Lots of sanctions, lots of shit talk against Russia. Russia is simply defending itself against NATO establishing at it's border. They have been peacefully telling NATO do not expand East towards us for more than 10 years, yet we are expected to think Russia is the aggressor? They would invade Finland in the same way if they intended to join. Ukraine is a strategically important location for Russia in terms of defense and transport, but also quite resource rich. As long as Russia occupies Ukraine in some way, they are unable to join NATO, nor would they be considered and they will survive sanctions. They have a strong frequent transport and trade with China year round through the North East with oil & gas using ice breaker ships and that will become a critical link for Russia going forward. I don't expect them to ever withdraw personally.
if poker is dangerous to them i would rank sports betting as a Kodiak grizzly bear who smells blood after you just threw a javelin into his cub - RaiNKhAN
On March 01 2022 12:15 ggplz wrote:
Lots of sanctions, lots of shit talk against Russia. Russia is simply defending itself against NATO establishing at it's border. They have been peacefully telling NATO do not expand East towards us for more than 10 years, yet we are expected to think Russia is the aggressor? They would invade Finland in the same way if they intended to join. Ukraine is a strategically important location for Russia in terms of defense and transport, but also quite resource rich. As long as Russia occupies Ukraine in some way, they are unable to join NATO, nor would they be considered and they will survive sanctions. They have a strong frequent transport and trade with China year round through the North East with oil & gas using ice breaker ships and that will become a critical link for Russia going forward. I don't expect them to ever withdraw personally.
You gotta do some serious mental gymnastics to blame Nato for Russias attack lol. Also if we joined, it would be probably done overnight so good luck invading a Nato country. In the end Russia is a broke ass country that is gonna be even more broke and isolated after the sanctions.
On March 01 2022 12:15 ggplz wrote:
Lots of sanctions, lots of shit talk against Russia. Russia is simply defending itself against NATO establishing at it's border. They have been peacefully telling NATO do not expand East towards us for more than 10 years, yet we are expected to think Russia is the aggressor? They would invade Finland in the same way if they intended to join. Ukraine is a strategically important location for Russia in terms of defense and transport, but also quite resource rich. As long as Russia occupies Ukraine in some way, they are unable to join NATO, nor would they be considered and they will survive sanctions. They have a strong frequent transport and trade with China year round through the North East with oil & gas using ice breaker ships and that will become a critical link for Russia going forward. I don't expect them to ever withdraw personally.
You gotta do some serious mental gymnastics to blame Nato for Russias attack lol. Also if we joined, it would be probably done overnight so good luck invading a Nato country. In the end Russia is a broke ass country that is gonna be even more broke and isolated after the sanctions.
Not at all, you just need to look at it from Russia's perspective. I think even if you joined overnight, it would be a provocation and act of aggression in the eyes of Russia and they would invade or be ready to use nuclear weapons. So, no, you will never join NATO "overnight". Russia would invade you and nobody would intervene. Also, they are taking a hit economically for sure, but Europe is still reliant on their natural gas and they will get what they need via China etc, there are other banking transfer methods than SWIFT etc
if poker is dangerous to them i would rank sports betting as a Kodiak grizzly bear who smells blood after you just threw a javelin into his cub - RaiNKhAN
What are these 10 post accounts posting dumb shit in here. Learn the fucking history before you speak. NATO, US, EU left Putin no choice if you think otherwise you have been brainwashed by western media.
Or you could watch this to understand it from US point if view by a Chicago professor
Not at all, you just need to look at it from Russia's perspective.
'
How about looking at it from Ukraine's perspective? Why should they accept to be a bufferzone for Russia? Should they not get to decide for themself what they want to be?
On March 01 2022 16:07 spets1 wrote:
What are these 10 post accounts posting dumb shit in here. Learn the fucking history before you speak. NATO, US, EU left Putin no choice if you think otherwise you have been brainwashed by western media.
Or you could watch this to understand it from US point if view by a Chicago professor
On March 01 2022 12:15 ggplz wrote:
Lots of sanctions, lots of shit talk against Russia. Russia is simply defending itself against NATO establishing at it's border. They have been peacefully telling NATO do not expand East towards us for more than 10 years, yet we are expected to think Russia is the aggressor? They would invade Finland in the same way if they intended to join. Ukraine is a strategically important location for Russia in terms of defense and transport, but also quite resource rich. As long as Russia occupies Ukraine in some way, they are unable to join NATO, nor would they be considered and they will survive sanctions. They have a strong frequent transport and trade with China year round through the North East with oil & gas using ice breaker ships and that will become a critical link for Russia going forward. I don't expect them to ever withdraw personally.
You gotta do some serious mental gymnastics to blame Nato for Russias attack lol. Also if we joined, it would be probably done overnight so good luck invading a Nato country. In the end Russia is a broke ass country that is gonna be even more broke and isolated after the sanctions.
Not at all, you just need to look at it from Russia's perspective. I think even if you joined overnight, it would be a provocation and act of aggression in the eyes of Russia and they would invade or be ready to use nuclear weapons. So, no, you will never join NATO "overnight". Russia would invade you and nobody would intervene. Also, they are taking a hit economically for sure, but Europe is still reliant on their natural gas and they will get what they need via China etc, there are other banking transfer methods than SWIFT etc
You really think USA will back down from protecting a Nato country regardless how new member because they are afraid of nuclear war?
Not at all, you just need to look at it from Russia's perspective.
'
How about looking at it from Ukraine's perspective? Why should they accept to be a bufferzone for Russia? Should they not get to decide for themself what they want to be?
In an ideal world with no shared borders. But, sometimes you have to realise your size and power before taking such irresponsible positions. If they don't accept their position as a buffer zone, the consequence seems to be Russia will literally invade Ukraine as they are doing. I'm thinking more like, how far will they go during their invasion and will they leave anything left? At some point, Ukraine will have to negotiate (beg) for mercy and give Russia what it wants
if poker is dangerous to them i would rank sports betting as a Kodiak grizzly bear who smells blood after you just threw a javelin into his cub - RaiNKhAN
On March 01 2022 12:15 ggplz wrote:
Lots of sanctions, lots of shit talk against Russia. Russia is simply defending itself against NATO establishing at it's border. They have been peacefully telling NATO do not expand East towards us for more than 10 years, yet we are expected to think Russia is the aggressor? They would invade Finland in the same way if they intended to join. Ukraine is a strategically important location for Russia in terms of defense and transport, but also quite resource rich. As long as Russia occupies Ukraine in some way, they are unable to join NATO, nor would they be considered and they will survive sanctions. They have a strong frequent transport and trade with China year round through the North East with oil & gas using ice breaker ships and that will become a critical link for Russia going forward. I don't expect them to ever withdraw personally.
You gotta do some serious mental gymnastics to blame Nato for Russias attack lol. Also if we joined, it would be probably done overnight so good luck invading a Nato country. In the end Russia is a broke ass country that is gonna be even more broke and isolated after the sanctions.
Not at all, you just need to look at it from Russia's perspective. I think even if you joined overnight, it would be a provocation and act of aggression in the eyes of Russia and they would invade or be ready to use nuclear weapons. So, no, you will never join NATO "overnight". Russia would invade you and nobody would intervene. Also, they are taking a hit economically for sure, but Europe is still reliant on their natural gas and they will get what they need via China etc, there are other banking transfer methods than SWIFT etc
You really think USA will back down from protecting a Nato country regardless how new member because they are afraid of nuclear war?
If it was put in that position because of an idiot at NATO accepting Finland "overnight", absolutely. If Finland joins NATO, they are doing it with the expectation of an immediate war with Russia and presumably think they can defend themselves. Not only that, but all NATO allies would be expecting it too. Once Russia takes the territory to the North and shoots down any supply plane, you are left only with Ocean & it's well known Russia have submarines regularly patrolling the waters between Sweden & Finland. Why would NATO accept Finland as a member when it is directly creating WW3?
if poker is dangerous to them i would rank sports betting as a Kodiak grizzly bear who smells blood after you just threw a javelin into his cub - RaiNKhAN
Last edit: 01/03/2022 18:56
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 01 2022 19:04. Posts 3093
I never accepted American justifications for abhorrent acts on the grounds of Realpolitik and I see no reason why I should accept them from Russia. The notion that he had 'no choice' but to invade the country is absolute nonsense. I'm familiar with John Mearsheimer and realist trains of thought and I'm not rejecting an entire school of political philosophy, but the idea that putin's hands were entirely tied and his only choice in the matter was to invade isn't grounded in anything, and the idea that this is an opinion that 'one will naturally come to if one just learns the history' is similarly total garbage.
This does not mean the west or Ukraine is without fault or that it hasn't been antagonizing in any way. But a full out invasion of Ukraine is not something that Russia or Putin was forced into. That is absolute nonsense.
On March 01 2022 12:15 ggplz wrote:
Lots of sanctions, lots of shit talk against Russia. Russia is simply defending itself against NATO establishing at it's border. They have been peacefully telling NATO do not expand East towards us for more than 10 years, yet we are expected to think Russia is the aggressor? They would invade Finland in the same way if they intended to join. Ukraine is a strategically important location for Russia in terms of defense and transport, but also quite resource rich. As long as Russia occupies Ukraine in some way, they are unable to join NATO, nor would they be considered and they will survive sanctions. They have a strong frequent transport and trade with China year round through the North East with oil & gas using ice breaker ships and that will become a critical link for Russia going forward. I don't expect them to ever withdraw personally.
You gotta do some serious mental gymnastics to blame Nato for Russias attack lol. Also if we joined, it would be probably done overnight so good luck invading a Nato country. In the end Russia is a broke ass country that is gonna be even more broke and isolated after the sanctions.
Not at all, you just need to look at it from Russia's perspective. I think even if you joined overnight, it would be a provocation and act of aggression in the eyes of Russia and they would invade or be ready to use nuclear weapons. So, no, you will never join NATO "overnight". Russia would invade you and nobody would intervene. Also, they are taking a hit economically for sure, but Europe is still reliant on their natural gas and they will get what they need via China etc, there are other banking transfer methods than SWIFT etc
You really think USA will back down from protecting a Nato country regardless how new member because they are afraid of nuclear war?
If it was put in that position because of an idiot at NATO accepting Finland "overnight", absolutely. If Finland joins NATO, they are doing it with the expectation of an immediate war with Russia and presumably think they can defend themselves. Not only that, but all NATO allies would be expecting it too. Once Russia takes the territory to the North and shoots down any supply plane, you are left only with Ocean & it's well known Russia have submarines regularly patrolling the waters between Sweden & Finland. Why would NATO accept Finland as a member when it is directly creating WW3?
We are very close with Nato already and the door is open. We are an independent state. If Russia decides us joining Nato is an act of war, which it isn't, so be it. I feel like the war on Ukraine is so senseless that they might attack us anyway. We have a strong army for country of this size, we'll deal with it.
At some point, Ukraine will have to negotiate (beg) for mercy and give Russia what it wants
We will see. A lot of things could happen, russian economy could collapse, Ukraine could win too.. Nations or even NATO could decide to help out with real force. Who knows
Russia do not have enough troops to occupy such a large country like Ukraine. Not even enough troops to keep basic law and order. IF they win the war.
Anyway, even if you are correct Russia will not stop with this. Next stop is Moldova. At some point we have to say "no" to the great Tsar anyway. Might as well be now.
In every scenario where there isn't a negotiation between Ukraine and Russia the threat of nuclear war increases, Russian economical collapse is bad, a coup can also be very bad, Ukraine must give up its hopes of joining NATO and should be true neutral to avoid being destroyed between power struggles between the west and Russia
On March 01 2022 23:49 Baalim wrote:
In every scenario where there isn't a negotiation between Ukraine and Russia the threat of nuclear war increases, Russian economical collapse is bad, a coup can also be very bad, Ukraine must give up its hopes of joining NATO and should be true neutral to avoid being destroyed between power struggles between the west and Russia
If Ukraine, a country with 44 million people, want to take a role defined by Putin that should be up to Ukraine. I doubt it...
On March 01 2022 23:49 Baalim wrote:
In every scenario where there isn't a negotiation between Ukraine and Russia the threat of nuclear war increases, Russian economical collapse is bad, a coup can also be very bad, Ukraine must give up its hopes of joining NATO and should be true neutral to avoid being destroyed between power struggles between the west and Russia
If Ukraine, a country with 44 million people, want to take a role defined by Putin that should be up to Ukraine. I doubt it...
Its not defined by Putin but by common sense, when you are sandwiched between to enemy factions a very sound strategy for peace is to remain true neutral
my karma is done, now time to enjoy life, peace is the way karma is a way Jesus is a way
Last edit: 07/03/2022 13:55
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 04 2022 09:14. Posts 5296
Putins invasion is a horrible war crime obviously. If you look at Putin's justifications, they're actually not justifications. He said he's allowed to do it because the west did it in Iraq, ect. So basically Putin is calling himself a war criminal. That's a five year old level of morality/logic.
All the sanctions will do is make Russian people suffer, they don't have an effect as a deterant, obviously. Meanwhile US sanctions in afghanistan are creating a famine.
I didn't watch all of Mearshimer's lecture but it should be worth asking, why was the warsaw pact abolished and NATO allowed to continue to exist after the cold war? Their stated purpose was to defend against communism. Clearly that pretext was a lie, and they aggressively antagonized Russia soon after the cold war was over. NATO has a far greater military strength than Russia, and have been the aggressors up until this point so it has been mostly their responsibility to pursue diplomacy and clearly they arn't interested.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 04 2022 18:12 lostaccount wrote:
i guess we will have to agree to disagree lol ^^
Im very gratefull for Canada's effort:
Canada is sending 4500 rocket launchers and 7500 grenades, and streamlining immigration process for refugees. Canada’s immigration minister said “There is no limit to the number of applications we are willing to accept”
Putler made a law that fake news (real news) about Russian military is punishable up to 15 years in prison. It's very sad how many Russians actually believe their state media nonsense, Russia Today and others.
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 06 2022 11:50. Posts 5296
On March 05 2022 17:15 lostaccount wrote:
yea lots of fake news in main stream media even in the west.
Most effective propaganda is not lies, or fake news, but just selection of what topics to discuss. Compare the western media in 2003 on iraq to now. The liberal media (nyt) was praising the US military for blowing hospitals, (a war crime). Now they are all about sheding tears for Ukrainians. Very predictable levels of hypocrisy but I still cant get over it.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 06/03/2022 11:53
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 06 2022 12:50. Posts 3093
Eh in Norway media was pretty unequivocally very negative towards the invasion of Iraq, and tbh I'm fairly certain that applied for mostly all of Europe outside the UK, where it was more of a mixed bag. It's also much less monolithic even within specific countries like the US.
my karma is done, now time to enjoy life, peace is the way karma is a way Jesus is a way
Last edit: 07/03/2022 13:59
0
hiems United States. Mar 06 2022 19:21. Posts 2979
On March 06 2022 11:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh in Norway media was pretty unequivocally very negative towards the invasion of Iraq, and tbh I'm fairly certain that applied for mostly all of Europe outside the UK, where it was more of a mixed bag. It's also much less monolithic even within specific countries like the US.
Lol...
In NOrwaY thos....ion Norwayh That...
No1 cares about norway
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 06 2022 20:41. Posts 5296
On March 06 2022 11:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh in Norway media was pretty unequivocally very negative towards the invasion of Iraq, and tbh I'm fairly certain that applied for mostly all of Europe outside the UK, where it was more of a mixed bag. It's also much less monolithic even within specific countries like the US.
The US corporate media was completely monolithic on this, and it was probably the most propagandized war in history. Chris Hedges got fired from the NYT the day after critiquing it. I doubt critics like Fisk or Pilger ever appeared in the US media on all sides of the spectrum in the corporate media. They only ever mentioned a civilian death toll count in the NYT once and it was at page 10 in a small snippet. And as I just said, war crimes (like blowing up hospitals) were praised. Bush was not pointed out to be a war criminal. I'd expect it was the same in Britain for Tony Blair and John Howard in Australia. A critical media, would at the very least be pointing out that a good part of Europe and the US supported Saddam Hussein in the past, and even gave him chemical weapons of mass destruction. Most still seem to think it would somehow be justified if Saddam did have actually have chemical weapons. That's essentially where the critique ends in America. They think it was bad because Bush lied about WMD's, that's all. That's not very far from Putins 5 year old level of morality and logic.
I suggest you ask some people "how many do you think died in the iraq war?". I'm guessing the responses you'll get are far lower than the actual number.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
A week ago I thought Putin was going out with the pressure from the sanctions but I recently read an article about how Putin's support raised 10% and most Russians think this was caused by NATO, and nothing cements a dictatorship like misery and the perception of an enemy caused this which in this case is partially true, so yeah the population will suffer but Putin will remain in power for a very long time.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 08 2022 10:26. Posts 3093
went up 10% at what point? Because I've also seen that his support has increased because of the Ukraine situation - but that was only before the actual invasion of the whole country (which seems to have come as a surprise to most russians) and also before the sanctions were put in place.
I'm not saying that this conflict and the response to it is gonna spell doom for Putin's domestic support, but I'd like to see your source and what the date of said source is. My impression (which I also have no source for, basically just sharing sentiments from a handful of russians that I've come across) is that Russians were overall rather supportive of taking Crimea, that they were probably also supportive of the recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk, but that a full blown invasion of Ukraine has significantly less popular support. Of course, it's hard to tell to what degree russians get any real information on what is happening - younger russians who speak English and use the internet seem very negative, but russians who get their information from state owned and controlled russian media will have a very different understanding.
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 08 2022 19:41. Posts 5296
I only have my personal anecdotes and polls are not really trustworthy samples, but I would have thought this would make Putin unpopular. I would have guessed this would have a similar effect to George Bush-he went from being the most popular president to the least popular because of Iraq, as well as making America the most hated country in the world.
Yeah, all the young Russians I know are very cynical of Putin. Russia's economic prospects seem fairly bleak to me, their main money maker is a resource that won't be competitive in 10-20 years. So what are they going to do once it runs out? Putins model of kleptocracy over industrialization is not going to be good for him in the long run.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
First of all. Russia wasn't attacked like the US was (911). It's only Putin's paranoia that's been fueling this hatred for NATO and the West. Young ordinary Russians are either playing CSGO or showing their ass off on instagram.
Whether Putin is "right" in his invasion or not, he can't win public opinion this way. This was very well played(?) by the EU and the West.
Sure there might have not been any nukes but it was sold well (because of 911). Ukraine is very much Russia, Iraq is hardly America, it's easier to fear/hate a boogeyman that you have very little in common with.
On March 10 2022 14:56 lostaccount wrote:
Lol do u really believe 911 wasn’t a inside job to take away more of ur rights. U can’t trust the establishment. They are our enemies
I've never heard of a single reputable person who thinks 911 was an inside job. That's Alex Jones tier shit.
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 10 2022 18:59. Posts 5296
Putin does not strike me as paranoid and I doubt he wanted to invade ukraine. I think it's more of a lose/lose situation, where he decided to invade because he'd lose credibility if he didn't-he already warned for years that if NATO expands to ukraine that he will attack. Nevertheless, his decision is a serious war crime.
Iraq has about as much to do with 911 and scotland does. So why didn't the US invade scotland because of 911?
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 10 2022 17:59 Stroggoz wrote:
Putin does not strike me as paranoid and I doubt he wanted to invade ukraine. I think it's more of a lose/lose situation, where he decided to invade because he'd lose credibility if he didn't-he already warned for years that if NATO expands to ukraine that he will attack. Nevertheless, his decision is a serious war crime.
Iraq has about as much to do with 911 and scotland does. So why didn't the US invade scotland because of 911?
He has billionaires from the opposition locked in jail or poisoned, just like Xi does. He's definitely on the paranoid side.
On March 08 2022 09:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
went up 10% at what point? Because I've also seen that his support has increased because of the Ukraine situation - but that was only before the actual invasion of the whole country (which seems to have come as a surprise to most russians) and also before the sanctions were put in place.
I'm not saying that this conflict and the response to it is gonna spell doom for Putin's domestic support, but I'd like to see your source and what the date of said source is. My impression (which I also have no source for, basically just sharing sentiments from a handful of russians that I've come across) is that Russians were overall rather supportive of taking Crimea, that they were probably also supportive of the recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk, but that a full blown invasion of Ukraine has significantly less popular support. Of course, it's hard to tell to what degree russians get any real information on what is happening - younger russians who speak English and use the internet seem very negative, but russians who get their information from state owned and controlled russian media will have a very different understanding.
Only 4% of Russians believe the war is their fault. (probably unreliable poll results though)
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 11/03/2022 10:30
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 11 2022 18:29. Posts 5296
Sanctions hurt russian people far more than they hurt putin. If history is a guide, it will just cause a pointless amount of suffering and most likely have little effect on putin. I have no idea what Putins plan is, but there's no way he can occupy ukraine and expect to be half as popular as he is now in the long run.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 11 2022 17:29 Stroggoz wrote:
Sanctions hurt russian people far more than they hurt putin. If history is a guide, it will just cause a pointless amount of suffering and most likely have little effect on putin. I have no idea what Putins plan is, but there's no way he can occupy ukraine and expect to be half as popular as he is now in the long run.
he clearly didn't plan that much resistance from Ukraine, perhaps he thinks that he can bombard Ukraine into oblivion and get part of what he wants in negotiations, and he might.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
0
hiems United States. Mar 13 2022 12:49. Posts 2979
Piece is the way
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
0
hiems United States. Mar 13 2022 13:51. Posts 2979
Im not followin dis w4r in detail
but its ni c e that i can come 2 dis forum and learn everythin by doin the opposit of what liquiddr9ne and stroggi says
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
Only 4% of Russians believe the war is their fault. (probably unreliable poll results though)
Brainwashed people
A big % of every country is brainwashed with some nationalistic pathos, the US is the modern historical enemy of Rusia, they've had real NATO concerns in their borders, there are some big nazis groups in Ukraine and some regions wanting to break out from Ukraine, it isn't hard to spin that off into support of these people specially with the totalitarian control of the press.
Its been said many times but the US operates in a similar fashion, the only difference is that their main targets are shitty chaotic countries with dictatorships so the liberator propaganda is easier to justify than in Ukraine.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 15 2022 21:14. Posts 5296
"Perhaps it is based on hope for regime change. If so, it is both criminal and foolish. Criminal because it perpetuates the vicious war and cuts off hope for ending the horrors, foolish because it is quite likely that if Putin is overthrown someone even worse will take over."
Really understates the insanity of how pointless sanctions are from the west (or rather the US). Not only this, but the US has ignored Zelensky's call for neutrality, and he did not want to join NATO. Sanctions have dramatically lowered the chance of any kind of ceasefire. I can't really expect NATO to offer a deal with Putin that isn't humiliating to him, given their history of total irrationality.
Also really comical, the amount of moralizing going on. Like, for instance, facebook has now allowed hatespeech so long as it's against Putin.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
0
hiems United States. Mar 15 2022 22:44. Posts 2979
chomsky say stroggoz do
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
Sanctions have dramatically lowered the chance of any kind of ceasefire
I"m not in favor of most of the sanctions, but I don't know why you say they diminish the odds of a ceasefire?
Like, for instance, facebook has now allowed hatespeech so long as it's against Putin.
If only somebody had warned us that "hate speech" will be used to control narratives and silent political dissidents... -_-
The speech control is pretty inconsequential compared to the overall control over information that silicon valley has, it's another grain of sand on top of the mountain. I just find it amusing. I think the algorithm that suppresses various news sites that they don't like has a far bigger, though more subtle effect. You can basically cripple any independent media economically with it. It's predictable that everyone in power is trying to exploit this situation I guess.
I think I overstated the sanctions part. But if you read the article, the general strategy of the US has been to refuse any attempt at diplomacy, even though Zelenskky wants it, and I'm guessing most people in ukraine would, also he was also against Ukraine joining Nato before the invasion. This is all for reminiscent of Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, which was one that we know the US wanted to happen, even more so than Russia-for which it was a complete disaster.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 18 2022 13:11 Stroggoz wrote:
The speech control is pretty inconsequential compared to the overall control over information that silicon valley has, it's another grain of sand on top of the mountain. I just find it amusing. I think the algorithm that suppresses various news sites that they don't like has a far bigger, though more subtle effect. You can basically cripple any independent media economically with it. It's predictable that everyone in power is trying to exploit this situation I guess.
I think I overstated the sanctions part. But if you read the article, the general strategy of the US has been to refuse any attempt at diplomacy, even though Zelenskky wants it, and I'm guessing most people in ukraine would, also he was also against Ukraine joining Nato before the invasion. This is all for reminiscent of Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, which was one that we know the US wanted to happen, even more so than Russia-for which it was a complete disaster.
information control breeds from the same ground as "hate speech" regulations, they claim they are fakenews and ban them, for example the NYT now confirmed the Biden's son crack story is real while it was supressed in social media in election time, as long as information is controlled it will be used by cinics for nefarious purposes, thats what I've seen saying for fucking years and its quite simple, but morons like Loco don't seem to realize the censorship won't always be in favor of their ideas.
I dont think Ukraine joining Nato would have been a good idea, it escalates the possibility of WW3, but flirting with the idea of joining was the worst possible thing to do, Ukraine should have taken an absolutely neutral stance, switzerland like so that it isn't an ideological nor strategial threat to Russia, that was the safest bet to avoid invasion.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 19 2022 02:59. Posts 5296
On March 18 2022 13:11 Stroggoz wrote:
The speech control is pretty inconsequential compared to the overall control over information that silicon valley has, it's another grain of sand on top of the mountain. I just find it amusing. I think the algorithm that suppresses various news sites that they don't like has a far bigger, though more subtle effect. You can basically cripple any independent media economically with it. It's predictable that everyone in power is trying to exploit this situation I guess.
I think I overstated the sanctions part. But if you read the article, the general strategy of the US has been to refuse any attempt at diplomacy, even though Zelenskky wants it, and I'm guessing most people in ukraine would, also he was also against Ukraine joining Nato before the invasion. This is all for reminiscent of Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, which was one that we know the US wanted to happen, even more so than Russia-for which it was a complete disaster.
information control breeds from the same ground as "hate speech" regulations, they claim they are fakenews and ban them, for example the NYT now confirmed the Biden's son crack story is real while it was supressed in social media in election time, as long as information is controlled it will be used by cinics for nefarious purposes, thats what I've seen saying for fucking years and its quite simple, but morons like Loco don't seem to realize the censorship won't always be in favor of their ideas.
I dont think Ukraine joining Nato would have been a good idea, it escalates the possibility of WW3, but flirting with the idea of joining was the worst possible thing to do, Ukraine should have taken an absolutely neutral stance, switzerland like so that it isn't an ideological nor strategial threat to Russia, that was the safest bet to avoid invasion.
Heh, no one on this forum takes silicon valley's propaganda machine seriously or even has attempted to understand it. Most information control is suppressed because they just don't like what they say, it doesn't fall under grounds of hate speech. It's the pagerank algorithm, however it works, that is doing a lot more damage. Most of the focus is on the hate speech part though, because that seems to be the big obsession in American culture, even though speech is very free there.
It's perfectly reasonable to not talk about the Biden crack story, because it isn't interesting. Why should anyone care that someone smokes crack and is addicted to it? I do 50mg of ritalin every day. So what? To care about these things and pretend that they are interesting questions and topics is a seriously overlooked, and highly ideological bias that stems from capitalist ownership of the media. The same could be said of Trumps amphitimine use.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 19 2022 01:59 Stroggoz wrote:
Heh, no one on this forum takes silicon valley's propaganda machine seriously or even has attempted to understand it. Most information control is suppressed because they just don't like what they say, it doesn't fall under grounds of hate speech. It's the pagerank algorithm, however it works, that is doing a lot more damage. Most of the focus is on the hate speech part though, because that seems to be the big obsession in American culture, even though speech is very free there.
It falls under hate speech, or misinformation or whatever excuse, that is the point of the absolutism in freedom of speech, and yes the US one of the best records of free speech in the world, but sadly every day less and it should be protected at all costs.
It's perfectly reasonable to not talk about the Biden crack story, because it isn't interesting. Why should anyone care that someone smokes crack and is addicted to it?
If you believe the story and pics of Hunter Biden's crack addiction in the middle of an election isn't interesting you are either an imbecile or dishonest.
Also it wasn't deemed "interesting" lol, it was said to be fake news and directly supressed by social media, funny that you complain about social media manipulation in the Russian/Ukrain war but in this case, you seem to defend it, are you trying to substitute for Ethienne or is this hypocricy innate to socialists?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 19/03/2022 12:45
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 19 2022 12:41. Posts 3093
In the context of a Trump vs Biden election, Biden's son being kinda fucked up and there being some nepotism involved strikes me as entirely irrelevant and a complete non-issue. The possible story here relates to media bias, but nothing that has been revealed is in any way 'politically significant'.
On March 19 2022 11:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In the context of a Trump vs Biden election, Biden's son being kinda fucked up and there being some nepotism involved strikes me as entirely irrelevant and a complete non-issue. The possible story here relates to media bias, but nothing that has been revealed is in any way 'politically significant'.
First of all, he didn't say politically relevant he said interesting, and I'm sure that if Ivanka Trump turned out to be a crack whore CNN wouldn't publish her pictures sucking her pimps dick because its not politically relevant lol.
If you are going to claim that Facebook and Twitters active supression (removing posts under "false information" flags), regarding the story was not an attempt to help Biden's chances in the election then congratulations on joining the legion of dishonest leftists.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 19 2022 14:28. Posts 3093
If that's your attempt at honestly reading or interpreting my post then I guess congratulations on joining the legion of idiot right wingers?
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 19 2022 14:42. Posts 5296
In this context-'interesting' means 'relevant to politics', so I may as well have said that. Election cycles themselves mostly have very little to do with politics, they are largely entertainment shows, and so are not really that interesting either.
As I said, the story here of media bias is pretty clear. Because these issues are obviously not interesting, it shows that the media is biased in reporting on these kinds of things. I'm sure CNN would post that story about Ivanka Trump, a lot. That story is also hardly relevant. If Ivanka sucks dicks, why is that an issue? You realize a lot of people suck dicks right, and it's a normal and healthy thing to do? Perhaps not if it's prostitution. Anyone involved in prostitution should be helped, not publicly humiliated by having pictures shown on CNN.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 19 2022 14:58. Posts 5296
On March 19 2022 09:34 Baalim wrote:
[QUOTE]On March 19 2022 01:59 Stroggoz wrote:
If you believe the story and pics of Hunter Biden's crack addiction in the middle of an election isn't interesting you are either an imbecile or dishonest.
Also it wasn't deemed "interesting" lol, it was said to be fake news and directly supressed by social media, funny that you complain about social media manipulation in the Russian/Ukrain war but in this case, you seem to defend it, are you trying to substitute for Ethienne or is this hypocricy innate to socialists?
I'd definitely prefer to be an imbecile rather than dishonest then. I'm clearly not defending Facebook, like I said it's a "grain of sand" on a mountain of media manipulation. But I pointed it out because I thought the blatant lack of principles and hypocritical righteousness was amusing, i guess.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 19 2022 13:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If that's your attempt at honestly reading or interpreting my post then I guess congratulations on joining the legion of idiot right wingers?
I said "IF" thats where you are going, because I don't see whats your point there conflating "politically relevant" to "uninteresting" which isn't the issue, its about social media political censorship.
We can argue if its relevant or not to the quality of a potential president if their son is addicted to crack or not, but thats not the issue here, you could argue about security issues etc, but again, thats not the point, the point is that social media censored the story to help their goals, and now that they are manipulating the Ukranian conflict, now is where there is outrage, so I pointed out that I warned lefties about this one, thats the reason why freedom of speech must be absolute
On March 19 2022 13:42 Stroggoz wrote:
In this context-'interesting' means 'relevant to politics', so I may as well have said that. Election cycles themselves mostly have very little to do with politics, they are largely entertainment shows, and so are not really that interesting either.
As I said, the story here of media bias is pretty clear. Because these issues are obviously not interesting, it shows that the media is biased in reporting on these kinds of things. I'm sure CNN would post that story about Ivanka Trump, a lot. That story is also hardly relevant. If Ivanka sucks dicks, why is that an issue? You realize a lot of people suck dicks right, and it's a normal and healthy thing to do? Perhaps not if it's prostitution. Anyone involved in prostitution should be helped, not publicly humiliated by having pictures shown on CNN.
The point is not the bias, but the censorship... Facebook and twitter actively took down posts about the story.
Also relevant, the 50 intelligence officers who said it was Russia interfering with the democratic process were lying but obv won't face consequences.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
0
hiems United States. Mar 20 2022 00:50. Posts 2979
The only way 2 teach stroggo is 2 capturr him nd force him to play 100k hands of poker a munth...
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 20 2022 08:15. Posts 3093
On March 19 2022 13:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If that's your attempt at honestly reading or interpreting my post then I guess congratulations on joining the legion of idiot right wingers?
I said "IF" thats where you are going, because I don't see whats your point there conflating "politically relevant" to "uninteresting" which isn't the issue, its about social media political censorship.
We can argue if its relevant or not to the quality of a potential president if their son is addicted to crack or not, but thats not the issue here, you could argue about security issues etc, but again, thats not the point, the point is that social media censored the story to help their goals, and now that they are manipulating the Ukranian conflict, now is where there is outrage, so I pointed out that I warned lefties about this one, thats the reason why freedom of speech must be absolute
That's what I wrote, though. The post you responded to contained the sentence 'The possible story here relates to media bias but nothing that has been revealed is in any way 'politically significant'. I agree that the censorship/media bias part is interesting. You also mentioned 'in the middle of an election' in your post - which to me indicated that you thought the story could be something that would influence voters. There, I'm saying that in the context of Joe Biden vs Donald Trump, if nepotism is a factor determining how you vote, you'll land on Joe Biden no matter how true this whole thing is.
Anyway - I agree that the discussion around freedom of speech is interesting, even though I don't give a shit about Hunter Biden's crack addiction or what was on his laptop. So let's talk about the former.
When you say that freedom of speech should be absolute, what do you mean by absolute? Should there be no limit to what lies and defamations you can state about other people? Should American presidents be allowed to claim that another country is producing WMD so that an invasion of said country for entirely different reasons can be sold to the American people? I honestly think your approach here is an extreme simplification of a very complex and difficult discussion. It's not a binary question of 'permit everything' or 'actively censor the news', it's about finding some type of balance. In a hyper-partisan environment like the US, it definitely seems like a tough challenge, though, because we've already largely created parallel information universes - a process exacerbated by 'big tech algorithms' determining what information people are subjected to based on what information they have reacted to in the past, but I remain skeptical towards the idea that 'permit everything, always' is going to yield the results either of us want.
We had this discussion before, and I had the impression you agreed with me that standing in front of a group of neo-nazis telling them that 'there's this jewish black fag who lives on x street of sodomytown. He'll be home in 2 hours. you should all go torture him to death when he comes home' and this resulting in the gang of neo-nazis torturing said individual to death, should probably not be legal. Am I right here, or do you actually think that's entirely fine and that it should not be punished?
IF you agree that this would be problematic, then it's a matter of distinguishing just where the line goes between this precise statement and something like 'I hate jews, fags and niggers' (a contemptible statement - but one that I agree should be legal to state, although I also think work places should be free (or even encouraged through 'market forces') to let employees go if they publicly make such utterances. And then, it's not a binary question of 'permit everything' or 'censor hate speech!!' - but rather, a situation where we need to make nuanced, case to case basis evaluations based on context and history that might sometimes look a bit arbitrary (because they are) and that sometimes might reach a wrong verdict (count dankula being fined was obviously ridiculous) - but at least we're not trying to pretend that something extremely difficult actually happens to be totally easy.
lol POKER
Last edit: 20/03/2022 08:17
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 20 2022 09:52. Posts 5296
On March 20 2022 07:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
although I also think work places should be free (or even encouraged through 'market forces') to let employees go if they publicly make such utterances.
This is highly regressive imo, at least compared to liberal thinkers such as Bertrand Russell:
"The habit of considering a man’s religious, moral, and political opinions before appointing him to a post or giving him a job is the modern form of persecution, and it is likely to become quite as efficient as the Inquisition ever was. The old liberties can be legally retained without being of the slightest use. If, in practice, certain opinions lead a man to starve, it is poor comfort to him to know that his opinions are not punishable by law."
I think he made a good prediction here, he was basically right. I'd do a lot to be able to talk about politics without facing economic repercussions. Russell himself had some fairly despicable views about how we should not regret that indigenous populations were wiped out in Africa/America's, and he wrote about them around the same time he was jailed for pacifism and speaking out against WW1. It's not really enforcable but as long as their comments aren't interfering with work, people should be free from economic repression, for several reasons. 1 It should be a principle we accept (i.e, we should actually not need a reason to accept this principle). 2 If they are treated that way it can radicalize them further. 3 It's fairly common for people to have views like these, and worse views-especially when those worse views are standard, as in the case of Russells view's on colonialism.
---
Absolute free speech would be undefinable probably, I think Baal probably just meant for political views. Almost anything that is absolute is basically ruinous to political systems: For example, I love democracy. But in an extreme democracy where everyone votes on everything, it necessarily implies that everyone in the world votes on whether I can cross the road or not. But this implies everyone starves to death, so it's actually undefinable. This is the reason that legal systems are so much more complex than books written by political philosophers where they sum up a few principles to solve every problem in the world (lol).
If Facebook had competition then the censorship wouldn't be such a bad thing imo because people could just go and use a different social media. So the real problem is that they are a monopoly that makes all their decisions secretly, and hierarchically. Their power would completely evaporate with 1 simple policy, like this one: (There are many other suggestions).
1) Media which chooses not to advertise can make claims on funding which is proportional to how much they'd make from advertising.
So instead of making $200k a year from adverts shown to 20million viewers (making numbers up here to make a point), the public either pays that amount or some % of the money. So this would essentially make non-advertisers be able to compete with advertisers, and it would wipe out advertising. For some reason, virtually everyone ignores these ideas and focus's on whether Facebook should be allowed to remove nazi posts or not.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 20/03/2022 09:57
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 20 2022 10:25. Posts 5296
I should be clear in that I think people should not be fired for having extreme opinions, so long as they arn't babbling about at work to the point that it's unprofessional. I.e a professor should be allowed to be talking/twittering about anti-vaxx or w/e in their free time, but if they constantly rant about it in a class on linear algebra then facing repercussions is fine, because they arn't doing their job-(it's not about politics, it's about not doing their job well.)
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Indeed with "Absolute" I mean't political ideals, theres laws against harassment, libel, incitement to commit an immediate crime and other exceptions that make a lot of sense.
I think we agree on free speech but what we don't share is the urgency to protect it, and given that in the vast majority of the world there is no free speech I think its of the utmost importance to defend it becaue its quickly shrinking and young people don't seem the looming danger they create when they equate speech with violence.
If Facebook had competition then the censorship wouldn't be such a bad thing imo because people could just go and use a different social media. So the real problem is that they are a monopoly that makes all their decisions secretly, and hierarchically.
Yes and no, the problem is that there is no competition but that isn't Facebook/Twitters doing it alone, there have been alternatives that get quickly shot down like GAB, but then Paypal and VISA block all payments to the platform, and then google stops hosting their site etc etc, these "alternative" sites are quickly purged by the amalgamation of government and corporations.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 20 2022 10:39. Posts 3093
The argument that employers firing you for something essentially constitutes making it illegal even though it isn't, is something I can largely be on board with. But I also think employers should largely be allowed to make that decision - although it can certainly become a bit iffy, and again, something that ends up being a bit arbitrarily defined and where I might agree with the decision in some instances and disagree with the decision in other instances. However, I don't really have any problems with society sometimes being a bit arbitrary - I think that's a necessity, because purely principled rulings at every occasion nearly always run into some issues. Me saying 'encouraged through 'market forces'' is a bit facetious though, but that's aimed at Baal, as I expect he'd also strongly defend a company's ability to freely choose who they want to hire and for what reason they'd want to terminate someone's contract.
But I mean - if I run a hotel, and I have employed a guy as my concierge or whatever, and then suddenly after two years the guy decides to tattoo a huge swastika on his face, I do think I should be allowed to terminate his contract based on his expression of his political views, even if there was no earlier defined agreement that he's not permitted to tattoo swastikas in his face. However, I'd have a very negative reaction to the same hotel firing the same person because he 'voted for trump', or if someone fires someone for being gay. Different jobs will come with different expectations of what behavior can or should be considered acceptable - I'll have issues with a science teacher fronting creationism but be entirely fine with a nurse doing the same, and I can understand why health care workers who interact with immunocompromised or elderly and infirm might be required to get a covid vaccine (not getting into a debate about what degree it protects from infection, I'm sure you all get my point) or flu shot, while I think it's unreasonable to demand the same from a store clerk.
The central point I'm trying to make is essentially similar to yours, though - hardly anything can be absolute, and if it can be, it most likely already is.
lol POKER
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 20 2022 10:52. Posts 3093
On March 20 2022 09:27 Baalim wrote:
Indeed with "Absolute" I mean't political ideals, theres laws against harassment, libel, incitement to commit an immediate crime and other exceptions that make a lot of sense.
I think we agree on free speech but what we don't share is the urgency to protect it, and given that in the vast majority of the world there is no free speech I think its of the utmost importance to defend it becaue its quickly shrinking and young people don't seem the looming danger they create when they equate speech with violence.
What if your political view is exterminating x group from society, though? The distinction between political ideals and expressed speech is not necessarily as neatly defined as you want it to be. What if the guy speaking to the neo nazis does not name a specific address, but rather a region of the town where many congregate, and what if he rather than state 'torture to death' says 'statute an example so those degenerates finally learn'. What if upon confronted with his statements he claims to merely be expressing his political point of view that this group of people represent a danger through society through their degeneracy, and they must be stopped, or else we will all suffer?
Here in Norway, there was a political party during the 90s called 'White Electoral Alliance', which to my knowledge is the only instance where a political party has been punished for their political beliefs. They had a political program that consisted of 'force all non-western immigrants to leave Norway, otherwise they must be forcibly sterilized' (something they also wanted to apply to non-western immigrants married to Norwegian, and any children of such marriages, because they wanted to preserve the Norwegian people's ethnic composition. (More here)
To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?
lol POKER
Last edit: 20/03/2022 11:07
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 20 2022 11:38. Posts 5296
I was confused by your comment on market forces, but I take it Rush Limbaugh would be wiped out by market forces in Norway. In America, he almost became a billionaire iirc. In any case, the media isn't controlled by market forces, that stopped being the case about 60 years ago.
I guess I agree with most of those examples, but there's no way firing scientists for teaching creationism could lead to any good, and it's not how science even progresses anyway. Not to mention it's an absolute gift to those tyrannical administrators. A lot of people on the right seem to think dealing with critical race theory or postmodernist nonsense is to just defund the humanities. There is a point to be made that some people in postmodernism are deep into some pseudoscience. But job cuts doesn't solve that problem, it just makes the environment more competitive and encourages people to make things up to survive. I think this is one of the major causes behind the replication crisis in science at the moment, which you may have heard of. Just having public debates or running experiments like the ones sokal, bricmont did has had good effects-that lead to a massive decline in pseudoscience in that area. Unfortunately, it's been politically exploited though...that's another story.
So no, I don't think pseudoscientists should be fired. I'd say that's true for most cases even where they are getting people killed as well. We aren't going to solve neoliberalism by purging the economics profession either. People just have to be willing to debate these topics. A lot of people seriously think that confronting pseudoscientists over their ideas is a good strategy as well. It isn't, what you do is you ignore them and go straight to the open-minded people, i.e, their students, and basically start saying "Hey, I've got something that's in your interests to know. This person has no clue what they're talking about, here's why."
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 20/03/2022 11:38
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 20 2022 12:43. Posts 5296
On March 20 2022 09:27 Baalim wrote:
Indeed with "Absolute" I mean't political ideals, theres laws against harassment, libel, incitement to commit an immediate crime and other exceptions that make a lot of sense.
I think we agree on free speech but what we don't share is the urgency to protect it, and given that in the vast majority of the world there is no free speech I think its of the utmost importance to defend it becaue its quickly shrinking and young people don't seem the looming danger they create when they equate speech with violence.
What if your political view is exterminating x group from society, though? The distinction between political ideals and expressed speech is not necessarily as neatly defined as you want it to be. What if the guy speaking to the neo nazis does not name a specific address, but rather a region of the town where many congregate, and what if he rather than state 'torture to death' says 'statute an example so those degenerates finally learn'. What if upon confronted with his statements he claims to merely be expressing his political point of view that this group of people represent a danger through society through their degeneracy, and they must be stopped, or else we will all suffer?
Here in Norway, there was a political party during the 90s called 'White Electoral Alliance', which to my knowledge is the only instance where a political party has been punished for their political beliefs. They had a political program that consisted of 'force all non-western immigrants to leave Norway, otherwise they must be forcibly sterilized' (something they also wanted to apply to non-western immigrants married to Norwegian, and any children of such marriages, because they wanted to preserve the Norwegian people's ethnic composition. (More here)
To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?
Looks unjustified to me based off the wiki page. I could see how it could be justified if it was in the 1940'-50s during the post ww2 period. But in recent times punishing far-right extremists, and the commentary surrounding this topic has been about making oneself feel good. It is easy to demonstrate with the usual comparative examples that I make.
There is no point in confronting Nazi's, Exxon Mobil executives, or whoever it is, since they will not listen. The way to deal with this is just to ignore them and point out their policies and keep people informed about what Nazi's did and what their philosophy is. It makes no sense to punish an unpopular party that has no power.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
0
hiems United States. Mar 20 2022 14:58. Posts 2979
"Here in norway"
No1 cares abut norwey
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
What if your political view is exterminating x group from society, though? The distinction between political ideals and expressed speech is not necessarily as neatly defined as you want it to be. What if the guy speaking to the neo nazis does not name a specific address, but rather a region of the town where many congregate, and what if he rather than state 'torture to death' says 'statute an example so those degenerates finally learn'. What if upon confronted with his statements he claims to merely be expressing his political point of view that this group of people represent a danger through society through their degeneracy, and they must be stopped, or else we will all suffer?
Here in Norway, there was a political party during the 90s called 'White Electoral Alliance', which to my knowledge is the only instance where a political party has been punished for their political beliefs. They had a political program that consisted of 'force all non-western immigrants to leave Norway, otherwise they must be forcibly sterilized' (something they also wanted to apply to non-western immigrants married to Norwegian, and any children of such marriages, because they wanted to preserve the Norwegian people's ethnic composition. (More here)
To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?
The way you ended your post gives me a hint that you still don't view it as I do, you said:
To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?
Shutting them down isn't abhorrent at all, of course it feels righteous to shut them down, however allowing them to speak is a neccesary evil to stop an ever greather threat to rise.
Also sadly the discussion isn't about if Nazis can say an specific address or a region in a speech, we are talking about misgendering, race-IQ, migrations etc, sensitive topics often peddled by bigots, but very far from where the line should be.
On March 20 2022 10:38 Stroggoz wrote:
i.e, their students, and basically start saying "Hey, I've got something that's in your interests to know. This person has no clue what they're talking about, here's why."
Except that campuses routinely cancel talks from any speaker that challenges progressive talking points.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 22 2022 11:00. Posts 3093
What if your political view is exterminating x group from society, though? The distinction between political ideals and expressed speech is not necessarily as neatly defined as you want it to be. What if the guy speaking to the neo nazis does not name a specific address, but rather a region of the town where many congregate, and what if he rather than state 'torture to death' says 'statute an example so those degenerates finally learn'. What if upon confronted with his statements he claims to merely be expressing his political point of view that this group of people represent a danger through society through their degeneracy, and they must be stopped, or else we will all suffer?
Here in Norway, there was a political party during the 90s called 'White Electoral Alliance', which to my knowledge is the only instance where a political party has been punished for their political beliefs. They had a political program that consisted of 'force all non-western immigrants to leave Norway, otherwise they must be forcibly sterilized' (something they also wanted to apply to non-western immigrants married to Norwegian, and any children of such marriages, because they wanted to preserve the Norwegian people's ethnic composition. (More here)
To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?
The way you ended your post gives me a hint that you still don't view it as I do, you said:
To what degree do you think this ruling was justified or abhorrent?
Shutting them down isn't abhorrent at all, of course it feels righteous to shut them down, however allowing them to speak is a neccesary evil to stop an ever greather threat to rise.
Also sadly the discussion isn't about if Nazis can say an specific address or a region in a speech, we are talking about misgendering, race-IQ, migrations etc, sensitive topics often peddled by bigots, but very far from where the line should be.
I'm turning it to nazis because you're saying it should be absolute, though. If you're saying 'free speech should be more protected than it is in many western countries today and the way people are being ostracized for having unpopular opinions is really detrimental to society's ability to debate topics in a healthy way to approach the best solutions', then I agree with you. However, I do think there is a line, somewhere. I can't define exactly where said line goes - but to me, society does not benefit from people being allowed to freely preach in favor of exterminating people belonging to the wrong race. I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it - I think it's possible for such a line to exist without it inevitably being moved to silence good-natured discussions on controversial or difficult topics.
I also don't agree with Stroggoz that simply ignoring these people is a good way of dealing with them. People engaging in this type of violent rhetoric are way more prone to also engage in violent action. Both Norway and New Zealand have experienced brain washed right wing extremists slaughtering many civilians because of the propagation of some of these beliefs. Now - I generally don't favor imprisoning or fining people for their beliefs - even genocidal opinions - but I do think the option must exist and that cases should be evaulated on a case to case basis, even if it sometimes results in controversial or 'wrong' rulings. (Because while you seem to agree that incitement of violence can/should result in legal punishment, defining exactly what constitutes incitement of violence is not an easy task and will depend upon context and interpretation.)
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 22 2022 20:58. Posts 5296
Just to be clear I meant ignore them as in don't talk to them because you can't change their minds 99.9% of the time. I didn't mean ignore the issue. If you try talking to ander's brehvik or others like him, I think you'll get nowhere. It's better to tackle the underlying root causes. I'm pretty sure there's research into violent terrorists and you can prevent people from going into that life by providing them opportunities that give their life some meaning (vague i know).
In response to Baal, yes there is canceling in universities. It's not too difficult to overcome that barrier, imo, and is still the best option. I havn't seen anyone suggest a better solution. Peter Singer and Stefan Molyneux have been cancelled from talks in NZ, but it's hardly stopped them from being influential.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 22 2022 10:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm turning it to nazis because you're saying it should be absolute, though. If you're saying 'free speech should be more protected than it is in many western countries today and the way people are being ostracized for having unpopular opinions is really detrimental to society's ability to debate topics in a healthy way to approach the best solutions', then I agree with you. However, I do think there is a line, somewhere. I can't define exactly where said line goes - but to me, society does not benefit from people being allowed to freely preach in favor of exterminating people belonging to the wrong race. I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it - I think it's possible for such a line to exist without it inevitably being moved to silence good-natured discussions on controversial or difficult topics.
Except that the woke censors claim the same thing, that "hate speech" costs lives, and allowing people to misgender them is why they commit suicide so often.
I agree society does not benefit from ppl discussing about exterminating, the world would be a better place without that kind of speech, but banning it creates a systemic risk far more dangerous, that is what you are not acknowleding, you act as if censorship stays where you draw the line, but it doesn't, how can you be so oblivious to this while witnessing it at the same time in social media.
I'm not sure if you ar familiar with the trans swimmer who won the US national competiton, well other women swimmers are complaining and are being banned by Twitter, the threat the silly norweigan nazi party poses to society is thousands of times lesser than what is brewing.
Perhaps you think the swimmer thing is a non-issue, but you would be narrowsighted if you thought so, because as stated before, they are shaping an anti-russia narrative, while Russia has banned FB, Twitter etc, everybody is controlling speech to favor their narrative, that is the danger already materializing infront of us, and sadly no there is no perfect solution hateful morons also get that right.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 23/03/2022 08:39
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 23 2022 09:11. Posts 3093
It's not that I don't acknowledge it, I just disagree/think you are wrong. I think some degree of censorship (but only of the most egregious statements - e.g. let's exterminate the blacks) is the necessary evil that you think allowing them to speak freely is. I have no problem reconciling the position that 'people are banning too much' and 'some degree of moderation of speech should still happen' - that's the position I've maintained as a TL moderator for more than a decade. I don't know exactly where the line between 'let's kill all trans people' and 'trans people would be better off dead' and 'society would be better off if all trans people would be dead' and 'trans people are mentally ill and they're committing suicide for this reason, has nothing to do with how society treats them' and 'trans people are mentally ill' goes, but just because I don't know where the line goes does not mean I have to be okay with the first statement (which I know is over the line) having a platform to propagate itself on.
The key difference I'm noticing is that I'm fine with some degree of arbitrariness and fine with the debate not being settled. I think we must continuously debate what statements are okay to make and what contexts make a statement okay to make/not okay to make. Attempting to settle difficult issues based around the strict application of a principle (e.g. 'no speech should ever be moderated' isn't going to yield good results either, from my perspective.) I also don't believe that the lack of such a guiding principle is inevitably going to lead to an increased degree of censorship - my impression is that freedom of speech is more sacrosanct in the US than it is in Europe, yet at the same time, that this censorship you complain about happens more in the US than here. (Here, where some countries actually have had laws against for example holocaust denial, we see that indeed, the actual censorship that happens is more likely to target people who argue like actual nazis than people who make jokes about trans people.) Again, also important to note that it's not a monolithic continent. You can accurately criticize Swedish media/Sweden for trying to conceal negative aspects related to their immigration, but you should then note that Denmark has a very different track record in terms of keeping and publicizing the very same statistics. Just because you allow for the potential of censorship does not mean you have to go Sweden, you can also go Denmark.
Also that I don't really care about twitter. A platform designed to avoid nuance is not one I'm particularly positive towards. I'm not sure to what degree twitter is doing what twitter is doing because of any laws though, rather than because they're concerned with maintaining their customer base?
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 23 2022 09:54. Posts 5296
You can get fined in France for insulting the president, and you can get fined in Britain for saying 9/11 was a good thing. It is not true that the focus is mostly on neo-nazi's, or that America suppresses speech more. Overall, Eu is more regressive on this issue.
It is easy to see that holocaust denial laws are not based off the evil nature of them, denazification, or harm prevention. Take for example the denial of the late victorian holocaust. Most people have no idea what that is, but it killed about as much, if not more people. People do not get fined for late victorian holocaust denial. Also there are other forms of denial that are much worse, and are totally acceptable in the world. Climate change denial is a lot worse imo, because it isn't something far back in history, and it will probably cause more suffering. So there is no good reason for fining people for being holocause deniers.
-----
Personally, I don't know what my gender is because words like "male", "man" have no commonly agreed-upon definition. I'm not sure if rationality is justifiable for these gender debates, but i'd point out that pretty much no one uses rationality in them, which is why I have steered clear.
----
Twitter is cancer.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 23/03/2022 09:56
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 23 2022 10:34. Posts 3093
I think those two first examples are ridiculously stupid - but not a reason to oppose any restrictions on free speech. They're examples to be opposed to. I also don't think the US suppresses speech more in terms of what is legally permitted, but Baal's complains seem to be related to twitter and 'cancel culture'. I have the impression that these issues are less prominent here than in the US.
Climate change denial is certainly more harmful, but I think that's extremely hard to police, much harder to contextually determine whether it's deliberate disinformation or merely ignorance, and also - there is actually disinformation on the 'other' side too. (We don't really have holocaust believers who argue that in reality, 20 million jews were killed). Additionally, while we know we're on an absolutely disastrous path, nobody can claim to know exactly what the future consequences will be. If the future is that 3.8 billion people are going to have to be displaced by 2100, is it denialism to say that only 300 million will be displaced by 2100, etc? (The holocaust is an established historical fact and denial of it is strongly connected with the opportunity to perpetuate similar events in the future, etc.. Some of this also applies to the late victorian holocaust - it's to a lesser degree accepted as a historical fact, and even among serious historians who have studied the subject, you'll find disagreement regarding to what degree it constituted a genocide, etc.) You can also argue that the strong focus on the holocaust and acceptance of the holocaust as part of European identity is part of what enables Israel to perpetuate the occupation of Palestine. I'm not really invested in defending laws against holocaust denial - but I'm saying there's a big difference between policing speech that attempts to justify the extermination of a group of people and policing speech relating to whether a transgender swimmer should be allowed to compete as a woman.
And again - just because climate change denial is worse but also harder to police is not a reason to permit statements that are less harmful but easier to police. (To be fair - even though holocaust denial is illegal in many European countries, it's not necessarily something I myself support being illegal. My stance on this issue is that I acknowledge that both sides have valid arguments. )
Fwiw I also don't care about the gender debates.
lol POKER
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 23 2022 10:38. Posts 3093
Anyway I also wanted to share this;
Alexey Arestovich, military advisor of Zelensky, in an interview from 2019 where he predicts much of what has happened since, while also giving analysis for why neutrality is not an option for the Ukraine, what the goals of Russia are, and what will happen in the next 15 years.
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 23 2022 22:02. Posts 5296
"is it denialism to say that only 300 million will be displaced by 2100".
That's a clear form of denialism as it focus's on the lower bound and is cherry-picking. A lot of scientists have been pointing out this kind of downplaying by the new generation of climate deniers (bjorn lomborg is a good example). This is quite common in genocide denial and war in general. If there are multiple studies with differing numbers, politically motivated people will cherry-pick the one that favors them. If by the other side, you mean the ridiculous claims by Stephen hawking that planet earth will turn into venus, or by the extinction rebellion leader that "6 billion people will die", then yeah that's clear misinformation, and it clearly gets people killed because it strengthens the climate denial position.
"The Holocaust is an established historical fact and denial of it is strongly connected with the opportunity to perpetuate similar events in the future.. Some of this also applies to the late victorian holocaust."
Like I've said, this is not true for countries like Britain, or France. Playing down capitalist crimes allows capitalists to commit more capitalist crimes. There are some historians like Nial Ferguson for example that still amazingly claim that India benefitted from colonialism. This has been helpful for those wanting to repeat neocolonialist programs in the 3rd world. Holocaust denial doesn't compare in the opportunities to perpetuate similar events, because Nazis aren't in power in Europe.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 23 2022 08:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's not that I don't acknowledge it, I just disagree/think you are wrong. I think some degree of censorship (but only of the most egregious statements - e.g. let's exterminate the blacks) is the necessary evil that you think allowing them to speak freely is. I have no problem reconciling the position that 'people are banning too much' and 'some degree of moderation of speech should still happen' - that's the position I've maintained as a TL moderator for more than a decade. I don't know exactly where the line between 'let's kill all trans people' and 'trans people would be better off dead' and 'society would be better off if all trans people would be dead' and 'trans people are mentally ill and they're committing suicide for this reason, has nothing to do with how society treats them' and 'trans people are mentally ill' goes, but just because I don't know where the line goes does not mean I have to be okay with the first statement (which I know is over the line) having a platform to propagate itself on.
The key difference I'm noticing is that I'm fine with some degree of arbitrariness and fine with the debate not being settled. I think we must continuously debate what statements are okay to make and what contexts make a statement okay to make/not okay to make. Attempting to settle difficult issues based around the strict application of a principle (e.g. 'no speech should ever be moderated' isn't going to yield good results either, from my perspective.) I also don't believe that the lack of such a guiding principle is inevitably going to lead to an increased degree of censorship - my impression is that freedom of speech is more sacrosanct in the US than it is in Europe, yet at the same time, that this censorship you complain about happens more in the US than here. (Here, where some countries actually have had laws against for example holocaust denial, we see that indeed, the actual censorship that happens is more likely to target people who argue like actual nazis than people who make jokes about trans people.) Again, also important to note that it's not a monolithic continent. You can accurately criticize Swedish media/Sweden for trying to conceal negative aspects related to their immigration, but you should then note that Denmark has a very different track record in terms of keeping and publicizing the very same statistics. Just because you allow for the potential of censorship does not mean you have to go Sweden, you can also go Denmark.
Also that I don't really care about twitter. A platform designed to avoid nuance is not one I'm particularly positive towards. I'm not sure to what degree twitter is doing what twitter is doing because of any laws though, rather than because they're concerned with maintaining their customer base?
"Lets kill trans people" is very different than "trans people are mentally ill and thats why they kill themselves", they are not remotely on the same league, If you even consider outlawing the latter statement, then we are in no way in the same page about freedom of speech, which is a bit my point why its much better to err on the side of "allowing too much" than to censor, because if that statement is a close one for you then to anybody else slightly more authoritarian than you then thats kosher and then we end up with censorship running rampant like today.
What do I mean with censorship running rampant? between 2010-2015, Twitter banned 12 famous accounts... in 2021 twitter banned 48 famous accounts .. that is a 20x increase in censorship and 2022 is going even worse, the reason of the bans in the 2010-2015 era it was ISIS and mostly ugly stuff, these days are antivaxers, "fake news", dead-naming/transphobia.
This isn't just twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and all the social media are the same.
Also governments are less tolerant of speech too, I can show you an alike 20x increase in people imprisoned regarding internet speech in the UK, the "nazi pug guy" isn't an anomaly, its the standard punishment for these actions.
An uninteresting, absolutely politically irrelevant video lol
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 26 2022 08:56. Posts 5296
It isn't actually a 20x increase in censorship. There are sbout 10x as many Twitter users now than in 2010. So probably more like 2-4x increase in censorship. It's really the unknown people you want to watch out for anyway.
That adviser to zelensky seems insane to me. He actually says he wants ukraine to join NATO to draw russia into a war.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 26 2022 10:07. Posts 3093
On March 23 2022 08:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's not that I don't acknowledge it, I just disagree/think you are wrong. I think some degree of censorship (but only of the most egregious statements - e.g. let's exterminate the blacks) is the necessary evil that you think allowing them to speak freely is. I have no problem reconciling the position that 'people are banning too much' and 'some degree of moderation of speech should still happen' - that's the position I've maintained as a TL moderator for more than a decade. I don't know exactly where the line between 'let's kill all trans people' and 'trans people would be better off dead' and 'society would be better off if all trans people would be dead' and 'trans people are mentally ill and they're committing suicide for this reason, has nothing to do with how society treats them' and 'trans people are mentally ill' goes, but just because I don't know where the line goes does not mean I have to be okay with the first statement (which I know is over the line) having a platform to propagate itself on.
The key difference I'm noticing is that I'm fine with some degree of arbitrariness and fine with the debate not being settled. I think we must continuously debate what statements are okay to make and what contexts make a statement okay to make/not okay to make. Attempting to settle difficult issues based around the strict application of a principle (e.g. 'no speech should ever be moderated' isn't going to yield good results either, from my perspective.) I also don't believe that the lack of such a guiding principle is inevitably going to lead to an increased degree of censorship - my impression is that freedom of speech is more sacrosanct in the US than it is in Europe, yet at the same time, that this censorship you complain about happens more in the US than here. (Here, where some countries actually have had laws against for example holocaust denial, we see that indeed, the actual censorship that happens is more likely to target people who argue like actual nazis than people who make jokes about trans people.) Again, also important to note that it's not a monolithic continent. You can accurately criticize Swedish media/Sweden for trying to conceal negative aspects related to their immigration, but you should then note that Denmark has a very different track record in terms of keeping and publicizing the very same statistics. Just because you allow for the potential of censorship does not mean you have to go Sweden, you can also go Denmark.
Also that I don't really care about twitter. A platform designed to avoid nuance is not one I'm particularly positive towards. I'm not sure to what degree twitter is doing what twitter is doing because of any laws though, rather than because they're concerned with maintaining their customer base?
"Lets kill trans people" is very different than "trans people are mentally ill and thats why they kill themselves", they are not remotely on the same league, If you even consider outlawing the latter statement, then we are in no way in the same page about freedom of speech, which is a bit my point why its much better to err on the side of "allowing too much" than to censor, because if that statement is a close one for you then to anybody else slightly more authoritarian than you then thats kosher and then we end up with censorship running rampant like today.
What do I mean with censorship running rampant? between 2010-2015, Twitter banned 12 famous accounts... in 2021 twitter banned 48 famous accounts .. that is a 20x increase in censorship and 2022 is going even worse, the reason of the bans in the 2010-2015 era it was ISIS and mostly ugly stuff, these days are antivaxers, "fake news", dead-naming/transphobia.
This isn't just twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and all the social media are the same.
Also governments are less tolerant of speech too, I can show you an alike 20x increase in people imprisoned regarding internet speech in the UK, the "nazi pug guy" isn't an anomaly, its the standard punishment for these actions.
Those statistics don't represent a 20x increase in censorship. Twitter in 2010 had 10% of the user base it had in 2021. Yes, there's still an increase, but it's prolly more like 5x if you factor in the amount of people on twitter.(here) Still - that isn't really my point. I'm not disputing that the debate climate (especially in the twitter universe and world of social media, two arenas I generally strongly dislike for debating) has in some ways become worse. I'm very negative towards the polarization seen in society, and in general, I'm strongly opposed to ostracizing people for their beliefs. I am, in general, a strong proponent of 'let's have a healthy and honest debate about these issues'.
Anyway, I agree that "Lets kill trans people" is very different than "trans people are mentally ill and thats why they kill themselves", and I'd never advocate for statement #2 being illegal. However, what I am saying is, I have no problems with thinking that the first should be illegal (in certain contexts - it would also depend upon the audience), that the latter should be legal, but that I don't know exactly where the line goes, which is what I tried to illustrate by giving progressively less bad statements (that still might be construed as hate speech by some people). 'Let's kill trans people' and 'somebody should eradicate all trans people' aren't necessarily as different. 'somebody should eradicate all trans people' and 'all trans people should be dead' aren't necessarily all that different. Etc, etc - if we start out with a direct threat/incitement of violence and gradually make ten following statements that are all slightly less threatening, then the 10th statement will look very different from the first, and it's easy to draw a line between those two. But it might not be as easy to separate statement #1 from statement #2. I don't think the solution to it being difficult to determine exactly where the line goes is to claim that there is no line and that everything should be permitted.
