|
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. |
Trump Is Yet To Sever Ties With His Business, Despite Promises To Do So, Report Says
No evidence exists so far that President Donald Trump or his elder daughter has taken steps to sever ties with their businesses, despite promises to do so by Inauguration Day, ProPublica has reported.
The independent non-profit news service said it had contacted officials in some of the states where the Trumps do business, but found no evidence Trump has begun the process of transferring ownership of his companies to other family members. The newsroom noted on Friday:
"To transfer ownership of his biggest companies, Trump has to file a long list of documents in Florida, Delaware and New York. We asked officials in each of those states whether they have received the paperwork. As of 3:15 p.m. today, the officials said they have not." Trump has been criticized for continuing to own a wide array of businesses while in the White House. He has refused calls to sell his companies and put the assets in a blind trust, saying he would turn them over to his sons to manage instead and would have nothing to do with managing them.
Trump said at a Jan. 11 press conference that he and his daughter Ivanka have signed documents giving up control of all Trump-branded companies. Next to him on a table were stacks of documents he said transferred "complete and total control" of the companies to his sons Eric and Donald Jr and another employee.
A Trump attorney said that he "has relinquished leadership and management of the Trump Organization." The businesses would be placed in a family trust by Inauguration Day, the attorney said.
But ProPublica quoted the New York Secretary of State's office as saying no changes have been made to business filings for his primary holding company, the Trump Organization.
The Florida Department of Corporations said no changes have been made to three Trump businesses located there.
ProPublica also reported, "Ivanka Trump is still listed as the authorized officer on records for two entities related to the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C., which the Trump family bought and turned into a hotel. No changes have been filed for either of the companies, which are registered in Delaware."
Ivanka Trump is married to Jared Kushner, whom Trump has named as a senior adviser. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/22/511103785/trump-is-yet-to-sever-ties-with-his-business-despite-promises-to-do-so-report-sa?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170122
So what we already know is that Trump 100% does not want to do a blind trust at all, instead having his family take over the business, and he pretends that that means there can't be a conflict of interest at all. We also know about that recent speech of his when he put stacks of blank folders with blank paper all over the table and faked being done with signing everything over to his family. I wonder what it would take for him to be transparent.
|
On January 23 2017 11:02 mustaju wrote:@Igne - Very interesting perspective, I have to say, and it certanly addresses a lot of concerns a lot of people are having. Here are my thoughts on some of the subjects, and some of my developments. I think your argument references the philosophical concept of Eternal Recurrence, but I do think that Eternal Recurrence is an oversimplification by the virtue of a modern perspective. An interesting case study is that the first parallel people had with Lenin and Hitler during their emergence was Napoleon, and comparing these figures might create parallels, but some quite clear differences from a later observers view. That is not to say that people don't study historical movements and develop them for their own purposes. The current post Truth environment most reminds me of the concept of the Big Lie Show nested quote +Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. This I think has been coupled with post-modernist thought exercises about the limits of perception of objective truth as well as an unhealthy dose of moral relativism. Where moral relativism can be used to be a point for reflection and debate, it has been morphed into a nonconstructive partisanship tool. There are lots of Foreign Policy articles about Putin's use of it in Russia, and internet trolls are a very effective symptom of it. (The FP articles are behind a paywall, but this Atlantic piece is also worth a read) As for Clausewitz's assertion that politics is war through other means, it presupposes that power distribution is a zero sum game. Considering that Clausewitz was a general living in the 19th century, his view points are clearly not invalid, but somewhat influenced by his circumstances. Democracies were designed to be more flexible and responsive than Monarchies, and Liberal Democracies were made to be resistant to short-sighted mob rule. Arguably, they are a victim of their own success, since successful strategies are just not reformed all that often. However, the problems you mentioned are in my opinion still best addressed in a Fukuyamaesque democratic format, and the current crisis has created better conditions for slow methodical and structural change rather than a revolutionary creative destruction format. As a species, we don't have much room to mess up, and neo-authoritarianism uses might be by far the most effective in information manipulation, but it has created conditions where it's own reforms of capitalism would be incredibly difficult to carry out, because it relies on a system of entrenched capitalist elites everywhere. TLDR: Let's learn from history, but let's not use 19th century solutions for 21-st century problems.
