8 ms·
>subjective incendiary rhetoric Its not rhetoric if you've had to dig your children out from under the rubble. I'm not surprised this is a scary subject, and
by fit2rule 6y ago
>subjective incendiary rhetoric
Its not rhetoric if you've had to dig your children out from under the rubble.
I'm not surprised this is a scary subject, and that it is immensely important to the American public that it be kept hidden away beyond the state secrecy walls of privilege.
The collateral damage video wasn't rhetoric, either. Again, innocent children being murdered for lies.
Let us not forget Assange's message: yes, the USA is committing atrocious crimes against humanity, on the regular, and expecting to be allowed to get away with it.
- oarsinsync 6y agoSome of the things you’ve said are subjective, and incendiary. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. I was simply trying to highlight a statement of fact from your post, and provide an example of this occurring.
- fit2rule 6y agoWhat part of the Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and US' War Crimes isn't incendiary? This is not a subject for sensitive feelings. It is extremely important that discourse not be repressed for the sake of political expediency ... If there were more awareness of the horrors, Assange wouldn't have been so necessary. If we want to reign in the war-mongers, we must hold them accountable. Always.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe problem isn't your descriptions of the actions which Assange reported on. The problem is your use of phrases like "Ma' Russians" and your strange reference to a "chemical castration" of Assange.
- pftf 6y agoYou're just tone policing here. You should engage with the actual subject of the discussion, or say nothing at all. People aren't unemotional robots, and thus don't always conform to prejudices on what constitutes the 'correct' tone. It's more useful to criticize the substance of a persons words, not how they choose to express them.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI was explaining the issue to the commenter, since they seemed to be expressing honest confusion about why their comment comes across as incendiary. I certainly agree it's better to avoid engaging with inflammatory rhetoric, but we shouldn't let that become a refusal to help people moderate their tone when they don't mean to give offense.
- fit2rule 6y agoI couldn't care a fig for tone policing. You should be getting challenged on this subject, if you think its something that we should be more 'mild mannered' about. Genocide is happening, for fucks sake. CIA has 2000 secret torture/rendition sites. Is that really something you want people to be using 'inclusive language' to describe? Perhaps you should have a session with the "empathy police". Iraq lost 5% of its population because of these heinous criminal liars that still run America today. Thank goodness for Assange, letting the free world know! America is bombing the fuck out of the world, and expects to be getting away with it - and the message in lobotomising Assange, is to let you and me know that we better not be trying to discuss this fact. FUCK THAT. Get mad about what is being done to Julian Assange - because we are next.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI don't think there's some blanket obligation to be mild mannered. By all means, use incisive language to describe bad things! The problem is with passages like > but yeah, drop the ol' "Ma' Russians!" into the conversations, and heads explode. This isn't an attempt to vividly illustrate the problem or an expression of righteous anger. It's just trolling - it accomplishes nothing but inciting people to yell back at you.
- newen 6y agoIt’s fact isn’t it? The US government as well as Americans themselves regularly use crimes done by Russia and China to distract from crimes done by their own government.