|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 15 2022 04:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 04:05 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 03:07 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2022 02:46 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 00:56 lestye wrote: Not sure if I'm living under a rock, but the weirdest part of this Russia-Ukraine thing is seeing how there's actually, legit tankies out there, and they're supporting Putin's Russia for some reason? A large portion of the public has disengaged from the MSM because the MSM is not trustworthy. The polls show the MSM's approval rating to be in the gutter. So people turn to alternate sources, some of which are unfortunately even worse than the MSM. That's the situation though and part of the blame lies squarely with the MSM for losing the public's trust. You have the causality backwards. They’re not leaving mainstream media because it’s unreliable but because it’s reliable but they don’t agree with what it is reliably reporting. It used to be that the news was the news, whether or not you liked it. Nixon was a crook, just how it is. I mention Nixon because after Watergate there was a deliberate effort by the right to create their own counter media in order to allow people to pick their own news. https://web.archive.org/web/20110703074050/http://gawker.com/5814150/People have been given the ability to pick news that agrees with their underlying biases. That doesn’t mean the news that they disagree with is unreliable, it means that the biases are unreliable. The mainstream news is as trustworthy as ever in the sense that it is worthy of trust. The lack of trust is user error. I think there are enough examples by now of scandals that turned out to be nothingburgers that we can say the media is unreliable (whether because of bias or otherwise) and therefore not worthy of trust. From there we can infer that the reason people are turning to other sources of info is because the media is untrustworthy. And the media is partly to blame because they chose the path of trumped up scandals and hysteria over reliable information. Opinion articles tend to be dramatic, for ratings and clicks. The issue is many people can not seperate fact from opinion. Take lots of the stuff you write, you will say something did not happen with Trump when it did but he was not arrested or senatw decided not to impeach.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is but I think my statements of what Trump did or did not do account for the difference between fact and opinion.
On March 15 2022 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 02:46 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 00:56 lestye wrote: Not sure if I'm living under a rock, but the weirdest part of this Russia-Ukraine thing is seeing how there's actually, legit tankies out there, and they're supporting Putin's Russia for some reason? A large portion of the public has disengaged from the MSM because the MSM is not trustworthy. The polls show the MSM's approval rating to be in the gutter. So people turn to alternate sources, some of which are unfortunately even worse than the MSM. That's the situation though and part of the blame lies squarely with the MSM for losing the public's trust. Could you please give a few examples of conservative non-MSM news sources that are more reputable than MSM news*? I'm unfamiliar with many of those conservative non-MSM sources, but I'd like to be educated on this, because I'm hoping you're not saying that Alex Jones and OAN are more accurate than CNN. *MSM news technically includes Fox News, which is far and away the least accurate MSM news source, so I'd like to temporarily remove Fox from comparison, as that would set the bar much lower for overall MSM reliability.
I'm not sure that there are conservative non-MSM sources that are more reputable or reliable than MSM sources, but I think they are reliable enough to be taken into account as a counterweight or different explanation of events than what the MSM is peddling. Basically, all minimally reliable sources should be taken into account (including MSM sources).
Aside from that my point is that because of the MSM's reliability problems, it is partly to blame for people abandoning it in droves. And I don't think Kwark's point about there being competing sources of biased news really addresses the core reliability problem.
|
On March 15 2022 11:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 04:14 JimmiC wrote:On March 15 2022 04:05 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 03:07 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2022 02:46 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 00:56 lestye wrote: Not sure if I'm living under a rock, but the weirdest part of this Russia-Ukraine thing is seeing how there's actually, legit tankies out there, and they're supporting Putin's Russia for some reason? A large portion of the public has disengaged from the MSM because the MSM is not trustworthy. The polls show the MSM's approval rating to be in the gutter. So people turn to alternate sources, some of which are unfortunately even worse than the MSM. That's the situation though and part of the blame lies squarely with the MSM for losing the public's trust. You have the causality backwards. They’re not leaving mainstream media because it’s unreliable but because it’s reliable but they don’t agree with what it is reliably reporting. It used to be that the news was the news, whether or not you liked it. Nixon was a crook, just how it is. I mention Nixon because after Watergate there was a deliberate effort by the right to create their own counter media in order to allow people to pick their own news. https://web.archive.org/web/20110703074050/http://gawker.com/5814150/People have been given the ability to pick news that agrees with their underlying biases. That doesn’t mean the news that they disagree with is unreliable, it means that the biases are unreliable. The mainstream news is as trustworthy as ever in the sense that it is worthy of trust. The lack of trust is user error. I think there are enough examples by now of scandals that turned out to be nothingburgers that we can say the media is unreliable (whether because of bias or otherwise) and therefore not worthy of trust. From there we can infer that the reason people are turning to other sources of info is because the media is untrustworthy. And the media is partly to blame because they chose the path of trumped up scandals and hysteria over reliable information. Opinion articles tend to be dramatic, for ratings and clicks. The issue is many people can not seperate fact from opinion. Take lots of the stuff you write, you will say something did not happen with Trump when it did but he was not arrested or senatw decided not to impeach. I'm not sure exactly what your point is but I think my statements of what Trump did or did not do account for the difference between fact and opinion. Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 15 2022 02:46 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 00:56 lestye wrote: Not sure if I'm living under a rock, but the weirdest part of this Russia-Ukraine thing is seeing how there's actually, legit tankies out there, and they're supporting Putin's Russia for some reason? A large portion of the public has disengaged from the MSM because the MSM is not trustworthy. The polls show the MSM's approval rating to be in the gutter. So people turn to alternate sources, some of which are unfortunately even worse than the MSM. That's the situation though and part of the blame lies squarely with the MSM for losing the public's trust. Could you please give a few examples of conservative non-MSM news sources that are more reputable than MSM news*? I'm unfamiliar with many of those conservative non-MSM sources, but I'd like to be educated on this, because I'm hoping you're not saying that Alex Jones and OAN are more accurate than CNN. *MSM news technically includes Fox News, which is far and away the least accurate MSM news source, so I'd like to temporarily remove Fox from comparison, as that would set the bar much lower for overall MSM reliability. I'm not sure that there are conservative non-MSM sources that are more reputable or reliable than MSM sources, but I think they are reliable enough to be taken into account as a counterweight or different explanation of events than what the MSM is peddling. Basically, all minimally reliable sources should be taken into account (including MSM sources). Aside from that my point is that because of the MSM's reliability problems, it is partly to blame for people abandoning it in droves. And I don't think Kwark's point about there being competing sources of biased news really addresses the core reliability problem. "MSM" / "Legacy News" used in a derogatory fashion is hogwash. Reuters/TheAP are "mainstream" news that exist on a different field than CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or what have you, because the latter are entertainment-news. If Reuters/TheAP/WSJ/BBC aren't reporting on a news story, it's probably not a story. They are trustworthy mainstream news. They generally are quick to correct stories or acknowledge errors in judgement.
|
On March 15 2022 08:13 Mohdoo wrote: One thing that has been fascinating about Russia getting hammered by this ordeal is seeing them call in their compromised folks like Gabbard. The bat signal couldn't be any more obvious. Calling in the favors in a time of need is as clear as day. Weird to see, but also encouraging to know they are sweating.
Gabbard may not be 100% anti-Russia 100% of the time, but it is a silly conspiracy theory to call her "compromised." There's no evidence for the claim.
|
On March 15 2022 11:35 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 08:13 Mohdoo wrote: One thing that has been fascinating about Russia getting hammered by this ordeal is seeing them call in their compromised folks like Gabbard. The bat signal couldn't be any more obvious. Calling in the favors in a time of need is as clear as day. Weird to see, but also encouraging to know they are sweating. Gabbard may not be 100% anti-Russia 100% of the time, but it is a silly conspiracy theory to call her "compromised." There's no evidence for the claim. I agree with this. She is a grifter first and foremost. "Bioweapon lab leaks" and "denazifying Ukraine" are pretty popular in conservative circles which she is aligning herself with. Which sucks, because I thought she was pretty good in her first DNC debates.
|
On March 15 2022 10:51 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2022 06:46 lestye wrote:On March 15 2022 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2022 03:23 lestye wrote:On March 15 2022 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2022 00:56 lestye wrote: Not sure if I'm living under a rock, but the weirdest part of this Russia-Ukraine thing is seeing how there's actually, legit tankies out there, and they're supporting Putin's Russia for some reason? The Republican base had to do a weird 180 when Trump required them to be supportive of Russia because Russia supported Trump. It shows that their opinions are not supported by their personal beliefs but by what their authoritive figurehead says. I know about Republicans, I'm talking about tankies. Like they seem to be advocating Russian imperialism because they distrust NATO/United States imperialism so much? I'm probably the closest to being the resident "tankie" and I don't advocate Russian imperialism. I do think it's only rational (particularly for oppressed peoples) to distrust NATO (and/or it's constituent nations and the IMF) and opposition to US imperialism is necessary to any reasonable worldview. I'm curious for an example of what you think is "tankies advocating Russian imperialism"? Very left/communist people I follow on Twitter that buy into Russian going after neonazis and/or justified invasion because NATO is evil. Can you present an example rather than your interpretation/paraphrase of what they said? The revolutionaries (or "tankies") in the US I'm familiar with have a dialectical analysis that is unfavorable to the US and NATO and which understands (to the degree it can with the available information) the rationale for Putin's actions. It doesn't advocate or even justify the invasion, but it does understand it better than the internet psychoanalysis we've seen a lot of from Westerners. stuff like this I don't know what you think that is an example of but it doesn't strike me as "advocating Russian imperialism" or "buy[ing] into Russia going after neonazis and/or justified invasion because NATO is evil." at all. He sardonically suggested that the West's attempt to utilize its economic hegemony through sanctions is counterproductively accelerating its diminution.