firstly i obviously think trump was a mistake. i don't want to be misinterpreted as thinking that trump is a progression. i appreciate your points and i think the concept of The Big Lie has a lot going for it as an interpretative tool in this environment, at least as long as you bear in mind that it is an inherently political tool.
i also should state that i think liberal democracy has a lot going for it in comparison to 19th century forms of government. but i think you are making a fundamental error in the logical leap that because liberal democracy is in many ways better that it has eliminated the undercurrent of war that constantly churns under a lawful peace. you could look at another essay by Benjamin on divine violence where he makes the case that law-giving is always an act of violence. Benjamin and Foucault complement each other on this point.
one of liberal democracy's greatest tricks is producing this illusion through its erasure of marginalized people. this is the invisible ideology that everyone who grew up after WW2 breathes without knowing it.
|
On January 23 2017 11:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2017 10:44 IgnE wrote:On January 23 2017 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2017 10:27 Nyxisto wrote: what would be the postmodern answer to Trumpism then? Instead of appealing to scientific or journalistic truth we start counter propaganda and better aesthetics? Is the solution quite literally better memes? The problem for the opposition is that they have missed the boat on the larger social undercurrents that are reshaping the world. In this way, "better memes" is an impossibility for them. What's at issue isn't their marketing of their message. The problem is the message itself. My tentative answer to nyx's question is that the situation just has to play out. A particular interpretation or will to truth only persists when it creates "truth" conditions that allow thriving. At some point the Real's resistance to life (as embodied in Trumpists) will start to overpower the network of interpretations that we call Trumpism, and the electorate will have to find something better or die. Well, yeah, all movements eventually end and die. But that doesn't change the fact that the current liberal world order is under serious assault from many different directions. We really are witnessing the birth of a new epoch in world history. oh come on dauntless. i wasn't merely saying that all movements eventually end and die as if Lachesis acted through the mechanical shrinking of telomeres and Atropos set off the apoptotic death knell. my entire point was that the current liberal world order's will to truth has been overtaken by that of the Trumpists, but it seems clear to the majority of the world's population that this Trumpian weltanschauung has serious defects. evolution doesn't always progress one foot in front of the other. sometimes it staggers backward, as if intoxicated. A majority of the world's population may oppose Trumpism, but that majority is neither unified nor uniformly a proponent for the liberal status quo. China and Muslim nations don't see eye to eye with European countries on the proper trajectory for the world. Hell, the European proponents of the status quo are struggling to keep their own houses in order. Unlike under Obama, real change is coming, and we better hope that it turns out well.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I do look forward to the hilarity that would be China being the "new defender of globalism" while the US goes protectionist and pursues an aggressive anti-China policy. It would look delicious, for sure, and I can only guess what "Europe" (if it remains united) would do there.
|
On January 23 2017 11:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 11:02 mustaju wrote:@Igne - Very interesting perspective, I have to say, and it certanly addresses a lot of concerns a lot of people are having. Here are my thoughts on some of the subjects, and some of my developments. I think your argument references the philosophical concept of Eternal Recurrence, but I do think that Eternal Recurrence is an oversimplification by the virtue of a modern perspective. An interesting case study is that the first parallel people had with Lenin and Hitler during their emergence was Napoleon, and comparing these figures might create parallels, but some quite clear differences from a later observers view. That is not to say that people don't study historical movements and develop them for their own purposes. The current post Truth environment most reminds me of the concept of the Big Lie Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. This I think has been coupled with post-modernist thought exercises about the limits of perception of objective truth as well as an unhealthy dose of moral relativism. Where moral relativism can be used to be a point for reflection and debate, it has been morphed into a nonconstructive partisanship tool. There are lots of Foreign Policy articles about Putin's use of it in Russia, and internet trolls are a very effective symptom of it. (The FP articles are behind a paywall, but this Atlantic piece is also worth a read) As for Clausewitz's assertion that politics is war through other means, it presupposes that power distribution is a zero sum game. Considering that Clausewitz was a general living in the 19th century, his view points are clearly not invalid, but somewhat influenced by his circumstances. Democracies were designed to be more flexible and responsive than Monarchies, and Liberal Democracies were made to be resistant to short-sighted mob rule. Arguably, they are a victim of their own success, since successful strategies are just not reformed all that often. However, the problems you mentioned are in my opinion still best addressed in a Fukuyamaesque democratic format, and the current crisis has created better conditions for slow methodical and structural change rather than a revolutionary creative destruction format. As a species, we don't have much room to mess up, and neo-authoritarianism uses might be by far the most effective in information manipulation, but it has created conditions where it's own reforms of capitalism would be incredibly difficult to carry out, because it relies on a system of entrenched capitalist elites everywhere. TLDR: Let's learn from history, but let's not use 19th century solutions for 21-st century problems. firstly i obviously think trump was a mistake. i don't want to be misinterpreted as thinking that trump is a progression. i appreciate your points and i think the concept of The Big Lie has a lot going for it as an interpretative tool in this environment, at least as long as you bear in mind that it is an inherently political tool. i also should state that i think liberal democracy has a lot going for it in comparison to 19th century forms of government. but i think you are making a fundamental error in the logical leap that because liberal democracy is in many ways better that it has eliminated the undercurrent of war that constantly churns under a lawful peace. you could look at another essay by Benjamin on divine violence where he makes the case that law-giving is always an act of violence. Benjamin and Foucault complement each other on this point. one of liberal democracy's greatest tricks is producing this illusion through its erasure of marginalized people. this is the invisible ideology that everyone who grew up after WW2 breathes without knowing it. I did not mean to assign labels to you personally whatsoever, a lot of my points were just a collection of thoughts that I've developed in relation to similar discussions with others, that might not perfectly address your points. I also did not interpret your perspective on the current situation as a defense of the political developments. Intellectually, clearly the Big Lie interpretation has the threat of dismissing some concerns unjustly altogether, and I thank you for raising that point, even if I do think that a use of Big Lie terminology in this situation is more than justified, given the vastly different and frequently reinterpreted narratives from the Trump campaign and current administration. Others may disagree, at least until they get more data points.
As for your perceived fundamental error, I take it that we see the matter in different paradigms of political philosophy. I think that the terminology of war is playing towards some of our most fundamental instincts, the application of which I disagree with. I do not mean to insinuate that no conflict exists, but as a believer that words vastly influence our perspective, the terminology of war and violence belongs in different categories for me. This is a personal point of view, of course, not objective truth.
Marginalization is a seperate issue with many contributing factors, some of which are a result of choices of the perceived lesser evil. I don't think marginalization is necessarily inherent to liberal democracies, but I am willing to admit that there are systemic failures currently embedded in liberal democracies, that could be reformed for more social justice and cohesion.
|
On January 23 2017 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Trump Is Yet To Sever Ties With His Business, Despite Promises To Do So, Report Says
No evidence exists so far that President Donald Trump or his elder daughter has taken steps to sever ties with their businesses, despite promises to do so by Inauguration Day, ProPublica has reported.
The independent non-profit news service said it had contacted officials in some of the states where the Trumps do business, but found no evidence Trump has begun the process of transferring ownership of his companies to other family members. The newsroom noted on Friday:
"To transfer ownership of his biggest companies, Trump has to file a long list of documents in Florida, Delaware and New York. We asked officials in each of those states whether they have received the paperwork. As of 3:15 p.m. today, the officials said they have not." Trump has been criticized for continuing to own a wide array of businesses while in the White House. He has refused calls to sell his companies and put the assets in a blind trust, saying he would turn them over to his sons to manage instead and would have nothing to do with managing them.
Trump said at a Jan. 11 press conference that he and his daughter Ivanka have signed documents giving up control of all Trump-branded companies. Next to him on a table were stacks of documents he said transferred "complete and total control" of the companies to his sons Eric and Donald Jr and another employee.
A Trump attorney said that he "has relinquished leadership and management of the Trump Organization." The businesses would be placed in a family trust by Inauguration Day, the attorney said.
But ProPublica quoted the New York Secretary of State's office as saying no changes have been made to business filings for his primary holding company, the Trump Organization.
The Florida Department of Corporations said no changes have been made to three Trump businesses located there.
ProPublica also reported, "Ivanka Trump is still listed as the authorized officer on records for two entities related to the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C., which the Trump family bought and turned into a hotel. No changes have been filed for either of the companies, which are registered in Delaware."
