[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[PseudoStupidity]

I do read Al-Jazeera, too, and definitely because sometimes it's useful to have another perspective. I don't read it every day.

But for information on French electoral politics, French newspapers are probably the best source.

Why would a newspaper being based in France make it have better information on French politics? That's like thinking the NYT would have better information on US electoral politics. What even makes a source better or worse to you? A French paper would be expected to cover everything about France, even local stuff, but they would not be expected to be a better (more truthful? Has the politics I like? Full frontal on every page?) source.

Also, genuinely surprised you read AlJazeera. Though I'm kind of surprised you hyphenate it given you've probably seen their logo, URL, or name in that case. Or are you so racist that you needed to add a hyphen, like it's Elvish or some shit. Where did the hyphen come from, dead!?

[Kaelik]

I would personally call it Al Jazeera myself, for word reasons, but I would also call it Le Monde.

But I'm sure people who actually read it all the time would make fun of me.

But anyway, it would actually be interesting to conceptualize what makes a good news source.

Don't actually read Le-Monde so don't have an opinion on if they suck or not.

[deaddmwalking]

Why would a newspaper being based in France make it have better information on French politics?

A French newspaper reports on the things that happen in France with a level of detail that other sources don't. One of the first articles I read when I first started reading the newspaper was about a group of electrical workers that were trapped for several hours (iirc). I'm not sure that would have made my local paper if it happened in Knoxville (which I also read).

French newspapers cover what happens in France to a greater degree than any paper based elsewhere. As long as 'local coverage' is a thing local papers are going to have more of it than others. The NY Times has a whole lot of stuff about life in New York that I don’t find particularly interesting or relevant to me but they cover New York city in great depth. It's not because the NY times is necessarily better than other papers - but other papers have different local areas that they cover instead of New York.

As for hyphenating, al is an article equivalent to the in English, but when combining multi-word phrases into a single entity we use a hyphen. While it's clearly inconsistent on when we hyphenate (like e-mail) I like hyphens and use them more than strictly required. I might use Al Jazeera but wouldn't use AlJazeera like the url when referring to them under normal circumstances. I happen to like Al-Jazeera better because in my mind, right or wrong, it's a multi-word phrase like 24-hour.

[Kaelik]

Yeah that's a fucking dogshit reason that also clearly shows your just doing "them brown weirdos" shit because you literally use LeMonde without a hyphen and that's the same fucking article compounding.

[PseudoStupidity]

There are two understandable ways to write AlJazeera, there's combined (the style they use in their logo, which is fucking everywhere on their media), or Al Jazeera, which is the organization's actual name (and also two words in Arabic). It's weird to add a hyphen to it, it's not hyphenated. It's double weird that somebody who reads it would hyphenate it because it is not displayed with a hyphen ever afaik.

I do want to know what dead thinks makes a news source good or not. He did regurgitate the thing I already said about why local news is good (it covers local events that other outlets don't cover, so if you want local French news you should go to French media), but he said there is such a thing as a "best source" for huge-ass world events like elections in one of the most powerful countries in the world and I would love to know what it means to be a "best source" for news. Is it just having an opinion I like? Is it having more interviews with primary sources? Is it being the most factual? Taking a more "neutral" tone? Writing exclusively in limericks?

[deaddmwalking]

but he said there is such a thing as a "best source" for huge-ass world events like elections in one of the most powerful countries in the world and I would love to know what it means to be a "best source" for news.

I don't think that's what I said.

I think the closest to anything like that was:

But for information on French electoral politics, French newspapers are probably the best source.

I have looked at a few other French news sources specifically because they were banned in Russia, but I recommended Le Monde because it has a significant amount of English-language content. Since this is an English-language based forum, I would anticipate that expecting people to read French would be a significant barrier to utilizing the resource.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

but he said there is such a thing as a "best source" for huge-ass world events like elections in one of the most powerful countries in the world and I would love to know what it means to be a "best source" for news. Is it just having an opinion I like? Is it having more interviews with primary sources? Is it being the most factual? Taking a more "neutral" tone? Writing exclusively in limericks?

No, the "best source" for French news is obviously the less foreign sounding one of two that comes up in a quora answer as the second result of the google search "french version of new york times" that you suddenly did so that you can pretend to be widely informed while also trying to get a dig in in defense of the NYT.

Wait, sorry, sorry, I meant "French version of New-York Times"

[deaddmwalking]

That's very weird, NPP.

I have made it very clear previously that I read the New York Times. People here make fun of me for getting all of my opinions from what they consider to be a conservative news source pretending to be progressive. Of the three major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, Washington Post) it's the one I like best.

Is it surprising that when reading a French newspaper, I value the same things? It has the largest circulation and it provides the type of information that I value. I also happen to know that it makes many articles available in English because I frequently have to change from the English Language Version to the French Language version when I visit the website (no doubt based upon my location settings). Since I don't regularly read other French newspapers, and when I do I read in French, I don't know how much English language content they have.

[MGuy]

Quick correction. I don't make fun of people who have read or reads NYT. I make fun of dead for being a ghoul lacking in morality pretending to be human. It just so happens that the ghoul in question uncritically parrots every talking point FROM the NYT.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

...[Pretends he regularly reads Le Monde]...

Here is the thing.

You can say you read this paper all the time. I can't prove that you do not.

But because you are borderline illiterate and unable to actually derive and communicate meanings from articles beyond the headline, and on a deeper dive the first and last sentences. That makes it VERY easy for me to claim that you very clearly do not, and as usual are just once again posturing with the pretense of knowledge after a 2 second google search followed by a skim where you failed to even understand the results of the search anyway.

Because the results of whatever it is you DO actually do, look more like what I am describing. You quoted Le Monde at me, selecting bits of article that were NOT INFORMATIVE. The ONLY value of those quotes was as an attempt to prove you read it. If this wasn't just empty knowledge posturing, then it is WORSE because it means after years of intermittently following this stuff you still understand LESS THAN NOTHING.

In fact that you understand SO LITTLE that you even ignoring differences in interpretation or politics you cannot even recognize what is and is not actual RELEVANT CONTENT.

Also getting the names of all these foreign news sources you read subtly wrong doesn't help your claims of regular familiarity either.

[Kaelik]

"I a fluent french speaker who also refers to LeMonde as one word even though the actual newspaper explicitly makes it two words" does in fact make this somehow even weirder.

Like, if you were some single language american reading "LeMonde" in english on the website where you see a url, it would still be weird to call it LeMonde, but like, someone could see how you got there.

"I'm a fluent french speaker who reads many things in french all the time, but also, I simply jam them articles right into the word you know, like when lebateau crashed into lepont" does make it even weirder. Is the M silent? l'onde?

[PseudoStupidity]

but he said there is such a thing as a "best source" for huge-ass world events like elections in one of the most powerful countries in the world and I would love to know what it means to be a "best source" for news. Is it just having an opinion I like? Is it having more interviews with primary sources? Is it being the most factual? Taking a more "neutral" tone? Writing exclusively in limericks?

No, the "best source" for French news is obviously the less foreign sounding one of two that comes up in a quora answer as the second result of the google search "french version of new york times" that you suddenly did so that you can pretend to be widely informed while also trying to get a dig in in defense of the NYT.

Wait, sorry, sorry, I meant "French version of New-York Times"

It was too specific to be wrong, that Google search checks out. Fucking perfect.

[deaddmwalking]

I have not claimed to a fluent French speaker, though I am working on it. Reading in a foreign language is easier than understanding it when spoken, or even speaking it yourself. But I have been to France and have successfully communicated in French. I read French newspapers to expose me to vocabulary that I wouldn't otherwise find myself exposed to.

I navigated to the English version of the website, referenced a couple of articles as the type of information you would find there, and provided them as quotes. It should be clear from my having said it multiple times, I don't read the English-language version of Le Monde.

Over 300 million people speak French, so it's not a particularly rare ability. Outside of this specific context (what's a good news source for French elections) it never comes up. I don't have any RPGs in French, nor do I participate in French-Language gaming forums.

This is just a weird place. You agree that you can't possibly prove that I don't read/speak/understand French to the level of being able to follow French news site and insist that I can't possibly because....apparently an elaborate lie is more plausible than saying 'here's something I googled that might help' - even though I do that regularly.

When people insist that something I know to be true about myself is false it makes them look ridiculous. I understand that people can make claims that are not true, especially when trying to present themselves as an expert. I am not claiming to be an expert in the French Language or French Politics, just someone that reads a French Newspaper and think it has relevance to one statement, to whit:

I'd like to see more on this but between Western media being deeply uninterested in elections that left wing parties win and the Olympics, its only trickling out to my regular news sources, if that.

It appears/appeared to me that these regular news sources don't include any based in France, and why would it? There are plenty of English-language news sources based in primarily English-speaking countries. I thought giving one a try would make sense.

Incidentally, I was wondering what newspaper is 'more foreign sounding' if I did google 'French version of the New York Times' the first thing that comes up is the New York Times articles in French Nos reportages en français. 7 of the 10 sources that come up directly tie back to the Times, and two of the remaining three (Amazon and Britannica) tie back to the Times. The only one that doesn't is a Quora answer that calls out Le Figaro as 'center-right'. I don't think that's more foreign sounding - the Marriage of Figaro is a well known Opera (Italian) and the name of a Disney character, so it strikes me as the LESS foreign-sounding.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I don't think that's more foreign sounding - the Marriage of Figaro is a well known Opera (Italian) and the name of a Disney character, so it strikes me as the LESS foreign-sounding.

This is why no one takes you seriously.

We literally could not prove that the first thought that pops into your head when you hear "Figaro" is to associate it with something foreign,

Until you in your totally oblivious stupidity right out of nowhere volunteer it in a bizarre unforced error you don't even recognize while you do it.

Also unforced error, I made some pretty unprovable very minor annoying claims about you, you SHOULD have just walked away, but you are STILL litigating it, you protest too much, you cannot help it, because I had attacked your performative self image, the one thing you are obsessed with.

[MGuy]

Dead in recent memory did a bunch of hand wringing about genocide. While that isn't the point where I stopped believing he had anything of worth to say (for me it was him posting that his wife believes poor people shouldn't get healthcare because communism) him lying about this French thing or even choosing to discuss l fixate on it wouldn't make the top 10 reasons why I would argue people should dismiss him.

I feel I should state explicitly because saying that "this" is why people don't take him seriously will be internalized by him and dismissed as "silliness" far more quickly than the actual problem I have him. It's that he is dismissive, or at best content, with the suffering of others.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I feel I should state explicitly because saying that "this" is why people don't take him seriously will be internalized by him and dismissed as "silliness" far more quickly than the actual problem I have him. It's that he is dismissive, or at best content, with the suffering of others.

I differentiate the silly self undermining statements from the monstrous vile statements, which I do take seriously.

He can be two things. One far more monstrous and vile than the other.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm very certain that people have misinterpreted what I have said (as well as what I say my wife said). Of course, that's to be expected when they keep insisting they know what I THINK therefore my words don't even matter.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Your words do matter that's the problem. Both for making a fool of yourself and exposing yourself as a monster, we don't have these opinions because of things WE said.

[PseudoStupidity]

I'll level with you here, ddm. I was half joking about you being racist for fucking up Al Jazeera's name (but your clarifications on it have only made it seem more like you were adding that hyphen because of racist beliefs you hold). The reason I think you're racist is because of your insane Great Replacement rant and your regular defense of US and Israeli racism.

People don't misinterpret what you say here, at least not regularly. It's just that the things you say here are fucking disgusting and everyone who reads your defense of things like genocide or racism ends up deciding you are shitty. The things you say actually mean stuff and people can understand that and then respond to your statements! When you say we need to cap the number of immigrants in the USA at 15% people correctly identify that as racism, because that is literally racism. Maybe stop saying horrible shit and people will stop treating you like you believe in horrible shit? Maybe just take an L once in a while and say "I should not have defended the genocide, and I was wrong when I said Joe Biden was trying to stop it." But you won't, because that would require admitting you ever did something bad (which is obviously fucking crazy behavior, everyone does bad shit sometimes). You're like Shitmuffin in this regard, right down to saying "nobody understands me! Why is everyone arguing with me in such bad faith!?" Are you going to tell us your notebook will prove you actually hate genocide?