|
On March 15 2022 09:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 03:23 lestye wrote:On March 15 2022 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2022 00:56 lestye wrote: Not sure if I'm living under a rock, but the weirdest part of this Russia-Ukraine thing is seeing how there's actually, legit tankies out there, and they're supporting Putin's Russia for some reason? The Republican base had to do a weird 180 when Trump required them to be supportive of Russia because Russia supported Trump. It shows that their opinions are not supported by their personal beliefs but by what their authoritive figurehead says. I know about Republicans, I'm talking about tankies. Like they seem to be advocating Russian imperialism because they distrust NATO/United States imperialism so much? See my previous post/theory. Dan and Jimmy provided stuff that I think ties in/augments it, although I’d diverge a wee bit personally too. I’m in a fair amount of real hard left tacking pages and insofar as my anecdotes prove anything there’s a ridiculous amount of tankie support. I use the word support quite deliberately. As a quite distinct phenomenon from ‘its complicated’ thru to ‘but what about the West equivocation’, full on ‘this is a good thing’ nonsense. There is choice in the matter, sometimes, or to varying degrees. A Chinese person may be functionally restricted in accessing certain information, a Russian person may have pathways still open, but is more immediately surrounded by misinformation, or particular angles in the surrounding culture and mainstream media. Someone in the West is reasonably free to pick and choose. What guides those choices? Certainly an ability to personally curate your sources of information, a wider distrust of the mainstream feed into it. Even when I was a teen politics nerd. Which isn’t THAT long ago, mainstream narratives were considered largely ballpark accurate, or at least a springboard for subsequent ideological divergence. My left wing interpretation of x event may be different from whoever I’m talking to, we tended not to disagree on the event vaguely happening as reported. Conspiracies/theories were a fun, almost detached thing from the issues of the day. Yeah we’ll share what pet theory as to who shot JFK we subscribe to, and then we’d talk about the ‘real politics stuff’, they were more discrete whereas nowadays they seem rather blurred boundary wise. It’s frustrating as I’ve alluded to it a few times here, have yet to find it again a rare non paywalled paper! In this instance shared traits/rough psychological profile of people who tended to be attracted to conspiracy theories. It’s a bit old, so I think the blurring I referenced kind of comes into play, but the vague ideas remain, IMO solid. Swap out the reasonably small subset of people into the ‘classic’ conspiracy theories about a Flat Earth or the Moon landings being faked into a wider group of people who seek ‘alternative narratives’ From memory, and adding of my own takes 1. Not everyone’s that bright, interconnected geopolitics is complicated. Rather than accept its complexities and ‘I don’t know’, some folks seem to prefer to have the surety of being a confirmed idiot rather than admit to knowledge gaps. 2. The kind of pathological contrarian streak some people, as I mentioned before. 3. Kind of ties into 1. You see this with anti-Semitic conspiracies, to take one example, a conversion of a complex world of competing poles of power, ethics and conflicting vested interests into quite simplistic top-down narratives. Easier to mentally process despite being well, wrong. 4. The capacity to find holes on the internet where almost anything has enough other adherents to reinforce whatever it is you believe. 5. Ties more into conventionally intelligent/bright people, who would seem to be outliers in these wider trends. In terms of peer interactions though they’re used to being the smartest person in their primary/secondary school environment, or up to that. But eventually you’ll end up in an environment where you’re no longer at the top of the relative pile. So depending on how one is wired, you either accept this state of affairs or go into the world of ‘alternative facts’ where you can be an expert. I mean it’s crude and I’m generalising hugely but I hope my bollocks sparks some convo Idk about sparking conversation, but thanks for this, I found it really interesting, if a bit hard to follow.
I’ve noticed a phenomenon among young (e.g. high school) conservatives before where their underlying motivation seems to be a contrarian response to the liberal orthodoxy of their peers. They think they’re smarter than everyone around them (and sometimes they are!) so they tend to think “well if all these idiots think x, then the opposite must be right!” Nobody around them is smart enough to present good counter-arguments to their conservative positions, especially if they never verbalize them and just sit by themselves smirking about how dumb everyone is.
I’ve never been clear on the definition of “tankies” but I think a few people on the far left fall into a similar trap. They tend to think of themselves as immune to propaganda because of their leftist analytical tools, but then they wind up at conclusions like “Stalin was Good Actually” or some shit, and it seems obvious to me they’re not actually seeing through propaganda, they’re just contrarian.
I mean I appreciate the value of questioning the American narrative and I try to hear out anyone who’s telling me my assumptions are wrong, but at the end of the day, if you don’t have a problem with an unprovoked war of conquest by a European nation, I don’t know how you can be called anti-imperialist.
|
On March 15 2022 11:35 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 08:13 Mohdoo wrote: One thing that has been fascinating about Russia getting hammered by this ordeal is seeing them call in their compromised folks like Gabbard. The bat signal couldn't be any more obvious. Calling in the favors in a time of need is as clear as day. Weird to see, but also encouraging to know they are sweating. Gabbard may not be 100% anti-Russia 100% of the time, but it is a silly conspiracy theory to call her "compromised." There's no evidence for the claim. I don't think she's compromised, but she is certainly a Russian asset.
|
On March 15 2022 12:53 ChristianS wrote: I’ve never been clear on the definition of “tankies” but I think a few people on the far left fall into a similar trap. They tend to think of themselves as immune to propaganda because of their leftist analytical tools, but then they wind up at conclusions like “Stalin was Good Actually” or some shit, and it seems obvious to me they’re not actually seeing through propaganda, they’re just contrarian.
I mean I appreciate the value of questioning the American narrative and I try to hear out anyone who’s telling me my assumptions are wrong, but at the end of the day, if you don’t have a problem with an unprovoked war of conquest by a European nation, I don’t know how you can be called anti-imperialist. A lot of people figure out that one side of a quarrel is crap and conclude that the other side must be good. One country's militarism is murderous and unconscionable, so its adversary's militarism must be good. These news sources mislead you, so opposing news sources must be accurate (even when they're obviously lying). That political party are corrupt lying crooks selling us out, so this party must be the good guys. It's a wildly optimistic worldview.
Of course, there's a slightly more sophisticated trap for people who notice that both parties in a conflict can be crap: assuming that they're both equally crap and using that as an excuse to check out.
|
On March 15 2022 11:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 04:14 JimmiC wrote:On March 15 2022 04:05 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 03:07 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2022 02:46 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 00:56 lestye wrote: Not sure if I'm living under a rock, but the weirdest part of this Russia-Ukraine thing is seeing how there's actually, legit tankies out there, and they're supporting Putin's Russia for some reason? A large portion of the public has disengaged from the MSM because the MSM is not trustworthy. The polls show the MSM's approval rating to be in the gutter. So people turn to alternate sources, some of which are unfortunately even worse than the MSM. That's the situation though and part of the blame lies squarely with the MSM for losing the public's trust. You have the causality backwards. They’re not leaving mainstream media because it’s unreliable but because it’s reliable but they don’t agree with what it is reliably reporting. It used to be that the news was the news, whether or not you liked it. Nixon was a crook, just how it is. I mention Nixon because after Watergate there was a deliberate effort by the right to create their own counter media in order to allow people to pick their own news. https://web.archive.org/web/20110703074050/http://gawker.com/5814150/People have been given the ability to pick news that agrees with their underlying biases. That doesn’t mean the news that they disagree with is unreliable, it means that the biases are unreliable. The mainstream news is as trustworthy as ever in the sense that it is worthy of trust. The lack of trust is user error. I think there are enough examples by now of scandals that turned out to be nothingburgers that we can say the media is unreliable (whether because of bias or otherwise) and therefore not worthy of trust. From there we can infer that the reason people are turning to other sources of info is because the media is untrustworthy. And the media is partly to blame because they chose the path of trumped up scandals and hysteria over reliable information. Opinion articles tend to be dramatic, for ratings and clicks. The issue is many people can not seperate fact from opinion. Take lots of the stuff you write, you will say something did not happen with Trump when it did but he was not arrested or senatw decided not to impeach. I'm not sure exactly what your point is but I think my statements of what Trump did or did not do account for the difference between fact and opinion. Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 15 2022 02:46 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 00:56 lestye wrote: Not sure if I'm living under a rock, but the weirdest part of this Russia-Ukraine thing is seeing how there's actually, legit tankies out there, and they're supporting Putin's Russia for some reason? A large portion of the public has disengaged from the MSM because the MSM is not trustworthy. The polls show the MSM's approval rating to be in the gutter. So people turn to alternate sources, some of which are unfortunately even worse than the MSM. That's the situation though and part of the blame lies squarely with the MSM for losing the public's trust. Could you please give a few examples of conservative non-MSM news sources that are more reputable than MSM news*? I'm unfamiliar with many of those conservative non-MSM sources, but I'd like to be educated on this, because I'm hoping you're not saying that Alex Jones and OAN are more accurate than CNN. *MSM news technically includes Fox News, which is far and away the least accurate MSM news source, so I'd like to temporarily remove Fox from comparison, as that would set the bar much lower for overall MSM reliability. I'm not sure that there are conservative non-MSM sources that are more reputable or reliable than MSM sources, but I think they are reliable enough to be taken into account as a counterweight or different explanation of events than what the MSM is peddling. Basically, all minimally reliable sources should be taken into account (including MSM sources). Aside from that my point is that because of the MSM's reliability problems, it is partly to blame for people abandoning it in droves. And I don't think Kwark's point about there being competing sources of biased news really addresses the core reliability problem.