Ivanka Trump is married to Jared Kushner, whom Trump has named as a senior adviser. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/22/511103785/trump-is-yet-to-sever-ties-with-his-business-despite-promises-to-do-so-report-sa?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170122 So what we already know is that Trump 100% does not want to do a blind trust at all, instead having his family take over the business, and he pretends that that means there can't be a conflict of interest at all. We also know about that recent speech of his when he put stacks of blank folders with blank paper all over the table and faked being done with signing everything over to his family. I wonder what it would take for him to be transparent.
Trump is going to cut a grand bargain with Russia where their main "concession" is reducing nuclear stockpiles. Keep in mind it was during the campaign that Putin withdrew from one of the nuclear treaties. Does Trump actually think Russia deserves a lot in return for that? Or is there something else at play here? Republican voters have been duped hook line and sinker.
|
On January 23 2017 05:45 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 05:39 Nyxisto wrote: I think the whole 'xy is biased' thing nowadays really hurts newspapers and with this whole attitude against establishment news maybe some more independent organisations wouldn't be bad. I mean wikileaks itself is basically discredited at this point.
OpenLeaks existed for a while but I don't think they're active any more. Why exactly is Wikileaks discredited ?
It's not. Maybe personal, but everyone who questioned their credibility (regarding posting legitimate documents) has either walked back their criticism or quietly stopped doing it.
People can beef with Assange and whether he's curating the information in an unfair way, but the people speculating that the documents are fake have either admitted it was a dumb supposition or just stopped putting forth such a silly claim (save some stubborn Hillary sycophants).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is dead in the water after the administration of new United States President Donald Trump announced the country's withdrawal from the trade agreement following his inauguration on Friday.
In a formal statement issued over the weekend, the White House said the president has decided to base its foreign policy on an "America first" attitude that involves returning "millions of jobs to America's shores" by backing out of multilateral trade agreements such as the TPP.
"The president understands how critical it is to put American workers and businesses first when it comes to trade. With tough and fair agreements, international trade can be used to grow our economy ... this strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers," the statement said.
"In addition to rejecting and reworking failed trade deals, the United States will crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process ... By fighting for fair but tough trade deals, we can bring jobs back to America's shores, increase wages, and support US manufacturing."
The statement added that Trump also intends to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and will withdraw from the trilateral agreement if Canada and Mexico refuse to negotiate on terms that give "American workers a fair deal".
The official White House statement followed White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's speech confirming that one of Trump's first Executive Orders would be to dump the TPP. Source
Bye bye Asia pivot.
|
Wonder if they even have a concrete idea of what "fair but tough" trade deals means on a substantive level or how long it takes to actually generate these deals. I sure as hell don't.
Maybe they legitimately think that's a synonym for the silly tariffs he's pitched?
|
On January 23 2017 13:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: Wonder if they even have a concrete idea of what "fair but tough" trade deals means on a substantive level or how long it takes to actually generate these deals. I sure as hell don't.
I don't know but South Korea already feels that their free trade agreement with the US is US favored so they probably won't be much inclined to renegotiate.
what would happen if Canada and Mexico refused to actually give in to any concessions?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
TPP on the way out, NAFTA coming up...
Washington (AFP) - US President Donald Trump pledged Sunday to begin renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement in upcoming talks with the leaders of Mexico and Canada.
"We're meeting with the prime minister of Canada and we will be meeting with the president of Mexico, who I know, and we're going to start some negotiations having to do with NAFTA," Trump said while addressing White House staff on his second full day in office.
Trump will receive his Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto on January 31. No date has been given for a meeting with Canada's Justin Trudeau, but it is expected "soon," according to a readout from a call between the two leaders on Saturday.
Trump praised the Mexican leader, saying: "The president has been really very amazing and I think we are going to have a very good result for Mexico, for the United States, for everybody involved. It's very important." Source
|
Wasn't it a campaign promise of Trump's to use the PATRIAT act "day one" to seize funds going to Mexico until Mexico agreed to pay for the wall? We're on day three now, aren't we?
|
On January 23 2017 14:02 ChristianS wrote: Wasn't it a campaign promise of Trump's to use the PATRIAT act "day one" to seize funds going to Mexico until Mexico agreed to pay for the wall? We're on day three now, aren't we?
well the new plan is apparently to build the wall using US funds and then make mexico pay for it after the fact. assuming he hasn't changed it since then.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Can't tell if satire (well, I can, but the truth isn't flattering)...
