Permanently Deleted
Zizek in the perverts guide had a bit about this scene and I bet you can find it easily - it’s where we get “eating from the trashcan of ideology” because the one guy tells the other that he’s either gonna put the glasses on or he’s gonna eat the trashcan. I can’t remember if it’s in the perverts guide or not, but that feeling of encountering bare reality without ideology is… intense, unpleasant and so on.
for me it was the hk riots and seeing the full video of the police officer that shot the protestor
i dont know what girl you’re referring to.
but i finally found the video. https://twitter.com/CGTNOfficial/status/1179758001248489477
this shit is really hard to find.
here’s more random vids https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/dh7189/helpful_list_of_hong_kong_rioter_violence/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/dvah42/a_collection_of_hk_rioter_atrocities/
summary of events
reddit.com/r/Sino/wiki/faq/hong-kong-taiwan/summer-2019-protests
Maybe link news stories that were heavily in circulation before years later being proven to be horseshit. Iraq WMDs etc
Show the media is always complicit and fails in uncovering truth and use snark imitating them. ie “Nah bro. This time it’s different”
I’ve got a few days free, I may actually just do this. What other events would be good examples? I mean, it’s hard to dwindle it all down…
this is my favourite one - it’s just so clear and unequivocal and the parallels are so stark, and it’s direct from a mainstream news source at the time, showing exactly how uncritically they recirculated this nonsense (apologies, i mean “an incredible presentation of a web of evidence, not just a theory”)
Nice thanks. Is there any refutation picture by picture of the claims? I guess the biggest refutation was that they didn’t find any WMD lol, but more granularly I mean mean.
Here is a decent clip of libs grilling each other over Iraq, winner of stupid award given to hack journalists unironically believes everything the CIA says and still defend that stance a decade later.
The Ukraine issue is pretty straightforward. The country explicitly denied the right to self determination (secession) in its constitution because it knew regions with ethnic Russian majorities (like in Crimea and Sevastopol) would vote to join Russia, while regions like Donbas which have significant Russian populations would be at risk of seceding. Sevastopol and Crimea did vote to join Russia (as did half of the local military forces) and Donbas has been in a low grade civil war for almost a decade now.
In that civil war, the most liberal estimation of Russian soldiers involved has been 12,000 (the US deployed at least 112,000 at the peak of the Iraq War for comparison and had 5,200 stationed until last year along with 20,000 marines in embassies and thousands of PMCs). Keep in mind though, that when hawks fret about Russian “aggression” towards Ukraine, they mean Russian soldiers moving within Russian borders on the edge of an active war zone in Ukraine (since they struggle to produce any actual documentation of Russian soldiers in Donbas). Is it aggression when Russia stations soldiers within its own borders? Is it aggression when the Russian military acts as a buffer against an ongoing civil war? No of course it isn’t and it’s chauvinism to suggest that Russians do not have that right because it upsets the liberal hawks (not to even mention the crimes of their own country).
Which countries allow the right to secession? I mean, it would be great if all nation-states gave that right to the territories they govern, but in practice how common is it?
Ukraine actually does, on the condition that the rest of Ukraine agrees to it as well. While I’m not aware of the right being explicit anywhere, the right to self determination (meaning secession) for peoples in Europe and Asia has been a liberal (and left) position for over a century, and it should be easy to demonstrate hypocrisy and opportunism when say, Taiwan should be allowed to secede but not Crimea. If op’s “bro” is so nakedly reactionary that they don’t care then op should simply use that metric to end the discussion.
Pick one topic, learn everything you can about it, and school them. Don’t let them change the subject. Cocksure libs need to have their arrogance dragged through the mud before they’ll listen to you. I don’t mean you need to be rude, but you should call their attention to why they’re wrong and make them explain why they held such a strong opinion derived from overt propaganda. Make them explain what led them to believe it.
The reality is that they heard it on some source they trust and never considered that it might be bullshit, so they did no skeptical investigation. This fact is at odds with their self-image as a sober science-following critical thinker. They must confront the contradiction - and if you’re lucky they’ll become more humble and therefore have less terrible takes.
Also, keep a record of their bad takes so that you can remind them how wrong they were
On this vein, once you have actually focused on one subject, and you’ve somewhat proven a point on an issue, especially if it disproves what they initially thought it’s worth asking something like ‘how come when we talk about stuff like this what you’ve learned from just skimming newspaper articles is taken as concrete fact while I have to cite sources like I’m writing a fucking essay?’
That can sometimes get them thinking about what else they might have just accepted without any question.
Yeah I mean you’re never gonna convince someone single handed that what they believe about their country is a tissue paper collage of lies, half truths and memory holed events but you might get them to think a bit more critically come the next ‘oh my god look at what these crafty forrins are up to better bomb their cities’ bullshit.