Don't you think it's problematic that people will turn to less accurate "news" sources, just because the more reliable ones don't fit the people's preconceived notions? It's confirmation bias.
|
Norway28280 Posts
Here in Norway, I've seen attitudes change towards NATO-membership among many who used to be skeptical. NATO membership hasn't ever really been a contentious issue for Norway - it has had widespread support, but our two leftmost parties with parliamentary representation have been negative. One such party - the socialist left party separated from our labor party in the early 60s over just this disagreement; the socialist left faction wanted neutrality through the form of a Nordic alliance with Sweden and Finland, while the labor party (and every other party at that time) wanted continued NATO membership.
I've seen debates the past two weeks however, indicating that this point of view has now changed. Significant elements of the leftmost groups in Norway have come to accept that NATO membership is overall beneficial. Now, this has for the past 50 years been a fairly dormant question. The leftmost parties in Norway have never been in a position where they can influence Norwegian foreign policy in any significant manner. I've voted for this party despite not wanting to leave NATO in every election, knowing that they're not going to have any real influence with regard to this question. However, that we now see many prominent members of said party publicly state that they're on the verge of changing their stance/have already changed stance is fairly significant in terms of indicating a change in mentality; this is a party that had 'leave NATO' as their initial raison d'être.
Putin's tactic of disinformation campaigns aimed at sowing discontent and disagreement, supporting authoritarians throughout Europe, or the more sadistic Belorussian 'push middle eastern refugees towards the polish border', all seemed successful to me in terms of fragmenting Europe and the west. But there also seems to have been a gross miscalculation in terms of how successful this had already been, and in terms of how horrified we've all been by the invasion, and so far, it has worked as a great unifier for all of Europe. There's a whole ton of big, important questions that cause massive disagreement and potential for fragmentation. As a Norwegian leftist, I've had a hard time finding points of agreement with many of our right wingers - be it regarding climate change responses, taxation rates, immigration or issues of being socially liberal. Now, this issue, seeming more important than those other ones (aside from climate change but I digress), unifies us. I have a friend who has been a bit of a Putin-bot - who has not taken covid vaccine, liked Trump, enjoys internet trolling, is skeptical towards the 'extreme social liberalization of the west' and certain western values, essentially, a guy who has consistently been somewhat drawn towards fascist ideals for the longest period of time. Even he, last time I spoke with him, was on a 'what the fuck is Putin thinking' line of thought, because he's appalled by the abhorrent unfolding crisis. This invasion has undone 8 years of sowed discontent and fragmentation, not just in Ukraine, but for much of the western world.
|
Absolutely.
I've always seen the rise of authoritarianism as one of the biggest challenges of our times, and anecdotally, this has done more to convince people of the danger than anything else could have. It's awful to say it while Ukraine burns, but in the long run Putin's gross miscalculation may end up being one of the least-worst outcomes for the whole world.
People to my right seem suddenly much more aware of the monster they've been in bed with, courting sketchy fringe groups and cheering on domestic baby-tyrants who attempt the same attacks on democracy that made Putin's rule possible. Now they realise it's not a game.
To my left, this has shattered people's illusions of a world where this can't happen, where military spending is wasteful imperialism and realpolitik is selling out. They're realising that the peace and security that allows us to dream about UBI and free college and universal healthcare is as brittle as glass if we can't protect it.
Putin has squandered authoritarianism's element of surprise. It's a really scary time, but in a weird way, I'm more hopeful than I have been in years.
|
Every time Trump does and interview I can not believe he became president of the USA. He says so much dumb shit that does not make sense even in the same paragraph. You do not need separate clips from different interviews you can just run him to talking to have him be an embarrassment. I do not understand the appeal at all.
They wanted to rebuild the Soviet Union," Trump said, adding: "That's what this is all about to a large extent. And then you say, what's the purpose of this?
"They had a country. You could see it was a country where there was a lot of love, and, you know, we're doing it because somebody wants to make his country larger or he wants to put it back the way it was when actually it didn't work very well."
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/trump-claims-putin-invaded-ukraine-113841928.html
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On March 15 2022 21:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: I have a friend who has been a bit of a Putin-bot - who has not taken covid vaccine, liked Trump, enjoys internet trolling, is skeptical towards the 'extreme social liberalization of the west' and certain western values, essentially, a guy who has consistently been somewhat drawn towards fascist ideals for the longest period of time. Even he, last time I spoke with him, was on a 'what the fuck is Putin thinking' line of thought, because he's appalled by the abhorrent unfolding crisis. This invasion has undone 8 years of sowed discontent and fragmentation, not just in Ukraine, but for much of the western world. I don't think you're right about that last sentence, even if it may seem so right now. If things don't escalate into something larger - and though we all hope and think it won't, there are many aspects of the situation where things already crossed some alarming lines - the perspectives will shift significantly after things settle (and there are several very different perspectives that I've seen take hold). No, I don't think there will be any sort of "Russia is actually good" shift, largely because as you kind of allude to that was never really a thing in that part of Europe, but look at the things that you noted as wedge issues and you'll find that Russia has very little to do with them, and the little influence it does have is overstated; the actual cause is internal political and economic problems facing Europe that are very real but also hard to pin blame on.
I think it's also worth looking at an important "unity event" in the US and how it played out - the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How that started, with a powerful sense of overwhelming patriotism, and how it played out after the first few years, at the very least shows that what may seem like deep unity now may end up being something very different after some thought is put into it.
We'll see what happens here, but I strongly doubt that the feeling of "overwhelming unity" will last more than a couple years, if that.
|
On March 15 2022 21:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: Here in Norway, I've seen attitudes change towards NATO-membership among many who used to be skeptical. NATO membership hasn't ever really been a contentious issue for Norway - it has had widespread support, but our two leftmost parties with parliamentary representation have been negative. One such party - the socialist left party separated from our labor party in the early 60s over just this disagreement; the socialist left faction wanted neutrality through the form of a Nordic alliance with Sweden and Finland, while the labor party (and every other party at that time) wanted continued NATO membership.
I've seen debates the past two weeks however, indicating that this point of view has now changed. Significant elements of the leftmost groups in Norway have come to accept that NATO membership is overall beneficial. Now, this has for the past 50 years been a fairly dormant question. The leftmost parties in Norway have never been in a position where they can influence Norwegian foreign policy in any significant manner. I've voted for this party despite not wanting to leave NATO in every election, knowing that they're not going to have any real influence with regard to this question. However, that we now see many prominent members of said party publicly state that they're on the verge of changing their stance/have already changed stance is fairly significant in terms of indicating a change in mentality; this is a party that had 'leave NATO' as their initial raison d'être.
Putin's tactic of disinformation campaigns aimed at sowing discontent and disagreement, supporting authoritarians throughout Europe, or the more sadistic Belorussian 'push middle eastern refugees towards the polish border', all seemed successful to me in terms of fragmenting Europe and the west. But there also seems to have been a gross miscalculation in terms of how successful this had already been, and in terms of how horrified we've all been by the invasion, and so far, it has worked as a great unifier for all of Europe. There's a whole ton of big, important questions that cause massive disagreement and potential for fragmentation. As a Norwegian leftist, I've had a hard time finding points of agreement with many of our right wingers - be it regarding climate change responses, taxation rates, immigration or issues of being socially liberal. Now, this issue, seeming more important than those other ones (aside from climate change but I digress), unifies us. I have a friend who has been a bit of a Putin-bot - who has not taken covid vaccine, liked Trump, enjoys internet trolling, is skeptical towards the 'extreme social liberalization of the west' and certain western values, essentially, a guy who has consistently been somewhat drawn towards fascist ideals for the longest period of time. Even he, last time I spoke with him, was on a 'what the fuck is Putin thinking' line of thought, because he's appalled by the abhorrent unfolding crisis. This invasion has undone 8 years of sowed discontent and fragmentation, not just in Ukraine, but for much of the western world.
Peace breeds complacency and people take peace for granted. They just assume it is some natural state that can’t actually be disrupted when it goes on for so long. Everything that is justified by “just in case” suddenly seems extremely unnecessary and unreasonable. It’s just ignorance. Russia reminding everyone peace isn’t some implied part of human existence helped bring people back to reality.
I wish the world were different, but it really isn’t. Evil really is out there. War is possible. Fascism can spread and become a problem.
I’m not really sure how to properly articulate this, but the gist of what I am saying is that people assume there is some invisible wall that fundamentally makes it impossible for “actual” bad things to happen. I dunno if it is some psychological process or what, but it feels like until they are not so gently reminded, it’s not just improbable to them, it isn’t real.
|
On March 15 2022 13:16 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 11:35 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 08:13 Mohdoo wrote: One thing that has been fascinating about Russia getting hammered by this ordeal is seeing them call in their compromised folks like Gabbard. The bat signal couldn't be any more obvious. Calling in the favors in a time of need is as clear as day. Weird to see, but also encouraging to know they are sweating. Gabbard may not be 100% anti-Russia 100% of the time, but it is a silly conspiracy theory to call her "compromised." There's no evidence for the claim. I don't think she's compromised, but she is certainly a Russian asset.