Consequently, if you agree that statements that are clearly inciting violence or that are direct threats towards someone can/should be illegal, then you do, effectively, agree that freedom of speech is not / should not be absolute, and rather, that it's about determining what statements constitute clear incitement of violence / direct threats towards someone.
I also agree that the UK has seen some ridiculous rulings. I'm sure many other countries have too. Still, that does not show that having some law against say, 'speech that incites violence or genocide' will inevitably transform into a law against bigoted statements or a law against racist jokes. I've never seen a similar ruling in Denmark, and while it's fine to disagree with ruling against the Norwegian party of let's forcibly sterilize all non-western immigrants, I don't think that was a ridiculous ruling either.
lol POKER
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 26 2022 10:12. Posts 3093
On March 26 2022 07:56 Stroggoz wrote:
That adviser to zelensky seems insane to me. He actually says he wants ukraine to join NATO to draw russia into a war.
I understand him more to be saying that he wants Ukraine to join NATO because otherwise Russia will gradually conquer them, region by region, and that one big war (which he thinks they can win) is preferable to 'settle the issue' rather than facing a slow annexation into the Soviet Union 2.0. Neutrality is not an option (the way he sees it - and I really can't argue against him), because Russia won't allow it; Russia is forcing Ukraine to choose side, and then they want to side with NATO, even knowing that the price for this choice is a full scale war with Russia.
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Mar 26 2022 11:28. Posts 5296
He is so certain that putin would invade ukraine that ukraine may as well join nato, get invaded, and "win" the war. Likely the consequences of such a war would be devastating to ukraine, and possibly the world. As well as a complete radicalization of ukraine, greatly empowering the far right authoritarian elements in the country.
There's no way he can have that degree of certainty, nor can anyone else that is currently pretending to be an expert on putinology. It doesn't even make sense even if he knew putin was going to do that because putin could either die or step down (in a coup) before it happened.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On March 26 2022 09:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Those statistics don't represent a 20x increase in censorship. Twitter in 2010 had 10% of the user base it had in 2021. Yes, there's still an increase, but it's prolly more like 5x if you factor in the amount of people on twitter.(here) Still - that isn't really my point. I'm not disputing that the debate climate (especially in the twitter universe and world of social media, two arenas I generally strongly dislike for debating) has in some ways become worse. I'm very negative towards the polarization seen in society, and in general, I'm strongly opposed to ostracizing people for their beliefs. I am, in general, a strong proponent of 'let's have a healthy and honest debate about these issues'.
Anyway, I agree that "Lets kill trans people" is very different than "trans people are mentally ill and thats why they kill themselves", and I'd never advocate for statement #2 being illegal. However, what I am saying is, I have no problems with thinking that the first should be illegal (in certain contexts - it would also depend upon the audience), that the latter should be legal, but that I don't know exactly where the line goes, which is what I tried to illustrate by giving progressively less bad statements (that still might be construed as hate speech by some people). 'Let's kill trans people' and 'somebody should eradicate all trans people' aren't necessarily as different. 'somebody should eradicate all trans people' and 'all trans people should be dead' aren't necessarily all that different. Etc, etc - if we start out with a direct threat/incitement of violence and gradually make ten following statements that are all slightly less threatening, then the 10th statement will look very different from the first, and it's easy to draw a line between those two. But it might not be as easy to separate statement #1 from statement #2. I don't think the solution to it being difficult to determine exactly where the line goes is to claim that there is no line and that everything should be permitted.
Consequently, if you agree that statements that are clearly inciting violence or that are direct threats towards someone can/should be illegal, then you do, effectively, agree that freedom of speech is not / should not be absolute, and rather, that it's about determining what statements constitute clear incitement of violence / direct threats towards someone.
I also agree that the UK has seen some ridiculous rulings. I'm sure many other countries have too. Still, that does not show that having some law against say, 'speech that incites violence or genocide' will inevitably transform into a law against bigoted statements or a law against racist jokes. I've never seen a similar ruling in Denmark, and while it's fine to disagree with ruling against the Norwegian party of let's forcibly sterilize all non-western immigrants, I don't think that was a ridiculous ruling either.
You perfectly describe how allowing one censorious legislation can devolve into more censorship and a paragraph later despise watching it happen real time you claim it doesn't happen like in the UK because... Denmark lol.
Freedom of speech doesn't protect direct calls fo illeal action, I haven't said I would ever condone censorship ideas, and illegal immigrants being sterilized is an idea, an awful one, but an idea nonetheless, "lets go and castrate Pete who lives under the bridge" isn't an idea, its a call to commit a crime.
But for the 3rd time what we are witnessing isn't remotely between our differene to where to draw the line, its about censoring anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, misgendering etc, things way fucking past and instead of sharing the outrage, you go and argue about how it isnt a 20x increase for fucks sake.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 27/03/2022 04:57
0
hiems United States. Mar 27 2022 06:05. Posts 2979
I don't like how these intellactuals keep ignoring me n jlost..
Even baal has no more use 4 me now that we beat loco..
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
On March 23 2022 08:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
freedom of speech is more sacrosanct in the US than it is in Europe, yet at the same time, that this censorship you complain about happens more in the US than here.
On April 01 2022 03:41 lostaccount wrote:
wow what a precedent, i dont know i think im okay with it but 6 weeks might be too harsh, maybe a day for first time
How about not sending people to prison because of social media posts?
On April 01 2022 11:28 lostaccount wrote:
How about not making racist post so u don’t have a chance to go to prison?
People gonna say or write something stupid at some point no matter what. Putting them into prison will be ekspensive for society.
At maximum: give them a fine, unless its deaththreats or something.
:D
Last edit: 01/04/2022 20:33
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 01 2022 20:57. Posts 5296
He went to jail, not prison. Jail is even worse than prison! You know who is in prison in the UK? Julian Assange. Getting tortured, in a max security prison. Spending his days in solitary confinement. Britain has a terrible record on free speech. Should point out that fining and jailing people over internet comments is not new in Britain.
States and corporations have predictably used this invasion to crack down on dissent in a way that is reminiscent of how all things german were treated in ww1. It is culturally barbaric to go back to such times. Russia today being essentially removed from the interwebs is pretty dam significant, it's one of the largest news stations in the world.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
0
hiems United States. Apr 01 2022 21:45. Posts 2979
On April 01 2022 19:57 Stroggoz wrote:
He went to jail, not prison. Jail is even worse than prison! You know who is in prison in the UK? Julian Assange. Getting tortured, in a max security prison. Spending his days in solitary confinement. Britain has a terrible record on free speech. Should point out that fining and jailing people over internet comments is not new in Britain.
States and corporations have predictably used this invasion to crack down on dissent in a way that is reminiscent of how all things german were treated in ww1. It is culturally barbaric to go back to such times. Russia today being essentially removed from the interwebs is pretty dam significant, it's one of the largest news stations in the world.
stroggoz i aint mad at cha
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
On April 01 2022 19:57 Stroggoz wrote:
He went to jail, not prison. Jail is even worse than prison! You know who is in prison in the UK? Julian Assange. Getting tortured, in a max security prison. Spending his days in solitary confinement. Britain has a terrible record on free speech. Should point out that fining and jailing people over internet comments is not new in Britain.
States and corporations have predictably used this invasion to crack down on dissent in a way that is reminiscent of how all things german were treated in ww1. It is culturally barbaric to go back to such times. Russia today being essentially removed from the interwebs is pretty dam significant, it's one of the largest news stations in the world.
I was waiting for the "buuuuut hate speech" and it never came, so are we on the same page?
Agreed 100%, and Assange's case shows the weak conviction that the US has regarding of freedom of speech and is rapidly getting worse, don't you think its something worth fighting for? or is it that we simply disagree on how big of a threat ths is to the world?, I mean if you are concerned about the raise of fascism this should be a big one for you since obv controlling speech is one of the first tools used by authoritharians, particularly right wing ones.
my karma is done, now time to enjoy life, peace is the way karma is a way Jesus is a way
1
blackjacki2 United States. Apr 02 2022 20:31. Posts 2581
Anyone that doesn't think the issue of online censorship from the tech giants is a major issue has their head in the sand. I think it really hit home for me when that "Plandemic" movie was scrubbed from the internet. I think most of us watched the 9/11 conspiracy movie Loose Change at some point. I think most rational people thought it was mostly hogwash (although probably not most people on this site). But I think we all remember being able to watch it easily online wherever we wanted. Plandemic movie was probably similarly mostly hogwash but now we can see that something is not permitted to propagate on the internet if it doesn't fit the official narrative. We saw the same with the lab leak theory or the Hunter Biden laptop story, etc. The media can kill a story if they want to if it doesn't fit their narrative.
Cancel culture is another huge pain in the ass here. The US has more liberal laws when it comes to allowing hate speech than Canada or Europe but it's safe to say that cancel culture wants to be more extreme than either. They tried to get Netflix and Spotify to cancel Dave Chappelle and Joe Rogan. They're not exactly grand wizards of the KKK.
But I basically agree with Baal - We already have laws against what speech is not permissible, e.g. libel, slander, defamation, harassment, yelling fire in a theater, fighting words, etc. If you think the tech companies should restrict speech beyond that then I don't think you're seeing things clearly. Or more likely: You're okay with it because at the moment the targets of the restricted speech are people you disagree with morally or politically.
The last thing I will say is that in the United States the one entity that has done more to preserve our rights and liberties than anyone else is the ACLU. They are known to only argue for principles and not people. As a result they will defend anyone if they think their rights are being infringed on - from KKK to pedophiles to terrorists and anyone in between. Recently they have decided that they will consider not defending people if they don't "align with the ACLU's values" or some bullshit. Really fucking sad when even the ACLU is succumbing to woke culture.
On April 02 2022 19:31 blackjacki2 wrote:
Anyone that doesn't think the issue of online censorship from the tech giants is a major issue has their head in the sand. I think it really hit home for me when that "Plandemic" movie was scrubbed from the internet. I think most of us watched the 9/11 conspiracy movie Loose Change at some point. I think most rational people thought it was mostly hogwash (although probably not most people on this site). But I think we all remember being able to watch it easily online wherever we wanted. Plandemic movie was probably similarly mostly hogwash but now we can see that something is not permitted to propagate on the internet if it doesn't fit the official narrative. We saw the same with the lab leak theory or the Hunter Biden laptop story, etc. The media can kill a story if they want to if it doesn't fit their narrative.
Cancel culture is another huge pain in the ass here. The US has more liberal laws when it comes to allowing hate speech than Canada or Europe but it's safe to say that cancel culture wants to be more extreme than either. They tried to get Netflix and Spotify to cancel Dave Chappelle and Joe Rogan. They're not exactly grand wizards of the KKK.
But I basically agree with Baal - We already have laws against what speech is not permissible, e.g. libel, slander, defamation, harassment, yelling fire in a theater, fighting words, etc. If you think the tech companies should restrict speech beyond that then I don't think you're seeing things clearly. Or more likely: You're okay with it because at the moment the targets of the restricted speech are people you disagree with morally or politically.
The last thing I will say is that in the United States the one entity that has done more to preserve our rights and liberties than anyone else is the ACLU. They are known to only argue for principles and not people. As a result they will defend anyone if they think their rights are being infringed on - from KKK to pedophiles to terrorists and anyone in between. Recently they have decided that they will consider not defending people if they don't "align with the ACLU's values" or some bullshit. Really fucking sad when even the ACLU is succumbing to woke culture.
agreed, they trying to 1984 us now
my karma is done, now time to enjoy life, peace is the way karma is a way Jesus is a way
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 02 2022 21:05. Posts 5296
On April 01 2022 19:57 Stroggoz wrote:
He went to jail, not prison. Jail is even worse than prison! You know who is in prison in the UK? Julian Assange. Getting tortured, in a max security prison. Spending his days in solitary confinement. Britain has a terrible record on free speech. Should point out that fining and jailing people over internet comments is not new in Britain.
States and corporations have predictably used this invasion to crack down on dissent in a way that is reminiscent of how all things german were treated in ww1. It is culturally barbaric to go back to such times. Russia today being essentially removed from the interwebs is pretty dam significant, it's one of the largest news stations in the world.
I was waiting for the "buuuuut hate speech" and it never came, so are we on the same page?
Agreed 100%, and Assange's case shows the weak conviction that the US has regarding of freedom of speech and is rapidly getting worse, don't you think its something worth fighting for? or is it that we simply disagree on how big of a threat ths is to the world?, I mean if you are concerned about the raise of fascism this should be a big one for you since obv controlling speech is one of the first tools used by authoritharians, particularly right wing ones.
I've always been against hate speech laws. I don't think it's worth fighting for me because there are obviously more important things to fight for instead. That doesn't imply it's not important by the way. Also, I don't even have the time to fight for anything right now. You and I fundamentally disagree on the causes of authoritarianism. For example, I believe that Trump tried to become a dictator on 6th Jan, and you do not. I think also that the primary cause of the shift towards more authoritarian political parties has been that corporations have taken control over all aspects of economic life. People have had no ability to express themselves politically, and this repression of human nature has caused people to want a different political system. It would not at all be surprising if the world went full dictatorship in the next decades, given the combination of this repression, ecological collapse and rapid technological changes. Also I don't think it should be a contentious claim that political freedoms are part of human nature. Chimpanzee's often engage in political revolutions and we are almost the same animal as them.
