincerely hope you're right. But I think you're way too optimistic. I don't want to be rude, but it's very typical of the US to get into a conflict without understanding local histories and customs. Americans are naive. There is a saying in developing countries, about foreign aid: we say like them and do like us. The way Sam Bankman-Fried fooled everybody, by saying all the right things.

First of all, Ukraine is a big country. And only half of them want Western-type democracy, the other half have nostalgias. And they will have even bigger nostalgias after the war, because they will be poor. And their young people will probably stay abroad if they can, because YOLO and for the sake of their children.

Even after the war, Ukraine will cost a sh1t ton before becoming a success. And we have our own financial problems, if you haven't noticed our national debt, which will start costing much more if the interest rates stay high. What bothers me the most is that, again, the EU is paying mostly lip service, while we are spending some serious money. Like with NATO (Trump had a point). And it's not like this country doesn't need some serious money, too, for its poorest citizens.

And again, I'll get back to customs, traditions, mentalities. That's Eastern Eastern Europe. It's orthodox. It's more of a bazaar mentality than the Western cathedral type. It's more corrupt, less democracy-loving. Translation: Ukraine will be a big money pit, the military-industrial complex and some big corporations will become richer, and all of us poorer.

When a country is relatively (un)successful historically, there are usually cultural and historical reasons. And it takes a lot of time (many decades/centuries) and money to change those, because... TRADITION. One can take somebody out of his country, but not his country out of him. That's why American democracy survived despite Trump.

That's why American democracy survived so far.

 

[LaryngoSpazz]

Looking forward to the discussion on election interference by Twitter et al by suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. Musk just released a bunch of Twitter internal communication on the subject…

 

[agammaglobulin]

This $hit is unbelievable. Biden reps literally messaging Twitter with tweets to delete. And Twitter deleting them.

 

[nimbus]

It’s over.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

This $hit is unbelievable. Biden reps literally messaging Twitter with tweets to delete. And Twitter deleting them.

U mean the hunter biden dick pics?

 

[chessknt]

This $hit is unbelievable. Biden reps literally messaging Twitter with tweets to delete. And Twitter deleting them.

What were in the tweets that got deleted?

 

[vector2]

What were in the tweets that got deleted?

1st tweet says Hunter Biden planted the pre-rigged explosives that knocked down Building 7. 2nd tweet says one of Hillary's 30,000,000 deleted emails had the proof.

 

[agammaglobulin]

What were in the tweets that got deleted?

As far as I can tell, info around Hunter Bidens laptop and Ukraine connection that was being released close to the time of the 2020 election. But it also seems Biden team would send requests and Twitter admin would “handle it”.

They banned NY Post for almost a month immediately prior to the election in 2020 for “fake news” reporting on Hunter Biden. Which was an accurate, factual story.

Also, Twitter banned Kaleigh McEnany for reporting the Hunter Biden story prior to the election. She was the White House press secretary.

Those two are the most high profile examples. But they also deleted and shadow banned many others tweeting about Bidens (as I showed and is reported on Twitter tonight).

Much of this done, it appears, at the request of Bidens team direct connection w Twitter.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Info being reported through Matt Taibbi on Twitter. He supplies all names and copies of internal documents.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

 

[vector2]

 

[LaryngoSpazz]

1st tweet says Hunter Biden planted the pre-rigged explosives that knocked down Building 7. 2nd tweet says one of Hillary's 30,000,000 deleted emails had the proof.

Glad to see you are taking this seriously after we spent years on Russians influencing the 2016 election

 

[vector2]

Glad to see you are taking this seriously after we spent years on Russians influencing the 2016 election

I'm giving it the seriousness it deserves (almost zero).

In regard to the latter thing you're trying to make a both sides equivalency with, I'll quote myself from another thread

But if you ever get out of that bubble, you'll learn that besides trump coming right out on national TV and saying "Russia, if you're listening..." ....beyond Paul Manafort going to jail for laundering Russian oligarch money.....beyond Don Jr [who unlike Hunter became a White House employee after the election] saying *in writing* he'd welcome Russian dirt on hillary... there was just an insane amount of smoke that was eminently worthy of inquiry and investigation.
​

 

[LaryngoSpazz]

I'm giving it the seriousness it deserves (almost zero).

In regard to the latter thing you're trying to make a both sides equivalency with, I'll quote myself from another thread

​

But if you ever get out of that bubble, you'll learn that besides trump coming right out on national TV and saying "Russia, if you're listening..." ....beyond Paul Manafort going to jail for laundering Russian oligarch money.....beyond Don Jr [who unlike Hunter became a White House employee after the election] saying *in writing* he'd welcome Russian dirt on hillary... there was just an insane amount of smoke that was eminently worthy of inquiry and investigation.​

​

Ok I could argue a lot of your facts above but let me just grant you that it was worthy of an investigation. Why would this hunter Biden story be any different? You already said you give it zero credence. Why?

Let’s review some facts:
Hunter is Joe’s son
He struggles with drug addiction
He is involved with many business dealings abroad for which he lacks the requisite experience
He has been paid very well for those dealings
There are emails where he offers to make introductions to his father.
There are emails which describe payment terms to hunter (H) and Joe (the big guy).
During these dealings Biden was VP.
There are others like Tony Bobilinski who have corroborated these business dealings
The laptop story which was run in the NYPost was actively suppressed by many media outlets including twitter. Now we know biden’s team directly asked for this to happen
When asked about this before the election Biden himself did not deny any wrongdoing but said the story was Russian disinformation (clearly a lie given what we know now)

What of the above do you disagree with and why would this not be worthy of investigating?

 

[agammaglobulin]

Ok I could argue a lot of your facts above but let me just grant you that it was worthy of an investigation. Why would this hunter Biden story be any different? You already said you give it zero credence. Why?

Let’s review some facts:
Hunter is Joe’s son
He struggles with drug addiction
He is involved with many business dealings abroad for which he lacks the requisite experience
He has been paid very well for those dealings
There are emails where he offers to make introductions to his father.
There are emails which describe payment terms to hunter (H) and Joe (the big guy).
During these dealings Biden was VP.
There are others like Tony Bobilinski who have corroborated these business dealings
The laptop story which was run in the NYPost was actively suppressed by many media outlets including twitter. Now we know biden’s team directly asked for this to happen
When asked about this before the election Biden himself did not deny any wrongdoing but said the story was Russian disinformation (clearly a lie given what we know now)

What of the above do you disagree with and why would this not be worthy of investigating?

And Hunter got paid $50,000 per month to be on the board of a Ukrainian oil company. The dude has no qualifications other than being Joe Bidens son. Nothing to see here…