|
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. |
On August 04 2017 01:34 mozoku wrote:
I'm confused that Legal is asserting Putin's expensive military power shows that result in recession-inducing sanctions are somehow in Russia's interest as a country. They're in Putin's interest, not Russia's.
I'm not in full agreement with Plansix that FP is purely the law of the jungle either, but my flight's about to take off so I'll leave that for another time.
it's funny you say this when a few pages ago you were making logical market-based arguments about national educations based on the presumption that a "nation" is a unified subject with definable, self-consistent interests
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2017 01:07 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 00:56 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets not forget russian interference in elections. It´s certainly in Russias interest to manipulate foreign elections into russias favour but it really doesn´t help relations. In germany the questions isn´t really if russia will interfere in our elections but rather is we can protect ourselves from the inevitable attempt. Is there anyone that actually thinks Outin respects the democratic process? So, who is the shining example of respecting the democratic process regardless of what result it will bring? Obama? Merkel? Merkel for example is currently dealing with Trump, and not calling him an utter buffoon and say "We will wait another 4 year until you elect an actual president and not a clown to have any deals with you". So I'd say that counts as "respecting the democratic process. Also, we don't interfere in other peoples elections like Putin constantly does. So your whataboutism fails here. I know the US cold war CIA history with regards to that, too. Not every democratic country is the cold war CIA. Putin is uniquely interfering in other countries internal affairs.
Merkel is one of the biggest offenders in terms of butting in with a foreign opinion on every two-bit election all around the world, using political leverage to try to get the results Germany wants. Perhaps not as blatant as hacking but we could dig deeper if you like - at the cost of making simpler examples. And let's not say that the CIA is just Cold War era, or the only means by which the US involves itself in other elections - NGOs and helping out the candidates they want are also means by which to influence foreign countries, self-deemed to be more acceptable. Moderate rebels too, that's a nice one.
Yes, I know it's quite tempting to just open your book of "how to dismiss Russia sympathizers as trolls" and bring out the first word in the book that comes to mind. But when asserting that one party doesn't respect the democratic process, it might be interesting to ask if someone else does - before we consider to what extent the first does. Otherwise we are just being remarkably myopic.
|
Butting in with an opinion and actively manipulating/interfering in an election are two very different things. I disagree with Merkel on many, MANY things and i'd rather not see her in power anymore, but arguing that it is even remotely(!) the same is just typical russian apologism.
Perhaps not as blatant as hacking my ass.
|
On August 04 2017 01:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:34 mozoku wrote:
I'm confused that Legal is asserting Putin's expensive military power shows that result in recession-inducing sanctions are somehow in Russia's interest as a country. They're in Putin's interest, not Russia's.
I'm not in full agreement with Plansix that FP is purely the law of the jungle either, but my flight's about to take off so I'll leave that for another time. it's funny you say this when a few pages ago you were making logical market-based arguments about national educations based on the presumption that a "nation" is a unified subject with definable, self-consistent interests
I'm not following you. I made related arguments about US politicians and how political/electoral competitiveness reduces their agency. I don't recall applying it (or even believe it applies) to foreign policy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2017 01:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:07 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 00:56 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets not forget russian interference in elections. It´s certainly in Russias interest to manipulate foreign elections into russias favour but it really doesn´t help relations. In germany the questions isn´t really if russia will interfere in our elections but rather is we can protect ourselves from the inevitable attempt. Is there anyone that actually thinks Outin respects the democratic process? So, who is the shining example of respecting the democratic process regardless of what result it will bring? Obama? Merkel? So no one can ever complaint about meddling in elections because we can always point to a nation who did it in the past? Only those completely free of sin may cast stones? No, but it would be rich to single one out without thinking about the others. I will say from the outset that it's unfortunate - albeit not unjustified - that the whole "Russia hacked election" matter came out. No one is talking about justice or injustice. There is no moral high ground, stop trying to take it. If Russia wants to see what they can get away with, they can pay the price when they finally touch the stove. If we take a fully amoral approach to it all and say "all's fair in love and war" with regards to the hacking matter, then I would say that Russia made out like bandits in this whole matter and that Putin should be commended for being so clever and punking everyone involved. But perhaps it might be interesting to see this action in the grand scheme of things as well? From a third party view, of course. Putin read the dysfunction in our political parties like a book. He saw congress vote down Obama's request to attack Syria for exactly what it was. He tested the waters with Crimea to confirm and found he was correct. He saw both parties were unwilling to back aggressive military action, either due being war wear from Iraq or a desire to hurt the President domestically. And it played out exactly like that during the election, both parties worried about losing to the other, ignoring the problems on our doorstep. But by taking that view, the only response from the US is a unified effort to retaliate against Russia through whatever non-military channels are available.
Again, if we take the fully amoral approach, each party should just do whatever is in its best interest, as cynical or aggressive or unfortunate as that may be. Then we can just throw fairness to the wind and just look at results. And so, that being done, what's your point?
|
On August 04 2017 01:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 03 2017 04:30 Plansix wrote:
We already know how to fight disinformation. Educate the public and limit the venues for them to spread misinformation. That part is easy. This isn’t some 1984 style truth ministry. None of this stuff is that new. We were just caught off guard. Really? Where have you been the past twenty years or so? Look at the "My ignorance counts just as much as your knowledge/experience" in this country. Creationism, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers. We we're already stupid we just needed the push to Idiocracy. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/86-man-of-the-people/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._BrinkleyThis has all happened before. Just look back to Andrew Jackson. The foolish part is that we thing we are facing something new, rather than providing people with a new venue for the same old tricks. the way you constantly push these historical equivalences is irresponsible. is it worse to suffer from a "presentism" that ignores the past or to (unconsciously?) export present cultural context and texture INTO the past, effectively flattening it into a dilated present?
Because humanity has not changed all that much, despite what we are told. We are not better or wiser than before. We are still flawed, desperate things that lie to ourselves to avoid admitting we were wrong. There is illumination to be found in history and comfort that those before us found their way through to the other side. But mostly it is to dispel the ever present narrative that “something like that could never happen again”. That as long as we are human, we will never be immune to making the same mistakes.
|
On August 04 2017 01:46 m4ini wrote:
Butting in with an opinion and actively manipulating/interfering in an election are two very different things. I disagree with Merkel on many, MANY things and i'd rather not see her in power anymore, but arguing that it is even remotely(!) the same is just typical russian apologism.
Perhaps not as blatant as hacking my ass.
It is a classic LegalLord indeed. I am pretty sure i am able to do a perfect Legallord impersonication on any topic relating Russia, and he himself wouldn't be able to distinguish my posts from his own.
|
On August 04 2017 01:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:35 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:07 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 00:56 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets not forget russian interference in elections. It´s certainly in Russias interest to manipulate foreign elections into russias favour but it really doesn´t help relations. In germany the questions isn´t really if russia will interfere in our elections but rather is we can protect ourselves from the inevitable attempt. Is there anyone that actually thinks Outin respects the democratic process? So, who is the shining example of respecting the democratic process regardless of what result it will bring? Obama? Merkel? So no one can ever complaint about meddling in elections because we can always point to a nation who did it in the past? Only those completely free of sin may cast stones? No, but it would be rich to single one out without thinking about the others. I will say from the outset that it's unfortunate - albeit not unjustified - that the whole "Russia hacked election" matter came out. No one is talking about justice or injustice. There is no moral high ground, stop trying to take it. If Russia wants to see what they can get away with, they can pay the price when they finally touch the stove. If we take a fully amoral approach to it all and say "all's fair in love and war" with regards to the hacking matter, then I would say that Russia made out like bandits in this whole matter and that Putin should be commended for being so clever and punking everyone involved. But perhaps it might be interesting to see this action in the grand scheme of things as well? From a third party view, of course. Putin read the dysfunction in our political parties like a book. He saw congress vote down Obama's request to attack Syria for exactly what it was. He tested the waters with Crimea to confirm and found he was correct. He saw both parties were unwilling to back aggressive military action, either due being war wear from Iraq or a desire to hurt the President domestically. And it played out exactly like that during the election, both parties worried about losing to the other, ignoring the problems on our doorstep. But by taking that view, the only response from the US is a unified effort to retaliate against Russia through whatever non-military channels are available. Again, if we take the fully amoral approach, each party should just do whatever is in its best interest, as cynical or aggressive or unfortunate as that may be. Then we can just throw fairness to the wind and just look at results. And so, that being done, what's your point?
Russia has it coming. They decided to do this because they felt it would help them and now they have to ride it out.
And we have to throw morality and rightness out the window in these discussion. It is your main defense and the core the whataboutism you are so fond of. There is no fair. And if there was, Putin and his KGB mafia thugs would have paid for all the Russian journalist they murdered.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2017 01:46 m4ini wrote:
Butting in with an opinion and actively manipulating/interfering in an election are two very different things. I disagree with Merkel on many, MANY things and i'd rather not see her in power anymore, but arguing that it is even remotely(!) the same is just typical russian apologism.
Perhaps not as blatant as hacking my ass.
One is an attempt to coerce a result by threatening changes of diplomacy, the other is an attempt to pit the country against itself by dropping some form of information into the mix that would not have been available had said country not been involved. The goals are clearly the same, if not the methods: foreigners favor a specific result and want to put in their own to get it.
I suppose that alone looks like coercive diplomacy versus active involvement. But then we could also look at "democratic results" induced through re-voting or revolution, a topic I am not too interested in getting into right now, considering that really the core point would be about the US given that US-Russia is the conflict of interest. If there is a question of active Russian involvement during the campaign of German elections, we can go and get back to that then. Beyond that it's just an aside because a German poster made the assertion that Russia is uniquely evil in that regard. But again, is Merkel without sin in terms of interfering in other elections? Is Obama?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2017 01:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:35 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:07 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 00:56 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets not forget russian interference in elections. It´s certainly in Russias interest to manipulate foreign elections into russias favour but it really doesn´t help relations. In germany the questions isn´t really if russia will interfere in our elections but rather is we can protect ourselves from the inevitable attempt. Is there anyone that actually thinks Outin respects the democratic process? So, who is the shining example of respecting the democratic process regardless of what result it will bring? Obama? Merkel? So no one can ever complaint about meddling in elections because we can always point to a nation who did it in the past? Only those completely free of sin may cast stones? No, but it would be rich to single one out without thinking about the others. I will say from the outset that it's unfortunate - albeit not unjustified - that the whole "Russia hacked election" matter came out. No one is talking about justice or injustice. There is no moral high ground, stop trying to take it. If Russia wants to see what they can get away with, they can pay the price when they finally touch the stove. If we take a fully amoral approach to it all and say "all's fair in love and war" with regards to the hacking matter, then I would say that Russia made out like bandits in this whole matter and that Putin should be commended for being so clever and punking everyone involved. But perhaps it might be interesting to see this action in the grand scheme of things as well? From a third party view, of course. Putin read the dysfunction in our political parties like a book. He saw congress vote down Obama's request to attack Syria for exactly what it was. He tested the waters with Crimea to confirm and found he was correct. He saw both parties were unwilling to back aggressive military action, either due being war wear from Iraq or a desire to hurt the President domestically. And it played out exactly like that during the election, both parties worried about losing to the other, ignoring the problems on our doorstep. But by taking that view, the only response from the US is a unified effort to retaliate against Russia through whatever non-military channels are available. Again, if we take the fully amoral approach, each party should just do whatever is in its best interest, as cynical or aggressive or unfortunate as that may be. Then we can just throw fairness to the wind and just look at results. And so, that being done, what's your point? Russia has it coming.
Has what coming? I'm not sure what you're building up to.
|
I think this will have the opposite effect as it just pisses people off at Vegans... Also the fact that this is bullying not Activism why didn't they go to McDonald's or Burger King?
Feet away from the butchers carving pork loins and beef shanks, the owners of a California meat shop have installed a peculiar sign in their window: “ATTENTION: Animals’ lives are their right. Killing them is violent and unjust, no matter how it’s done.”
The odd poster seeming to discourage customers from buying their meats is the result of a months-long dispute between the owners of the Local Butcher Shop – which sells “locally sourced, sustainably raised” meat – and animal rights activists who have staged more than a dozen loud and gruesome protests outside the family-owned business in Berkeley.
With the placement of the sign, written by the activist group Direct Action Everywhere, the vegan protesters have agreed to cease their weekly rallies outside the shop, which sometimes involved nearly nude protesters dripping in fake blood and wrapped in plastic, along with recordings of pigs screaming inside a slaughterhouse.
The 15in-by-15in sign began receiving international attention this week after the activists declared victory, following four months of protests and counter-protests among liberals in the northern California college city widely known for the 1960s free speech movement and anti-war hippies. The anti-meat activists have claimed that the sign is a groundbreaking win and are now promising to target other independent merchants with similar tactics that they hope will spread across the US.
The shop owners and their supporters have called it a form of blackmail and bullying.
“To be threatened and forced to abide by their beliefs just makes me sad,” said co-owner Monica Rocchino as she sat outside the shop on Wednesday afternoon while customers nearby munched on the sandwich of the day. “Their tactics are really extremist … This is ethical extortion.”
Rocchino and her husband, Aaron, opened the shop in 2011, promoting meats in line with a California food culture that values fresh and ethical produce.
Matt Johnson, a Direct Action Everywhere organizer, said that he and his group “challenge places that do put this ‘humane’ marketing out there. People are paying a lot more for these dead animals … They have some notion that these animals are being treated well.”
The group argues that there is no ethical way to kill animals for food and are campaigning to make Berkeley the first “city free of violence toward animals” – meaning banning the sale of meat.
The Rocchinos, who partner with local farmers and offer butchery classes, reached out to the activists to find a resolution. Direct Action Everywhere leaders eventually said they would end the protests if the shop agreed to become a “vegan butcher” that did not sell any meat, or if they canceled classes.
Unwilling to sacrifice their entire business, the owners later agreed to a third option: a sign condemning the killing of animals.
The activists made two additional concessions: the sign could be three inches smaller than they originally proposed and the shop could place it in a slightly less prominent storefront window. But they said they reserved the right to two protests a year, and that the agreement was “temporary”.
“We want businesses and our culture to face the truth about violence against animals,” said Paul Darwin Picklesimer, an activist who negotiated the agreement, adding: “We do feel that animals are people. We don’t feel that only humans are people, but of course it’s not universally accepted.”
The attack on the Berkeley shop and threats of similar protests have sparked backlash across the state.
“I don’t understand why activists would pick on a mom-and-pop shop supporting the most humane farmers, rather than the animal factories and meatpackers responsible for brutality on an unimaginably greater scale,” said Michael Pollan, the well-known American food writer and a University of California, Berkeley professor, in an email. “Unless you believe the complete abolition of meat-eating is a realistic goal, attacking this sector of the animal economy … strikes me as misguided.”
There is a McDonald’s a few blocks away, he added.
David Dewey, president of the California Association of Meat Processors, blamed cartoons for making children believe that animals have emotions and feelings. He added: “This is the order of things, even in the wild. Fish eat other fish. Birds eat other birds … That’s just the way the world circles.”
Johnson said the sign was meant to stigmatize meat-eating in the way tobacco warnings discouraged smoking.
Source
|
On August 04 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:54 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:35 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:07 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:03 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 00:56 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets not forget russian interference in elections. It´s certainly in Russias interest to manipulate foreign elections into russias favour but it really doesn´t help relations. In germany the questions isn´t really if russia will interfere in our elections but rather is we can protect ourselves from the inevitable attempt. Is there anyone that actually thinks Outin respects the democratic process? So, who is the shining example of respecting the democratic process regardless of what result it will bring? Obama? Merkel? So no one can ever complaint about meddling in elections because we can always point to a nation who did it in the past? Only those completely free of sin may cast stones? No, but it would be rich to single one out without thinking about the others. I will say from the outset that it's unfortunate - albeit not unjustified - that the whole "Russia hacked election" matter came out. No one is talking about justice or injustice. There is no moral high ground, stop trying to take it. If Russia wants to see what they can get away with, they can pay the price when they finally touch the stove. If we take a fully amoral approach to it all and say "all's fair in love and war" with regards to the hacking matter, then I would say that Russia made out like bandits in this whole matter and that Putin should be commended for being so clever and punking everyone involved. But perhaps it might be interesting to see this action in the grand scheme of things as well? From a third party view, of course. Putin read the dysfunction in our political parties like a book. He saw congress vote down Obama's request to attack Syria for exactly what it was. He tested the waters with Crimea to confirm and found he was correct. He saw both parties were unwilling to back aggressive military action, either due being war wear from Iraq or a desire to hurt the President domestically. And it played out exactly like that during the election, both parties worried about losing to the other, ignoring the problems on our doorstep. But by taking that view, the only response from the US is a unified effort to retaliate against Russia through whatever non-military channels are available. Again, if we take the fully amoral approach, each party should just do whatever is in its best interest, as cynical or aggressive or unfortunate as that may be. Then we can just throw fairness to the wind and just look at results. And so, that being done, what's your point? Russia has it coming. Has what coming? I'm not sure what you're building up to.
The sanction and whatever happens next. Is there some reality where meddling in the US elections and hacking one of our political parties is going to improve our relationship?
|
On August 04 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:40 IgnE wrote:On August 03 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 03 2017 04:30 Plansix wrote:
We already know how to fight disinformation. Educate the public and limit the venues for them to spread misinformation. That part is easy. This isn’t some 1984 style truth ministry. None of this stuff is that new. We were just caught off guard. Really? Where have you been the past twenty years or so? Look at the "My ignorance counts just as much as your knowledge/experience" in this country. Creationism, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers. We we're already stupid we just needed the push to Idiocracy. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/86-man-of-the-people/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._BrinkleyThis has all happened before. Just look back to Andrew Jackson. The foolish part is that we thing we are facing something new, rather than providing people with a new venue for the same old tricks. the way you constantly push these historical equivalences is irresponsible. is it worse to suffer from a "presentism" that ignores the past or to (unconsciously?) export present cultural context and texture INTO the past, effectively flattening it into a dilated present? Because humanity has not changed all that much, despite what we are told. We are not better or wiser than before. We are still flawed, desperate things that lie to ourselves to avoid admitting we were wrong. There is illumination to be found in history and comfort that those before us found their way through to the other side. But mostly it is to dispel the ever present narrative that “something like that could never happen again”. That as long as we are human, we will never be immune to making the same mistakes.
i dont remember anyone ever saying to me that "andrew jackson could never happen again"
as an "ever present narrative" you would think id have heard that before
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:54 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:35 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:25 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2017 01:07 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:03 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
So, who is the shining example of respecting the democratic process regardless of what result it will bring? Obama? Merkel? So no one can ever complaint about meddling in elections because we can always point to a nation who did it in the past? Only those completely free of sin may cast stones? No, but it would be rich to single one out without thinking about the others. I will say from the outset that it's unfortunate - albeit not unjustified - that the whole "Russia hacked election" matter came out. No one is talking about justice or injustice. There is no moral high ground, stop trying to take it. If Russia wants to see what they can get away with, they can pay the price when they finally touch the stove. If we take a fully amoral approach to it all and say "all's fair in love and war" with regards to the hacking matter, then I would say that Russia made out like bandits in this whole matter and that Putin should be commended for being so clever and punking everyone involved. But perhaps it might be interesting to see this action in the grand scheme of things as well? From a third party view, of course. Putin read the dysfunction in our political parties like a book. He saw congress vote down Obama's request to attack Syria for exactly what it was. He tested the waters with Crimea to confirm and found he was correct. He saw both parties were unwilling to back aggressive military action, either due being war wear from Iraq or a desire to hurt the President domestically. And it played out exactly like that during the election, both parties worried about losing to the other, ignoring the problems on our doorstep. But by taking that view, the only response from the US is a unified effort to retaliate against Russia through whatever non-military channels are available. Again, if we take the fully amoral approach, each party should just do whatever is in its best interest, as cynical or aggressive or unfortunate as that may be. Then we can just throw fairness to the wind and just look at results. And so, that being done, what's your point? Russia has it coming. Has what coming? I'm not sure what you're building up to. The sanction and whatever happens next. Is there some reality where meddling in the US elections and hacking one of our political parties is going to improve our relationship?
No, perhaps not. But I don't think too many folks are harboring any illusions that things are about to get better. I certainly never said as much.
That said, we may perhaps be interested in finding limits as to how far we want this to go lest we go back to the brink of nuclear war, in an environment where US-Russia cooperation might be a good thing. Even Hillary Clinton was willing to acknowledge as much.
|
@mozoku
ive bolded the relevant parts for you
On August 03 2017 05:03 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 03 2017 04:30 Plansix wrote:
We already know how to fight disinformation. Educate the public and limit the venues for them to spread misinformation. That part is easy. This isn’t some 1984 style truth ministry. None of this stuff is that new. We were just caught off guard. Really? Where have you been the past twenty years or so? Look at the "My ignorance counts just as much as your knowledge/experience" in this country. Creationism, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers. We we're already stupid we just needed the push to Idiocracy. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/86-man-of-the-people/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._BrinkleyThis has all happened before. Just look back to Andrew Jackson. The foolish part is that we thing we are facing something new, rather than providing people with a new venue for the same old tricks. Isn't it different on the global stage than it is domestically though? Domestically, education works because people generally have an interest in having an educated populace to make good governing decisions for the country as a whole.Sometimes its advantageous for special interest groups to keep the populace uneducated or to misinform them, but they're generally outweighed by the larger populace. Internationally though, that doesn't really hold. It's in the US interest to spread positive things about the US and negative things about Putin. It's in Putin's interest to spread positive things about Russia and negative things about the USThe UN would seem like the appropriate body to handle this, but the UN is also mostly useless. I'm surprised the GEC isn't more politicized than it is. It seems like a classic case of "The US is an imperialist empire" vs "The US mostly is fighting for the right side" type of issue. To answer my original question then, I suppose, there's not enough US political capital (domestically and abroad) to more seriously (and get EU onboard) sanction Russia for disinformation so the GEC is the solution?
|
On August 03 2017 23:52 Introvert wrote:
"Slow news week?"
"Yes."
"Release some of the first calls he made."
"K."
I'm a little cynical. I feel like we don't know enough to judge too much, I mean I thought they migh be worse.
Also how tf did these get leaked.
First calls or not, the man is barely fucking coherent. This isn't a 'learn on the job' issue, it's basic conversation. If your cynicism has gone so far your first thoughts to reading these transcripts is 'must have been a slow news week, could be worse' you need to do some serious introspection.
|
On August 04 2017 02:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:40 IgnE wrote:On August 03 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 03 2017 04:30 Plansix wrote:
We already know how to fight disinformation. Educate the public and limit the venues for them to spread misinformation. That part is easy. This isn’t some 1984 style truth ministry. None of this stuff is that new. We were just caught off guard. Really? Where have you been the past twenty years or so? Look at the "My ignorance counts just as much as your knowledge/experience" in this country. Creationism, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers. We we're already stupid we just needed the push to Idiocracy. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/86-man-of-the-people/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._BrinkleyThis has all happened before. Just look back to Andrew Jackson. The foolish part is that we thing we are facing something new, rather than providing people with a new venue for the same old tricks. the way you constantly push these historical equivalences is irresponsible. is it worse to suffer from a "presentism" that ignores the past or to (unconsciously?) export present cultural context and texture INTO the past, effectively flattening it into a dilated present? Because humanity has not changed all that much, despite what we are told. We are not better or wiser than before. We are still flawed, desperate things that lie to ourselves to avoid admitting we were wrong. There is illumination to be found in history and comfort that those before us found their way through to the other side. But mostly it is to dispel the ever present narrative that “something like that could never happen again”. That as long as we are human, we will never be immune to making the same mistakes. i dont remember anyone ever saying to me that "andrew jackson could never happen again" as an "ever present narrative" you would think id have heard that before
Andrew Jackson was an example of a president elected through populist rhetoric that ended in an economic crisis. I’m not sure what form our crisis will take, but we will have one.
But really, I was referring to the return of legalized discrimination, authorized discrimination in the military, racist voter ID laws, the destruction of the voters rights at, the push to repeal Dodd Frank and deregulate Wall Street again, attacks on legal immigrants. These things that many people believe we defeated or addressed. That could not return in full force and power. The narrative that made us believe we didn't need to regulate the cable TV the same way we did broadcast TV. Or that lead the Supreme Court to gut the voters rights act. The delusion that we are better than the people who put those laws in to place.
|
On August 04 2017 01:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I think this will have the opposite effect as it just pisses people off at Vegans... Also the fact that this is bullying not Activism why didn't they go to McDonald's or Burger King? Show nested quote +Feet away from the butchers carving pork loins and beef shanks, the owners of a California meat shop have installed a peculiar sign in their window: “ATTENTION: Animals’ lives are their right. Killing them is violent and unjust, no matter how it’s done.”
The odd poster seeming to discourage customers from buying their meats is the result of a months-long dispute between the owners of the Local Butcher Shop – which sells “locally sourced, sustainably raised” meat – and animal rights activists who have staged more than a dozen loud and gruesome protests outside the family-owned business in Berkeley.
With the placement of the sign, written by the activist group Direct Action Everywhere, the vegan protesters have agreed to cease their weekly rallies outside the shop, which sometimes involved nearly nude protesters dripping in fake blood and wrapped in plastic, along with recordings of pigs screaming inside a slaughterhouse.
The 15in-by-15in sign began receiving international attention this week after the activists declared victory, following four months of protests and counter-protests among liberals in the northern California college city widely known for the 1960s free speech movement and anti-war hippies. The anti-meat activists have claimed that the sign is a groundbreaking win and are now promising to target other independent merchants with similar tactics that they hope will spread across the US.
The shop owners and their supporters have called it a form of blackmail and bullying.
“To be threatened and forced to abide by their beliefs just makes me sad,” said co-owner Monica Rocchino as she sat outside the shop on Wednesday afternoon while customers nearby munched on the sandwich of the day. “Their tactics are really extremist … This is ethical extortion.”
Rocchino and her husband, Aaron, opened the shop in 2011, promoting meats in line with a California food culture that values fresh and ethical produce.
Matt Johnson, a Direct Action Everywhere organizer, said that he and his group “challenge places that do put this ‘humane’ marketing out there. People are paying a lot more for these dead animals … They have some notion that these animals are being treated well.”
The group argues that there is no ethical way to kill animals for food and are campaigning to make Berkeley the first “city free of violence toward animals” – meaning banning the sale of meat.
The Rocchinos, who partner with local farmers and offer butchery classes, reached out to the activists to find a resolution. Direct Action Everywhere leaders eventually said they would end the protests if the shop agreed to become a “vegan butcher” that did not sell any meat, or if they canceled classes.
Unwilling to sacrifice their entire business, the owners later agreed to a third option: a sign condemning the killing of animals.
The activists made two additional concessions: the sign could be three inches smaller than they originally proposed and the shop could place it in a slightly less prominent storefront window. But they said they reserved the right to two protests a year, and that the agreement was “temporary”.
“We want businesses and our culture to face the truth about violence against animals,” said Paul Darwin Picklesimer, an activist who negotiated the agreement, adding: “We do feel that animals are people. We don’t feel that only humans are people, but of course it’s not universally accepted.”
The attack on the Berkeley shop and threats of similar protests have sparked backlash across the state.
“I don’t understand why activists would pick on a mom-and-pop shop supporting the most humane farmers, rather than the animal factories and meatpackers responsible for brutality on an unimaginably greater scale,” said Michael Pollan, the well-known American food writer and a University of California, Berkeley professor, in an email. “Unless you believe the complete abolition of meat-eating is a realistic goal, attacking this sector of the animal economy … strikes me as misguided.”
There is a McDonald’s a few blocks away, he added.
David Dewey, president of the California Association of Meat Processors, blamed cartoons for making children believe that animals have emotions and feelings. He added: “This is the order of things, even in the wild. Fish eat other fish. Birds eat other birds … That’s just the way the world circles.”
Johnson said the sign was meant to stigmatize meat-eating in the way tobacco warnings discouraged smoking. Source
They sound just as crazy as PETA.
|
On August 04 2017 02:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 02:02 IgnE wrote:On August 04 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2017 01:40 IgnE wrote:On August 03 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 03 2017 04:30 Plansix wrote:
We already know how to fight disinformation. Educate the public and limit the venues for them to spread misinformation. That part is easy. This isn’t some 1984 style truth ministry. None of this stuff is that new. We were just caught off guard. Really? Where have you been the past twenty years or so? Look at the "My ignorance counts just as much as your knowledge/experience" in this country. Creationism, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers. We we're already stupid we just needed the push to Idiocracy. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/86-man-of-the-people/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._BrinkleyThis has all happened before. Just look back to Andrew Jackson. The foolish part is that we thing we are facing something new, rather than providing people with a new venue for the same old tricks. the way you constantly push these historical equivalences is irresponsible. is it worse to suffer from a "presentism" that ignores the past or to (unconsciously?) export present cultural context and texture INTO the past, effectively flattening it into a dilated present? Because humanity has not changed all that much, despite what we are told. We are not better or wiser than before. We are still flawed, desperate things that lie to ourselves to avoid admitting we were wrong. There is illumination to be found in history and comfort that those before us found their way through to the other side. But mostly it is to dispel the ever present narrative that “something like that could never happen again”. That as long as we are human, we will never be immune to making the same mistakes. i dont remember anyone ever saying to me that "andrew jackson could never happen again" as an "ever present narrative" you would think id have heard that before Andrew Jackson was an example of a president elected through populist rhetoric that ended in an economic crisis. I’m not sure what form our crisis will take, but we will have one. But really, I was referring to the return of legalized discrimination, authorized discrimination in the military, racist voter ID laws, the destruction of the voters rights at, the push to repeal Dodd Frank and deregulate Wall Street again, attacks on legal immigrants. These things that many people believe we defeated or addressed. That could not return in full force and power.
and andrew jackson dealt with those issues in similar contexts of course. thats why he's the "same"
im not sure you are understanding my point here. equating andrew jackson and trump without further discriminating analysis, subtlety, or qualification is like lying on a hill and telling us what you think that cloud looks like. its fine as an idle pastime but irresponsible and lazy in any other discussion
|
On August 04 2017 01:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I think this will have the opposite effect as it just pisses people off at Vegans... Also the fact that this is bullying not Activism why didn't they go to McDonald's or Burger King? Show nested quote +Feet away from the butchers carving pork loins and beef shanks, the owners of a California meat shop have installed a peculiar sign in their window: “ATTENTION: Animals’ lives are their right. Killing them is violent and unjust, no matter how it’s done.”
The odd poster seeming to discourage customers from buying their meats is the result of a months-long dispute between the owners of the Local Butcher Shop – which sells “locally sourced, sustainably raised” meat – and animal rights activists who have staged more than a dozen loud and gruesome protests outside the family-owned business in Berkeley.
With the placement of the sign, written by the activist group Direct Action Everywhere, the vegan protesters have agreed to cease their weekly rallies outside the shop, which sometimes involved nearly nude protesters dripping in fake blood and wrapped in plastic, along with recordings of pigs screaming inside a slaughterhouse.
The 15in-by-15in sign began receiving international attention this week after the activists declared victory, following four months of protests and counter-protests among liberals in the northern California college city widely known for the 1960s free speech movement and anti-war hippies. The anti-meat activists have claimed that the sign is a groundbreaking win and are now promising to target other independent merchants with similar tactics that they hope will spread across the US.
The shop owners and their supporters have called it a form of blackmail and bullying.
“To be threatened and forced to abide by their beliefs just makes me sad,” said co-owner Monica Rocchino as she sat outside the shop on Wednesday afternoon while customers nearby munched on the sandwich of the day. “Their tactics are really extremist … This is ethical extortion.”
Rocchino and her husband, Aaron, opened the shop in 2011, promoting meats in line with a California food culture that values fresh and ethical produce.
Matt Johnson, a Direct Action Everywhere organizer, said that he and his group “challenge places that do put this ‘humane’ marketing out there. People are paying a lot more for these dead animals … They have some notion that these animals are being treated well.”
The group argues that there is no ethical way to kill animals for food and are campaigning to make Berkeley the first “city free of violence toward animals” – meaning banning the sale of meat.
The Rocchinos, who partner with local farmers and offer butchery classes, reached out to the activists to find a resolution. Direct Action Everywhere leaders eventually said they would end the protests if the shop agreed to become a “vegan butcher” that did not sell any meat, or if they canceled classes.
Unwilling to sacrifice their entire business, the owners later agreed to a third option: a sign condemning the killing of animals.
The activists made two additional concessions: the sign could be three inches smaller than they originally proposed and the shop could place it in a slightly less prominent storefront window. But they said they reserved the right to two protests a year, and that the agreement was “temporary”.
“We want businesses and our culture to face the truth about violence against animals,” said Paul Darwin Picklesimer, an activist who negotiated the agreement, adding: “We do feel that animals are people. We don’t feel that only humans are people, but of course it’s not universally accepted.”
The attack on the Berkeley shop and threats of similar protests have sparked backlash across the state.
“I don’t understand why activists would pick on a mom-and-pop shop supporting the most humane farmers, rather than the animal factories and meatpackers responsible for brutality on an unimaginably greater scale,” said Michael Pollan, the well-known American food writer and a University of California, Berkeley professor, in an email. “Unless you believe the complete abolition of meat-eating is a realistic goal, attacking this sector of the animal economy … strikes me as misguided.”
There is a McDonald’s a few blocks away, he added.
David Dewey, president of the California Association of Meat Processors, blamed cartoons for making children believe that animals have emotions and feelings. He added: “This is the order of things, even in the wild. Fish eat other fish. Birds eat other birds … That’s just the way the world circles.”
Johnson said the sign was meant to stigmatize meat-eating in the way tobacco warnings discouraged smoking. Source
I doubt you will find anyone supporting that kind of behavior here. It is obviously stupid and nonsensical. It is also completely pointless. I have to question what the motives of these protestors are. My guess is "feeling good about having done something and sticking it to the evil meateaters!!", not anything along the lines of "less consumption of meat".
I am a vegetarian myself, and i still find that kind of fanaticism disgusting. Let people make their own decisions. Stop trying to bully people into doing what you want them to do. This isn't even "raising awareness" or anything like that. It is just insulting and annoying people. Why would that convince anyone of your point of view? Just....don't be a dick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