PRAGUE — The target of high-stakes Kremlin power plays during the Cold War, the Czech Republic is again on the front lines of a contest with Russia and its sympathizers — this time in the Information Wars.
Inside a mustard-yellow stucco building in northwest Prague, Benedikt Vangeli is a commander in that fight — leading a new SWAT team for truth. Armed with computers and smartphones, the freshly formed government unit is charged with scouring the Internet and social media, fact-checking, then flagging false reports to the public.
“Truth is important to a democratic state,” Vangeli said.
Following the fake news barrage during the U.S. presidential race, the worried Czechs are not the only ones suddenly breaking into the fact-checking business. Nations including Finland and Germany are either setting up or weighing similar operations as fears mount over disinformation campaigns in key elections that could redefine Europe’s political map this year.
The stakes are high: If pro-Kremlin politicians win in an anchor nation like France, it could potentially spell the end of the European Union.
Here in the Czech Republic — a nation that was once a Cold War hub for the KGB — intelligence officials are charging Moscow with rebuilding its spy operations and engaging in “covert infiltration” of Czech media ahead of elections later this year. And the new government truth squad will pay special attention to a proliferation of opaque, pro-Russian websites in the Czech language that officials say are seeking to gaslight the public by fostering paranoia and undermining faith in democracy and the West.
Using methods reminiscent of Soviet-era propaganda, such sites offer a vision of a world where no Russian soldier set foot in Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a Muslim-hugging menace and the United States is behind Europe’s refugee crisis.
Some are running the same disproved stories that tainted the U.S. election — including false allegations that Hillary Clinton’s campaign dabbled in child trafficking and the occult. But they are also curated for local audiences. Pro-Russian Czech politicians, for instance, are exalted, while Moscow’s critics are torn down. The E.U., such stories suggest, is power grabbing and inept.
There is some evidence the assaults may be having their desired effect — with opinion polls showing the number of Czechs who trust the E.U. slipping to just 26 percent.
“We have no ability or political will to close all these websites,” said Ivana Smolenova, a fellow at the Prague Security Studies Institute. “The only thing we can do is work on our self-defense.”
Yet the new unit’s creation has brought countercharges of state-sponsored spin from the sites and their supporters, who argue that the government is picking sides in a nation still divided between pro-Russian and pro-Western sympathies.
“Nobody has the monopoly on truth,” said Czech President Milos Zeman, a pro-Russian politician who fills a largely ceremonial role and is at odds with the Czech government over Russian sanctions he wants lifted. He maintains a special adviser with financial links to Russia’s energy giant Lukoil, and Zeman’s interviews frequently appear on pro-Russian websites.
“If you have some views, for instance, Russians have some views, and you want to formulate it publicly in the media, it is not misinformation, it is not propaganda,” Zeman said.
In the Czech Republic, the tug of war for influence between Moscow and the West has lurked just below the surface since the fall of the Iron Curtain. But it reemerged, officials say, following the 2014 Russian incursion into Ukraine — denied by the Kremlin — that led the West to impose sanctions on Moscow.
A Czech intelligence report issued last year asserted that Moscow’s embassy in Prague — with staffing far higher than those of other nations — has become a beefed-up den of spies. It also warns that Russian covert use of Czech-language media and its state-sponsored propaganda are “exerting influence on the perceptions and thoughts on the Czech audience” and promoting a “relativity of truth.”
It cites no smoking gun linking the Kremlin to the 40 or so pro-Russian websites published in Czech. But the Russian government, for instance, backs the Sputnik News Agency’s Czech-language service. Smolenova said she has also identified at least one other site as being funded and directed by Russian citizens. Source
Fake news police. CNN is probably going to get shut down soon.
|
U.S. counterintelligence agents investigated National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with Russian officials, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday night.
Flynn is the first person inside President Trump’s White House whose communications are known to have been combed as part of a multiagency investigation by the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency, among others, into whether Russia’s government secretly helped elect Trump.
