|
Bored As gently caress posted:Please don't take this as an attack, because I'm genuinely curious about your position. I just don't understand people with your point of view. Do you think intervention is NEVER a good thing? I think it’s more that if you look at the outcomes when we do intervene, be it with boots on the ground, air campaigns, or through funding and supporting state or non-state actors, the results seem to consistently result in a greater disaster than the status quo. This is true in Libya, obviously, and also Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout Central America. Our intervention in Syria has been a disaster and I’m unconvinced a larger intervention wouldn’t be another Libya or Iraq. So do we stop the horror, or do we inevitably break everything even more than it’s already broken. I’m not particularly keen on whitewashing or ignoring the very real human rights catastrophes we use to justify intervention, I’m simply unconvinced our involvement does anything other than make everything worse. It’s conceivable to me that an intervention might be done in a way that’s a net positive, but it would take frontlining certain values, values that US and European intervention does not tend to frontline (except rhetorically). Instead, our interventions consider first what’s in our interests and what we can extract of value. Any intervention predicated on those considerations is doomed.
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Yeah, I agree with most of this. In my opinion, we have just screwed up the interventions because we don't listen to the people on the ground, and the subject matter experts. We don't plan correctly for second and third order effects. I believe we had opportunities to make the interventions work, if we did them correctly, but either through incompetence (Iraq, Afghanistan), outside domestic political factors (Libya - Obama being held back by the GOP), or sheer stupidity, we bungle them more often than not. The problem is our attention is almost always focused on the "war," when winning the "peace" is much more difficult, time consuming, resource-intensive, and complicated. I'm not sure I agree that Libya was limited by the GOP. I think that the goals of the intervention were to remove Qaddafi and to take control of the mineral resources as inexpensively as possible. This did not work out very well in the long term. Interestingly, this is one of the not very many places where Joe Biden and I align, lmao Edit: and to avoid being misunderstood, I don't see how a larger invasion of Libya would have worked out any better, nor do I see a more limited intervention having worked out better. All possibilities would have expanded the immiseration of the people. Which isn't to say that there aren't people who benefit. And it's not to say that there aren't people who would have been much worse off who are put in a much better place. But on the whole everything seems much, much worse. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
GunFondler42069 posted:i don't think a larger invasion of Libya would have been the answer but I do think better and more extensive humanitarian aid could've secured the people there a better situation than they currently have. that said I don't think the situation in Libya is as cut and dried as some make it out to be. A much higher percentage of the population of Syria has died fighting Assad than have died in Libya since Qaddafi's ouster, and a lot of the takes that Libya was particularly stable and safe prior ignore an awful lot of horrible poo poo. For example, folks tend to ignore the absolutely nightmarish treatment of migrants attempting to make it to Europe by the Qaddafi regime: Using migrants to justify Libya isn’t particularly compelling as the situation remains as bad or worse. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/libya-new-evidence-shows-refugees-and-migrants-trapped-in-horrific-cycle-of-abuses/ Further, you can always find a sympathetic case to justify intervention. Governments are oppressive and I don’t know how you get around that. The only thing stopping any country from being invaded is hard and soft power and how much anyone cares about what that country has. In fact, this can be seen quite clearly in where we intervene and where we wring our hands at the horror (say Myanmar or Sri Lanka). Or where we just outright back the wrong side like in Israel or Yemen The question is whether the intervention can feasibly be expected to resolve the human rights issue without creating greater chaos that ultimately leads to more death and destruction than the underlying justification. It’s impossible to see the US, especially with the underlying motives that inform where interventions occur, ever doing more good than harm. We invade for our interests and in the interest of resource extraction and global capital. When that’s your underlying motive you’re interventions will be planned and executed in a way that takes human life into account. So I don’t see a US intervention helping. Syria is a horror but the US can’t fix it, anymore than we could have fixed for example Cambodia. I’m not saying the Vietnamese did it the right way either (although British and quite possibly US direct support of the Khmer Rouge didn’t help at all) but the US had no place there and could only have made everything worse. I’m confident the same is true of Syria and Venezuela. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jan 20, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Marijuana posted:Who are you talking about, homie? There’s a pretty clear orthodoxy that before we can be critical of US imperialism, the nation that the majority of us are residents of and ostensibly are represented by, and that we theoretically have some influence in the actions of, we must first ensure our geopolitical rivals are taken down. Charges of whataboutism get tossed back and forth and that’s that. That’s kind of how these things go
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
I’ll also point out that the US interest in Syria is weakening an adversarial regional power and loving with Russia. Any action the US takes in Syria will be informed by those goals. Those goals do not in any way align with securing the safety of the Syrian people
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
Junpei Hyde posted:If you had a respectful discussion yourself, then fine, I'm mostly referring to the people who posted in here for seemingly no reason other than being mad. I listen to and mostly enjoy Robert’s podcasts, but he’s also a rising star in left journalism and (at least here in Portland especially due to his very dedicated coverage of the events of this summer) picking up a lot of influence. I find his casual dismissal of anti-intervention positions as tankies troubling because there’s compelling good faith reasons to be deeply skeptical of western intervention and the media narratives that sell it. If I’d realized this thread was about his content (in retrospect machetes is kind of obvious but there’s a billion podcasts out there) I probably would have posted in here sooner, if nothing else than to rib the guy for mispronouncing Portland landmarks (I’ve caught ‘Laurelwood’ Park and Willa-metty, hopefully he finds reason to talk about the street between burnside and Davis sometime soon). I think it’s fair when you have a chance to even briefly interact with people of relative influence to challenge them on weaker points 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
I just got around to listening to the first episode on Rush Limbaugh and the whole thing is quite enjoyable but I want to focus on the two minutes that made me cringe and roll my eyes. For a while I've had a half-formed and vague sense that Robert Evans is primarily a conflict tourist. I think most people who are in his line of work are, so it doesn't really prevent me from enjoying his podcasts, but I think the exchange about the fence in Portland really hammered this home. I listened to it several times to make sure I wasn't mischaracterizing the exchange. "I know that the way I framed it had a significant impact on a lot of people getting hurt, damaging a fence, getting arrested... it was both intoxicating and scared the hell out of me..." In this short exchange he appears to take credit for something that was already happening as well as coining the sacred fence name. Maybe he did coin that term, it popped up in local use right around that time and it would be impossible I think to really say one way or the other whether he was the first or just got in early. But the second part, where he conflates his use of a term with the developing protest activity at the fence and implies that things would have gone differently but for his participation demonstrates well I think that he's there first and foremost for the thrill and the sense of importance, and also some serious pomposity in the way he's taking in events and framing them in his personal narrative. Anyway, it was a good episode overall and I enjoyed it, but it's a real good tangible example of something that's been gnawing at me while listening to him for a while
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:Is it flirtations with the gonzo journalistic concept of being necessarily part of the story, not solely an observer? Maybe. And I haven't listened to the ten episode mini-series on the Portland protests yet, primarily because I live here and it's all still too close and raw to want to relive it, so I don't know if this kind of self-importance permeates that or not, and I hope it doesn't It's one thing to be part of the story, and like I said I don't even necessarily hold thrill seeker against him because that's the kind of people who get drawn into this kind of work, but especially the reframing of events like his coverage had influence on how people acting in defense of their home acted seemed condescending and pretentious. It kind of seemed like he took away a lesson of his own power, rather than an observation of people demonstrating against injustice. I do feel quite confident saying that if Robert hadn't been there the fence would still have been a focal point because of what it represented and the response it garnered. And maybe he was the one who coined "sacred fence" but if that hadn't taken off, a similar name would have been given to it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
