politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's because you support genocide as long as it's done by Russia or China
Cool insult! Do you know any of NATO's history?
Insult? I'm just anti genocide and wondering why you're pro genocide
Heh OK, if you ever get some intellectual curiosity, look into the history of NATO and how it's been used to suppress and kill left wing movements around the globe.
It's on wikipedia, not hard to find.
Only if you stop supporting genocide
🤪
There's nothing funny about genocide
To be clear, your question dodging and lack of curiosity is funny.
Your support of genocide is not
When NATO was founded, what did Lord Ismay famously say it was for?
Something other than stopping Russia for committing genocide. Which means he was incorrect because that's what NATO is currently doing.
It's not controversial to say that the US / NATO helped trigger the war in Ukraine.
Not on your state sponsored propaganda instance maybe. Can't wait till they play Swan Lake. Should be soon. What a classic
While that's an accurate description of NYTimes and Wikipedia, they're probably not the outlets you had in mind.
Don't get your evidence from opinion pieces.
What evidence are you calling into question specifically? That NATO expanded after the fall of the USSR?
I'm not. I'm not the same person. I'm just telling you that you shouldn't cite an opinion piece as evidence.
Oh, in this case an opinion piece in US media is evidence. @catsarebadpeople believed that the opinion (NATO's expansion partially caused the war) was limited to Russian / BRICS media.
Which could have been influenced by Russian media. You and I don't know because it's an opinion piece. It's not a researched piece of journalism.
I think you're working deep under cover for Russia.
Hey, at least you got the concept of what I'm saying. Don't trust opinions. Trust actual, credible journalism.
I have to agree that completely ignoring the nytimes op-ed section is healthy and brings you closer to the truth. I'm glad we've established that.
I don't even think you need to qualify that with nytimes. Just ignore the op-ed section.
Yes agreed.
I think I know where you're confused. Here's the original claim that begat this thread,
The claim is about an opinion being generally accepted. To confirm or refute the claim requires secondary sources, since the claim is about opinions.
If the claim were simply,
Then the claim is concerned directly with what triggered the war in Ukraine. To confirm or refute the claim, you'd benefit more from primary sources (including journalism, as you mentioned.)