It is really striking to me that people like Kolokol are getting defensive of Bret, despite him being very clearly really racist in that interview against the Chinese and almost referring to them by the end as biologically evil or indifferent to human emotions. These people who defend Bret act like they are oblivious to this, yet Kolokol…
It is really striking to me that people like Kolokol are getting defensive of Bret, despite him being very clearly really racist in that interview against the Chinese and almost referring to them by the end as biologically evil or indifferent to human emotions. These people who defend Bret act like they are oblivious to this, yet Kolokol admits he remembers Bret's disgusting comments on the one-child policy meant for some kind of evolutionary plan to create an all male army devoid of emotion. So it is very odd that Kolokol would continue to portray Bret as well-meaning and not stirring up anti-China sentiments. And as you bring up Cynthia, that he refers to the Chinese as a parasitoid devoid of human compassion. The fact that he brings these things up and yet apparently we are supposed to care about Bret's reputation and possibly feelings in response to your write up Cynthia is really offensive and I really feel for you on this. People seem to be oblivious that you are of Chinese descent and they are acting like what Bret said should not be incredibly offensive to you. It again reminds me of what Putin said in his interview with Tucker, Americans suffer from "self-conceit". Anyway, I personally think you handled the whole Bret debacle fairly. Kolokol bringing up that some people think the way he does, as if this is supposed to discount from others clearly not agreeing with this viewpoint just shows how self-serving of a view this is. Anyway, I think that at least the world in general is waking up to what is the true source of the world's suffering and the Anglo-American imperialist machine is coming to an end. And thus this is cause for celebration, nevermind the China haters Cynthia.
Since you guys already know just what my concerns, thoughts, and feelings are I probably shouldn't say anything but I will anyway.
Yon is a person of interest here. Years ago I followed him via an RSS feed and took him as a paleo-conservative but then he turned out to be more of a imperial apologist and I dropped the feed. I think it likely ("Likely" I said) that he's an intel asset and with his war time credibility was able to tweak Mr. Weinstein's ears.
When I last went to the site of the video there weren't many comments, and they were the run of the mill standard Sinophobic stuff one sees day in and day out. I may have become accustomed and desensitized by the massive, even official Russophobic virus that's also been active for centuries.
I think there is something hilarious here in a rather unfunny way, neither the Sinophobe commenters nor the Bret haters have taken Weinstein's caveats seriously or they've otherwise dismissed them. It could (I said "could") just be a sly tactic, but I did, I took him at his word. Silly me. So, I'm not part of any faction of this very stupid game.
One may not like my angle and I may have missed some of what Bret said sure, I wasn't taking notes. After once "defending' Stalin and Trump, (boy was that expensive), I've not seen anything yet to change my mind, and if no one engages Bret he's not likely to change his. Pity.
Also with a slightly kinder heart my first comment could (I said "Could) be seen as an actual compliment rather than a call for a fight or an attempt to derail what should have been a good thread. Pity that too.
Kolokol, you wrote that you defended Hilary once and that it is a quirk of yours to defend someone even if you don't like them. So in other words, you like to waste everyone's time. Rather than take such an approach don't you think it would be best to think about what is the intention behind such statements as Bret? You keep saying his observations which at first you were calling hypotheses which means that must be grounded in some sort of objective reasoning but then later changed it to whatever he subjectively takes from an experience, like him calling the Asian camp "hostile" simply because they refused to talk to him. And apparently that is his right according to you and he doesn't need to justify his feelings to anybody since he is talking about an experience? So in other words, those who have trust in Bret are going to go along with this impression also based on feelings. If it is really a quirk of yours to defend those being attacked why are you not bringing up his anti-China rhetoric? Well, because as you admit it, you were one of those people who took him at his word. Well that is precisely the point Cynthia made which at first you denied then later admitted to, and is what was destructive and useless in terms of actual reporting on what is going on in Panama by Bret. I think you are already admitting to yourself that you are heavily desensitized, well that is not a good thing since clearly anti-China media frenzy is working Americans up so that they will insanely support a war against China. Instead of treating Bret as an innocent five year old child that is apparently Cynthia's responsibility to babysit and inform him of his errors, do you seriously think Cynthia should do that for everyone she criticises take it upon herself to try to change their minds? Instead of asking Cynthia such a tall demand why don't you hold Bret responsible for his own destructive statements? Because as you finally admit in your last response, you are easy on Bret because Bret was sharing feelings about this that you in fact share. You are aware that Michael Yon is an imperialist and not to be trusted and now are admitting likely mishaped Bret's view and encouraged liberal and imaginative "hypothesising" and yet acted like Bret's interview was somehow benign in stirring up anti-China frenzy? I think you have a lot of deeper reflection to make on what is actually shaping your perspectives, again especially since there is a drive to bring your country into another insane war, though I suspect this will be your last if your country is so insane to embark on this path of destruction.
Yes I am aware of the populist approach of "Devil's Advocate". The question is Kolokol, why would you want to be an advocate for the Devil? "Go away"? Clearly a nerve was hit.