lonelylikezoidberg posted:I don't know if I agree with you but its reasonable criticism, though I would suspect it was more than likely an off-the-cuff remark in an effort to make parallels and argue that responsible journalism needs to be thoughtful of the power it possesses rather than an articulation of a deeply held belief in the centrality of Evans' role in the Portland protests. It's at about 1:04:15 if you're curious. I went back and listened to it several times to make sure I wasn't mischaracterizing it or otherwise being uncharitable. "I know that the way that I framed it had a significant impact..." with significant emphasized. If it was hyperbole or ironic bloviating then it's an interesting choice given the subject matter. Regardless, I was curious if others picked up on it Pinky Artichoke posted:He speaks very little on that podcast, most of it is other local journalists and activists. He did a good job of giving people a platform and mostly getting out of the way. That's good to know and I do plan to listen at some point Sab Sabbington posted:Though along with that I'm curious how you might distinguish between conflict tourism and an alternative--and how much the distinction matters when it comes to on the ground live reporting? I'll start with the easier question and just state that I'm not sure that the distinction does matter much when it comes to live on the ground reporting, at least if the reporter is being fair to the subject and reporting accurately. This is why I caveated that observation the way I did. Having never actually interacted with him my entirely unprofessional read on the guy is that Evans is a thrill seeker and also someone who wants to impress others with his experiences, hence the kind of person who seeks out conflicts and engages with them for a period of time but always with an eye on an exit should it stop being fun (in the larger sense, immediate terror/misery can still be fun) then uses those experiences to build clout. I also don't think this is particularly unique for the type of reporting, nor do I consider it a reason for me to not engage with his work
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Wilekat posted:I can't speak for those on the ground, but discourse referring to it as "the sacred fence" on Twitter appears to start on June 3rd, 2020. Robert retweets a fun creation myth by @45thAbsurdist, and Robert's twitter followers are all over it. Discussion and description of the fence this way balloons from here into the weekend of June 5-7th. A lot of the people producing coverage of the protests in Portland either knew each other previously or got to know each other at the time (Robert's blossoming friendship with Garrison Davis is plenty evidence of that), so the idea that they'd latch onto it collectively and start perpetuating it from him (Garrison is using the phrase by the 8th) is entirely plausible. I think you've got it backwards. He very much tapped into the zeitgiest around the fence, not the other way around. I don't know, I can't say that there wasn't anyone specifically influenced by him, but I think "significant impact" is very much putting the cart before the horse and taking credit for events unfolding around you
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Yeah I wasn't really including posting when I said that for a variety of reasons, primary being that he's a media personality who I am sure is still "in character" to a degree when posting, in the same way that I'm in character when I interact with my clients at work. I've never encountered the guy in real life or had an actual conversation with him, so I'm making clear what I'm basing my judgement on and what gaps there are in my observations
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:I've noticed how monumentally selfimportant you seem to be, when you decided in CSPAM to come gently caress with us for daring to like his podcast I’m intensely disinterested in cross forum drama and if I was looking to rile people up I would have been far less careful with how I phrased things. I’m interested in the media personality this thread is about and a thing he said and how it plays into my observations over time consuming the media he produces. So chill with the victim narrative please and engage or ignore me
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:I think there is some degree of “all frontline journalism is tourism” because, uh, no you don’t have to be there. I got a ton of flak for going to Japan to help with Fukushima, mostly from goons, who were convinced that my being there was clout chasing and wasteful of resources, and there is some degree of truth to that, because I could have said no, and they probably could have found someone else. You make fair points, and like I said - while conflict tourism is going to influence how I engage with a media personality, I do think it's a trait that leads people to get into the field in the first place. Chasing thrills and chasing clout is a thing that like you said can call people to action. It's not necessarily an insult, or maybe it is necessarily an insult, but it's not unique to Robert Evans by any means and I don't want to seem like I'm uniquely singling him out. Where it gets more problematic is when it starts to seep into how facts and events are presented. Comments like the one that got me to start this thread, if my take on it is correct (and I did include the time stamp and invite anyone to go listen if they want), suggests something more troubling may (and I want to be very clear that this isn't an outright accusation that it is) be present. That is, it plays into a sense that perhaps events aren't being presented as honestly as they should be. Perhaps the journalist might filter the narrative or present the facts in a way that further their own reputation and not inform. Honestly, it could be entirely unintentional. I've been accused of batting back accusations, and I think I'm more pushing back, because that little exchange didn't sound illustrative to demonstrate a point to me, it really felt like he was taking credit for something I don't think it makes sense to credit to yourself, unless you're building in your own head or the heads of others, a personal mythology
