Malaysian Airlines MH317

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

@August That is an excelent question, as it shows further dissonance between the two core principles of international law.

Well I don't know about international law but reading this debate I am struck that while nations are seen by some as artificial and illegitimate constructs they bandy about equally artificial constructs themselves as if they were any more legitimate.

When you come right down to it terms like "Bavarian" or "Catalonian" mean exactly the same thing as "Germany" or "Spain" but just on a smaller scale, and the question is how small do these invented territorial subdivisions have to go before the dissenting voices within their boundaries can be legitimately ignored when it comes to things like national independence referendums?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Well I don't know about international law but reading this debate I am struck that while nations are seen by some as artificial and illegitimate constructs they bandy about equally artificial constructs themselves as if they were any more legitimate.

When you come right down to it terms like "Bavarian" or "Catalonian" mean exactly the same thing as "Germany" or "Spain" but just on a smaller scale, and the question is how small do these invented territorial subdivisions have to go before the dissenting voices within their boundaries can be legitimately ignored when it comes to things like national independence referendums?

In principle as small as it gets by itself. City states. Happened to be the rule in ancient Greece - the claimed cradle of democracy. Nedless to say, that easy it was not, sinc eonly 5-15% of the poulaiton of a Greek polis actually held the status of citizens, but i explained all that before, and repeatedly so.


The more important and relevant question is how to keep big players from eating smaller ones. That is the one question I so far have not heard a convincing answer to, nor do I claim that I have one. Hoppe, Brennan, and others, tried to give answers, yes - but they are not realistic, in my opinion, are too much trusting in optimism and ignoring unplessant, hostile realities.


But that is also part of the truth I say: that if a people deciding to spolit away from a bigger union, mustknow that it then has to live by its own ability, ahs to come zup itself for the costs - and must by itself be able and strong enough to keep the sharks away. And I always said that. I said the Scottish are aelcome to fall out fo the Engolish union if theyx want - but they shall not expect that the eU embraces them with open arms (it would, but I am against it). The Catalunyans are free to end their union with the Spaniards, but they have no claim that Europe then must come up for their financial bills. Desriing Brexit is perfecly legaöl and fine, and I amk against the attempts of the EU to turn it into a punishment of these impertinent rebels darign to put their desire for sovereignty over the demand of Brussole to rule over them. The eu should soberly deal with them on a trade agreement basis, and dismiss all the attached, non-economic stuff - yeS: but beyond that, it either nwill work for the UK late roin, or not. And if Bavaria would vote to drop out of the federal structure oif germany, ti must care itself then to come up with its costs, eo9cnomic needfs, and protection.


You cannot claim to be sovreign and indeoendent if you depend on others and accept your sovereiongty suspended over economic and finciaol needs. Eiether oyu are independent, or you are not. Just claiming to be, but needing the bother to pays your bills - that is not what independence and sovereignty means.



In other words: it is about strength. And not every social, cultural, ethnic entity indeed is strong enough ti beocme truly independent and sovereign. Size has somethign to do with it, whether that is plltially ocrrect or not to point out. Its reality.



What is just not legitimate is that one group says because it benefits from living in a union with another group, the other group has no right to leave that union. If the latter wnats to leave, the first group only may seek to make the union more attroacve to stay in or to make itself more attraicve as a partner. That way the first group can and is allowed to try convincing the other to stay. But it has no claim to demand that, command that, even to use force to enforce that. That is nothing else but conquest, subjugation, imperialsim.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by August

Well I don't know about international law but reading this debate I am struck that while nations are seen by some as artificial and illegitimate constructs they bandy about equally artificial constructs themselves as if they were any more legitimate.

When you come right down to it terms like "Bavarian" or "Catalonian" mean exactly the same thing as "Germany" or "Spain" but just on a smaller scale, and the question is how small do these invented territorial subdivisions have to go before the dissenting voices within their boundaries can be legitimately ignored when it comes to things like national independence referendums?

If you want to look at a real world example, you can look at the 1980 and 1995 Quebec independence referendums.

They were in many ways illegal since the Canadian constitution has no provision dealing with a province breaking away. However, in practice there was no way to stop the province from holding the vote, unless you follow the Spanish example, impose martial law and arrest the whole bunch, but the thinking was that this would backfire and increase support.

If the referendums had won a province wide majority, yes there were groups ready to have other refefendums to have their regions remain in Canada, which would have been a nightmare.

In the end, both votes failed so we dodged the bullet.

[ikalugin]

Nonsense. Political prisoners?

People get arrested for misgendering others on social media.
People get sentenced with prison time over jokes.
There is massive politically driven censorship in tech companies that is driven by pure ideology rather than scientific theory such as the climate change. Ie:




You should really try to see a log in your own eye before trying to find a log elsewhere. If you can't, well, then you are a useful idiot for us, so I guess I am well off either way.

[Catfish]

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

[Veritas] " ... created by James Edward O’Keefe III who is an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations."

"Often his information is debunked, but it is too late as the information has already been watched by thousands or more."
Classic troll. Steam roll everyone with claims that cannot be debunked as fast as you create new lies. See Farage and the like.

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

Evidence please.

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

[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.