In the same sense that Biden is a Chinese asset for scaling back trumps trade war, and Tucker is a Russian asset for saying the US shouldn't join the war in Ukraine. Just because individual viewpoints, held independently and in good faith in the US, seem to align with Russia's interests sometimes, doesn't make it meaningful to call that person a "Russian asset."
|
Norway28280 Posts
On March 16 2022 01:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 21:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: I have a friend who has been a bit of a Putin-bot - who has not taken covid vaccine, liked Trump, enjoys internet trolling, is skeptical towards the 'extreme social liberalization of the west' and certain western values, essentially, a guy who has consistently been somewhat drawn towards fascist ideals for the longest period of time. Even he, last time I spoke with him, was on a 'what the fuck is Putin thinking' line of thought, because he's appalled by the abhorrent unfolding crisis. This invasion has undone 8 years of sowed discontent and fragmentation, not just in Ukraine, but for much of the western world. I don't think you're right about that last sentence, even if it may seem so right now. If things don't escalate into something larger - and though we all hope and think it won't, there are many aspects of the situation where things already crossed some alarming lines - the perspectives will shift significantly after things settle (and there are several very different perspectives that I've seen take hold). No, I don't think there will be any sort of "Russia is actually good" shift, largely because as you kind of allude to that was never really a thing in that part of Europe, but look at the things that you noted as wedge issues and you'll find that Russia has very little to do with them, and the little influence it does have is overstated; the actual cause is internal political and economic problems facing Europe that are very real but also hard to pin blame on. I think it's also worth looking at an important "unity event" in the US and how it played out - the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How that started, with a powerful sense of overwhelming patriotism, and how it played out after the first few years, at the very least shows that what may seem like deep unity now may end up being something very different after some thought is put into it. We'll see what happens here, but I strongly doubt that the feeling of "overwhelming unity" will last more than a couple years, if that.
Oh - this I agree with. I don't think this current unity will hold, not even close to the current level. BUT - the division we've seen for the past 5+ years (trump accelerated this, did not start it) also wasn't 'the norm', and I can picture those past 5+ years eventually looking like an outlier. I think my final sentence is a bit exaggerated too, I at least didn't mean to imply that 'now, all is good and well in the western world' - but more along the lines of 'Putin's invasion of Ukraine has done more to unite the west than what his prior campaigns of disinformation and fragmentation did in terms of causing disunity'.
It certainly depends what actions follow, anyway. In a similar vein to what I just argued, I think that Bush's invasion of Iraq did more damage to the feeling of unity than what 9/11 did to inspire such a feeling of unity.
|
On March 16 2022 02:40 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 13:16 lestye wrote:On March 15 2022 11:35 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 08:13 Mohdoo wrote: One thing that has been fascinating about Russia getting hammered by this ordeal is seeing them call in their compromised folks like Gabbard. The bat signal couldn't be any more obvious. Calling in the favors in a time of need is as clear as day. Weird to see, but also encouraging to know they are sweating. Gabbard may not be 100% anti-Russia 100% of the time, but it is a silly conspiracy theory to call her "compromised." There's no evidence for the claim. I don't think she's compromised, but she is certainly a Russian asset. In the same sense that Biden is a Chinese asset for scaling back trumps trade war, and Tucker is a Russian asset for saying the US shouldn't join the war in Ukraine. Just because individual viewpoints, held independently and in good faith in the US, seem to align with Russia's interests sometimes, doesn't make it meaningful to call that person a "Russian asset."
