Self hating westerners often find it as easy to condemn their own societies while ignoring the crimes of non-western societies. This leads to odd situations like leftist secular types who read The Guardian defending a repressive theocratic regime like Iran. The below, by Damntheral, is from a discussion thread commenting on an article about repressive clothing laws in Iran.
HOW TO ANSWER AN ARTICLE ON HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE ON CIF - a quick how-to.
1) Check if the article is about Israel - if not, got to 2. If it is, go nuts with disapproval, use hyperbole, and wish for the disappearance of that country. If the writer is from that country, shout at them as if they support the abuse even though they are highlighting it in the first place. Explain how Israel is a puppet of the US anyway. Don't be scared of getting carried away: remember, you can't be anti-semitic, you're left-wing! Keywords: genocidal, neocon.
2) Check if the country is the US or the UK - if not, go to 3. If it is, go nuts with disapproval, huff and puff as though you are the last person standing between the world and totalitarianism. Explain how the US is a puppet of Israel anyway. Keywords: lapdog, orwellian, neocon.
3) Does that country have links, however tenuous and interested with the US/UK? If not, go to 4. If it does, go nuts with disapproval, huff and puff and explain that the entire regime is entirely the fault of the US/UK as though its inhabitants are sub-human beings with no moral capacity. Hey don't worry: you can't be racist, you're left-wing! Keywords: neocon, lapdog, puppet, neocon.
4) Take a deep breath: this is the big one. The author of the piece (and anyone agreeing with them) is a toxic neo-con warmongering zionist neo-con warmonger (if white) or a toxic neo-con warmongering Uncle Tom/coconut/quisling neo-con warmonger (all other options) and needs to be exposed as such. Make this dirty, make this personal, repeat yourself a lot. Anything goes frankly, slander, insinuation, insults. Remember: you are not fighting for the honour of Musharaf/Putin/Ahmadinejad/Chavez/Hu Jintao/al-Bashir or obscure militiamen and warlords and defending murder, torture and rape, even though to the untrained eye you are, what you are really doing is well you are one of the good guys anyway so that's OK. Bring up things happening on other continents, half a century ago, one century ago, four centuries ago, on another planet or in an alternate reality if you must so long as points 1, 2 or 3 can apply to those. The other guy inversely is not allowed to do this so bring up the timing of their piece. Bring up their background. Bring up oil. Bring up the absence of oil. Bring up conspiracy theories. Keywords: neocon, warmonger, what about, neocon, islamophobia, empire, neocon, discursive machine of hegemony, neocon.
5) go home regretting a bit that the likes of Ceaucescu, Pol Pot and Milosevic are no longer around to be whatabouted, but console yourself by thinking that now at least there are suicide bombers.
6) avoid mirrors.
HELPFUL TIP: if you know absolutely nothing about the country in question and no one else has commented yet, a handy solution is to look at the victims instead. Are the victims Muslims? If so 3 probably applies. However keep in mind that Serbs and other Muslims are exceptionally allowed to kill Muslims and anyway it never happens ever so go to 4 instead or just ask what the point of the article is, and if someone answers call them boring.
HOW TO ANSWER AN ARTICLE ON HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE ON CIF - a quick how-to.
1) Check if the article is about Israel - if not, got to 2. If it is, go nuts with disapproval, use hyperbole, and wish for the disappearance of that country. If the writer is from that country, shout at them as if they support the abuse even though they are highlighting it in the first place. Explain how Israel is a puppet of the US anyway. Don't be scared of getting carried away: remember, you can't be anti-semitic, you're left-wing! Keywords: genocidal, neocon.
2) Check if the country is the US or the UK - if not, go to 3. If it is, go nuts with disapproval, huff and puff as though you are the last person standing between the world and totalitarianism. Explain how the US is a puppet of Israel anyway. Keywords: lapdog, orwellian, neocon.
3) Does that country have links, however tenuous and interested with the US/UK? If not, go to 4. If it does, go nuts with disapproval, huff and puff and explain that the entire regime is entirely the fault of the US/UK as though its inhabitants are sub-human beings with no moral capacity. Hey don't worry: you can't be racist, you're left-wing! Keywords: neocon, lapdog, puppet, neocon.
4) Take a deep breath: this is the big one. The author of the piece (and anyone agreeing with them) is a toxic neo-con warmongering zionist neo-con warmonger (if white) or a toxic neo-con warmongering Uncle Tom/coconut/quisling neo-con warmonger (all other options) and needs to be exposed as such. Make this dirty, make this personal, repeat yourself a lot. Anything goes frankly, slander, insinuation, insults. Remember: you are not fighting for the honour of Musharaf/Putin/Ahmadinejad/Chavez/Hu Jintao/al-Bashir or obscure militiamen and warlords and defending murder, torture and rape, even though to the untrained eye you are, what you are really doing is well you are one of the good guys anyway so that's OK. Bring up things happening on other continents, half a century ago, one century ago, four centuries ago, on another planet or in an alternate reality if you must so long as points 1, 2 or 3 can apply to those. The other guy inversely is not allowed to do this so bring up the timing of their piece. Bring up their background. Bring up oil. Bring up the absence of oil. Bring up conspiracy theories. Keywords: neocon, warmonger, what about, neocon, islamophobia, empire, neocon, discursive machine of hegemony, neocon.
5) go home regretting a bit that the likes of Ceaucescu, Pol Pot and Milosevic are no longer around to be whatabouted, but console yourself by thinking that now at least there are suicide bombers.
6) avoid mirrors.
HELPFUL TIP: if you know absolutely nothing about the country in question and no one else has commented yet, a handy solution is to look at the victims instead. Are the victims Muslims? If so 3 probably applies. However keep in mind that Serbs and other Muslims are exceptionally allowed to kill Muslims and anyway it never happens ever so go to 4 instead or just ask what the point of the article is, and if someone answers call them boring.
1 comment:
i find more info here:
http://feldsparsworld.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment