GW Hayduke

I would sweat it. I would try and delete the one nazi shirt pic if possible.

You had indicated that Shady's take on news coverage resonated with you. I was pointing out western journalism was addressing the alleged unsavory aspects of the journalist and why I believed they covered it the way they did in that piece. I apologize for any hostility to anyone including Shady. Ideally any hostility would have been toward positions and sources of information, but I'm sure I was personal at some point. I doubt it would add value to label anyone a propagandist. I'm more interested in where he got some of his information and how he formed some of his opinions. Initially, I saw a flood of unsupported facts weaved into a narrative that seemed to generally fit something that could be considered pro-russian. As I read it all in some detail, it became clear that a lot of the information he was presenting wasn't too relevant or surprising. A lot of it was about the journalist having ties to the west, that he was involved in protecting Ukraine from the Russians, and that there is a ukrainian militia with an inappropriate number of supremacists. I think the more controversial stuff was with linking the journalist to fascism. I was a bit uncomfortable not knowing where much of his information was coming from. Some of his initially stated sources didn't really turn out. Rather than the soldiers pic coming from the journalist's own FB feed, it came from a random russian woman on russia's versions of FB. The UN report didn't say what he said it said. Not really that big a deal IMO and mostly harmless. He also dropped the doctored picture of the journalist in a nazi shirt, which was kind of a big deal. At this point I'm assuming it was doctored and the product of a propagandist. He wouldn't tell me where he got it. I couldn't find it by searching google. The shirt pic was critical because it was the only actual real tie between the journalist and fascism.

I get that we should all be weary of news sources, coverage, and narratives, but I just want to note that the BBC article I've provided a couple times was straight forward in disclosing the situation between the journalist and Azov. IMO since the BBC doesn't seem to feel the guy is a fascist or was ever part of a fascist group, they just cover it from the angle of how pro-Lukashenko press was covering. From what I've seen throughout this thread, there is no evidence this guy should be labeled as a "fascist" or "neo-nazi," and thus his very loose ties to a group that has some limited ties to fascism is largely irrelevant to the immediate incident. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57239521

The good news is that you are finally providing sources. The bad news is they either don't say what you think they say or they don't add anything new that wasn't already captured on their wiki page I shared earlier. IMO this is legit muddying up the waters. It isn't clear how your first source, the UN report on human rights issues, is documenting that the "UN is condemning" Azov as "extreme right." The group is mentioned 4 times in passing, zero times in the executive summary, and zero times in the conclusions and recommendations. They clearly make zero conclusions about that group and at no time did the UN "condemn as extreme right." Your second source from the ADL does disclose Azov has members who are white supremacists and labels them as a "a Ukrainian extremist group and militia." That is also all disclosed in the wiki entry I provided earlier. Your third source is a question asked by a czech politician and member of the communist party and has zero relevance to anything. Your forth source doesn't add anything new. We've already established that there are white supremacists in their ranks and that should do a better job of regulating that in their group - it is the same issue noted as why the US paused funding to the group. That isn't a quote from the subject journalist. That is a quote from a ukrainian politician that was once part of Azov. It is established that there are white supremacists in Ukraine. We've established there are some in Azov. There are some in Ukrainian military. So what? Are you still talking about a random ukranian politician and not the subject journalist? What do you think this establishes that hasn't been established long ago? That is another piece about a single person in Azov. That isn't new. Thanks for being straight forward about the t-shirt pic. The reason that is of issue is because that piece of evidence is the only real direct link between the journalist and any sort of actual real fascist type thought or action. Everything else you have presented is just second degree ties of arguable strength. None of that is news or in dispute. Should I link the BBC article again. We are all on the same page with everything you have provided. Nothing is new or surprising to the conversation. It all seems to be about muddying up the waters. The situation isn't about Azov - except for those attempting to tie the imprisoned journalist down as a fascist - i.e., muddy the waters so people's hearts might feel both sides are same. Literally no else gives a shit about Azov at this moment.

I think Lukashenko's press and Shady Ray's narrative is clearly to muddy the waters until we in the west begin to feel both sides are the same. Shady Ray's primary beef is that western press doesn't label the journalist as a fascist. His whole two degree relationship narrative is intended to establish the kid is a fascist.*** If we feel he is just another fascist, then why should we care if he is improperly imprisoned? Which sounds better, imprisoning a dissenter/journalist or imprisoning just another fascist? The language barrier combined with potentially seedy social media sources does cause confusion as you mention. IMO when an entire narrative is composed of potentially seedy social media sources sprinkled in with some unsourced odd claims (like the journalist never published pics that showed Azoz as negative) along with unsourced irrelevant claims (like the journalist worked for a group that received US funding), major red flags go up for me. *** of critical importance IMO is that none of his evidence is that this guy did any fascist type actions or has every expressed any fascist type speech. There is no evidence that this guy promoted ideals that the jews should be slaughtered, that whites are superior, or any sort of actual real hate speech. Nothing is directly tied to the journalist. All the evidence is about his supposed "links to" or "ties with" others.

Also, you had previously stated the soldiers pic was from his own FB feed. How do you know it was from his own feed? The russian FB link is apparently for a random russian chick named Irina. I'm not that familiar with how FB operates or how russian FB operates.

I get it. Your position is that Azoz is full-blown neo-nazi group. Stir up the bottom sediment a little bit. Come on man. This is all about the question of degree. They are part of the national guard of Ukraine. They literally kill russians and protect against russian aggression. Do members within Azoz have ties to white supremacy? Yes. Have they had funding withheld because the group hasn't regulated their members on that front? Yes. Does that make them a "neo-nazi group?" No. They are a national militia protecting against the russians with members tied to neo-nazis and have not taken steps to properly regulate. Our military has white supremacists within their ranks also and our military has been tasked with doing a better job with rooting them out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion Stir up the bottom sediment a little bit more. I'm not telling you it is tenuous. I'm telling you the degree is arguable. Then, I'm also telling you the degree of relationship between the journalist and Azoz is also arguable. Then, I'm pointing out to you that your narrative is a pro-dictator muddying the waters narrative with highly questionable sources. Yes. Muddy the waters until both sides are the same. And again, why haven't you provided your source for the T-shirt pics?

I'll note that is seems you don't have a source for your earlier pics concerning the T-shirt. Did it also come from russian FB or maybe twitter? That one looked the most obvious digital alteration IMO.

No offense bro, but russian FB isn't a good source to use especially when muddying the waters against an anti-russian journalist. Twitter takes are also not that helpful, especially when the BBC has already evaluated. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57239521 Your narrative seems to align perfectly with pro-Lukashenko press (per the BBC).

Why is any of that worth noting? Isn't that all to be expected by a guy on a dictator's shitlist? Your position seems to be that western media should label this guy a "nazi." Your position is founded on the idea that Azoz is linked to nazis, and the degree of that link is arguable. Then Protasevich has a relationship with Azoz, and the degree of that relationship is arguable. Based on these two degrees of relationships, Protasevich is tainted. That is obvious muddying the waters. Clear as day. Where did you pick up this narrative? Why are there no sources? You state Protasevich was "embedded" and "on the ground" with Azoz. Weren't they fighting the russian's in 2014 and if anyone was covering the fighting they likely covered Azoz? Is Fergal Keane also tainted with nazi ties? https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-29086403 Why are there no sources here? Where did you get these narratives? I know you've referenced the BBC is establishing ties. Below is what the BBC provides (with a source). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57239521 Where are you getting any of this? Why no sources? Come on folks. Mrs. Whiggins and RomaVicta are intelligent posters here. You guys have seemingly fallen for a muddying of the waters - a narrative crafted with zero sources and hinges on a weak two degree relationship (Nazi -> Azoz -> Kid).

The second picture of the t-shirt appears doctored IMO. The first pic of the head on an guy in fatigues could easily be created. Where did you get them? I know you say they are from his FB feed from 2015 before it was locked. Did you get these from his Facebook page? Can you share the link? Do you know why his FB page has been locked since 2015? I don’t know a lot FB pics but I know normal images can have their metadata changed. Where did you come across all of that is my main question?

The conservative identity in the US being relegated to victimhood and whining about message boards would shame supply-side Jesus

If any mod comes at me, I'm going out like this guy.

The Texas GOP bill currently being pushed that would decrease the number of polling places in areas with a far higher share of nonwhite eligible voters while increasing the number of polling locations in areas with a higher share of white eligible voters. Those requirements in the bill would only affect urban counties. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling-restrictions/

I was brought up through the Catholic school system including a Jesuit high school and was never subjected to anything related to Israel or the needs of Jews related to Jerusalem. And trust me, they were not shy at all about pushing certain types of indoctrinations, like abortion.

Yep. That was how things were until 2008 with the Heller the decision. It is gonna take some big changes at the SC to fix. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

This seems to be getting close to a sovereign citizen mindset. Do you identify that way? Why do you think a “natural right” to self defense has any influence on whether a government can or should require a permit to conceal? I have a natural right to transport myself, to move across the landscape; therefore, a government shouldn’t set speed limits? I have a natural right to feed myself therefor I can take food from the grocery store without paying for it? FYI, the “law abiding citizen” label is simply something to attempt to differentiate yourself from the “others.” It’s like labeling good guys and bad guys. It’s intended to make you feel special and therefore immune to any minor inconvenience, like taking a class or getting a permit. For folks who listen to the gun debate, the law abiding citizen trope kind of rings similar to muh freedoms or some other pointless idea.

What do you mean? I'm not emotionally triggered by what people are telling me about CRT or DEI. I'm ok with how things played out with Mr. Potato Head also. I was giving you a heads up about the propagandists who try to tap into triggering emotional reactions. I'm trying to help you. Once folks understand they are being influenced by propaganda, there are steps to take to protect yourself. But first you have to acknowledge the problem.

I understand you have extreme concerns about a situation you feel is beyond disturbing. You aren't alone in being emotional about this stuff. I wonder if folks in your situation ever step back and assess what is going on and try to find out why you feel emotionally engaged. Are you aware of the entities in the world who benefit from a segment of our population being outraged? Have you pondered who those entities might be? What if the media that triggered the outrage was intentional propaganda? What benefit do those propagandists get from your emotions? Have you ever considered that maybe you are being played by right wing propaganda? There is always the following step of protecting ourselves from that type of propaganda.

It is bizarre seeing folks conflate CRT with DEI workplace training and becoming emotionally triggered them. Get help. The vast majority of DEI is really fucking obvious. Understanding that those around you are different and have different life experiences, their are root causes to disparities, and our institutions are better when diverse. It is simply workplace training to teach people to not be assholes. Don’t compliment your coworkers tits. Take off your Nazi armband before entering the building. Basic shit. The emotional response from the right to that kind of thing is strange to see. I think it is about as outrageous as their response to Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seuss or their weird fear of masks. Some folks on this board need to cry on their mommy’s shoulder until they feel safe again.

So, why did your girl this like that when she so you see till her friend not him cooking probably?