...
The report follows a similar one from the New York Times published Thursday that said intelligence and law enforcement agencies are looking at intercepted communications and financial transactions from former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and campaign advisers Carter Page and Roger Stone.
Source
|
I'm sure this was discussed here before but that mad cunt Richard Spencer got punched in the face and I can't help to find that pretty amusing on an emotional level, but it fucking blows my mind to see how many people condone it and reason out why it's fine to punch a white supremacist who doesn't incite violence.
People on social media are all giddy about it and I understand, but then they'll just straight up say "it's fine to punch a nazi, their ideology is violent so we can beat them up". Well by that same token your ideology is violent, so you should beat up.
Then there's the overtly ridiculous quote "When you frame nazis as just people with different political views, you are legitimizing genocide as a political position." It seems to me like genocide is a political position, it's the shittiest one of them all but it's a political position nonetheless, and so long as you're not calling for it to take place it seems to me like it's an expression that should be allowed to be expressed. And if it's hate speech (I'm not a fucking lawyer) then sue him don't fucking punch him.
|
On January 23 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:Can't tell if satire (well, I can, but the truth isn't flattering)... Show nested quote + PRAGUE — The target of high-stakes Kremlin power plays during the Cold War, the Czech Republic is again on the front lines of a contest with Russia and its sympathizers — this time in the Information Wars.
Inside a mustard-yellow stucco building in northwest Prague, Benedikt Vangeli is a commander in that fight — leading a new SWAT team for truth. Armed with computers and smartphones, the freshly formed government unit is charged with scouring the Internet and social media, fact-checking, then flagging false reports to the public.
“Truth is important to a democratic state,” Vangeli said.
Following the fake news barrage during the U.S. presidential race, the worried Czechs are not the only ones suddenly breaking into the fact-checking business. Nations including Finland and Germany are either setting up or weighing similar operations as fears mount over disinformation campaigns in key elections that could redefine Europe’s political map this year.
The stakes are high: If pro-Kremlin politicians win in an anchor nation like France, it could potentially spell the end of the European Union.
Here in the Czech Republic — a nation that was once a Cold War hub for the KGB — intelligence officials are charging Moscow with rebuilding its spy operations and engaging in “covert infiltration” of Czech media ahead of elections later this year. And the new government truth squad will pay special attention to a proliferation of opaque, pro-Russian websites in the Czech language that officials say are seeking to gaslight the public by fostering paranoia and undermining faith in democracy and the West.
Using methods reminiscent of Soviet-era propaganda, such sites offer a vision of a world where no Russian soldier set foot in Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a Muslim-hugging menace and the United States is behind Europe’s refugee crisis.
Some are running the same disproved stories that tainted the U.S. election — including false allegations that Hillary Clinton’s campaign dabbled in child trafficking and the occult. But they are also curated for local audiences. Pro-Russian Czech politicians, for instance, are exalted, while Moscow’s critics are torn down. The E.U., such stories suggest, is power grabbing and inept.
There is some evidence the assaults may be having their desired effect — with opinion polls showing the number of Czechs who trust the E.U. slipping to just 26 percent.
“We have no ability or political will to close all these websites,” said Ivana Smolenova, a fellow at the Prague Security Studies Institute. “The only thing we can do is work on our self-defense.”
Yet the new unit’s creation has brought countercharges of state-sponsored spin from the sites and their supporters, who argue that the government is picking sides in a nation still divided between pro-Russian and pro-Western sympathies.
“Nobody has the monopoly on truth,” said Czech President Milos Zeman, a pro-Russian politician who fills a largely ceremonial role and is at odds with the Czech government over Russian sanctions he wants lifted. He maintains a special adviser with financial links to Russia’s energy giant Lukoil, and Zeman’s interviews frequently appear on pro-Russian websites.
“If you have some views, for instance, Russians have some views, and you want to formulate it publicly in the media, it is not misinformation, it is not propaganda,” Zeman said.
In the Czech Republic, the tug of war for influence between Moscow and the West has lurked just below the surface since the fall of the Iron Curtain. But it reemerged, officials say, following the 2014 Russian incursion into Ukraine — denied by the Kremlin — that led the West to impose sanctions on Moscow.
