4 ms·

It's fascinating how people will come up with bizzare conspiracy theories to fit their insignificant pet causes into much larger events.

by unmole 4y ago

rpmisms 4y ago
You're aggressively dismissing an off-hand thought. That makes me far more curious about who told you not to think about it.
- unmole 4y ago
  > who told you not to think about it. The united coalition of Lizardmen and Freemasons, funded by George Soros. Bill Gates declined to invest.
  - rpmisms 4y ago
    I'm being serious. Soros only funds prosecutorial races, which is dangerous, but not as dangerous as lizardfolx.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Do not reply to this poster which is applying rule 5 of disinformation: Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mrighele 4y ago
  He's dismissing it because the parent talking about proxy war waged by the US when the one starting it was Russia. He deserves all the dismissing that he gets
  - rpmisms 4y ago
    > proxy war waged by the US when the one starting it was Russia It's possible to participate in proxy war when you didn't start it. Might even have better optics.
onetimeusename 4y ago
I should have phrased it differently but I was just speculating. I think it's _possible_ the war is "partly motivated" by getting Russia more under the control of western regulations which includes copyright laws. I don't think it's a wild conspiracy theory because Russia has been labeled a rogue state for some time and the US has an interest in regime change. It's not official policy but enough people have warned the US that regime change is a bad idea, including the NYT, that I don't think it's easily dismissed. I think it's quite possible there are western corporate and regulatory interests in having a Russian regime that cooperates with their interests more. But I can see how this is an extremely cynical take and I didn't mean to suggest that was the only reason for a war.
- koube 4y ago
  The US is supporting its ally in a war because it's being invaded by an adversary. IP laws do not fit anywhere in this. You might as well say the US started a proxy war to help hedgies stop the GME moon.
  - parineum 4y ago
    If Ukraine was our ally we'd have boots on the ground. This war is in no small part about keeping them from actually becoming our ally.
    - unmole 4y ago
      Ally and NATO member are not synonyms. The US didn't put boots on the ground to help the UK in the Falklands even when it would have made things much easier. That doesn't mean the US and the UK were not allies or that the US did not help in other ways.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Ally and NATO member are not synonyms. True, but... > The US didn't put boots on the ground to help the UK in the Falklands The UK is, and was, a NATO member. (Indeed, a major factor that led Argentina to think that they could take the Falklands was the reorganization of the UK Navy around its role in NATO which compromised it's capacity for independent operations.)
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
is that really a conspiracy theory though? it is fairly clear what the ultimate goals the US and Russia have for each other are - Russia wants the US out of the picture so they can have free reign in Europe, and the US wants Russia broken down into two dozen irrelevant ethnostates they'll get to indirectly control
- leaflets2 4y ago
  That last part you got wrong
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
    who will give those microstates massive loans they would need to stay afloat? who will fund the election campaigns and favorable media coverage for the agreeable candidates and parties? whose arms will they buy and whose military bases will they build to defend themselves against each other and/or what little is left of Russia and/or China? whose companies will get contracts for resource extraction and favorable conditions to operate there? ... the collapse of Russia would be a greater boon to the US than the WWII was, and had Russia been a benevolent democracy, it would've been at least halfway there by now
    - leaflets2 4y ago
      The greatest boon to the US would be if Russia transformed itself into a democracy. And for the people in Russia. I hope there's a chance that'll happen if indeed Putin has an illness and is dead soon > the US wants Russia broken down into two dozen irrelevant ethnostates That's delusional and was what I was replying to.
      - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
        to someone with a redditor's level of understanding the geopolitics, sure

It's fascinating how people will come up with bizzare conspiracy theories to fit their insignificant pet causes into much larger events.

by unmole 4y ago

It's fascinating how people will come up with bizzare conspiracy theories to fit their insignificant pet causes into much larger events.

rpmisms 4y ago

You're aggressively dismissing an off-hand thought. That makes me far more curious about who told you not to think about it.

unmole 4y ago
> who told you not to think about it. The united coalition of Lizardmen and Freemasons, funded by George Soros. Bill Gates declined to invest.
- rpmisms 4y ago
  I'm being serious. Soros only funds prosecutorial races, which is dangerous, but not as dangerous as lizardfolx.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
orangepurple 4y ago
Do not reply to this poster which is applying rule 5 of disinformation: Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrighele 4y ago
He's dismissing it because the parent talking about proxy war waged by the US when the one starting it was Russia. He deserves all the dismissing that he gets
- rpmisms 4y ago
  > proxy war waged by the US when the one starting it was Russia It's possible to participate in proxy war when you didn't start it. Might even have better optics.

onetimeusename 4y ago

I should have phrased it differently but I was just speculating. I think it's _possible_ the war is "partly motivated" by getting Russia more under the control of western regulations which includes copyright laws. I don't think it's a wild conspiracy theory because Russia has been labeled a rogue state for some time and the US has an interest in regime change. It's not official policy but enough people have warned the US that regime change is a bad idea, including the NYT, that I don't think it's easily dismissed. I think it's quite possible there are western corporate and regulatory interests in having a Russian regime that cooperates with their interests more. But I can see how this is an extremely cynical take and I didn't mean to suggest that was the only reason for a war.

koube 4y ago
The US is supporting its ally in a war because it's being invaded by an adversary. IP laws do not fit anywhere in this. You might as well say the US started a proxy war to help hedgies stop the GME moon.
- parineum 4y ago
  If Ukraine was our ally we'd have boots on the ground. This war is in no small part about keeping them from actually becoming our ally.
  - unmole 4y ago
    Ally and NATO member are not synonyms. The US didn't put boots on the ground to help the UK in the Falklands even when it would have made things much easier. That doesn't mean the US and the UK were not allies or that the US did not help in other ways.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Ally and NATO member are not synonyms. True, but... > The US didn't put boots on the ground to help the UK in the Falklands The UK is, and was, a NATO member. (Indeed, a major factor that led Argentina to think that they could take the Falklands was the reorganization of the UK Navy around its role in NATO which compromised it's capacity for independent operations.)

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago

is that really a conspiracy theory though? it is fairly clear what the ultimate goals the US and Russia have for each other are - Russia wants the US out of the picture so they can have free reign in Europe, and the US wants Russia broken down into two dozen irrelevant ethnostates they'll get to indirectly control

leaflets2 4y ago
That last part you got wrong
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  who will give those microstates massive loans they would need to stay afloat? who will fund the election campaigns and favorable media coverage for the agreeable candidates and parties? whose arms will they buy and whose military bases will they build to defend themselves against each other and/or what little is left of Russia and/or China? whose companies will get contracts for resource extraction and favorable conditions to operate there? ... the collapse of Russia would be a greater boon to the US than the WWII was, and had Russia been a benevolent democracy, it would've been at least halfway there by now
  - leaflets2 4y ago
    The greatest boon to the US would be if Russia transformed itself into a democracy. And for the people in Russia. I hope there's a chance that'll happen if indeed Putin has an illness and is dead soon > the US wants Russia broken down into two dozen irrelevant ethnostates That's delusional and was what I was replying to.
    - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
      to someone with a redditor's level of understanding the geopolitics, sure