US President Donald Trump signed the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law Thursday, completing the passage of the largest military spending bill in US history—$901 billion, or over $1 trillion when combined with supplemental funding passed earlier this year.
The Senate voted 77-20 on Wednesday to pass the bill. The Democratic leadership, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, voted for the bill. They were joined by Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, both of whom released a video last month calling on military personnel to disobey illegal orders—as Trump was sending the US military on a murder spree off the coast of Latin America.
Citing Trump’s statements about using troops to shoot protesters in America, Slotkin invoked the legacy of the Nuremberg tribunals, which convicted Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against peace. But when it came time to vote, this invocation was revealed to be completely meaningless. Slotkin voted to hand Trump the resources to pursue his military adventure against Venezuela…
How is that any different from what the guys in your camp do?
I do personally dislike the wsws but there is nothing arguable about the headline here, it is publicly accessible information. I will question western sources when they make unsupported claims about geopoltical adversaries, as much as I’ll question state propaganda from another country when doing the same (such as Russia claiming genocide of Russians in Eastern Ukraine for example).
Your claim was, “So you dismiss the content just because you dislike the source?”, and my retort was that people in your camp, that is the ml instance and the other instances from the triad, also do the same because they disregard UN or Reuters sourced info on the basis of sumply being bourgeois.
If you personally don’t do that, then the argument doesn5apply to you and you can ignore it
Hey, aren’t you the same person complaining about red herring on another comment thread? Instead of following your logic of answering with the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies, I’ll answer to your point:
Tankies like me don’t generally refuse all information coming from UN or Reuters on the basis of being bourgeois. If Reuters reports on domestic events in western nations with evidence, that’s generally trustworthy. When it comes to geopolitical topics, the thing changes from “journalistic reporting of easily provable stuff” to “geopolitically charged claims without serious journalistic work”, and that’s when tankies like me are careful of western sources.
If you believe otherwise, you can bring me some examples instead of generally referring to something tankies do that I don’t think we do
I think you should go look at that link again.
Right, so only taking the points that they agree with you on.
Here’s one:
https://lemmy.world/comment/20878099
Here’s another doing this when asked to cite the UN or Reuters as a neutral source:
https://lemmy.world/comment/19851916
The Wikipedia list of logical fallacies was a meme exaggeration. It’s a trope that edgy redditors will answer to serious comments by discarding their content according to one of the fallacies in the Wikipedia list. But sure, I’ll answer to you accordingly: fallacy fallacy. Even if my comment were a fallacy (which I disagree), that’s irrelevant because a logical fallacy can still be true. How about you answer to the content of the comment then, and not to a logical structure.
Regarding the other stuff about western sources and tankies, my claim was this:
And you bring me one link about Venezuela and one link about DPRK, the former including links to western “Freedom Burger Eagle association” type organizations, not even to journalistic or UN claims. This seems to align very well with what I claimed.
A logical fallacy can be true yes but when it’s things like red herrings and ignoratio elenchis that don’t contribute to the discussion, they don’t need to be brought up. If you actually looked at that link that I provided instead of just outright dismissing it because it’s ‘edgy’ or what not, you’d see examples there of how certain arguments don’t contribute to the discussion, only muddying conversation.
Right, so you’re you’re doing the very thing you were questioning that commenter of doing: Disregarding the source instead of the content.
Fwiw, I’m not saying it’s wrong to do that, I’m only showing you the contradiction in your claims.