It is really striking to me that people like Kolokol are getting defensive of Bret, despite him being very clearly really racist in that interview against the Chinese and almost referring to them by the end as biologically evil or indifferent to human emotions. These people who defend Bret act like they are oblivious to this, yet Kolokol admits he remembers Bret's disgusting comments on the one-child policy meant for some kind of evolutionary plan to create an all male army devoid of emotion. So it is very odd that Kolokol would continue to portray Bret as well-meaning and not stirring up anti-China sentiments. And as you bring up Cynthia, that he refers to the Chinese as a parasitoid devoid of human compassion. The fact that he brings these things up and yet apparently we are supposed to care about Bret's reputation and possibly feelings in response to your write up Cynthia is really offensive and I really feel for you on this. People seem to be oblivious that you are of Chinese descent and they are acting like what Bret said should not be incredibly offensive to you. It again reminds me of what Putin said in his interview with Tucker, Americans suffer from "self-conceit". Anyway, I personally think you handled the whole Bret debacle fairly. Kolokol bringing up that some people think the way he does, as if this is supposed to discount from others clearly not agreeing with this viewpoint just shows how self-serving of a view this is. Anyway, I think that at least the world in general is waking up to what is the true source of the world's suffering and the Anglo-American imperialist machine is coming to an end. And thus this is cause for celebration, nevermind the China haters Cynthia.
This is what I sent out to my list of people who are aware of the Bret thing:
"Somewhere around 25:26 minutes Cynthia addresses and adds needed context to some of the things Bret observed in Panama, check it out.
But go ahead make me out as an enemy.
Since you guys already know just what my concerns, thoughts, and feelings are I probably shouldn't say anything but I will anyway.
Yon is a person of interest here. Years ago I followed him via an RSS feed and took him as a paleo-conservative but then he turned out to be more of a imperial apologist and I dropped the feed. I think it likely ("Likely" I said) that he's an intel asset and with his war time credibility was able to tweak Mr. Weinstein's ears.
When I last went to the site of the video there weren't many comments, and they were the run of the mill standard Sinophobic stuff one sees day in and day out. I may have become accustomed and desensitized by the massive, even official Russophobic virus that's also been active for centuries.
I think there is something hilarious here in a rather unfunny way, neither the Sinophobe commenters nor the Bret haters have taken Weinstein's caveats seriously or they've otherwise dismissed them. It could (I said "could") just be a sly tactic, but I did, I took him at his word. Silly me. So, I'm not part of any faction of this very stupid game.
One may not like my angle and I may have missed some of what Bret said sure, I wasn't taking notes. After once "defending' Stalin and Trump, (boy was that expensive), I've not seen anything yet to change my mind, and if no one engages Bret he's not likely to change his. Pity.
Also with a slightly kinder heart my first comment could (I said "Could) be seen as an actual compliment rather than a call for a fight or an attempt to derail what should have been a good thread. Pity that too.
Kolokol, you wrote that you defended Hilary once and that it is a quirk of yours to defend someone even if you don't like them. So in other words, you like to waste everyone's time. Rather than take such an approach don't you think it would be best to think about what is the intention behind such statements as Bret? You keep saying his observations which at first you were calling hypotheses which means that must be grounded in some sort of objective reasoning but then later changed it to whatever he subjectively takes from an experience, like him calling the Asian camp "hostile" simply because they refused to talk to him. And apparently that is his right according to you and he doesn't need to justify his feelings to anybody since he is talking about an experience? So in other words, those who have trust in Bret are going to go along with this impression also based on feelings. If it is really a quirk of yours to defend those being attacked why are you not bringing up his anti-China rhetoric? Well, because as you admit it, you were one of those people who took him at his word. Well that is precisely the point Cynthia made which at first you denied then later admitted to, and is what was destructive and useless in terms of actual reporting on what is going on in Panama by Bret. I think you are already admitting to yourself that you are heavily desensitized, well that is not a good thing since clearly anti-China media frenzy is working Americans up so that they will insanely support a war against China. Instead of treating Bret as an innocent five year old child that is apparently Cynthia's responsibility to babysit and inform him of his errors, do you seriously think Cynthia should do that for everyone she criticises take it upon herself to try to change their minds? Instead of asking Cynthia such a tall demand why don't you hold Bret responsible for his own destructive statements? Because as you finally admit in your last response, you are easy on Bret because Bret was sharing feelings about this that you in fact share. You are aware that Michael Yon is an imperialist and not to be trusted and now are admitting likely mishaped Bret's view and encouraged liberal and imaginative "hypothesising" and yet acted like Bret's interview was somehow benign in stirring up anti-China frenzy? I think you have a lot of deeper reflection to make on what is actually shaping your perspectives, again especially since there is a drive to bring your country into another insane war, though I suspect this will be your last if your country is so insane to embark on this path of destruction.
You have apparently never understood the concept "Devil's Advocate".
I took him as his word when HE said his statements were hypothesis. I did not take his observations as hard facts. Why would I do that??
Another internet psychologist . Go away.
Yes I am aware of the populist approach of "Devil's Advocate". The question is Kolokol, why would you want to be an advocate for the Devil? "Go away"? Clearly a nerve was hit.
Populist approach? You mean seeing a situation thru another persons eyes is a populist approach? What a terrible thing to do!
" Clearly a nerve was hit." Clearly I've had enough of your pseudo psychoanalysis and have other things to do.