A Czech intelligence report issued last year asserted that Moscow’s embassy in Prague — with staffing far higher than those of other nations — has become a beefed-up den of spies. It also warns that Russian covert use of Czech-language media and its state-sponsored propaganda are “exerting influence on the perceptions and thoughts on the Czech audience” and promoting a “relativity of truth.”
It cites no smoking gun linking the Kremlin to the 40 or so pro-Russian websites published in Czech. But the Russian government, for instance, backs the Sputnik News Agency’s Czech-language service. Smolenova said she has also identified at least one other site as being funded and directed by Russian citizens. SourceFake news police. CNN is probably going to get shut down soon.
In Germany this is going to be done by an independent organisation that will basically tag fake stuff and you'll get a notification if you share it. I think that's okay, basically functions as a bullshit warning. I mean we have a press code in this country, if you're broadcasting to a thousand people maybe it's warranted to treat you like a journalist.
On January 23 2017 14:45 Djzapz wrote: People on social media are all giddy about it and I understand, but then they'll just straight up say "it's fine to punch a nazi, their ideology is violent so we can beat them up". Well by that same token your ideology is violent, so you should beat up.
No matter where you precisely stand on this issue that is just a false equivalence. Beating up Nazis doesn't make you a nazi, because that entails far worse things than just ... beating up nazis
|
On January 23 2017 14:45 Djzapz wrote: I'm sure this was discussed here before but that mad cunt Richard Spencer got punched in the face and I can't help to find that pretty amusing on an emotional level, but it fucking blows my mind to see how many people condone it and reason out why it's fine to punch a white supremacist who doesn't incite violence.
People on social media are all giddy about it and I understand, but then they'll just straight up say "it's fine to punch a nazi, their ideology is violent so we can beat them up". Well by that same token your ideology is violent, so you should beat up.
Then there's the overtly ridiculous quote "When you frame nazis as just people with different political views, you are legitimizing genocide as a political position." It seems to me like genocide is a political position, it's the shittiest one of them all but it's a political position nonetheless, and so long as you're not calling for it to take place it seems to me like it's an expression that should be allowed to be expressed. And if it's hate speech (I'm not a fucking lawyer) then sue him don't fucking punch him.
I'm not surprised that guy who wrote about whether we should eliminate the African American races gets punched in the face when he goes outside. And that point, you're just asking to get punched. If his opinions were dressed so provocatively then maybe his face would be safe--can't blame the lower class from reacting on instinct.
|
On January 23 2017 14:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2017 14:45 Djzapz wrote: I'm sure this was discussed here before but that mad cunt Richard Spencer got punched in the face and I can't help to find that pretty amusing on an emotional level, but it fucking blows my mind to see how many people condone it and reason out why it's fine to punch a white supremacist who doesn't incite violence.
People on social media are all giddy about it and I understand, but then they'll just straight up say "it's fine to punch a nazi, their ideology is violent so we can beat them up". Well by that same token your ideology is violent, so you should beat up.
Then there's the overtly ridiculous quote "When you frame nazis as just people with different political views, you are legitimizing genocide as a political position." It seems to me like genocide is a political position, it's the shittiest one of them all but it's a political position nonetheless, and so long as you're not calling for it to take place it seems to me like it's an expression that should be allowed to be expressed. And if it's hate speech (I'm not a fucking lawyer) then sue him don't fucking punch him. I'm not surprised that guy who wrote about whether we should eliminate the African American races gets punched in the face when he goes outside. And that point, you're just asking to get punched. If his opinions were dressed so provocatively then maybe his face would be safe--can't blame the lower class from reacting on instinct. I'm definitely not surprised and I'm not going to shed a tear, I looked at the video and it felt nice. But it's increasingly clear to me that the "regressive left" has no respect for the tenets of shit like the first amendment. "I can punch a nazi because I find his ideology distasteful. He can't punch me because my ideology is good."
What if I think I should be able to punch you because you abort babies and I think killing babies is more disgusting than genocide? That's a retarded thing to think but why the fuck do these people think they get to draw the line? They're so incredibly delusional.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
I agree with djzapz that violence (unless used in self-defence) against Spencer is not justified. It might feel good, but all it does is make him a martyr.
|
|
|
|