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.
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:
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?
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.
I like how their quick history of journalism completely left out yellow journalism. Probably because they were contemporaries of muckrakers and no one outside of journalism (or not deep into progressive politics) even remembers any of their names. But Pulitzer (famous yellow journalist) is the namesake of one of the most coveted prizes in journalism. We have dreams of a press that by and large never existed. Scandal/corruption/etc... was largely exposed for it's sensationalism, and yellow journal owners saw the value of having muckrakers help stir up the scandal.
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.
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)?
That's not a real objection. Russia, like everyone else, had a choice between two candidates, neither of which was perfect for them. So, if allegations are correct, they picked the one better for their interests and used all legal and illegal means they thought they could get away with to achieve that end. They like Trump for things like capitulating on sanctions and Ukraine, but break with him on things like fracking and domestic oil pipelines. What's the problem there?
@LL: Then forget posting style. Your video is pointing to an example of RT presenting current news, with a persuasive narrative that is friendly to Russian interests. For the nth time, how is that evidence that they're not Russian propaganda? And if you're just saying "there's not enough evidence that RT is Russian propaganda," what the fuck does that video have to do with anything?
That Russian interference is a convenient argument doesn't make it true or false. ("The Holocaust is just SUCH a convenient argument that the Nazis were bad.") If you think Russian interference is being used as a sort of whataboutism to avoid talking about other issues, that's fine, but this is a conversation about Russian interference. You should know, you started the conversation yourself. In that context, it's not whataboutism to argue that Russian interference took place.
On January 09 2017 07:26 ChristianS wrote: That Russian interference is a convenient argument doesn't make it true or false. ("The Holocaust is just SUCH a convenient argument that the Nazis were bad.")
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.
The irony is not lost on me that Hillary lost to an alleged Hillary plant within the Republican nominations.
North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities and ballistic missile defense programs constitute a “serious threat” to the United States, defense secretary Ash Carter said on Sunday.
The US is prepared to shoot down a North Korean missile launch or test “if it were coming towards our territory or the territory of our friends and allies”, Carter said during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump voiced a less concerned attitude to North Korean tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMS), saying in a tweet: “It won’t happen!”
Trump also used Twitter to issue familiar criticism of China, writing: “China has been taking out massive amounts of money and wealth from the US in totally one-sided trade, but won’t help with North Korea. Nice!”
On Sunday, North Korea said it could test launch an ICBM at any time from any location set by leader Kim Jong-un, and said hostile US policy was to blame for its arms development. Kim said on 1 January that his nuclear-capable country was close to test-launching an ICBM.
“The ICBM will be launched anytime and anywhere determined by the supreme headquarters of the DPRK,” an unnamed foreign ministry spokesman was quoted as saying by the official KCNA news agency, using the acronym for the country’s name.
The US said on Thursday North Korea had demonstrated a “qualitative” improvement in its nuclear and missile capabilities after an unprecedented level of tests last year. The state department said however that it did not believe that North Korea is capable of mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.
Experts have said that while North Korea may be close to testing an ICBM, it would likely take years to perfect the weapon. Once fully developed, a North Korean ICBM could threaten the continental US, which is around 9,000km (5,500 miles) away. ICBMs have a minimum range of about 5,500km (3,400 miles) but some are designed to travel 10,000km (6,200 miles) or further.
North Korea has been under United Nations sanctions since 2006, over its nuclear and ballistic missile tests. The sanctions were tightened after Pyongyang conducted its fifth and largest nuclear test on 9 September.
“The US is wholly to blame for pushing the DPRK to have developed ICBM as it has desperately resorted to anachronistic policy hostile toward the DPRK for decades to encroach upon its sovereignty and vital rights,” KCNA quoted the spokesman as saying.
“Anyone who wants to deal with the DPRK would be well advised to secure a new way of thinking after having clear understanding of it,” the spokesman said, according to KCNA.
On January 09 2017 07:26 ChristianS wrote: That Russian interference is a convenient argument doesn't make it true or false. ("The Holocaust is just SUCH a convenient argument that the Nazis were bad.")
Yeah, I'm definitely done with you.
