Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
This kind of strikes me as a "can't we just get rid of the people who say things we don't like?" resolution.
I myself have plenty of problems with RT and Sputnik and as someone who can actually speak Russian I have access to plenty of better sources which are not such ridiculous agenda-pushers. And yet it's clear that those sources do provide a previously underrepresented pro-Russian perspective that, while flawed, is certainly valuable. A "read RT but take it with a grain of salt" is much better than "let me explain a Russian position you have no way of reading about yourself" approach that I would have to take otherwise.
Most of the Western world does quite reasonably acknowledge that even if RT and their ilk are biased and ridiculous propaganda outlets, they have a right to exist under the rules of free press that they set forward. It would be bad to renege on that just because of something that, based on the timing, strikes me as just being salty about Trump winning in the US based partly on (alleged, but likely) Russian leaks.
Out of 691 deputies who voted, 304 supported the document
is newsworthy
So typical voting distributions are newsworthy now? It might also be important to note that about 200 of them abstained or whatever its called. They didn't vote for or against for this advisory resolution.
Personally, I'm a little disturbed by any form of attempts at censorship, but it comes as no surprise after everything surrounding the American elections. I just hope that between this kind of thing and censorship on Twitter/Facebook/etc it is not going to get out of hand somehow in the future.
abstain = don't want to partake in the bullshit and are somewhat weary of Russia. i'd put them more in the against camp.
yes, it's all about context - here, the elections. there are opinions that Merkel fears(takes very serious into account) the idea that she could lose due to some form of russian propaganda.
"Something has changed -- as globalisation has marched on, (political) debate is taking place in a completely new media environment. Opinions aren't formed the way they were 25 years ago," she said.
"Today we have fake sites, bots, trolls -- things that regenerate themselves, reinforcing opinions with certain algorithms and we have to learn to deal with them."
Merkel, 62, said the challenge for democrats was to "reach and inspire people -- we must confront this phenomenon and if necessary, regulate it."
add to that the push for hate speech censoring on Google/Facebook/etc and you start wondering if it's panic or values were talking about here.
If Merkel wants to take a Russophobic approach to trying to dismiss her opposition as dangerous, then perhaps she should look no further than Hillary Clinton to see how well that excuse works among an audience that is far more Russophobic than Germany. General consensus seems to be that people should address the criticisms, not blame the Russian boogeyman for revealing the secrets of dirty dealings that were actually as the Russians say they are (given that the emails and the like weren't actually fabricated and are genuine documents).
Two of the most hilarious ones I've heard is that Russia supports anti-fracking environmentalists and we shouldn't listen to them because they're in the pockets of the Russian gas industry, and that Russia bombed Syria to make Brexit happen. It's kind of getting old and even an anti-Russia crowd can see that.
Out of 691 deputies who voted, 304 supported the document
is newsworthy
So typical voting distributions are newsworthy now? It might also be important to note that about 200 of them abstained or whatever its called. They didn't vote for or against for this advisory resolution.
Personally, I'm a little disturbed by any form of attempts at censorship, but it comes as no surprise after everything surrounding the American elections. I just hope that between this kind of thing and censorship on Twitter/Facebook/etc it is not going to get out of hand somehow in the future.
abstain = don't want to partake in the bullshit and are somewhat weary of Russia. i'd put them more in the against camp.
I don't understand how you can reach conclusions like that.
On November 26 2016 02:22 xM(Z wrote: yes, it's all about context - here, the elections. there are opinions that Merkel fears(takes very serious into account) the idea that she could lose due to some form of russian propaganda.
"Something has changed -- as globalisation has marched on, (political) debate is taking place in a completely new media environment. Opinions aren't formed the way they were 25 years ago," she said.
"Today we have fake sites, bots, trolls -- things that regenerate themselves, reinforcing opinions with certain algorithms and we have to learn to deal with them."
Merkel, 62, said the challenge for democrats was to "reach and inspire people -- we must confront this phenomenon and if necessary, regulate it."
add to that the push for hate speech censoring on Google/Facebook/etc and you start wondering if it's panic or values were talking about here.
As someone who is incredibly pro-EU in terms of concept it is exceedingly disturbing to me that criticisms regarding the actual implementation of it are now apparently (in part) being dismissed as Russian propaganda. It's the bubble thing all over again. People hear criticism and dismiss it because it doesn't fit their view. So fucking stupid. I'm kind of worried that Wilders will get like 30% or something ridiculous like that because of this sort of idiocy.
On November 26 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote: If Merkel wants to take a Russophobic approach to trying to dismiss her opposition as dangerous, then perhaps she should look no further than Hillary Clinton to see how well that excuse works among an audience that is far more Russophobic than Germany. General consensus seems to be that people should address the criticisms, not blame the Russian boogeyman for revealing the secrets of dirty dealings that were actually as the Russians say they are (given that the emails and the like weren't actually fabricated and are genuine documents).
Two of the most hilarious ones I've heard is that Russia supports anti-fracking environmentalists and we shouldn't listen to them because they're in the pockets of the Russian gas industry, and that Russia bombed Syria to make Brexit happen. It's kind of getting old and even an anti-Russia crowd can see that.
There's essentially two groups of people that react allergic to a stronger foreign policy positions concerning Russia. The first is people who generally denounce any assertive behaviour of Germany in FP in principle, can be pretty much anybody ranging from Protestant pacifists to the far-left and Conservatives who don't want to be bothered with the world's problems and secondly the new populist 'Trumpy' right who'll jump to defend any autocrat they can find who pushes a nationalist agenda.
Both groups aren't actually that large in Germany, they're disproportionately represented on the internet though. Also the liberal-left e.g the Greens have over the years come around and generally tend to support stronger FP if justified. In fact they might be more assertive than anybody else as far as civil rights offences in other nations are concerned.
On November 26 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote: If Merkel wants to take a Russophobic approach to trying to dismiss her opposition as dangerous, then perhaps she should look no further than Hillary Clinton to see how well that excuse works among an audience that is far more Russophobic than Germany. General consensus seems to be that people should address the criticisms, not blame the Russian boogeyman for revealing the secrets of dirty dealings that were actually as the Russians say they are (given that the emails and the like weren't actually fabricated and are genuine documents).
Two of the most hilarious ones I've heard is that Russia supports anti-fracking environmentalists and we shouldn't listen to them because they're in the pockets of the Russian gas industry, and that Russia bombed Syria to make Brexit happen. It's kind of getting old and even an anti-Russia crowd can see that.
There's essentially two groups of people that react allergic to a stronger foreign policy positions concerning Russia. The first is people who generally denounce any assertive behaviour of Germany in FP in principle, can be pretty much anybody ranging from Protestant pacifists to the far-left and Conservatives who don't want to be bothered with the world's problems and secondly the new populist 'Trumpy' right who'll jump to defend any autocrat they can find who pushes a nationalist agenda.
Both groups aren't actually that large in Germany, they're disproportionately represented on the internet though. Also the liberal-left e.g the Greens have over the years come around and generally tend to support stronger FP if justified. In fact they might be more assertive than anybody else as far as civil rights offences in other nations are concerned.
My point isn't even about FP positions regarding Russia though. It's the use of Russophobic sentiment to try to dismiss concerns people have that are entirely orthogonal to the issue of Russia by saying, "I bet you're just in the pocket of Russian special interests aren't ya?" The prime example is the DNC leaks; the DNC issue was a big problem well before any (again, alleged but likely) Russian involvement in the issue. Then comes Wikileaks with some shown-to-be-genuine emails basically confirming the suspicions people have about favoritism. The response? Blame Russia for it. The problem is that, whatever Russia did or didn't do, people who care, care more about the issues the Russian hackers brought to light than about Russian involvement.
And again, Germany is far closer to Russia and far less Russophobic than the US, where anti-Russia sentiment is pretty much unanimous. In Germany a little less than half the country was part of Russia's Warsaw Pact not too long ago and have not-altogether-negative recollections of that time period.
On November 26 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote: If Merkel wants to take a Russophobic approach to trying to dismiss her opposition as dangerous, then perhaps she should look no further than Hillary Clinton to see how well that excuse works among an audience that is far more Russophobic than Germany. General consensus seems to be that people should address the criticisms, not blame the Russian boogeyman for revealing the secrets of dirty dealings that were actually as the Russians say they are (given that the emails and the like weren't actually fabricated and are genuine documents).
Two of the most hilarious ones I've heard is that Russia supports anti-fracking environmentalists and we shouldn't listen to them because they're in the pockets of the Russian gas industry, and that Russia bombed Syria to make Brexit happen. It's kind of getting old and even an anti-Russia crowd can see that.
There's essentially two groups of people that react allergic to a stronger foreign policy positions concerning Russia. The first is people who generally denounce any assertive behaviour of Germany in FP in principle, can be pretty much anybody ranging from Protestant pacifists to the far-left and Conservatives who don't want to be bothered with the world's problems and secondly the new populist 'Trumpy' right who'll jump to defend any autocrat they can find who pushes a nationalist agenda.
Both groups aren't actually that large in Germany, they're disproportionately represented on the internet though. Also the liberal-left e.g the Greens have over the years come around and generally tend to support stronger FP if justified. In fact they might be more assertive than anybody else as far as civil rights offences in other nations are concerned.
My point isn't even about FP positions regarding Russia though. It's the use of Russophobic sentiment to try to dismiss concerns people have that are entirely orthogonal to the issue of Russia by saying, "I bet you're just in the pocket of Russian special interests aren't ya?" The prime example is the DNC leaks; the DNC issue was a big problem well before any (again, alleged but likely) Russian involvement in the issue. Then comes Wikileaks with some shown-to-be-genuine emails basically confirming the suspicions people have about favoritism. The response? Blame Russia for it. The problem is that, whatever Russia did or didn't do, people who care, care more about the issues the Russian hackers brought to light than about Russian involvement.
And again, Germany is far closer to Russia and far less Russophobic than the US, where anti-Russia sentiment is pretty much unanimous. In Germany a little less than half the country was part of Russia's Warsaw Pact not too long ago and have not-altogether-negative recollections of that time period.
Well I was confused because you brought Merkel up to begin with so I was thinking you were talking about FP in a broader sense. I don't really see any audience in Germany for this kind of media hysteria because politics here is a lot more down to earth. i doubt there's anything big Russia could even dig up, it hasn't quite reached that level of political circus yet.
Nonetheless Russia isn't at all afraid to invest tons of money into propaganda channels like RT explicitly targeted at national audiences (and the term propaganda is justified here), so people aren't concerned without reason.
On November 26 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote: If Merkel wants to take a Russophobic approach to trying to dismiss her opposition as dangerous, then perhaps she should look no further than Hillary Clinton to see how well that excuse works among an audience that is far more Russophobic than Germany. General consensus seems to be that people should address the criticisms, not blame the Russian boogeyman for revealing the secrets of dirty dealings that were actually as the Russians say they are (given that the emails and the like weren't actually fabricated and are genuine documents).
Two of the most hilarious ones I've heard is that Russia supports anti-fracking environmentalists and we shouldn't listen to them because they're in the pockets of the Russian gas industry, and that Russia bombed Syria to make Brexit happen. It's kind of getting old and even an anti-Russia crowd can see that.
There's essentially two groups of people that react allergic to a stronger foreign policy positions concerning Russia. The first is people who generally denounce any assertive behaviour of Germany in FP in principle, can be pretty much anybody ranging from Protestant pacifists to the far-left and Conservatives who don't want to be bothered with the world's problems and secondly the new populist 'Trumpy' right who'll jump to defend any autocrat they can find who pushes a nationalist agenda.
Both groups aren't actually that large in Germany, they're disproportionately represented on the internet though. Also the liberal-left e.g the Greens have over the years come around and generally tend to support stronger FP if justified. In fact they might be more assertive than anybody else as far as civil rights offences in other nations are concerned.
My point isn't even about FP positions regarding Russia though. It's the use of Russophobic sentiment to try to dismiss concerns people have that are entirely orthogonal to the issue of Russia by saying, "I bet you're just in the pocket of Russian special interests aren't ya?" The prime example is the DNC leaks; the DNC issue was a big problem well before any (again, alleged but likely) Russian involvement in the issue. Then comes Wikileaks with some shown-to-be-genuine emails basically confirming the suspicions people have about favoritism. The response? Blame Russia for it. The problem is that, whatever Russia did or didn't do, people who care, care more about the issues the Russian hackers brought to light than about Russian involvement.
And again, Germany is far closer to Russia and far less Russophobic than the US, where anti-Russia sentiment is pretty much unanimous. In Germany a little less than half the country was part of Russia's Warsaw Pact not too long ago and have not-altogether-negative recollections of that time period.
Well I was confused because you brought Merkel up to begin with so I was thinking you were talking about FP in a broader sense. I don't really see any audience in Germany for this kind of media hysteria because politics here is a lot more down to earth. i doubt there's anything big Russia could even dig up, it hasn't quite reached that level of political circus yet.
Nonetheless Russia isn't at all afraid to invest tons of money into propaganda channels like RT explicitly targeted at national audiences (and the term propaganda is justified here), so people aren't concerned without reason.
xM(Z mentioned Merkel first, I just rolled with it. She is very similar to Clinton so the comparison is reasonable. The biggest difference is that while her coalition and foreign interests are in danger, I don't think Merkel's post as chancellor is in danger the way Clinton's run as president was. Though I could definitely think of a few things that a foreign hacker could dig up that would make people flip a shit if released - TTIP, any number of things on banking dealings, environmental blunders like Volkswagen or some hidden fracking support, wiretaps like the "fuck the EU" one between US diplomats, an admission from EU leaders that Ukraine is a horrid waste of money, and so on. Nations have shit that could be dug up - it's just a matter of seeing an issue that is ready to explode and tossing a leak into the fire.
My thoughts on RT and the like are mixed, but I will reiterate that having RT is better than not having RT. It would be nice if Russia invested in foreign-language channels like some of the higher-quality news you could find in Russian/FSU-language news casts, but it's rare that a country is willing to invest in foreign media without an agenda (see also: Radio Free Europe). Without RT you'd get no Russian perspective instead of just a biased and propagandizing one. A biased one is ultimately better.
They're both policy wonks and realists, pursue incremental and consensus based goals and are both strongly committed to the post-war liberal order. The comparison is actually very fitting. I think Clinton and Merkel would have probably worked fairly well together. Now she has to deal with the American version of Berlusconi. She did survive the last one so there's hope I guess.
On November 26 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote: If Merkel wants to take a Russophobic approach to trying to dismiss her opposition as dangerous, then perhaps she should look no further than Hillary Clinton to see how well that excuse works among an audience that is far more Russophobic than Germany. General consensus seems to be that people should address the criticisms, not blame the Russian boogeyman for revealing the secrets of dirty dealings that were actually as the Russians say they are (given that the emails and the like weren't actually fabricated and are genuine documents).
Two of the most hilarious ones I've heard is that Russia supports anti-fracking environmentalists and we shouldn't listen to them because they're in the pockets of the Russian gas industry, and that Russia bombed Syria to make Brexit happen. It's kind of getting old and even an anti-Russia crowd can see that.
There's essentially two groups of people that react allergic to a stronger foreign policy positions concerning Russia. The first is people who generally denounce any assertive behaviour of Germany in FP in principle, can be pretty much anybody ranging from Protestant pacifists to the far-left and Conservatives who don't want to be bothered with the world's problems and secondly the new populist 'Trumpy' right who'll jump to defend any autocrat they can find who pushes a nationalist agenda.
Both groups aren't actually that large in Germany, they're disproportionately represented on the internet though. Also the liberal-left e.g the Greens have over the years come around and generally tend to support stronger FP if justified. In fact they might be more assertive than anybody else as far as civil rights offences in other nations are concerned.
My point isn't even about FP positions regarding Russia though. It's the use of Russophobic sentiment to try to dismiss concerns people have that are entirely orthogonal to the issue of Russia by saying, "I bet you're just in the pocket of Russian special interests aren't ya?" The prime example is the DNC leaks; the DNC issue was a big problem well before any (again, alleged but likely) Russian involvement in the issue. Then comes Wikileaks with some shown-to-be-genuine emails basically confirming the suspicions people have about favoritism. The response? Blame Russia for it. The problem is that, whatever Russia did or didn't do, people who care, care more about the issues the Russian hackers brought to light than about Russian involvement.
And again, Germany is far closer to Russia and far less Russophobic than the US, where anti-Russia sentiment is pretty much unanimous.
In Germany a little less than half the country was part of Russia's Warsaw Pact not too long ago and have not-altogether-negative recollections of that time period.
Some statistical nitpicking: That "a little less than half the country" is actually less than 20%. East germany always had about 16 million people in 1990, when after the reunification the entire germany was at ~80 million. Since then, old people who have lived in the GDR themself have died, while the generation born after 1990 have never seen GDR themselves.
Taking the average life expectancy of ~81 years, this should mean that only 13% of the people living in germany have lived in the GDR. Though I guess former inhabitants of the soviet union should also count in this respect, but I don think that this would significantly change the number.
(Isabelle Kumar) -Relations with Russia could be described as one such issue. President Barack Obama and some European leaders have said they want to maintain sanctions against Moscow. Will this be a short-term thing, given that Donald Trump is coming to power in a few months?
(Jean-Claude Juncker) -We are not dependent on US foreign policy. The US will do what it wants to do and Europeans will have their own interests within their own scope to manage.
(Isabelle Kumar) -Do you support sanctions being maintained?
(Jean-Claude Juncker) -Up until now, I have seen no argument for the sanctions against Russia being immediately lifted. I would like to have an agreement with Russia that goes beyond the ordinary framework, bearing in mind that without Russia, there is no security architecture in Europe. The EU occupies 5.5 million square kilometres, Russia takes up 17.5 million. Russia must be treated as one big entity, as a proud nation. We have a lot to learn about the depths of Russia, we are very ignorant about it at the moment. I would like to have discussions on a level footing with Russia. Russia is not, as President Obama siad, “a regional power”. This was a big error in assessment.
just words?, politeness?(maybe until the major EU elections pass?), real desires?.
you invented that - Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker. he is using the West invented right to self-determination the other way around. West used it in early XIX's to break apart colonies; Putin is using it in early XX's to make Russia whole again. there were bills passed by the russian parliament that gave special status to russians outside Russia's border a while ago.
(yes, completely related to this thread and it's only 40 secs)
Yup, Russia is planning to annex everyone else sooner or later. One day Russia's borders will stretch from coast to coast. These lands were taken away by corrupt czarist diplomats and criminal military officers; we need to take them back.
More random Putin-style humor since it was started:
On November 28 2016 00:53 xM(Z wrote: you invented that - Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker. he is using the West invented right to self-determination the other way around. West used it in early XIX's to break apart colonies; Putin is using it in early XX's to make Russia whole again. there were bills passed by the russian parliament that gave special status to russians outside Russia's border a while ago.
leave it to xM(Z to pull out the good old "you say everyone should be free to do what they want, so who are you to say I can't force other people to do what I want? It's what I want!"
(yes, completely related to this thread and it's only 40 secs)
Yup, Russia is planning to annex everyone else sooner or later. One day Russia's borders will stretch from coast to coast. These lands were taken away by corrupt czarist diplomats and criminal military officers; we need to take them back.
On November 28 2016 00:53 xM(Z wrote: you invented that - Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker. he is using the West invented right to self-determination the other way around. West used it in early XIX's to break apart colonies; Putin is using it in early XX's to make Russia whole again. there were bills passed by the russian parliament that gave special status to russians outside Russia's border a while ago.
leave it to xM(Z to pull out the good old "you say everyone should be free to do what they want, so who are you to say I can't force other people to do what I want? It's what I want!"
ha, ha. if i leave it up to you look what happens: you have people believe that the only way to be with Putin is when Putin forces you!. AfD loves him no matter what.
EPT
