Malaysian Airlines MH317

[ikalugin]

Heh, because you know, they make that allegation without breakdown of analasys under their own methodology or evidence. But sure, it is easy to disregard sources for them being, ehem, inconvenient. Especially when investigative journalists are going against the leftists who run the tech monopolies.
I would suggest watching the video and, say, following the examples they provide to see for yourself if google search warps reality to suit a political agenda.

Evidence please.

People get arrested for misgendering others on social media.
People get sentenced with prison time over jokes.

A lady being arrested over misgendering a person on twitter:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ould-tackling/
A comedian being sentenced for prison time over a joke uploaded to his small youtube channel:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8270631.html
There are many other such cases that do not make the news.

There is also a degree of censorship, both external (users being unpersoned by paralel action of social media companies) and internal (people not speaking their mind out of fear). A good article on topic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...orwell/590638/

And what has this Google and "tech companies" thing to do with arresting people, because of political reasons, in the EU?

It is indeed a separate but related issue, where the west is actually growing tyranical corporate leftist institutions in addition to the state institutions. The censorship is mostly done by those private platforms, but it is done pre-emptively, ahead of being censored under the new hate speach laws.
In UK for example you can be convicted with jail time for anything that is "grossly offensive" with what is "grossly offensive" being left to discretion of the judge.

[Catfish]

"The Atlantic" article about Orwell, 1984 and our current times is indeed very good, but it points at a completely other direction than you want me to see (8or so i think?)

"The warnings were justified, but their emphasis on the mechanisms of earlier dictatorships drew attention away from the heart of the malignancy—not the state, but the individual. The crucial issue was not that Trump might abolish democracy but that Americans had put him in a position to try. Unfreedom today is voluntary. It comes from the bottom up."

"We are living with a new kind of regime that didn’t exist in Orwell’s time. It combines hard nationalism—the diversion of frustration and cynicism into xenophobia and hatred—with soft distraction and confusion: a blend of Orwell and Huxley, cruelty and entertainment.
The state of mind that the Party enforces through terror in 1984, where truth becomes so unstable that it ceases to exist, we now induce in ourselves. Totalitarian propaganda unifies control over all information, until reality is what the Party says it is—the goal of Newspeak is to impoverish language so that politically incorrect thoughts are no longer possible. Today the problem is too much information from too many sources, with a resulting plague of fragmentation and division—not excessive authority but its disappearance, which leaves ordinary people to work out the facts for themselves, at the mercy of their own prejudices and delusions."

"During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, propagandists at a Russian troll farm used social media to disseminate a meme: “ ‘The People Will Believe What the Media Tells Them They Believe.’ — George Orwell.” But Orwell never said this. The moral authority of his name was stolen and turned into a lie toward that most Orwellian end: the destruction of belief in truth.
The Russians needed partners in this effort and found them by the millions, especially among America’s non-elites. In 1984, working-class people are called “proles,” and Winston believes they’re the only hope for the future. As Lynskey points out, Orwell didn’t foresee “that the common man and woman would embrace doublethink as enthusiastically as the intellectuals and, without the need for terror or torture, would choose to believe that two plus two was whatever they wanted it to be.”"

Very much to the point. The threat is not a left-wing regime like in 1984 though, but the left is delusional in thinking they can stand up against bullying and fake news while hemselves sticking to facts, reality and truth. This is a post-factual time. Insisting on facts and trying to debunk every new lie will not help them.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Always nice to use latin words, makes it look so scientific and well researched. But no:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/

And your so called fact checker is to be believed?

MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.” WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.
Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”
Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-ba...k0m2po1bcoe.99

[Catfish]

"WND" is World net daily.com ok. I guess you can find all there, from Obama being the antichrist to Clinton murders, to whatnot.

https://www.salon.com/2018/02/12/pio...aily-be-saved/

https://realorsatire.com/wnd-com/

But i don't need that. I can directly say that all media are leaning towards one or another political direction and this is perfectly ok. But there are some who clutch at every straw to promote hate and divisiveness, and you can easily spot them.

[Bilge_Rat]

Not sure where this thread is going but "mediabiasfactcheck" is a left-wing activist who attacks conservative media while pretending to be a "neutral" fact checker. His methods were uncovered 1 or 2 years ago?

He has no credibility.

[Dowly]

So, all these sites they list as being "moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes" actually aren't? Or are they only credible when it suits you?

[ikalugin]

@Catfish
By selectively citing that article you create an impression that you are selectively reading it. In particular this statement:

Very much to the point. The threat is not a left-wing regime like in 1984 though, but the left is delusional in thinking they can stand up against bullying and fake news while hemselves sticking to facts, reality and truth. This is a post-factual time. Insisting on facts and trying to debunk every new lie will not help them.

is troubling as in addition to the concerns over the right wing movement which you have cited there are concerns about the left wing movement, for example:

 

We stagger under the daily load of doublethink pouring from Trump, his enablers in the Inner Party, his mouthpieces in the Ministry of Truth, and his fanatical supporters among the proles. Spotting doublethink in ourselves is much harder. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” Orwell wrote. In front of my nose, in the world of enlightened and progressive people where I live and work, a different sort of doublethink has become pervasive. It’s not the claim that true is fake or that two plus two makes five. Progressive doublethink—which has grown worse in reaction to the right-wing kind—creates a more insidious unreality because it operates in the name of all that is good. Its key word is justice—a word no one should want to live without. But today the demand for justice forces you to accept contradictions that are the essence of doublethink.For example, many on the left now share an unacknowledged but common assumption that a good work of art is made of good politics and that good politics is a matter of identity. The progressive view of a book or play depends on its political stance, and its stance—even its subject matter—is scrutinized in light of the group affiliation of the artist: Personal identity plus political position equals aesthetic value. This confusion of categories guides judgments all across the worlds of media, the arts, and education, from movie reviews to grant committees. Some people who register the assumption as doublethink might be privately troubled, but they don’t say so publicly. Then self-censorship turns into self-deception, until the recognition itself disappears—a lie you accept becomes a lie you forget. In this way, intelligent people do the work of eliminating their own unorthodoxy without the Thought Police.
Orthodoxy is also enforced by social pressure, nowhere more intensely than on Twitter, where the specter of being shamed or “canceled” produces conformity as much as the prospect of adding to your tribe of followers does. This pressure can be more powerful than a party or state, because it speaks in the name of the people and in the language of moral outrage, against which there is, in a way, no defense. Certain commissars with large followings patrol the precincts of social media and punish thought criminals, but most progressives assent without difficulty to the stifling consensus of the moment and the intolerance it breeds—not out of fear, but because they want to be counted on the side of justice.
This willing constriction of intellectual freedom will do lasting damage. It corrupts the ability to think clearly, and it undermines both culture and progress. Good art doesn’t come from wokeness, and social problems starved of debate can’t find real solutions. “Nothing is gained by teaching a parrot a new word,” Orwell wrote in 1946. “What is needed is the right to print what one believes to be true, without having to fear bullying or blackmail from any side.” Not much has changed since the 1940s. The will to power still passes through hatred on the right and virtue on the left.

(emphasis mine)

And I have quite clearly have been discussing them and such the apparent ignorance of that part of the article does not bode well.



I am more concerned about the left wing movement than I am about the right wing movement as the left wing currently controls both the means of spreading information (censorship and social pressure in tech companies that leads to both speech and thought policing) and the state regulation of said means (hate speach legislation that leads to arrests and convictions based on speach that does not fit the ideology), the academia/education (where people are expelled for non PC statements even if they are supported by data, not to mention the self censorship that is happening).

[Catfish]

@Ikalugin you are right, the 'left' (whatever you mean by it because in the US some of the right wing is already regarded as being 'left') certainly does not do itself a favour in underestimating the 'right', or schmoozing with delusional hope and waiting for better times.

I am more concerned about the left wing movement than I am about the right wing movement as the left wing currently controls both the means of spreading information (censorship and social pressure in tech companies that leads to both speech and thought policing) and the state regulation of said means (hate speach legislation that leads to arrests and convictions based on speach that does not fit the ideology), the academia/education (where people are expelled for non PC statements even if they are supported by data, not to mention the self censorship that is happening).

I wonder about several things here. The "left wing movement" as you describe it.. most of the US mdia are still leaning to the right, you cannot describe them as left just because they criticize Trump.

I can understand that anything hampering the big bad US is good for Russia, so you supported Trump because he is divisive and radicalising.
But at the same time, there is danger ahead that the next president will be even more right and hawkish, but if he will be only a bit more intelligent that would really bear some threat for Russia. After the radicalising before and during Trump it all can become much worse.
https://www.salon.com/2019/03/09/can...dangers-ahead/

So, why exactly would Russia be against the left. In former time the latter did all to encourage them, help them, insert spies and so forth.
But now you are afraid of the left, and supported Trump. Because he can be led by the nose? It is easier to spy?
Is the american 'left' so much more threatening, to Putin? Is the far right more to his liking?


Or in other words, are you warning the left to be not so delusional and think wrong, or are you promoting Trump because he's easy meat for Putin?

[mapuc]

Remember: If a claim is consistent with a person's personal conviction
- this claim is completely correct, otherwise not.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Remember: If a claim is consistent with a person's personal conviction
- this claim is completely correct, otherwise not.

Markus

...???





You must be kidding - or is something getting lost in translation?

[ikalugin]

@Catfish
It is actually the other way round - because of the left control of information and buble generation, a perception is created that the centrists are right wingers and leftists are centrists. If you look at the shift of values within democratic and republican parties (as one of the indicators) you would notice that it is the democratic party that shifted left, not republicans that shifted right.

If you sit in a left echo chamber that is growing more radical by the day then even center-left people (ie Tim Pool) would look like crazy alt-righters. Incidentally due to those effects even people who are labeled "right" may actually be center-left people. You can see that creep left here:

 

Same applies to media, even in the big cable networks the only center-right network is Fox news.

This breeds my personal concern that the modern left would destroy the west, as I would personally feel emotionally sad if such a great civilisation was to die in my lifetime. This concern however does not exist on the national level, as left eroding western competetive advantages may actually be beneficial to Russia.
Trump collusion is actually a good example - the broad left movement is overblowing that event (which was at best carried out by several resource poor non-state actors at the much lower scale than organic operations by other actors, including tech companies themselves) and is now not only wasting their national resources and disrupting political processes, but also destroying any constructive discussions on why Trump (or BREXIT) happened, are used to justify rejection of existance of principled opposition to the left ideas and then justifying unpersoning them.

[Skybird]

Putting it here, not to launch a new topic on it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48755606


The Ukrainian and Baltic fury is undersatandable, and valid. The Germans and French argue the decison give srussians a chanc eof last hope when appealing to the court, but the truth is that thr reds in the German coalition are traditionally extremely russophile (the blacks as well...) and that it ios not noble motives pushign this decision, but the fear to lose the Russian payments forever. In other words: its about money.

( Israel hopefully observes this decision with two open eyes, being the notorious receivers of European claims how befriended and close Europe and Israel are. )

If I were the Ukraine or the Baltic states, i would withdraw from the organisation before the end of this month and stop any further payments to it immediately.


Another point victory for Putin. The Europeans are so disgusting in their endless weakness and indifference.

[ikalugin]

@skybird

Apart from the money considerations (we do not plan to be a part of organisation and pay for membership if we have no voice in it), it is also about retaining instruments of influence over Russia, such as the courts. If Russia leaves the council of Europe it would leave the jurisdiction of say relevant human rights courts such as the ECHR, which were used a number of times to pressure the Russian state.

As to Ukraine and Baltics - they have been using the council of Europe to push their own agenda. If we for example take Minsk accords, Ukraine managed to not only sabotage their execution, but push documents through council of Europe blaming Russia for that. The length of this crisis precludes post-crisis analasys in the west, like they managed to do post 080808 war and the Ukrainian narrative dominates. As such it makes good sense for the old europe to protect their interests.

[Catfish]

[...] Another point victory for Putin. The Europeans are so disgusting in their endless weakness and indifference.

Unfortunately yes, and Russia keeps attacking all the time.. we should not think anything has changed, or that they would clearly admit their real intention.
What has changed is their attitude of doing it all publicly, even risking compromising it. It is much more open now, and more violent.
They are convinced enough it does not even matter anymore with the Chaos in the US and its international retreat.
Regarding Europe it still does a bit better despite brexit, it is at constant alert though.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

@skybird

Apart from the money considerations (we do not plan to be a part of organisation and pay for membership if we have no voice in it), it is also about retaining instruments of influence over Russia, such as the courts. If Russia leaves the council of Europe it would leave the jurisdiction of say relevant human rights courts such as the ECHR, which were used a number of times to pressure the Russian state.

I dont buy it. Its more than just coincidental that France, Spain, Germany and others give Russia its will just days before the long absence from the institution and the payment obligation would lead to the legal consequences of ending Russia'S membership permanently (there is some 2-year- limit rule, and Russia has suspended its payments almost 2 years ago now) - and so would also end its financial contributions in the years to come which make for 7% of the total annual budget, and its its outstanding membership payments, of the past 2 years would be lost as well. Also, it paves the way for mulling an easing of the sanctions. You see, Europeans companies want to do business with Russia again.


Its not as if I ever believed the sanctions would work the way it was hoped, or that I think the general Western stand on Russia since the 00-years is founded on intelligence and strength. Its a pityful attempt by the EU to be perceived as a strong global player while reality is that neither America nor China nor Russia take Europe especially serious, due to its internal rifts and weaknesses and growing problems, and weak military. What makes me sick is the Western self-betrayal in all this: to claim one were so seriously dedicated to the noble and the true motives in all the completely story - and then horse-trading all that away so easily when it comes to money. I just dispise weakness and corruptness.



The EU tries to egg-dance back and forth between Ukraine, and Russia, wnating to pelase bothg and not loosing any of the two. That cannot lead to anything else but ridicule, acchieveing not evben one of the two wanted things. Putin on the other hand acts much more focussed, determined, and with a stronger sense of reality. Practically all his foreign political operaitosn and adventures, Syria, Crimean peninsula, Eastern Ukraine, allienace with China, work out the way he wanted, and got him what he wan ted - and he will keep what he took. The fabulous EU, however, reminds of a hysteric hen-house, and tumbles towards the next catastrophic systemic financial disaster. But still boast with wanting to give a compass to the world... A mouse that tries to roar. Putin did not care. China stayed unimpressed. And then came Trump.