You mean I ignored Samson's post on the statistics while I literally answered it ?
You're right, and I am wrong for saying you ignored it, my brain skimmed you going over Estebonrober's post for the 100th time and I kinda tuned out. That said, you didn't acknowledge Samson's comment that
generally there is dispute over the interpretation of the numbers.
You repeating them as facts doesn't change the
fact that they are disputed. Again, opinion as fact. "these are numbers" is a fact. "these numbers correspond to different types of aid" is an interpretation that requires correlation.
What I said : that Estebonrober was blinded by ideology in his assessment (namely, being so keen to notice any "bad" that the USA did, that he puts an overtly negative light on Ukraine just because it's the side the USA support). An easy evidence is the contrast with the treatment on what is happening in Palestine (I actually don't remember accusing you of that on this specific subject - I certainly did on other subjects -, though I did say that you caming so hard in his defense was a weird hill to die on for). Another easy evidence is how this very thread starts by digging up all kind of conspiracies theories strongly correlated with this mindset. Yet another easy evidence is how he simply... inverted the fact that hard numbers proved his claim false about the USA being the only significant provider to Ukraine. That's quite a list of strong indicators right here.
Much more generally, I'd say there definitely are a number of people who have such ideological bias, and put so much focus in "ideological purity" that they disproportionnally weight bad actions from the West to the point of unfavourably comparing it to other regimes which are far worse in the very same criteria that made such actions bad to begin with. And yeah, once again, it happens at different degrees (as I feel I need to spell out everything : I'm not talking about the ubiquitous "everyone has a bias" but rather how this focus on ideological purity can range from an irritating but overall somewhat benign "losing a bit of perspective" to a worrying "becoming completely detached from reality", or becoming a support in extremism).
What I also said in general : that to put both the "bad" on both countries on an equal standing (or even a comparable standing) is wrong and that the whole "neo-nazis in Ukraine" is repeating a favourite Russian propaganda point (that is factually false in its attempt to cast it as an actually bigger problem in Ukraine than in the average European country).
These accusations are specifics and coming from noticing a pattern in what certain people post - I'm sure you are well aware of such things. I mean, the reason you're so much on my case is due to this too, isn't it ?
What I also said : that I don't believe either you nor Estebonrober are pro-Russia.
It's not really a weird hill to die on. I just don't do it much because it never goes anywhere and you never change. Every so often when I think the misinterpretations are particularly egregious, I decide to have a go. This was one of those times.
I've also already explained why I think you misinterpreted Estebonrober's post(s), and that didn't go anywhere, so I'm not in a hurry to do it again.
But I will point out that you can absolutely, 100%, notice and state whatever patterns you believe you're seeing. Others can of you. You can make whatever value judgements you want. Others can of you.
It's only when you
object to value judgements and alleged misinterpretations, but
defend your own, that it becomes noteworthy enough to post about. And before you do the mirror mirror / rubber glue / reflection deflection argument back at me, again, I don't do this much anymore. That's
my lesson learned. The reason for which you (and others) are amply demonstrating.
Everyone does have bias. It's not a "focus on ideological purity", because more people than you diagnose as having that have that problem as well. Yourself, at times. Because you have an ideology you believe in. You may consider it measured, less extreme, etc, et al, but it still exists, and you believe in it
fervently. In short: you suffer from what you repeatedly diagnose other posters with. You've created this "focus on ideological purity" as an extension of "bias" as something you can label other posters with. Sorry, but it's a sliding scale, and we're all on it.
------------------
Late addition: "putting both countries on an equal standing" by calling them both "bad" was the reasoning Sarin used for his opinion on the Middle Eastern conflict from the other RD thread. What kicked this off between me and him, that lead to you moaning I was misrepresenting your uncharitable assumptions about Estebonrober, was me pointing out - factually - that "both sides are bad" in the Russia thread would get you uncharitably misrepresented by a bunch of posters (I wasn't even singling you out at that point), because (and I agree) "both sides are bad" distorts the agency in the conflict we're talking about.
This is when Sarin turned into the Logical Robot and endlessly demanding the "burden of proof" for a series of posts you and I both know exist, that he could've easily searched for, despite me politely asking him to as I was on my mobile making it difficult to link search effectively (especially when doing stuff IRL, which is why I was posting from my phone). You're not ashamed of your position there, and I don't expect you to be. I disagree with your reasoning, of course, but that's separate to the posts factually existing.
