Objection
Expected shitlibbery from The Atlantic.
The Iranians cagily linked Netanyahu’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon to Trump’s war in the Gulf
Cagily? How tf is is "cagey" to link those two together?
I'll go even further: every military action taken by the US or Israel in the MENA region, from the Gulf War to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to the overthrow of the Syrian and Libyan governments to Israel's invasion of Palestine, Lebanon, etc, all of it is linked as part of a consistent plan to subjugate the entire region by force.
The Israelis, for their part, have been left out in the cold.
When Netanyahu planned major strikes in Beirut at the beginning of June, Trump called him, swore at him, and said, “You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me.”
Good? Are you trying to turn me into an accelerationist?
No one should trust the Iranians...
No one should trust the Iranians? How about no one should trust the Americans, who launched this attack in the middle of negotiations?
The effort to claim that this war has defeated Iran’s nuclear ambitions is merely an effort to distract from the administration’s failure to achieve regime change, which was always its main goal.
No doubt the hawks at The Atlantic were jerking themselves off over the prospect of regime change from the moment the war started, but I don't think there was ever a clear "main goal."
Had Trump toppled the regime in Tehran, he would have had the thanks of most of the world—and congratulations from even his most dedicated critics.
Jesus fucking Christ! I wrote the previous line before I even got to this! They were, in fact, jerking off to the idea of regime change, and the only problem they have with Trump bombing schoolchildren is that he backed off! What a bunch of warmongering psychos!
Not really. Any open space is just going to be dominated by the majority viewpoint simply through numbers and if you don't have walled gardens it becomes impossible to discuss contrary perspectives. Most of the "critiques" that liberals bring to the table are just repeating the same talking points over and over, accusing us of being Russian bots or secret Trump supporters or whatever, and repeating the same pointless arguments over and over again.
Even if two people try to have an intelligent conversation in good faith, the fact that people are waiting to jump down someone's throat or take things out of context and go like, "Aha! This proves you're secretly an accelerationist!" colors the conversation and keeps everyone on guard. It's the same concept of if you let conservatives/reactionaries into a space, their perspective adds nothing to the conversation and makes it harder to discuss anything intelligently.
This is the whole concept of the fediverse, tbh. To allow for "walled gardens" that can still have opportunities to interact with each other. My ideas are far more challenged in spaces where I share certain basic assumptions than they would be by anything liberals or reactionaries have to say.
I used to be confused whenever I saw the word "selfish" in this context, because to demand the system stop hurting others would be completely unselfish, but one day I finally understood.
You're so incapable of conceptualizing foreigners as human beings that you can only frame it in terms of how we feel when we see them harmed, as if they were our toys and we're too preoccupied with them being broken.
It's such a disgusting and repulsive perspective that it's legitimately hard to understand what you even mean. It's indistinguishable from fascism and should be treated as such.
Tell that to Libya.
I wish it was possible to get lesser evilists to think rationally and critically examine their ideology, but they've so internalized their ideology as "rational" that they can't even recognize it as an ideology at all. They are exactly the sort of irrational, blind dogmatists they accuse everyone else of being.
Consider also that there were people in the Red Army that were previously in the White Army.
Being in the Red Army is not equivalent to being a Senator. You don't fuck up and then go into politics and seek out a leadership position as a "second chance." That's not forgiveness, that's just failing to hold politicians accountable and letting powerful people get away with shit.
Humility is a requirement of forgiveness and seeking public office is in complete contradiction to that. You want forgiveness, go volunteer at a soup kitchen or some shit. Don't fuck up and then immediately go, "I think I deserve to be invested with power."
They absolutely are not.
I understand that you're not familiar with the symbol and that this is your first time encountering it. I can easily believe that a drunk soldier in the same boat wouldn't know the difference either. But the design of the Nazi version is distinct and recognizable, if you've seen it. The tattoo was indisputably a totenkopf and not a pirate flag. Nobody who knows what a totenkopf is would get the two confused.
The part that I take issue with is when you go around saying that nobody knew what a totenkopf was before this and therefore all criticism about it must be in bad faith. You're just projecting your own knowledge and experiences onto every other person on the planet. I knew what a totenkopf was years before this and my impression of the symbol has nothing to do with Platner, or like, Maine in general. Platner could be the greatest or the worst person in the world and it wouldn't change what I think about the symbol at all. My knowledge about and impression of the totenkopf is based on it being plastered on Nazi uniforms, and used by Neo-Nazis, not a controversy over some random Senate candidate.
It's just ridiculous that you won't even accept the possibility that people you disagree with are just wrong, that's not enough, they have to be actively malevolent and dishonest. Even in the most generous possible read of Platner, there are still red flags that would cause some people to have genuine concerns and doubts about him.
Because, no matter how many times you repeat "it's just a pirate symbol!!!" (how many times in this thread?) that's doesn't make it true:
It's not just a "skull and crossbones," it's the specific design that was used by the Nazis and is known as a hate symbol.
I don't even think getting the tattoo is disqualifying, but the way he handled it was sus. Even if it was a stupid, drunk decision, it's likely he figured it out at some point afterwards, and only got it covered up when it started hurting the campaign.
The part about being a Blackwater merc though, that's pretty hard to look past. "Killer for hire turned politician." One way or another, it's a sad state of affairs that this is where we're at.
"By your logic, you could justify a foreign armed insurgency against the US government" 
I don't give a single shit if Iran gets nukes. If Iran had nukes, then the psychos in Washington would have to think twice the next time they decide they want to jerk off to bombing schoolchildren.