gualudengren

A quick hop and a skip from US-centrism to Euro-centrism doesn't really salvage the fact that liberal is still widely used around the world to describe those who adhere to liberalism, the hegemonic political-economic ideology of the west.

Social-Democracy despite its name is in the modern age simply another form of liberalism.

Are you incapable of comprehending what I said?

Admissions against one's interests hold more weight than claims in ones own interests.

This is a fact.

At no point did I make any claim about it being any media outlet telling the truth or any other such idiotic stawman you are attempting to build.

it is never to “keep the public informed”

When did I ever say it was? Infact my comments very clearly point to the reality of pushing narratives to forward the interests of those who own/control the media.

Just because you happen to agree with it doesn’t make it any more factual or less disinformation than the ones you don’t agree with.

Fucking obviously. Thank you for the truism. But again literally entirely irrelevant to what I said.

Taking bias and interests into account when evaluating how much stock to take in a piece of information and it's source is a media literacy problem in your eyes?

Are you sure you're not the one with the problem?

When media admits things that runs against their interests/narratives it is more believable than when it fits in with their narratives and interests generally yes. Is that really a controversial idea?

American centric much.

Liberals are pro capitalism (sometimes with minor treats or reforms for their ingroup). Democrats, Republicans, Social Democrats, Greens etc. all liberals.

Great. I also don’t love any country having nukes, so there’s already two of us.

I think it has been proven repeatedly by the US that if you wish to truly be sovereign nukes are non-negotiable which is a great tragedy. (Libya, Venezuela, Iraq, Yemen, etc.)

I was well aware that your point was not about Iran, that’s why I made the cynical counterpoint I made.

Your cynical counterpoint was still stupid as it was about a related but entirely different situation. A country having nukes and being able to bypass MAD are 2 vastly different scenarios.

As for your second paragraph it's all irrelevant to the point at hand which is that if there is a risk of a country (especially one with a history of attempting to) bypassing MAD against you frustrating that attempt by any means necessary is the logical step to take.

Ukraine did have nuclear weapons and gave them up only under broad guarantees of continued independence… so… yeah.

I wonder what country has a history of not only using nuclear weapons but using "allied" (vassal nations) on the borders of competing nations to host their arsenal to threaten first strike capability. Might want to look into what actually caused the "Cuban" missile crisis. American nukes in Turkey threating first strike capability and the breakdown of MAD.

Also your Iran strawman was fucking stupid and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it. It was completely unrelated to what I said, even if Iran developed nuclear weapons they wouldn't have first strike capability on the US so it isn't relevant to doing whatever necessary to frustrate those attempting to destroy MAD by achieving first strike capability.

so... yeah...

Also also pointing out what is logical for a force to do in the face of certain situations doesn't mean I support it and especially doesn't mean I generally support any other force taking related but different actions. Really reminding me why I hate deabtebros.

I wish I knew as little as you about world events. Iran had a fatwa against nuclear weapons the idea of them trying to make them was as true as Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

unbiased source

This isn't something that exists. Anyone who tries to sell you a source as being unbiased is lying to you. If you believe any source is unbiased chances are it simply aligns with your biases best.