Calling her bullshit a viewpoint is way to kind. She spreading blatant misinformation the "why" is not known but it is fact that she is.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On March 16 2022 02:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 01:05 LegalLord wrote:On March 15 2022 21:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: I have a friend who has been a bit of a Putin-bot - who has not taken covid vaccine, liked Trump, enjoys internet trolling, is skeptical towards the 'extreme social liberalization of the west' and certain western values, essentially, a guy who has consistently been somewhat drawn towards fascist ideals for the longest period of time. Even he, last time I spoke with him, was on a 'what the fuck is Putin thinking' line of thought, because he's appalled by the abhorrent unfolding crisis. This invasion has undone 8 years of sowed discontent and fragmentation, not just in Ukraine, but for much of the western world. I don't think you're right about that last sentence, even if it may seem so right now. If things don't escalate into something larger - and though we all hope and think it won't, there are many aspects of the situation where things already crossed some alarming lines - the perspectives will shift significantly after things settle (and there are several very different perspectives that I've seen take hold). No, I don't think there will be any sort of "Russia is actually good" shift, largely because as you kind of allude to that was never really a thing in that part of Europe, but look at the things that you noted as wedge issues and you'll find that Russia has very little to do with them, and the little influence it does have is overstated; the actual cause is internal political and economic problems facing Europe that are very real but also hard to pin blame on. I think it's also worth looking at an important "unity event" in the US and how it played out - the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How that started, with a powerful sense of overwhelming patriotism, and how it played out after the first few years, at the very least shows that what may seem like deep unity now may end up being something very different after some thought is put into it. We'll see what happens here, but I strongly doubt that the feeling of "overwhelming unity" will last more than a couple years, if that. Oh - this I agree with. I don't think this current unity will hold, not even close to the current level. BUT - the division we've seen for the past 5+ years (trump accelerated this, did not start it) also wasn't 'the norm', and I can picture those past 5+ years eventually looking like an outlier. I think my final sentence is a bit exaggerated too, I at least didn't mean to imply that 'now, all is good and well in the western world' - but more along the lines of 'Putin's invasion of Ukraine has done more to unite the west than what his prior campaigns of disinformation and fragmentation did in terms of causing disunity'. It certainly depends what actions follow, anyway. In a similar vein to what I just argued, I think that Bush's invasion of Iraq did more damage to the feeling of unity than what 9/11 did to inspire such a feeling of unity. I think you're wrong on two fronts:
1. That the past 5-7 years or so of disunity within Europe are anomalous, out of the norm, or behind us. 2. That Russia's "campaigns of disinformation" have enough impact to significantly alter the political atmosphere that has said disunity.
I mean, do you really think Russia is responsible for, for example, a large portion of antivax sentiment or for people being opposed to "social liberalism" as you call it? You may find some poking at the periphery by your usual suspects, and even more sources aggressively pointing out the existence of said poking, but there would be nothing to poke at if the strife wasn't there in the first place. To think that, if only RT didn't exist everything would be much quieter - well, I simply don't think they have anywhere near that kind of reach. But you will get to see soon enough given that they've been quite thoroughly censored out of the English-speaking world and will most likely stay so.
In my view, the two key questions the various factions of Europe are in the process of having to confront, are:
1. What future relationship should exist with the United States? 2. What kind of economy does the future hold?
Questions for which Russia plays an important, but merely supporting, role. Until there's a meaningful resolution to these issues, I expect ebbs and flows of populist "disunity" sentiment for years and years to come.
|
On March 15 2022 21:47 Belisarius wrote: Absolutely.
I've always seen the rise of authoritarianism as one of the biggest challenges of our times, and anecdotally, this has done more to convince people of the danger than anything else could have. It's awful to say it while Ukraine burns, but in the long run Putin's gross miscalculation may end up being one of the least-worst outcomes for the whole world.
People to my right seem suddenly much more aware of the monster they've been in bed with, courting sketchy fringe groups and cheering on domestic baby-tyrants who attempt the same attacks on democracy that made Putin's rule possible. Now they realise it's not a game.
To my left, this has shattered people's illusions of a world where this can't happen, where military spending is wasteful imperialism and realpolitik is selling out. They're realising that the peace and security that allows us to dream about UBI and free college and universal healthcare is as brittle as glass if we can't protect it.
Putin has squandered authoritarianism's element of surprise. It's a really scary time, but in a weird way, I'm more hopeful than I have been in years.
I felt the same after January 6th attack on the capitol, although I know they're very different situations. The past 2 or 3 years has made it increasingly difficult to have faith in collective sensibility and goodwill. Here's to hoping though that this unity and purpose will last.
|
On March 16 2022 02:40 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2022 13:16 lestye wrote:On March 15 2022 11:35 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 15 2022 08:13 Mohdoo wrote: One thing that has been fascinating about Russia getting hammered by this ordeal is seeing them call in their compromised folks like Gabbard. The bat signal couldn't be any more obvious. Calling in the favors in a time of need is as clear as day. Weird to see, but also encouraging to know they are sweating. Gabbard may not be 100% anti-Russia 100% of the time, but it is a silly conspiracy theory to call her "compromised." There's no evidence for the claim. I don't think she's compromised, but she is certainly a Russian asset. In the same sense that Biden is a Chinese asset for scaling back trumps trade war, and Tucker is a Russian asset for saying the US shouldn't join the war in Ukraine. Just because individual viewpoints, held independently and in good faith in the US, seem to align with Russia's interests sometimes, doesn't make it meaningful to call that person a "Russian asset." China is not advocating or promoting Biden anywhere near Russia has gotten behind Gabbard.
Tucker isn't a Russian asset because he says the US shouldn't join the war in Ukraine, but he is a Russian asset for the sum of all his other pro-Russian talking points.
I don't think Chinese media has been promoting and praising Biden as much as Russia has been broadcasting Tucker.
Like, if Tucker was being paid off by Russia starting today, nothing would change. That's how bad its gotten.
|
|
|
|