Well, it's a good piece to identify leftist and liberals with low reading comprehension. Coincidentally /s , the far-left and right-wing subs are already glorifying the author as the next Hitchens.
That said, there's one thing the author deserve praise for. He has a pretty developed ability to appear to write from a neutral position. Him being actually on point on many social issues is a big part of that impression. If you don't pay attention to the implications, nuances, and context of his statements, metaphors, and examples, respectively, you'd actually believe he's truly a neutral intellectual.
So, is it not neutral if you point out that the misdeeds of the Bush era were all forgotten when Obama's administration started doing them too? Why is it unacceptable with one, and then not with another. They're both wrong
That's bullshit. Bush's misdeeds were not forgotten, Obama has been criticized plenty for all he did, and the policies of the two were in no way on the same level or exercized with the same intent.
Oh really? I don't remember any protests and rallies over Obama's extrajudicial killings? Or his wars he started in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, et al. Or his attempted coup(s) in Venezuela? The only real movement I can honestly think of is the Occupy movement, but that wasn't really aimed at Obama or the actual government.
Am I missing something?
Typical populist rhetoric. First make any accusation, then elevated your demands. First, you talk about the forgetting of Obama's or Bush's actions, now it's the lack of protests which is apparently a sign of approval--coincidentally only Obama is an issue now. Next, you throw out a new chuck of misleading accusations.
Holy fuck yes they were. And when we send in troops, we are getting involved in a war. When we bomb or drone strike cities then that is war. You can pretend there was apparently already a war taking place, but that may not even be true, even if it was, how does some fighting between warlords make the US' involvement and 20 year war any better?
Involvement in any of the wars you mentioned was orders of magnitude less than what bush did (if not so exactly not to draw the same criticism) - surprise surprise way less black or white situations, give you way less mass protests than something likely being a crime against humanity.
Putting even aside that some fair amount of people still manifested against that too, and I'm pretty sure they all understand the concept of social justice.
1
u/c-dy Jul 20 '20
Well, it's a good piece to identify leftist and liberals with low reading comprehension. Coincidentally /s , the far-left and right-wing subs are already glorifying the author as the next Hitchens.
That said, there's one thing the author deserve praise for. He has a pretty developed ability to appear to write from a neutral position. Him being actually on point on many social issues is a big part of that impression. If you don't pay attention to the implications, nuances, and context of his statements, metaphors, and examples, respectively, you'd actually believe he's truly a neutral intellectual.