For anyone who like me was unaware why Trump all of a sudden cares about Greenland and Panama
For anyone who like me was unaware why Trump all of a sudden cares about Greenland and Panama
Y’all act like this is solely a Trump thing, but the US was expanding and annexing territory in the arctic during the Biden admin, while getting all of their “allies” to expend all of their military assets & ammunition reserves on a proxy war and a genocide.
It would be unwise to assume this is another crackpot Trump scheme, and not something the MIC & intelligence agencies have been preparing for years.
Do you bother trying to look into anything, or do you just immediately label anything you don’t like as misinformation?
…colorado.edu/…/us-defines-outer-limits-its-conti…
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66984944.amp
Denmark donated all of their F-16s to Ukraine, and aren’t expecting the replacement F-35s for years, leaving them in a worse defensive position for Greenland: reuters.com/…/f-16-jets-being-sent-ukraine-denmar…
I would not advise trying to engage in a back-and-forth.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA
The whole series is an interesting and somehow still relevant look at how dishonest debate on the internet tends to work. It’s a little bit dated because it comes from the era of freelancers, not today’s polished professionals, but a lot of the techniques of argument are the same. There is simply no good result, by engaging with them in a factual discussion, any more than you can win a chess game against someone who insists on moving pieces wherever they feel like moving them and keeps insisting that you’re breaking the rules and they’re winning.

patreon: http://patreon.com/InnuendoStudiostumblr: http://innuendostudios.tumblr.comtwitter: https://twitter.com/InnuendoStudiostranscript: http://innuendost...
Surprise, surprise. Philip doesn’t like pushback against his NATO propaganda, and wants people to look away.
I provided sources, Phil. They can decide for themselves. And your desperate plea for them to look away just gives away the game you’re playing.
Here’s what I think you should do:
I think you’re doing really well though! In particular, I think you did a pretty good job with the deflection to taking some factual claim you made in service of that larger Frankenstein’s monster of bad reasoning, and insisting that the original claim is factual, you backed it up and showed sources, everyone’s just trying to cover it up because they hate the truth. That part was good. It redirected (or tried to, if I had taken the bait) away from the larger issue and into weird minutiae where you can defend that one detail point. So you have the argumentation down pretty well. You just need to introduce more cover to make it a more realistic account, and do a better job of what issues to focus on how much, and I think you can do really well.
Philip, this is a frickin’ masterpiece. You ought to charge admission.
The joy of reading it justifies not (yet) expelling @surph_ninja.