Lion of the Blogosphere

A blog comment about the yellow vest riots

Mike Street Station replying to PerezHBD:

“Imagine the news headlines if Putin used tear gas on his own people and jailed 700 protesters. Sometimes being on the same side as the Establishment really does come in handy.”

That’s true. The US news coverage of the riots in France has been limited and very matter of fact. The establishment covering for the establishment. But a similar thing happening in Russia would be news at hysteria level 11.

For that matter, border agents using tear gas on foreigners illegally trying to enter the United States and throwing rocks causes hysteria to be dialed up to 11. But no problem with Macron using tear gas on his own citizens.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

Posted in International

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Another interesting thing is that Macron’s wife is not accused of being a pedophile.
    She seduced her 15 years old student when she was his middle aged teacher.
    Imagine if Trump had seduced 15 years old girl.

    tmmm

    December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

  2. Imagine the news headlines if Putin used tear gas on his own people and jailed 700 protesters.

    Not that Putin fellators ever think things through, but why is he automatically assuming Putin would be right to crack down?

    The Undiscovered Jew

    December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

    • He did not assume that. The example is meant to illustrate the bias of the American press. Putin’s hypothetical rightness or wrongness has nothing to do with it.

      Lowe

      December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

    • He did not assume that. The example is meant to illustrate the bias of the American press.

      Of course he did.

      Since he’s assuming American press coverage about Putin can only be wrong whenever Russia cracks down on protesters then he’s automatically assuming Putin is always right about cracking down.

      Putin might be right.

      But it’s not necessarily true since Putin isn’t God, no matter how much you dummies act like he is.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

      • He did not assume anything TuJ/Yakov – as is proven by the word “imagine” which precedes the description of the scenario.

        I’m don’t like the alt-right’s obsequious tood towards Putin anymore than you do but this was a low blow, even for you.

        gothamette

        December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “imagine” which precedes the description of the scenario.

        “Imagine” that Putin is right or wrong to crackdown on hypothetical protesters?

        He doesn’t say which side is right because his operating assumption is that Putin is right under any and all hypotheticals.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

      • TUJ, your attempted point is moot because in a real game you cannot make an objective judgement as to the morality of your opponent.

        That is unless you are arguing for a consistent application of moral rules and he is applying an inconsistent morality to his action and yours.

        In this instance, you can point out his lack of universal rule application. This is what Lion was doing.

        In contrast, you are suggesting that an inconsistent morality can be appropriate.

        Witness your implied support for two different applications of the rule (that determines what to do in response to protestors) for two different players (Western and Russian governments) in regard to one type of movement (protest action). Unless I am reading you wrong and you left unstated your support for a crackdown against Western anti-globalist protestors.

        What you are implying with your statements is that valid morality is one that can be unevenly applied.

        This type of inconsistent morality is valid according to what, other than one’s unstated and true self-interest (yours, the government’s, its opponent’s, etc) that transcends universal morality by definition? The media’s selective narrative?

        Your attempt to throw Lion’s evenly applied moral judgement (or rather your pained interpretation of it) into moral ambiguity in regard to what Putin hypothetically does to protestors has no external validity (in applied universal ethics: as directed by your reference to “right” and “wrong”) if you are applying the rule differently in the West.

        Lion was outing inconsistent moral reasoning on the part of the Western player. He was arguing for a True North application of the rule-set in order to attack the inconsistent morality that serves as a platform for an internal enemy.

        In other words, cracking down on protestors is either always wrong or it isn’t, and any other spin can only be viewed as self-serving gamesmanship.

        Is gamesmanship valid? Sure. However, it usually doesn’t come from within (against the interests of citizens as the American / Western press utilizes it). Also, if it is gamesmanship and not universal morality, please don’t spin it into a moral appeal to “right and wrong” here; with all due respect.

        A multicultural nation (and world) requires a true north application of the moral rule-set. Otherwise, we’ve only succeeded in assuring future war by mixing up the nations.

        If we are playing the type of game where the application of the rules is different for different interests, then what on Earth are we doing living next to one another in the United States?

        By definition, we have nothing in common because we will each have our own self-serving rule-set. We are opponents, not co-nationals. We should instead be in our own nations wherein you can assert your idiosyncratic morality and I can assert mine.

        If Putin “might be right” to crack down, as you state, then to stay morally consistent we have to admit that so might the West.

        In fact, no one can make either judgement because the government certainly works from a pivot of one hundred percent survival self-interest. We cannot judge the government’s survival interest against a template of universal morality, because the motivations de facto flout universalism. We can only judge its actions (not motivations) in regard to what is ethical for the government to do in any protest situation.

        Jon

        December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “He doesn’t say which side is right because his operating assumption is that Putin is right under any and all hypotheticals.”

        Please prove that Mike’s operating assumption is that Putin is right. All he wrote is “Imagine the news headlines if Putin used tear gas on his own people and jailed 700 protesters.”

        Parse it specifically.

        gothamette

        December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Cat, after all these years you still don’t know the difference between a discovered and an undiscovered Jew?

        Yakov

        December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

      • TUJ, your attempted point is moot because in a real game you cannot make an objective judgement as to the morality of your opponent.

        You need to take that argument to Perez because he is the one assuming the protesters cannot be morally right.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        December 10, 2018 at EDT am

      • Please prove that Mike’s operating assumption is that Putin is right.

        It was Perez Hilton’s comment, not Mike’s.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        December 10, 2018 at EDT am

      • Witness your implied support for two different applications of the rule (that determines what to do in response to protestors) for two different players (Western and Russian governments) in regard to one type of movement (protest action). Unless I am reading you wrong and you left unstated your support for a crackdown against Western anti-globalist protestors.

        The protesters in Russia are not necessarily the same as Western protesters because the mentality of Russia’s population is already nationalistic.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        December 10, 2018 at EDT am

  3. I can’t believe the take away for TUJ about that statement is that I’m somehow pro-Putin.

    Are you for real, or are you trying to make some larger point that is escaping me, and apparently everyone else? If you honestly thought that was a pro-Putin statement, you’ve clearly misread it. If your just being a troll, what’s the point? To derail the post topic? To what end?

    Mike Street Station

    December 9, 2018 at EDT pm

    • I can’t believe the take away for TUJ about that statement is that I’m somehow pro-Putin.

      Unless you are Perez Hilton the comment wasn’t directed at you.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      December 10, 2018 at EDT am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: