EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6523
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On January 08 2017 11:31 Danglars wrote: Congress should write and debate new legislation for limited protections on web traffic limiting and paid prioritization. Like I've said before, we should cast a wary eye on who decides what constitutes unfair practices, lest you help create a worse government-enforced red tape boondoggle to rival the greatest of abuses thus far. Okay, so that establishes who you think should set the rules, but what rules do you think they should implement? If (as looks increasingly likely) Congress sets the rules to allow blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, would you consider that a mistake? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON — Nearly 540 tons of metals — mostly iron and aluminum — contaminated the Animas River over nine hours during a massive wastewater spill from an abandoned Colorado gold mine, the Environmental Protection Agency said Friday in a new report on the 2015 blowout that turned rivers in three states a sickly yellow. The total amount of metals entering the river system was comparable to levels during one or two days of high spring runoff, although the concentration of metals was significantly higher at the spill's peak, the report said. In February, the EPA estimated the amount of metals in the release at 440 tons. The agency said additional data and improved analysis resulted in the higher final estimate. The EPA said its research supports earlier statements that water quality in the affected river system has returned to pre-spill levels. An EPA-led contractor inadvertently triggered the 3 million-gallon spill while doing preliminary cleanup work at the old Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado. The blowout affected rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. The EPA said in its report that only 1 percent of the metals came from inside the mine, while 99 percent were "scoured" from waste piles on nearby hills and stream beds. The iron and aluminum reacted with the river water to cause the eye-catching mustard color that was visible for days as the plume traveled down the river system into Lake Powell, the EPA said. Besides iron and aluminum, the spill released manganese, lead, copper, arsenic, zinc, cadmium and a small amount of mercury into the river, the EPA said. The EPA said last month it will pay $4.5 million to state, local and tribal governments for their emergency responses, but the agency rejected $20.4 million in other requests for past and future expenses. New Mexico Environment Secretary Butch Tongate accused the EPA of using the taxpayer-funded report to try to defend its actions. The state has sued the agency over the spill. Source | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
So I found the propaganda that RT was using to promote Russian interests on oil and the environment, back from March 2016, in a dastardly influence campaign that is spreading evil Russian propaganda to the world: | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On January 09 2017 02:25 LegalLord wrote: I'm glad to hear that that matter is finally more or less settled. So I found the propaganda that RT was using to promote Russian interests on oil and the environment, back from March 2016, in a dastardly influence campaign that is spreading evil Russian propaganda to the world: https://youtube.com/watch?v=v5cbVc6zJW0 Okay, I probably shouldn't wade into this because I don't check the thread often enough to maintain a conversation, but I think this should be said. I don't mind a little snark if there's an actual argument behind it. It can be an obnoxious way to make a point, but I get that it's fun and helps keep things engaging. But there's no actual argument behind this snark. People have been saying that RT is trading in anti-US oil propaganda (e.g. anti-fracking) as a means to prop up Russian oil. To debunk this, you post an example of RT running a piece about how the DAP is bad. If you had posted a counterexample, where RT ran a piece favorable to US oil or something, we could talk about how a single counterexample doesn't disprove the theory, maybe they did it to cover their tracks, etc. But this isn't even a counterexample. It's them doing what people are saying they're doing (running pieces against US oil), but in a way you happen to find persuasive. I do too! I think the DAP is shitty! And if RT says so too, that doesn't disprove that they're Russian propaganda. In fact, if we were doing Bayesian updating on the theory that they're just Russian propaganda, I'd consider this weak confirmation, since they're saying the thing Russian propaganda would say (that US oil is bad), but there's a good reason to say it anyway (since DAP is, in fact, bad). In short, you have nothing, but you're still being shitty about it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 09 2017 04:06 ChristianS wrote: Okay, I probably shouldn't wade into this because I don't check the thread often enough to maintain a conversation, but I think this should be said. I don't mind a little snark if there's an actual argument behind it. It can be an obnoxious way to make a point, but I get that it's fun and helps keep things engaging. But there's no actual argument behind this snark. People have been saying that RT is trading in anti-US oil propaganda (e.g. anti-fracking) as a means to prop up Russian oil. To debunk this, you post an example of RT running a piece about how the DAP is bad. If you had posted a counterexample, where RT ran a piece favorable to US oil or something, we could talk about how a single counterexample doesn't disprove the theory, maybe they did it to cover their tracks, etc. But this isn't even a counterexample. It's them doing what people are saying they're doing (running pieces against US oil), but in a way you happen to find persuasive. I do too! I think the DAP is shitty! And if RT says so too, that doesn't disprove that they're Russian propaganda. In fact, if we were doing Bayesian updating on the theory that they're just Russian propaganda, I'd consider this weak confirmation, since they're saying the thing Russian propaganda would say (that US oil is bad), but there's a good reason to say it anyway (since DAP is, in fact, bad). In short, you have nothing, but you're still being shitty about it. You miss the entire point. Does a video that quite generally covers the issue of DAPL back before the protests heated up, as many people might want to do if they are environmentally minded, seem like some sort of nefarious plot to you? If yes, lol. If no, why does that strike you as propaganda? Because someone thinks that they're in the pockets of the Gazprom lobby? | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On January 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote: You miss the entire point. Does a video that quite generally covers the issue of DAPL back before the protests heated up, as many people might want to do if they are environmentally minded, seem like some sort of nefarious plot to you? If yes, lol. If no, why does that strike you as propaganda? Because someone thinks that they're in the pockets of the Gazprom lobby? Doesn't seem like I did, no. They covered the pipeline from a fairly anti-pipeline perspective. Seeing that story, someone who was pro-pipeline might think the story wasn't very fair (if anyone in the thread is pro-pipeline, they can argue that better than I can), but overall I don't object to the content of that story. If this was the only evidence presented that RT was Russian propaganda, I'd consider that far, far insufficient proof. But it wasn't presented as proof they are, it was presented, bizarrely, as proof they're not. You get that if you can tell at a glance something is propaganda, it's probably not very good propaganda, right? So why would you think pulling a story out from months ago where they covered a story in a fairly reasonable way (while still choosing a narrative that's favorable to Russia) disproves that they're a Russian propaganda machine? And why, when you've got so little evidence going for your argument, are you being so cocky about it? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 09 2017 05:27 ChristianS wrote: If this was the only evidence presented that RT was Russian propaganda, I'd consider that far, far insufficient proof. So what is sufficient proof? That a DNI report asserts that they are pro-environment to help out Gazprom? Everything looks like propaganda if you start with the supposition that it is. And you do indeed miss the point. The point is that it's hilarious and absurd that anything and everything done by groups perceived to be pro-Russian is considered to be in pursuit of a pro-Russian agenda to influence the US and undermine its authority. Even something as trivial as coverage of DAPL in a pro-Indian manner. I'm not the only one here who mocks the "RT has an anti-fracking agenda" line because that was really stupid shit. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On January 09 2017 05:34 LegalLord wrote: So what is sufficient proof? That a DNI report asserts that they are pro-environment to help out Gazprom? Everything looks like propaganda if you start with the supposition that it is. And you do indeed miss the point. The point is that it's hilarious and absurd that anything and everything done by groups perceived to be pro-Russian is considered to be in pursuit of a pro-Russian agenda to influence the US and undermine its authority. Even something as trivial as coverage of DAPL in a pro-Indian manner. I'm not the only one here who mocks the "RT has an anti-fracking agenda" line because that was really stupid shit. If your argument was "there's no good proof," then it'd be on someone else to prove it to you. I don't watch RT, I don't know enough to say on the merit of evidence I've seen personally that RT is Russian propaganda, so you'll have to have that conversation with someone else. But that's not what you argued anyway. You presented an instance of RT doing some reasonable-looking reporting (with a somewhat Russia-friendly narrative), then you dialed the snark up to 11 about how stupid it is anyone could see Russian propaganda here. The reason snarky arguments are obnoxious is because they imply not just "I think x for reasons a, b, and c" but "I think x for reasons a, b, and c and anyone who disagrees is an idiot." Do it a lot, and you come across as an asshole who thinks he's smarter than everyone else (exempli gratia xDaunt). But even worse, if you do it, but come with your argument half-cocked, you come across as an idiotic asshole who deludes himself into thinking he's smarter than everyone else. You've increased your snark ITT considerably of late, so you might wanna be more careful about falling into that second category. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 08 2017 11:31 Danglars wrote: Congress should write and debate new legislation for limited protections on web traffic limiting and paid prioritization. Like I've said before, we should cast a wary eye on who decides what constitutes unfair practices, lest you help create a worse government-enforced red tape boondoggle to rival the greatest of abuses thus far. how about we just make internet access a public utility? i have no idea what your point about 1930s technology is. anyone (eg this woman, or ted cruz) trying to get rid of net neutrality is antidemocratic and unamerican, no exception. you simply cannot pretend that equal opportunity is important to you while erecting class/wealth barriers to information. at this point you are just delusional if you think comcast is an innovative private company thats improving the world. a phblic utility with an ambitious mandate would do far more to improve the technological infrastructure in this country than any leech of a cable company. edit: and don't give me any bullshit about fascist government agencies. it is quite feasible to set up the network in a way that truly anonymizes the data. and i would take an independent government agency that can stand up to the FBI/NSA and the president over the corporate entities who control all our data and are complete pushovers. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 09 2017 06:02 ChristianS wrote: If your argument was "there's no good proof," then it'd be on someone else to prove it to you. I don't watch RT, I don't know enough to say on the merit of evidence I've seen personally that RT is Russian propaganda, so you'll have to have that conversation with someone else. But that's not what you argued anyway. You presented an instance of RT doing some reasonable-looking reporting (with a somewhat Russia-friendly narrative), then you dialed the snark up to 11 about how stupid it is anyone could see Russian propaganda here. The reason snarky arguments are obnoxious is because they imply not just "I think x for reasons a, b, and c" but "I think x for reasons a, b, and c and anyone who disagrees is an idiot." Do it a lot, and you come across as an asshole who thinks he's smarter than everyone else (exempli gratia xDaunt). But even worse, if you do it, but come with your argument half-cocked, you come across as an idiotic asshole who deludes himself into thinking he's smarter than everyone else. You've increased your snark ITT considerably of late, so you might wanna be more careful about falling into that second category. Ah, you're trying to make this an argument about personal posting style. I'll pass. I have nothing further to say to you on this matter. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Thankfully it seems that the pro-net-neutrality consensus among internet users is pretty strong, so it would be very difficult to create any real restrictions there. SOPA and such failed for a good reason. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9217 Posts
On January 09 2017 05:34 LegalLord wrote: So what is sufficient proof? That a DNI report asserts that they are pro-environment to help out Gazprom? Everything looks like propaganda if you start with the supposition that it is. And you do indeed miss the point. The point is that it's hilarious and absurd that anything and everything done by groups perceived to be pro-Russian is considered to be in pursuit of a pro-Russian agenda to influence the US and undermine its authority. Even something as trivial as coverage of DAPL in a pro-Indian manner. I'm not the only one here who mocks the "RT has an anti-fracking agenda" line because that was really stupid shit. Of course the purpose of RT America, UK, Spain, etc is propaganda. You think any of those channels would survive if the Russian govt pulled the plug and they had keep the lights on from advertising money? It's not like they're making fucking period dramas like BBC America, what they offer is news from the Russian state's perspective, for which there's quite a low amount of demand in those countries, as there would for any other foreign state's perspective. Now that doesn't mean every single report they make serves the Russian state in some way, there's a lot of time to fill for a 24h news channel, and in addition to that I'm sure at least some of the journalists they employ try to do good work regardless of the premise of the channel. So being able to find a video or article by them that doesn't serve the Russian state in some way (haven't clicked that link so I don't know if that's the case here) is meaningless, since it's not a 0% or 100% kind of thing. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 09 2017 06:37 Dan HH wrote: Of course the purpose of RT America, UK, Spain, etc is propaganda. You think any of those channels would survive if the Russian govt pulled the plug and they had keep the lights on from advertising money? It's not like they're making fucking period dramas like BBC America, what they offer is news from the Russian state's perspective, for which there's quite a low amount of demand in those countries, as there would for any other foreign state's perspective. Now that doesn't mean every single report they make serves the Russian state in some way, there's a lot of time to fill for a 24h news channel, and in addition to that I'm sure at least some of the journalists they employ try to do good work regardless of the premise of the channel. So being able to find a video or article by them that doesn't serve the Russian state in some way (haven't clicked that link so I don't know if that's the case here) is meaningless, since it's not a 0% or 100% kind of thing. Put aside for a second what your opinion is of RT as a whole. What is your opinion of the assertion that videos such as the one linked earlier are part of a widespread influence campaign meant to support Russian big oil interests? If your response isn't a big fat [citation needed] then I'm not sure what to say. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