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
GunFondler42069 posted:Hey, "conflict tourism" is an aspect of all foreign war correspondent work. There are a few exceptions, like the late Tim Heatherington, who among other things bought a home in Liberia while covering the civil war there, but 99% of journalists who cover conflict don't tend to live where they report on. If you're critiquing my work in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine through that lens, it's a fair point. Journalists who do that sort of work need to be aware of that. I don't deny that you were present and highly visible, nor do I deny that it caused you great pain and injury, nor do I doubt your commitment to being out there. I hope that wasn't what you took away. But I do think that the lesson that you took from your conversations was the wrong lesson, in that you inserted yourself into people's motivations and determined that their actions and courage and defiance was influenced by you and how you presented events. All of these people have agency independent of you, and even if they directly finger you as the motivating factor in their decision making, I think most of those same people would have been drawn out regardless of whether you had been here to stream. I do think you were visibly prominent and so people associated your face and voice with the events that spurred them to action, but I disagree that you rather than the events were the draw, despite the fact that your coverage may offer a tangible thing to point at if questioned. I think it's really dangerous for people who achieve prominence to take at face value people who say they're inspired by them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
I'm not always the most direct writer and I can dance around my point, so I'll say it outright, and you can take of it what you will. I think Robert Evans is over emphasizing his influence on others and his place in these events, intentionally perhaps, or more likely he believes it, and presenting it in a way in his podcast where he builds clout of that influence, even if presented as a humble brag (and again, I'm not clear on the intentionality). I'm not mad, I just think it's a very telling little window into his outlook.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:The thing is, though, there is a cult of personality type thing that develops around popular podcast personalities like Robert. Where an overly involved Opening Arguments fan may just call P. Andrew Torres and try to sign up for legal services he does not in fact need (and then write a cringey trip report about it on the internet), it's entirely possible that a Robert fan might be inspired to do something dumb at a protest. I think it's good for him to be mindful of that possibility. I think being mindful of potential impact is very different than publicly stating to a national/international audience that your presence had "significant impact" on how events played out, no?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:Yeah, I've never listened to Chapo or Cum Town or any of those and Blowback was still great. I mean, it's a straightforward limited-series history of the Iraq War. I guess one of the hosts of Blowback is on Chapo as far as I know but I promise, you can even be uncertain of that, as I am, and still enjoy Blowback. Looking forward to their new season on the Cuban Missile Crisis, too. Brendan James was the original producer of Chapo but the products are very distinct. Chapo at it's core is a conversational podcast about current events where the hosts joke about and react to the news that they feel like talking about. Blowback is a prescripted and researched deep dive into the Iraq war that wants to inform and entertain on a specific topic. I thought it was pretty compelling and I'm pretty excited to hear what they do with Cuba, especially given that they've promised to have so many people who were there for it all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
At its core Chapo is an entertainment product, and if it doesn't entertain you then there's no reason to spend time listening to it. Same with BtB or any of the other podcasts people have mentioned. Monday's Chapo had a deep dive long read of Thomas Friedman that ripped him to shreds, but after it was over Thomas Friedman was still wealthier than I'll ever be, and more influential amongst people who actually wield power than I'll ever be, and generally positioned exactly in the same place he's been positioned my entire adult life, as a thought leader for people who matter. It's nice to just roll around in how wrong and un-insightful and pig headedly dumb he is, but it doesn't matter really other than I enjoyed it and it made me laugh and smile. I listen to BtB for generally the same reason, it's just nice to hear people who deserve to get poo poo on actually get poo poo on, and it's nice when people don't have to pretend to respect lovely people just on the basis of their credentials or their legacy or whatever else. People who think podcasts are praxis are idiots, just like people who think posting is praxis are idiots. There are other things to get out and do if you want to change the world or try to change the world. Online fans generally suck and nobody needs to feel the need to justify why they find an entertainment product compelling or not compelling.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:I’m curious how this is gonna stack up to the new season of Slow Burn, which is also about the Iraq War. The Iraq season wrapped last year and was incredibly good. I couldn’t recommend it more highly. The second season of blowback that just hit is about Cuba and the Cuban revolution and I’m fascinated to hear it especially because their stated angle is telling the story from a Cuban perspective BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Lenin's whole career until 1917 was really just shitposting, I wouldn't underestimate it Fair enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2021 04:46