I'm not sure if I like using the word fascism. It's a specific type of authoritarianism and we should not let the word change its meaning from Mussolini's definition and conception-he was the one who originally defined fascism and he did a fine job defining it. There are lots of other types of authoritarianism and dictatorship other than fascist ones.
It looks like Ukraine may end up getting partitioned and we will have a Kashmir or NK/SK situation. The war will never end but there will be a permanent caesefire. Or it will end but the cold war will go on forever. These kinds of situations like the Ukraine crisis are always exploited by governments and have far-reaching consequences. Certainly, all European governments will become more dependent on the US military, and will be more authoritarian in some way. Look at what happened in the Iraq situation. Pretty much every government in the world instituted anti-terror legislation. Governments around the world cracked down on muslims. Some pretty horrific examples of this can be seen today in China. Hard to say if the NSA would have had a spy program if it wern't for things like 9/11.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 03/04/2022 02:34
0
hiems United States. Apr 03 2022 18:45. Posts 2979
U guys need 2 stop thinking u r military commqnders lol
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
On April 02 2022 20:05 Stroggoz wrote:
I've always been against hate speech laws. I don't think it's worth fighting for me because there are obviously more important things to fight for instead. That doesn't imply it's not important by the way. Also, I don't even have the time to fight for anything right now. You and I fundamentally disagree on the causes of authoritarianism. For example, I believe that Trump tried to become a dictator on 6th Jan, and you do not. I think also that the primary cause of the shift towards more authoritarian political parties has been that corporations have taken control over all aspects of economic life. People have had no ability to express themselves politically, and this repression of human nature has caused people to want a different political system. It would not at all be surprising if the world went full dictatorship in the next decades, given the combination of this repression, ecological collapse and rapid technological changes. Also I don't think it should be a contentious claim that political freedoms are part of human nature. Chimpanzee's often engage in political revolutions and we are almost the same animal as them.
I'm not sure if I like using the word fascism. It's a specific type of authoritarianism and we should not let the word change its meaning from Mussolini's definition and conception-he was the one who originally defined fascism and he did a fine job defining it. There are lots of other types of authoritarianism and dictatorship other than fascist ones.
It looks like Ukraine may end up getting partitioned and we will have a Kashmir or NK/SK situation. The war will never end but there will be a permanent caesefire. Or it will end but the cold war will go on forever. These kinds of situations like the Ukraine crisis are always exploited by governments and have far-reaching consequences. Certainly, all European governments will become more dependent on the US military, and will be more authoritarian in some way. Look at what happened in the Iraq situation. Pretty much every government in the world instituted anti-terror legislation. Governments around the world cracked down on muslims. Some pretty horrific examples of this can be seen today in China. Hard to say if the NSA would have had a spy program if it wern't for things like 9/11.
I think you misunderstand my position regarding Trump and Jan 6th, Trump refused to accept the election results but so did Hillary 4 years before claiming the Russians fixed it.
One called for supporters to take it to the streets, the other antagonized a geopoiltlcal rival, both were soft coup atempts and these two should never sit in office again, and ideally they should do time because jeopardizing democracy at that level should be heavily discouraged, however Kamala Harris said that Jan 6th was like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, that is ridiculous hyperbole, and thats where I stand.
I think you are absolutely wrong about corps causing authoritarianism, proof of that is the abundance of authoritarianism in 3rd world countries with no economical freedom nor corporations, but to your point obviously the corp-state conglomeration in the US is terrible and it should be stopped, but its not the corps who corrupted the government but the government who put a for-sale sign on it.
I want to get into the autoritarianism caused by corporations, there is authoritarianism in underdeveloped countries with no corps from left and right, Russia and China are mega-states in control of industry, Australia showed scary signs of autohritarianism in the covid restrictions, as I showed above Germany and UK tightly policing speech none of these come from corporations.
But you are right in seeing that corporations seek power and authority but what you fail to see is that the biggest corp is the state but for some reason you think that this doesn't apply to them, why is it? do you think since they are elected it makes it different? or you believe the state doesn't operate in self-serving ways? or that the state is more accountable than corporations?
I"m not sure what demixify means but I'm probably on board.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
3
PuertoRican United States. Apr 13 2022 08:36. Posts 13044
On April 10 2022 02:50 hiems wrote:
flight costs are insane now
From where to where?
Prices are inexpensive for travel within the United States of America, as well as the round trip ticket I am about to purchase from San Francisco to Rome (international travel).
Rekrul is a newb
0
hiems United States. Apr 13 2022 14:44. Posts 2979
On April 10 2022 02:50 hiems wrote:
flight costs are insane now
From where to where?
Prices are inexpensive for travel within the United States of America, as well as the round trip ticket I am about to purchase from San Francisco to Rome (international travel).
newark to san diego for example is almost twice the costs.
idk where ur getting the domestic flights are cheaper thing ive been reading its up alot across the board due to the fuel prices from this russia/ukraine thing.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
On April 10 2022 02:50 hiems wrote:
flight costs are insane now
From where to where?
Prices are inexpensive for travel within the United States of America, as well as the round trip ticket I am about to purchase from San Francisco to Rome (international travel).
newark to san diego for example is almost twice the costs.
idk where ur getting the domestic flights are cheaper thing ive been reading its up alot across the board due to the fuel prices from this russia/ukraine thing.
I just returned from Las Vegas two days ago. The price from San Francisco to Las Vegas is still the same price as it was when I went in February and a couple of months earlier in December.
It would make sense that fuel prices are making domestic flights more expensive, but I haven't seen it yet with my flights.
hiems is going to fly to Finland to neg his new aryan goddess. Pretty sure it's just the way the light is hitting that tooth and her smile makes it look un-symmetrical. Not that it fucking matters. Maybe she has pointy elbows too?
0
hiems United States. Apr 15 2022 14:02. Posts 2979
On April 14 2022 19:09 VanDerMeyde wrote:
<3
Eivind is allright too, he even let me sleep over at his house after brood war showmatch once.
haha mayb. every1 seems 2 like him idk how he does it.
idk y he dont like me mayb cause im better than him at starcraft
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
0
hiems United States. Apr 15 2022 14:03. Posts 2979
On April 10 2022 02:50 hiems wrote:
flight costs are insane now
From where to where?
Prices are inexpensive for travel within the United States of America, as well as the round trip ticket I am about to purchase from San Francisco to Rome (international travel).
newark to san diego for example is almost twice the costs.
idk where ur getting the domestic flights are cheaper thing ive been reading its up alot across the board due to the fuel prices from this russia/ukraine thing.
I just returned from Las Vegas two days ago. The price from San Francisco to Las Vegas is still the same price as it was when I went in February and a couple of months earlier in December.
It would make sense that fuel prices are making domestic flights more expensive, but I haven't seen it yet with my flights.
ya i keep an eye out on the vegas <-->cali flights becauses its one of the places im thinkin of moving to and it is still dirt cheap idk why exactly. but yea i think for sure prices are up everywhere.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
0
hiems United States. Apr 15 2022 14:05. Posts 2979
On April 15 2022 00:25 RiKD wrote:
hiems is going to fly to Finland to neg his new aryan goddess. Pretty sure it's just the way the light is hitting that tooth and her smile makes it look un-symmetrical. Not that it fucking matters. Maybe she has pointy elbows too?
i dont know anything about her politics.
she does look good for mid thirties tho.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
There are still kings in this world. Putin is one. Kings don't have to be benevolent. In most cases kings are not benevolent. Think about that. We are not that far from the feudal system.
rikd i meant none of us on LP are kings unless there is 1 that i dont know. there are probably more or just as much kings/dictator in this world then democracy. i google it, 52 kings https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/dictatorship-countries maybe a bit more maybe a bit less.
i mean usa is run by billionaires its not democracy so its half of a dictator or run by oligracies. there is 0 democracy in this world that the west would like you to believe.
my karma is done, now time to enjoy life, peace is the way karma is a way Jesus is a way
But, bro. I am not messing with The Secret. My spirituality is like singing, or drumming, or playing the guitar. A walk on the beach to feel the breeze and watch the birds. Making someone laugh. Making someone cum. I don't see how you escape leverage because of the damn Secret...
Yeah, but when I go to work I am tilted and want to kill myself so I listen to The Fragile by NIN or Didn't It Rain by Songs:Ohia. I guess that is positive in a way but it is basically like we are fucked, I guess we should still try. Then when I get to the fashion store the "positive" music just tilts me and I want to break something. The best I can do is break clothes hangers and that is my only solace. When I immerse myself with negative things it makes me feel better and when I immerse myself in positive things it's too much. But, I am mostly being an asshole here. Doing the right thing and trying does attract good things but not always. If you always expect positive or try to be positive it will lead to resentment because bad things will happen. Also, the way The Secret frames things it's always these wild eyed delusional people saying we should be positive all the time when it's obvious that front is cracking at the seams.
my karma is done, now time to enjoy life, peace is the way karma is a way Jesus is a way
Last edit: 24/04/2022 07:28
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 21 2022 02:14. Posts 5296
congrats on bracelet
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 21 2022 02:29. Posts 5296
On April 20 2022 00:01 RiKD wrote:
You think Jesus cares about your Sunday Million aspirations?
What do you think about the ideas "the meek shall inherit the Earth" and "Turn the other cheek"?
There was nothing special about Jesus really. He was a fairly common political dissident who, among many others, went around calling himself the messiah. Calling yourself god generally means you are narcissistic to a fault. The reason he stands out compared to others is purely based on luck and timing. Generally, the dissidents who become famous do so because their timing culminates with their cause becoming mainstream.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
My previous psychologist said that one could make a plausible claim that belief in God is psychotic. But you probably need to exclude people who are fucking stupid like sand naggers.
i know this forum is kinda dead but still why the hell hasnt topic title been changed?
its not okay to say N word
its not ok to call out jews
its not ok to be racist
its ok to bunch all russians into one category though because its the narrative
On December 04 2022 23:08 spets1 wrote:
i know this forum is kinda dead but still why the hell hasnt topic title been changed?
its not okay to say N word
its not ok to call out jews
its not ok to be racist
its ok to bunch all russians into one category though because its the narrative
fuck australians..
not for any particular reason but to bring balance to the force
There doesnt seem to be an end in any near future, Putin cant accept a total defeat, Zelensky seems adamant to concede terrotories and the west is in too deep and the usual suspects are just churning money so this shit will keep going until theres nothing left of Ukraine.
I think its pretty clear by now that Ukraine will not be defeated and won't concede territorires as long as the west keeps funding it and Putin's regime cannot admit defeat so sadly this will end up in a decade long war with Ukraine devastated, a weakened Russia and money from taxpayers funneled to defense contractors, the usual suspects do it once again.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Apr 21 2023 16:59. Posts 2225
On April 20 2023 18:40 VanDerMeyde wrote:
They are going away fast...
Reminds me of a quote from "Gettysburg" movie: "We rather lose the war than admit the mistake"
The Kyiv Independent
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
3
PuertoRican United States. Apr 22 2023 02:53. Posts 13044
Oryx numbers are all well-documented. In fact they will be glad if you can point out anything wrong to them. Of course Russia lost much more than what can be documented from photographs.
Example: Russia claimed to have destroyed 48 HIMARS, but only 16 were delievered to Ukraina..
"48 HIMARS claimed to have been destroyed or captured (1) by Russia's Ministry of Defence as of March 26th, 2023. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [15] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Only 16 HIMARS have been delivered to Ukraine as of the making of these claims. There is no visual evidence that supports the loss of any HIMARS."
I have to disagree with u guys, this is not another "both sides are equally bad" or "yeah... there is propaganda on both sides" conflict at all. Defenders advantage, obviously Russia lost a lot more soldiers and material + the warline is barely moving for months. Russia using WW2 tactics, Ukraine probably just sitting there and waiting for enough russians to die before they launch counterattacks with NATO intelligence/tactics. Ukraine have no reason to lie about their numbers, not like russians do anyway. Kremlin is not even trying to hide that they are spewing out crap and propaganda 24/7. All the smart russians left the country a long time ago.
Pls people: dont buy into Tucker Carlson's lies.. The war is a complete disaster for Russia in every way. It was supposed to be a 4 day special operation, remember?
:D
Last edit: 23/04/2023 11:57
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 23 2023 21:32. Posts 5296
Russia is clearly more morally wrong here, they are the invaders. Yes, it was also a complete disaster from Russia's side. They basically empowered their enemy and another potential rival China has eclipsed them. They could have worked towards an alliance with Europe but now the EU are vassals for the US for many years to come.
That's a separate issue from who is more propagandistic. The west has always had a far superior proaganda system than Russia and other dictatorships. They have a whole industry dedicated towards studying propaganda like it's a science.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
I have to disagree with u guys, this is not another "both sides are equally bad" or "yeah... there is propaganda on both sides" conflict at all. Defenders advantage, obviously Russia lost a lot more soldiers and material + the warline is barely moving for months. Russia using WW2 tactics, Ukraine probably just sitting there and waiting for enough russians to die before they launch counterattacks with NATO intelligence/tactics. Ukraine have no reason to lie about their numbers, not like russians do anyway. Kremlin is not even trying to hide that they are spewing out crap and propaganda 24/7. All the smart russians left the country a long time ago.
