EPTOn May 24 2014 05:08 Cheerio wrote:
so if this case has been so absurdly easy, why did they waste so much time on me?
so if this case has been so absurdly easy, why did they waste so much time on me?
Ukrainian Crisis thread - Page 3
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I know it's often better in refereeing to just make the call with no explanation; but I think here explanations attached to the warnings would be beneficial to the thread improvement process. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37057 Posts
On May 24 2014 05:08 Cheerio wrote: so if this case has been so absurdly easy, why did they waste so much time on me? Would you rather the mods all ignore you? Then what? You'll start another thread saying TL mods don't care and aren't doing their jobs? | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 24 2014 06:18 Seeker wrote: Would you rather the mods all ignore you? Then what? You'll start another thread saying TL mods don't care and aren't doing their jobs? Why don't you try that and we find out? And once again. I wasn't the one who brought the issue of my warning up. Suddenly every moderator out there needs to tell me how fair was my warning... That's not me who is not leaving it behind, that's the whole lot of you. | ||
|
brian
United States9636 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/junta Is this acceptable? In case anyone was wondering, that's a pretty big insult, hence why nunez has continued to use the terms "junta" and "fascist junta" throughout the thread, despite the fact that the Ukrainian government is not comprised of self-imposed ultra authoritarian army commanders. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
from your link: a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially: a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power. from other def:a small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d'état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted. dictionary.reference.com'junta' is apt, as the interrim govt is illegitimate and came to power through a coup, overthrowing the elected president. according to tl search i haven't used the term 'fascist junta', and used the phrase 'junta' on page 463 and 6 later posts. your indictment is inaccurate and inappropriate. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
The problem is that a 'junta' in its modern use refers to a group of individuals who took over power by force. Oxford English dictionary: This same meaning is present in the quoted definitions as well, albeit they are less clear. But what people talk about when they refer to juntas is generally something like a military coup d'etat. This is factually incorrect when used for the government in Ukraine (this has been discussed in detail in the media and reported several times in the thread, so I'll just post a brief summary). EuroMaidan never forced Yanukovich out of power, he left voluntarily. What happened next is that the elected parliament elected a transitional President (note that a president cannot be a group and juntas are by definition groups). Such transitional governments are common. We don't call Monti's Italian transitional government a junta, nor any other transitional executive formed by an elected government to manage the country until the next elections, so we shouldn't be calling Ukraine's government a junta either. This is because it is construed as suggesting that the previous government, in this case Yanukovich, was overthrown by force, which is misleading at best. Furthermore, there isn't a respected political scientist or journalist out there who is referring to the government in Ukraine as a junta. That's only done by Kremlin-controlled Russian media which has demonstrated its willingness to make up anything they want to discredit Ukraine on multiple occasions. Both the detailed sequence of events in Kyiv when Yanukovich left, and the connotations of the term have been discussed in detail in the thread, yet Nunez continues to use the term despite the ample evidence for its inappropriateness according to facts and with full knowledge of the fact that other people find it offensive. This has led to endless circular arguments in the thread, which devalue the entire conversation. *** P.S. While Nunez has not perhaps used the words 'fascist' and 'junta' in conjunction, a TL search demonstrated that he has argued that the same government that he calls a junta is fascist. Example: + Show Spoiler + On March 17 2014 21:37 nunez wrote: 'how would they have voted?' - i'd expect it to be massively pro-russia considering that report and the circumstances leading up to the referendum. i don't think the 15% who identified with ukrania then would vote in favor of what they surely consider an illegetimate govt with fascists in its ranks that overthrew the president they voted for, i'd prolly think around -23% of them would. Example 2 + Show Spoiler + On May 06 2014 14:15 nunez wrote: @hunts i think the extent of my allegations (at least on average) is that the us govt are overtly and probably covertly backing the coup or what-have-you for less than admirable reasons. my gripes with american go's like usaid and ned are not baseless, but speculative. my primary concern from the start of the thread has been with the ultranationalist and fascist elements of the maidan movement not being properly dealt with as well as foreign meddling. neither will do the ukrainians any good, and will make the probability of success of any democratic movement slimmer. the govt in kiev is the unholy child of these two factors, at least that seems to be the perception in eastern and southern ukraine. i don't think they should be trying to establish their legitimacy through violent means as they are now. it ain't gonna work, and the continued attempt is going to deepen the divide between west and east. the us absorbs most of my ire, but the us concerns me more than russia, since i am a western homosexual fascist after all. your pro-russian labelling is off base. @judi brennan paying a 'secret visit' to the kiev govt is indicative that the cia has something to do with the ukrainian govt, at the very least. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On May 26 2014 08:48 nunez wrote: welcome back. from your link: from other def: dictionary.reference.com 'junta' is apt, as the interrim govt is illegitimate and came to power through a coup, overthrowing the elected president. according to tl search i haven't used the term 'fascist junta', and used the phrase 'junta' on page 463 and 6 later posts. your indictment is inaccurate and inappropriate. My apologies, zeo is the one who coined fascist junta. In stark contrast you just say that Ukraine is a Junta which was instated by frighteningly fascist elements. What I don't understand is why you're using a word that is normally only used for its connotation of a coordinated military takeover of government institutions to be replaced by the invading leaders. In spite of your wide knowledge of alternate uses of the word junta, you don't seem to apply the word to the pro-russian separatists who occupy government buildings by force and prevent democratic elections. It's almost as if you're selectively applying this word because of its negative connotation. Otherwise your extremely broad definition could be expanded to include the Donetsk Junta, the Russian Junta, the American Junta and even the TL moderation Junta. Under such broad definitions as you have proposed I don't really believe that the word has any use aside from degrading the civility of the thread. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
yanu has described it as a violent coup and msm (f.ex guardian) describes him as an 'ousted' president. oust (oust) dictionarytr.v. oust·ed, oust·ing, ousts 1. To eject from a position or place; force out: "the American Revolution, which ousted the English" (Virginia S. Eifert). 2. To take the place of, especially by force; supplant. See Synonyms at eject. a quote from guardian, some militia announced late 21st feb after the deal twixt yanu and opposition was reached: “If it is not announced by 10 tomorrow that Yanukovich is gone, we’re going to attack with weapons,” he said. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/22/1393067564422/db262022-5733-4861-9763-dd6207b79cba-460x276.jpeg) guardian pic from outside the rada the day of the ousting, party of regions (yanu's party) politician getting beat up i'd say that ghans suggestion that yanu left voluntarily and that the interrim govt didn't come to power through force is preposterous, but trying to goad tl moderation into censoring him would be wrong. i'm not gonna cry if jorm chooses to describe the leaders of 'novorossiya' as a 'junta' either, as it would likely be an apt descriptor, just like it is in the case of the interrim govt. you will forgive me for not losing any sleep over your accusations of degrading the civility in the thread, mr. pollster. ;> | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
The incident Nunez is alluding to in a heavily misrepresented manner is probably the following: The atmosphere remained tense late Friday in Independence Square. When one of the opposition leaders, former boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, told the crowds this was the best deal they could get, one of the protesters grabbed the microphone and demanded that Yanukovych resign or face the wrath of the people. “We will go with weapons,” said the protester, who leads one of the more militant groups in the square. “I swear it.” Source. As you can see, this was not a statement by some militia, nor the leaders of the EuroMaidan movement but just some lone nutcase. As many others he was disappointed in the fact that the negotiations on Feb. 21st had not resulted in Yanukovych's ouster as he could remain president until the next elections. People called for a stronger deal, but the EuroMaidan leaders accepted the deal as it was and allowed Yanokovych to stay on. As for the picture, it could be one of thousands of photos, many of them photoshopped. Without a source I have no way of providing the appropriate context. But considering that there had been no possible violence against Rada members before the Feb. 21 deal, I cannot imagine how Yanukovych could have known it was going to happen in the future. Also, while Rada members are relatively regular people, Yanukovych has its own armed guard and a guy with a baseball bat would not accomplish anything. And it's not censorship to moderate someone who is willfully misrepresenting the state of affairs and using language that's aggressively loaded. There's a point to which you can have reasonable doubt that the poster is merely confused or has made a mistake, but not if the language persists as misleading for months. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
and naw... according to one of your fav spindoctors: Commander of a #EuroMaidan self-defense 'sotnya' from stage gives #Yanukovych ultimatum: resign by 10am, or we fight w/ weapons. *applause* aka a militia commander.— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) February 21, 2014 the fascist militias (right sector, trident, una-unso etc) in the vanguard of the maidan protests did not pop up on the 22 of feb, the police left their stations in kiev on the 21st of feb as well, maidan had full control of the rada. at this point it seems like we've veered over into off-topic discussion, though. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On May 26 2014 23:33 nunez wrote: sourced from 21st, 22nd feb as it happened pages of guardian, same with the pic. as for the 'ousted president', just google it. it's used in a lot of msm rags, guardian among others. and naw... according to one of your fav spindoctors: aka a militia commander. the fascist militias (right sector, trident, una-unso etc) in the vanguard of the maidan protests did not pop up on the 22 of feb, the police left their stations in kiev on the 21st of feb as well, maidan had full control of the rada. at this point it seems like we've veered over into off-topic discussion, though. So you are now telling us that instead of the government being seized by force, you have sources which suggest that a small group of rebels (up to 144) threatened to force the leader of a nation out of office (Couldn't you find a group in any nation which threatened this in any given year?) but ultimately proved to be nothing but empty air. When and where did the organized military takeover of the Ukraine Parliament occur? So far all you have is that the leader of 144,000 troops fled from a force of up to 144 people. I'm not an army general, but that doesn't sound like a sufficient threat to make a leader of an entire country feel threatened. I would hazard a guess that Obama and Putin get worse threats on a daily basis. So no, your assertion that the Ukrainian Prime Minister was 'forced' out (despite the fact that he was never under duress) is as tenuous as your broad definition of junta. So far your use of the word junta to indicate your disbelief in the legitimacy of the interim ukrainian government is tantamount to calling a woman a cunt to indicate that she is female. This, along with your selective use of the word to describe a group you don't support (where you have to spend a few paragraphs to explain how it technically applies) while demonstrating your reluctance to use the word to describe the groups you support (which is a clear cut example of the main denotation of the word by your own admission) would suggest that you are using the word as an insult. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
junta dictionarya small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d'état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted. coup d'etat dictionarya sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. force dictionaryunlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property. where is the clause that necessitates a organized military take-over for 'junta' to be used? was the ousting illegitimate? yep, hence coup is an apt descriptor. was the interrim govt legally constituted? no, hence junta is an apt descriptor. was the ousting done by force? yep, and the above holds regardless. i am decidedly (i have decided this) on the ball with the use of the word 'junta', maybe if i'd been saying 'fascist junta' throughout the thread you'd have 4/41 of a case, but i haven't, so you don't. as it stands i'm on trial for not practicing doublespeak. soon two tl moderators will knock on my door, take me out into a field and stab me to death. as i bleed out i'll cry crocodile tears over your indiscriminate use of the phrase 'commie separatists', returning the favor. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On May 27 2014 02:32 nunez wrote: the number 144 is a figment of your imagination, just like my usage of 'fascist junta', or my reluctance to use the word junta against groups you have decided that i support (through an illegitimate poll no doubt), or me using a 'broad definition' of a junta, when i'm using the defintion quoted from a dictionary on this very page, just ~4 posts up (for the record the most narrow definition one the page). lets revisit, we are playing wordgames after all... dictionarydictionarydictionary where is the clause that necessitates a organized military take-over for 'junta' to be used? was the ousting illegitimate? yep, hence coup is an apt descriptor. was the interrim govt legally constituted? no, hence junta is an apt descriptor. was the ousting done by force? yep, and the above holds regardless. i am decidedly (i have decided this) on the ball with the use of the word 'junta', maybe if i'd been saying 'fascist junta' throughout the thread you'd have 4/41 of a case, but i haven't, so you don't. as it stands i'm on trial for not practicing doublespeak. soon two tl moderators will knock on my door, take me out into a field and stab me to death. as i bleed out i'll cry crocodile tears over your indiscriminate use of the phrase 'commie separatists', returning the favor. I think the last posts give an apt overview of Nunez's behaviour. As was the case in the previous thread, he will just keep repeating the same no matter what anybody replies. If he has decided that Yanukovych was ousted, that what happened in Kyiv was a coup d'etat, and that power was seized by some outside group, despite all evidence, lack of support from journalists (hey, for him they're spin doctors anyway) and diplomats alike, and it being public knowledge that Yanukovych fled the country in the early hours of February the 21st, then there is no power in the universe that can enter his mind and change it. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
yanu left late 21st of feb as reported in guardian via us state department, f.ex: A US state department official said president Vladimir Yanukovych left Kiev late Friday after a day of whirlwind political activity. Yanukovych began the day by signing a deal with opposition leaders in which he vowed not to declare a state of emergency, and acceded to demands for a new coalition government and early presidential elections. The text of the deal is here. ... One official said the state department believes that Yanukovych has left the Ukrainian capital of Kiev for the city of Kharkiv, in the east, “to shore up support there” – but that he has not fled the country. since you're resorting to ad-homs, i believe this discussion has indeed run its course. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Did you post that text because I referred to the night of February the 21st as its early hours? Sorry for the confusion, but I meant some time in the night after the 21st of February peace agreement. And it's not an ad hominem to discuss your posting, if that's the topic here. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
do you have any source that he fled the country before being ousted (~2 pm 22nd of feb yanu described it as a coup) that goes beyond a rumor? i already sourced him being reported to leave for khrakov (reported by us state officials). both of this from guardian as it happened articles. the url is a google search of 'yanu ousted', type it in yourself and weep. ousted president is a common description. the topic is not my general posting. it's the the usage of the word 'junta' to describe the interrim govt. you should be trying to establish that the interrim govt was legitimate, that the ousting was legitimate, and that this is the only 'factual' interpretation of events (good luck with this). instead you produce a hatchet job of my general posting... heh. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On May 27 2014 04:22 nunez wrote: no, that would be the early hours of feb the 22st... do you have any source that he fled the country before being ousted (~2 pm 22nd of feb yanu described it as a coup) that goes beyond a rumor? i already sourced him being reported to leave for khrakov (reported by us state officials). both of this from guardian as it happened articles. the url is a google search of 'yanu ousted', type it in yourself and weep. ousted president is a common description. the topic is not my general posting. it's the the usage of the word 'junta' to describe the interrim govt. you should be trying to establish that the interrim govt was legitimate, that the ousting was legitimate, and that this is the only 'factual' interpretation of events (good luck with this). instead you produce a hatchet job of my general posting... heh. Here you go, February 21st February 22nd February 23rd You can read the news as it happened. Yanukovych made a deal in which he agreed to change the constitution and to have early elections. People wanted his resignation as well. During the night between the 21st and 22nd he fled, breaking his end of the deal as he wouldn't sign the Rada documents needed for constitutional change and elections. On the 23rd the Rada elected an interim president to replace him. I never understood why the word 'oust' is important here, it's used for all kinds of things: being fired, being impeached (most relevant here), being thrown out of the country. So it doesn't imply that there was a coup d'etat, and it doesn't justify your claims that the legitimate government in Kyiv is a junta. | ||
| ||