|
|
|
Lmao it’s hard to be surprised though as the guy’s clearly been trying to build a brand he can monetize. He’s pretty good at selling fear and then shilling for surveillance systems lol Curious where the money is coming from cause it ain’t the journalism https://mobile.twitter.com/IwriteOK/status/1387868369756512261
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:He has a very successful podcast that runs a lot of ads (observation not complaint), and probably gets a cut from bringing on some more news/worst year ever/his spinoff series. I can see how it would start to add up Yeah like I said there’s pretty obvious money in building a reputation as an anarchist and shilling home security systems lmao Bellingcat weirdness or not I really doubt the CIA is 1099’ing Robert Evans hundreds of thousands of dollars to podcast but that’s not what I said or implied so
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:He's also literally begging the government to take more of his money so that it can be properly invested into civic infrastructure and used to put money and food into the pockets and mouths of people who need them, and this thread's first response is to claim that he makes too much money to properly qualify as a comrade Lmao whatever. Much like his “oh isn’t it awful I shill for these products and services” ad transitions this feels performative
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:Jesus Christ you fucks are insufferable. Froghammer posted:Then don't listen to his podcast or post in the thread about his podcast you loving weirdo Talk about insufferable. I reserve the right to listen to what I want to and also to share my thoughts. I guess if a mod tells me this is a Robert evans hug box rather than a thread about his podcast that’ll be different.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:I don't have a parasocial relationship with Robert Evans. I don't know him and never met him. He's not my friend. I don't get a say in how he makes his money or what he does with his time. I listen to his podcast, and from that podcast I've found him to be insightful and reasonable. If I thought he was doing problematic poo poo I'd push back or stop listening or find something better to do with my time. Do you just uncritically consume media? Do you have this weird thing where you need to like and want to be friends with someone to find an entertainment property interesting? Like everything in your response to me is just really unconsidered. I don’t really have an ax to grind, just observations about a media product I consume and the personality behind it. I talk about what’s interesting to me. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
neongrey posted:all that said I think there's at least a little difference between being paid x large amount by the company you are employed by (iheart) and receiving c large amount via crowdfunding. I don't know that one's better or worse than another but they certainly feel different to me. I'm personally somewhat more ok with squeezing a large company for what it's worth than a herd of people, most of whom probably aren't rolling in cash. Eh the chapos say some stupid poo poo sometimes but they’ve never personally appealed to me to by a home security system service so maybe we’ll say sixes? Lmao
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Why would anyone not just skip the commercials? I have no idea what Robert or any of the podcasts I listen to shill. I usually listen to podcasts while cooking/cleaning/driving/gardening/etc... so it’s not always particularly convenient to stop what I’m doing to skip ads. It is what it is That said, the guy who’s monetizing his reputation and personality to bring in close to half a million in a year is what it is, but if nothing else it’s worth commenting on and considering, especially in light of someone who seeks to sway opinions and influence people I think it’s kind of funny how much pushback that observation gets because it feels self evident but what do I know, you do you
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
GunFondler42069 posted:
By ‘fun story’ did you mean to say ‘short article reporting on some rumors that lacks any real substance’? Also, your first article is also kind of problematic for a number of reasons (the sourcing is primarily a govt official trying to get the west to intervene) but even then feels the need to end on this choice quote quote:Issaka Souare, a senior researcher at the ISS's Africa conflict prevention programme, said: "In the south of Libya you do have people of sub-Sarahan origin, including Hausa speakers. Some might have integrated into the Libyan army and these would probably be among the first to be deployed. It will then be easy for people to say they are foreign mercenaries. You’re clearly better at vetting media sources than this, this feels a bit lazy dude HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jun 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