Pls people: dont buy into Tucker Carlson's lies.. The war is a complete disaster for Russia in every way. It was supposed to be a 4 day special operation, remember?
perhaps "Yup" wasn't very clear but im very aware that Russia's propaganda is far far worse and they are in fact losing the war (in the way the US lost in vietnam), but its also important to be aware that most pro-Ukraine things we see are also very biased, like the ghost of kiev, the guys in the isle standing up to the russians, bloated results etc.
On April 23 2023 20:32 Stroggoz wrote:
Russia is clearly more morally wrong here, they are the invaders. Yes, it was also a complete disaster from Russia's side. They basically empowered their enemy and another potential rival China has eclipsed them. They could have worked towards an alliance with Europe but now the EU are vassals for the US for many years to come.
That's a separate issue from who is more propagandistic. The west has always had a far superior proaganda system than Russia and other dictatorships. They have a whole industry dedicated towards studying propaganda like it's a science.
Strongly agree, Russian propaganda is transparent and anybody who isn't completely retarded can see through it, but western propaganda is much more subtle yet you see most democrats with Ukraine flags in their profiles and believe this is a war to defend poor victims and not just a proxy war against a geopolitical rival
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 25 2023 12:14. Posts 5296
Yeah there's a word for people who put Ukrainian flags on their profiles. It's called "Slacktivism" and it goes hand in hand with virtue signaling. From what I can tell these are people who spend 5minutes total thinking about a complex geopolitical event and then pretend to think they are some noble soul critiquing power. Hilarious. Although some are just decent people doing it unthinkingly I guess. Idk if you remember it during the whole Charlie Hebdo event or Kony 2012. They are among the worst cases i've seen of this.
Certainly the western propganda system has worked very well on me, looking back on it. And yeah, I agree it's far more subtle. A lot of it is just trying to deflect or direct attention away from an issue. You don't have to be lied to or even to beleive the lies for it to work well. Just like you don't have to use the internet to be affected by internet echochambers.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On April 23 2023 20:32 Stroggoz wrote:
Russia is clearly more morally wrong here, they are the invaders. Yes, it was also a complete disaster from Russia's side. They basically empowered their enemy and another potential rival China has eclipsed them. They could have worked towards an alliance with Europe but now the EU are vassals for the US for many years to come.
That's a separate issue from who is more propagandistic. The west has always had a far superior proaganda system than Russia and other dictatorships. They have a whole industry dedicated towards studying propaganda like it's a science.
Strongly agree, Russian propaganda is transparent and anybody who isn't completely retarded can see through it, but western propaganda is much more subtle yet you see most democrats with Ukraine flags in their profiles and believe this is a war to defend poor victims and not just a proxy war against a geopolitical rival
Even if you regard this as a proxy war against a geopolitical rival it's still a war to defend poor victims in addition. Even if you believe that 'Putin's hand was forced by NATO expansionist aggression' then the Ukrainian civilians had no part in that.
There are some complex issues relating to this war, as with any conflict, but frankly, few conflicts have such a clear aggressor and 'more guilty' part. The line of thinking justifying Russia's actions towards the Ukraine could be used to justify virtually every American involvement in Latin America, but what you actually should do, is reject both.
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 26 2023 02:46. Posts 5296
I wouldn't really be quite sure that it's a war to defend poor victims. There are geopolitical analysts like Patrick Cockburn that argue German tanks being sent to Ukraine is more likely to make things worse because of escalation. I don't know what kind of diplomacy could ever be acheived at this point, it seems unlikely that any truce could be acheived. But the US, and most of Eu are not even trying that option as far as I can tell. So the actions aren't necessarily evidence for intentions of defending victims.
I also think people in the global south should have a large say in this conflict. They are suffering a lot of consequences caused by the war. Many Ukrainians want as much military support as they can get, but that doesn't justify giving what they want, as they aren't the only ones being affected Putin's invasion. An example was Zelensky wanting a no fly zone early on. You can understand and sympathize with why he'd want one, but he didn't understand the consequences of what a no fly zone would be. Ofc, he wasn't given one.
I personally think Putin's crime is morally worse than the invasion of Iraq, because of the nuclear element to it, but also because it's pushed back solving the climate crisis to a later date. Those were predictable consequences, and stupidity is no excuse. But both cases were very clear cut crimes of aggression.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On April 23 2023 20:32 Stroggoz wrote:
Russia is clearly more morally wrong here, they are the invaders. Yes, it was also a complete disaster from Russia's side. They basically empowered their enemy and another potential rival China has eclipsed them. They could have worked towards an alliance with Europe but now the EU are vassals for the US for many years to come.
That's a separate issue from who is more propagandistic. The west has always had a far superior proaganda system than Russia and other dictatorships. They have a whole industry dedicated towards studying propaganda like it's a science.
Strongly agree, Russian propaganda is transparent and anybody who isn't completely retarded can see through it, but western propaganda is much more subtle yet you see most democrats with Ukraine flags in their profiles and believe this is a war to defend poor victims and not just a proxy war against a geopolitical rival
Even if you regard this as a proxy war against a geopolitical rival it's still a war to defend poor victims in addition. Even if you believe that 'Putin's hand was forced by NATO expansionist aggression' then the Ukrainian civilians had no part in that.
There are some complex issues relating to this war, as with any conflict, but frankly, few conflicts have such a clear aggressor and 'more guilty' part. The line of thinking justifying Russia's actions towards the Ukraine could be used to justify virtually every American involvement in Latin America, but what you actually should do, is reject both.
Yes it is, Ukranians are obv the victims and this is one of the few wars where aiding a defense is justified, but I don't think thats what the west, particularly the US wants to do, it's just perfect because its easier to gain support, but their goal is to prolong this war as long as it takes and to weaken Russia and as Stroggoz mentioned the west is not interested in diplomacy, in fact when people like Elon Musk suggested compromise and give land to Russia for peace he was heavily criticized.
I"m very against interventionism but obv intervening in this war is different than in Syria, Irak, Yemen etc which were total bs, I probably still wouldn't intervene but its a tought one.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 26/04/2023 03:31
3
PuertoRican United States. Apr 26 2023 04:43. Posts 13044
My girlfriend lives in Belarus, and I visit her each summer, and it's not getting any easier.
Whatever happens between Russia and Ukraine, Belarus gets brought along for the ride.
On April 26 2023 03:43 PuertoRican wrote:
My girlfriend lives in Belarus, and I visit her each summer, and it's not getting any easier.
Whatever happens between Russia and Ukraine, Belarus gets brought along for the ride.
I hope she is prepared to leave the country instantly in case of emergency
If you visit Belarus, life seems normal there, so she isn't planning on leaving any time soon.
Belarus can't really support Russia other than letting them use their land as a road to Ukraine, which is bad, but they have no choice. Belarus' military isn't big, and they'd only destroy their own country if they ever helped Russia in the war with anything other than being a highway/road to where Russia wants to attack. As of now, Belarus has mostly stayed neutral, but we'll see what happens in the near future.
On April 29 2023 04:08 PuertoRican wrote:
If you visit Belarus, life seems normal there, so she isn't planning on leaving any time soon.
Belarus can't really support Russia other than letting them use their land as a road to Ukraine, which is bad, but they have no choice. Belarus' military isn't big, and they'd only destroy their own country if they ever helped Russia in the war with anything other than being a highway/road to where Russia wants to attack. As of now, Belarus has mostly stayed neutral, but we'll see what happens in the near future.
¨
Belarus wohnt join the war because their people are against the war. If Belarus joins the war, their dictator is gone and Russia's control over the country is also history.
It would be like ordering norwegians to kill swedes, even if some cruel dictator controlled our nation its obviously not going to happen. Norwegians would use the army to overthrow the dicator instead. This is what Lukashenko fears.
:D
Last edit: 29/04/2023 13:08
3
PuertoRican United States. Apr 30 2023 10:25. Posts 13044
On April 29 2023 04:08 PuertoRican wrote:
If you visit Belarus, life seems normal there, so she isn't planning on leaving any time soon.
Belarus can't really support Russia other than letting them use their land as a road to Ukraine, which is bad, but they have no choice. Belarus' military isn't big, and they'd only destroy their own country if they ever helped Russia in the war with anything other than being a highway/road to where Russia wants to attack. As of now, Belarus has mostly stayed neutral, but we'll see what happens in the near future.
¨
Belarus wohnt join the war because their people are against the war. If Belarus joins the war, their dictator is gone and Russia's control over the country is also history.
It would be like ordering norwegians to kill swedes, even if some cruel dictator controlled our nation its obviously not going to happen. Norwegians would use the army to overthrow the dicator instead. This is what Lukashenko fears.
Interesting. I never thought about it like that before.
On May 02 2023 19:11 VanDerMeyde wrote:
So... Russia lost 100.000 men at Bakhmut.
...
Sucks that they're essentially forced to go into battle, or risk prison and/or death back home if they choose avoid fighting in the war.
the good old "i just followed orders" excuse
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. May 07 2023 11:23. Posts 5296
I really don't get why people criticize Nazi officers so harshly for that excuse. If disobeying orders gets you shot, then there's not much you can really do, is there? It's a much better excuse than many of the ones people have today in much more free times.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
3
PuertoRican United States. May 08 2023 07:51. Posts 13044
On May 07 2023 10:23 Stroggoz wrote:
I really don't get why people criticize Nazi officers so harshly for that excuse. If disobeying orders gets you shot, then there's not much you can really do, is there? It's a much better excuse than many of the ones people have today in much more free times.
Dude im not the greatest guy ever, but if you gas bunch of children because you'd rather not be punished, you are a monster. Also, if you are able to live normal life after such incident, something is wrong.
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. May 13 2023 05:10. Posts 5296
On May 07 2023 10:23 Stroggoz wrote:
I really don't get why people criticize Nazi officers so harshly for that excuse. If disobeying orders gets you shot, then there's not much you can really do, is there? It's a much better excuse than many of the ones people have today in much more free times.
Dude im not the greatest guy ever, but if you gas bunch of children because you'd rather not be punished, you are a monster. Also, if you are able to live normal life after such incident, something is wrong.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I can name quite a few peace activists, (much better people than I am), who have at one point either had a fond view of mass murder or praised mass murderers. Bertrand Russell for example, was jailed for peace activism and just before his jail time wrote an article criticizing WW1, but also saying wiping out lesser civilizations is not something that people should regret. That's interesting information to me because it tells me how easy it is, even for pretty decent people, to have a genocidal worldview. There's nothing factually wrong with calling Bertrand Russell a monster, It comes down to a value judgement I guess.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On June 24 2023 20:53 CurbStomp2 wrote:
lol what the fuck was this shit today?
It seems that Prigozhin strong armed Putin into some consessions.
It's good that the muscovites felt some fear as tanks rolled in, makes it harder to support a war if you are aware that it might be your house that is going to be destroyed.
On September 15 2023 03:02 lostaccount wrote:
I c it Russia won more than they lost long term but the war should end soon I hope. End the “sacre” war please
last tank rushing and shooting at probably nothing is pretty funny
Last edit: 04/11/2023 09:15
3
PuertoRican United States. Nov 07 2023 03:31. Posts 13044
On November 04 2023 07:58 CurbStomp2 wrote:
russia lol
last tank rushing and shooting at probably nothing is pretty funny
Looks like they're fighting in the middle of nowhere.
I wonder if Russia is still sending in a lot of troops, or if they're just trying to hold position and eventually take the small bits of newly acquired land and eventually add it to Russia.
nah, i think the US package will go through, cause it makes no sense to deplete the russian military only halfway through. longer this shit last the better for everyone, except ukrainians.
my karma is done, now time to enjoy life, peace is the way karma is a way Jesus is a way
Last edit: 01/04/2024 04:26
3
PuertoRican United States. Jan 25 2024 06:06. Posts 13044
On January 24 2024 16:20 lostaccount wrote:
Russia won the marathon now that American has to deal with a million fronts
Things might get interesting when Ukraine quickly burns through the last sum of money that Biden said the U.S. is giving them. Ukraine will either beg other nations for money and get it, or they won't get the money, and Russia might see the perfect time for one last big attack.
On January 24 2024 16:20 lostaccount wrote:
Russia won the marathon now that American has to deal with a million fronts
Things might get interesting when Ukraine quickly burns through the last sum of money that Biden said the U.S. is giving them. Ukraine will either beg other nations for money and get it, or they won't get the money, and Russia might see the perfect time for one last big attack.
Europe will likely have to keep funding Ukraine, the US is playing global hegemony games, but Europe is fighting an actual future military threat. anyway as long as Europe drips a little bit of money into Ukraine I dont think Russia can annex it no matter what they do.
my karma is done, now time to enjoy life, peace is the way karma is a way Jesus is a way
3
PuertoRican United States. Feb 20 2024 00:58. Posts 13044
I wonder if Russia will have eventually leave Ukraine once Ukraine gives up the eastern part of their country, where Russian troops are currently located.
It would be a small victory for Russia, as their country would grow in size, just like it did when they stole that southern island away from Ukraine some years ago. It's like Russia is playing the long game to try and collect as much land in that part of the world as possible so they can monopolize Eastern Europe.
in
United States. Apr 15 2022 01:25. Posts 8534