On January 09 2017 06:02 ChristianS wrote: If your argument was "there's no good proof," then it'd be on someone else to prove it to you. I don't watch RT, I don't know enough to say on the merit of evidence I've seen personally that RT is Russian propaganda, so you'll have to have that conversation with someone else. But that's not what you argued anyway. You presented an instance of RT doing some reasonable-looking reporting (with a somewhat Russia-friendly narrative), then you dialed the snark up to 11 about how stupid it is anyone could see Russian propaganda here. The reason snarky arguments are obnoxious is because they imply not just "I think x for reasons a, b, and c" but "I think x for reasons a, b, and c and anyone who disagrees is an idiot." Do it a lot, and you come across as an asshole who thinks he's smarter than everyone else (exempli gratia xDaunt). But even worse, if you do it, but come with your argument half-cocked, you come across as an idiotic asshole who deludes himself into thinking he's smarter than everyone else. You've increased your snark ITT considerably of late, so you might wanna be more careful about falling into that second category. My argument is that Annex A is from 2012, and do folks not see the problem with saying Russia is running anti-US-fracking propaganda as part of an effort to elect Trump (who I thought everyone believed was more pro-fracking than Hillary)? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
You don't support fracking? I bet it's because RUSSIA oil industry paid propaganda brainwashed you to oppose energy independence. Worried about DNC collusion as shown by Wikileaks? Well you're just telling RUSSIA they can hack our elections whenever they want. Think we should focus on terrorism instead of Assad? I'm sure RUSSIA would be proud of you, comrade! Decided to vote for X instead of Y? RUSSIA will be happy that you put their puppet into office / pushed their goals forward. It's all something of a hilarious deflection in all cases. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
On January 09 2017 07:00 LegalLord wrote: It's a very convenient argument for all occasions. You don't support fracking? I bet it's because RUSSIA oil industry paid propaganda brainwashed you to oppose energy independence. Worried about DNC collusion as shown by Wikileaks? Well you're just telling RUSSIA they can hack our elections whenever they want. Think we should focus on terrorism instead of Assad? I'm sure RUSSIA would be proud of you, comrade! Decided to vote for X instead of Y? RUSSIA will be happy that you put their puppet into office / pushed their goals forward. It's all something of a hilarious deflection in all cases. And like I said before, Hillary's team must be working for the Russians too since they wanted Trump to win the nomination more than the Republican establishment did. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote: You miss the entire point. Does a video that quite generally covers the issue of DAPL back before the protests heated up, as many people might want to do if they are environmentally minded, seem like some sort of nefarious plot to you? If yes, lol. If no, why does that strike you as propaganda? Because someone thinks that they're in the pockets of the Gazprom lobby? He didn't miss the point at all. He explained that your six-minute clip established nothing one way or the other, and that your snarky caricature of the position you're trying to disparage was unhelpful. On the topic of journalistic neutrality, a piece on the bind the non-partisan press finds itself in when one party breaks the established norms of discourse much more so than the other one: Does nonpartisan journalism have a future?. I'm not as pessimistic as the author, and I do think that it is necessary to abandon false equivalences that are still too prevalent in political coverage, but the issue he highlights is real and difficult to deal with, especially since we are witnessing high political polarization and the rise of partisan media, in particular online. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
President-elect Donald Trump accepts the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia engaged in cyber attacks during the U.S. presidential election and may take action in response, his incoming chief of staff said on Sunday. Reince Priebus said Trump believed Russia was behind the intrusions into the Democratic Party organizations, although Priebus did not clarify whether the president-elect agreed that the hacks were directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yahoo | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
I mostly expect Trump is going to mostly interpret the hack/leak in terms of how much it influences his ego. | ||
| ||