GunFondler42069 posted:it's interesting you say that, because the PRI article is based on an interview by an Afrikaans language newspaper with one of those mercenaries, who they name. Meanwhile the clip Blumenthal posted cites "Western journalists" in a single city. Seems like you're holding one piece of evidence to a different standard than another. The BBC one is super weirdly worded and doesn’t seem to back up it’s own headline quote:African soldiers recruited by Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi have begun streaming home. The news 24 article seems to be a lot of speculation and originally probably asserted more based on the correction at the end quote:On 30 October City Press published a report entitled “SA Mercenaries were misled”. The report referred to allegations that the London based Hart Security had contracted South African mercenaries through an intermediary to render certain services in Libya. The reference to Hart Security in the report was published in error. City Press regrets the error and retracts the allegation. NYT is paywalled so I have no observations The global African worker article is a pretty interesting and nuanced discussion but uh it doesn’t really support your point quote:At the time, one of the myths that helped to legitimate foreign intervention was rumors — replete with racist undertones — of an army of African mercenaries being unleashed upon the hapless Libyan opposition. When all was said and done, very few had actually responded to Gaddafi’s call, and, in fact, more fighters from sub-Saharan Africa had been sent to augment the relative weakness of the revolutionary camp.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
GunFondler42069 posted:He notes the same thing I said in my post above: while some of those mercenaries answered Qaddafi's call more joined the opposition. I mean there’s always outliers and academics avoid speaking in absolutes for a reason, it’s seems to me he’s not positively asserting that mercs were fighting for Qaddafi so much as caveating his statement to allow for outliers but Anyway whatever you have to say about Blumenthal the throughline is that he’s alleging Elliot jumps into chaotic situations and makes bad takes based on poor sourcing. I don’t think he’s saying Elliot had much influence on Lybia, merely asserting that there’s a general trend that goes back to well before Bellingcat
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
I can’t say I’m at all interested in changing the subject to talk about Syria and Max Blumenthal’s positions there on I was really more interested in pointing out that the ‘vicious African mercenaries” stuff was bullshit and then also when you shifted from trying to imply those allegations were supportable I wanted to make it clear that I think you’re intentionally misstating blumenthal’s point when you counter it by saying “bellingcat wasn’t even around yet!” Edit: Regardless, I’m glad we had this exchange because that BBC article is a masterclass in slimy journalism and I would never have seen it otherwise. It’s kind of amazing how the headline and first paragraph have really nothing to do with everything else written in it HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jun 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
GunFondler42069 posted:Yeah, that's not what I did. I pointed out that there's evidence suggesting SA mercenaries were in country, as they have been at numerous points since, and that the situation was chaotic and unclear when Eliot was posting about it. Blumenthal's tweet is slimy, and complete horseshit, and yes it is relevant that Bellingcat didn't exist then because he is attempting to criticize the site's work based on something the founder posted on a private forum three years before it existed. Lmao there’s a good reason not to jump into the “rumors of rampaging African mercenaries” game when things are chaotic and unclear Before you go, I’m super curious of you actually read that African worker article you linked me to, if not, you might benefit from doing so
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:Interactions like this make me embarrassed to read c-spam. Hey man he could of just said something like “I didn’t make those weird bad posts ten years ago and I don’t feel the need to answer for them” but instead he tried to defend it with a bunch of articles he didn’t vet very well (at all?) I think when someone goes “well actually it was unclear whether or not there were rampaging bands of African mercenaries” that deserves a bit of pushback given the fact that there’s in fact no good evidence that there were rampaging bands of African mercenaries GunFondler42069 posted:i'm sure if we were to comb through their posts, we would find that over the last 16 years hashtaggirlboss has never posted something in the heat of a developing situation that turned out to not be perfectly accurate Ive made lots of bad posts and had lots of bad takes. I’m human and I’ll own them. I’ve never suggested anything close to rampaging bands of African mercenaries doing war crimes though
HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jun 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:And you could have not posted them in the first place but instead you did. I didn’t post them
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2021 03:52
|
|