Didn't think I had to clarify this, but I wasn't saying your argument is equally evil to Nazi sympathy, or that you think the Nazis weren't bad. The idea was to choose an example that (I assume) we can all agree is bad, and see how the "such a convenient argument" line fails as badly there as here to help the discussion forward. With that clarification, I'll stop talking about the RT apologist stuff if you're really that eager to move past it.
So, Trump wants to expand the "depleted" military and the Navy wants an extra $5 billion a year for the next 30 years. I can only wonder if he has any particular plans as to how to pay for it.
Trump needs to define the mission on the military before determining the budget. Frankly, I think that there should be a downscaling of its current purpose.
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.
So let me get this straight. You are calling for a more appreciative/defensive tone on a news agency that is Russian state funded, had several of it's own reporters quit, sometimes on air, for misleading and biased coverage, and making fun of the idea of a disinformation campaign focusing on issues that might hurt Russia in a different light? Russian coverage on fracking hurts which ever president, regardless of their stance on oil, if it stresses the failure of the American system. That's the point of the whole thing, destabilization.
Journalists in Russia tend to get killed over bad coverage of Putin, yet these guys get an expansion into lots of countries, even after pushing the MH17 coverage to absolute ridiculousness.
The destabilization of the Western system is a matter of concern.
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system.
On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote: The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system.
Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them.
On January 09 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote: So, Trump wants to expand the "depleted" military and the Navy wants an extra $5 billion a year for the next 30 years. I can only wonder if he has any particular plans as to how to pay for it.
Same as the border wall, probably:
Mexico. Mexic. Mexi. Mex. Me.
He wants Me and all other Americans to pay for it.
I don't think he has any intention of ever coming up with realistic, nuanced plans for these kinds of things.
Am I the only American on this forum that is actually pretty intrigued in seeing a proper USA-Russian axis into the next century? Siberia is the last great clay in this world and both nations have a ton that they can benefit from each other.
On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote: The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system.
Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them.
Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore.
On January 09 2017 10:15 Sermokala wrote: Am I the only American on this forum that is actually pretty intrigued in seeing a proper USA-Russian axis into the next century? Siberia is the last great clay in this world and both nations have a ton that they can benefit from each other.
The US and Russia have a long way to go before they can become anything resembling allies, but there is no reason why we have to see more of the outright hostility that we have seen for the past eight years. The US and Russia have a lot of common interests that they can pursue. However, it's going to be tough to make any headway on those things as long as the US keeps shitting in Russia's backyard.
On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote: The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system.
Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them.
Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore.
The only thing that is rich is that this is coming from people who have basically used sunday mass and talk radio (which is essentially some weird kind of guerilla news warfare) to perpetuate their message for decades, while not only being pissed but actually completely ignoring the rest of society.
If the left is overly sensitive what is this? These people have built a parallel reality
On January 09 2017 10:15 Sermokala wrote: Am I the only American on this forum that is actually pretty intrigued in seeing a proper USA-Russian axis into the next century? Siberia is the last great clay in this world and both nations have a ton that they can benefit from each other.
I simply don't see it happening any time soon. A rapprochement between Europe and Russia is far more likely than any real friendship between the US and Russia. Trump might say he wants to normalize ties with Russia, and he might even succeed, but all he would be normalizing is a relatively poor level of relations a level above that of sanctions.
It may be telling that all of the post Cold War presidents claimed to be in favor of better US-Russia relations. All of them misunderstood the scope of what Russian goals and grievances were and it turned out that all of them left relations in a worse state than when they started.
As far as I know we got a somewhat detailed Trump breakdown of what he wanted to do with the armed services during the nomination on his site re: the military, complete with numbers.
Anyone's guess if he sticks with it (my guess is no) especially since most of the numbers were gibberish with some of them actually involving shrinkage despite being worded as expansion.
On January 09 2017 10:37 TheTenthDoc wrote: As far as I know we got a somewhat detailed Trump breakdown of what he wanted to do with the armed services during the nomination on his site re: the military, complete with numbers.
Anyone's guess if he sticks with it (my guess is no) especially since most of the numbers were gibberish.
The real problem with scrapping the TPP is that I don't think he has a follow-up strategy at all. Not for his more aggressive stance on China, not for his idea of "fair, bilateral trade deals." I still don't think the TPP is a good idea but scrapping it probably has to come with some form of reconsideration of US Pacific strategy.
EPT