[MGuy]

I'm very certain that people have misinterpreted what I have said (as well as what I say my wife said). Of course, that's to be expected when they keep insisting they know what I THINK therefore my words don't even matter.

I don't respond to imagined thoughts I respond to the things you posted. Things you've never walked back and that in your attempts to defend them you've only exposed that in fact you are personally disgusting. There are plenty of times you've let your mask slip and while I try to remember a few of the worst ones I'm sure there are more that I don't even recall. It doesn't matter though because as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow I am sure that given enough time dead will inevitably post just enough to show once again that he is in fact a ghoul pretending to be a human that parrots, uncritically, every article they see in the NYT.

[Kaelik]

deaddm is just the liberal version of every time Trump says something insanely racist and then says "I'm the least racist person, I don't have a racist bone in my body" and then gets mad when people call him racist. How can the mean media people say that he's racist, he told them that he's not racist! Why won't they listen to the things he said instead of imagining him saying he's racist and responding to that.

Turns out dead, people are not making up thoughts in your head to get to the conclusion that you are "dismissive, or at best content, with the suffering of others." They are in fact responding to the things you say, and say you do too.

If you respond to a genocide by making up delusional reasons to support the people doing it, you don't get to cop out and say "but I don't like genocide" and then get mad at people for "keep insisting they know what I THINK therefore my words don't even matter."

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Meanwhile.

The IDF decided that if they sacrifice a very few token rapists they can better block all other international intervention in their mass rape/torture/murder factories.

The Israeli public and IDF troops said no and rioted in favor of detanee rape. Openly on camera. The political higher ups, not behind the decision to try and throw a token crumb to international law to keep it busy, also came out pro captive rape and supported what amounts to (technically) both treasonous and mutinous rioters.

Also Israel almost certainly blew up some kids playing soccer, MAYBE by accident with their increasingly failing iron dome rockets. And blamed it (with the USA transparently lying in support) on the neighbors for more blatant attempts at casus belli. Which they immediately decided to use to attack EVERYONE including Iran again, including with two assassinations.

And of course, because Israel are such good faith peace negotiators who are definitely not the ones constantly stalling negotiations for DECADES... one of the assassinations was effectively the lead opposing peace negotiator. The killing of which is a NORMAL THING that NORMAL NATIONS will NORMALLY DO when they are the only peaceful side!

I mean they have also been very specifically targeting and methodically murdering all his grandchildren and exterminating his entire family bloodline during the entire length of the definitely in good faith peace negotiations up until now, but that was all just the teaser for getting the negotiations to a really good pro-peace place right?

Its been like just a week. Is Israel OK? Well, no, obviously not. Still the aircraft carriers should like, do a heavily armed police style wellness check. And keep the body cams on there's bound to be some meth head red neck level shit going down there internally right now.

[Kaelik]

Importantly, the current best info is that the bomb used to kill the person they were negotiating with was planted 4 months ago to kill him as soon as he came back to that location.

So just in case you were stupid enough to believe the last four months of Israel inventing New fake conditions, biden blaming hamas for not accepting the deal, then hamas accepting the deal, then Israel rejecting the deal and inventing a new fake condition... turns out the whole time they planned to kill the guy across the table from them as soon as he visited a specific guest house he was known for staying at.

[MGuy]

Just some random things I've heard that's going on in no particular order:
One of the members of their government asked another member of their government if he ACTUALLY thought it was ok to rape their prisoners to which the other guy said effectively 'YES!' with the follow up that he believed you can do ANYTHING to those people.

They've had to recall some of their own soldiers to handle the pro rape rioters.

Israeli leaders tried to visit the Golan heights after the incident (that I'd bet they caused but have heard no confirmation) and were chased out by everyone in the community.

The reason they gave for killing the negotiator was that he was doing his job and they didn't like it. They also killed him on Iranian soil. That negotiator was considered to be one of the more reasonable negotiators despite the fact that the IDF specifically were murdering his family.

Resistance leaders have already promised that they will be getting revenge. Specific threats against Netanyahu specifically have been made. I think Turkey made a statement about doing something or at least being against Israel in general.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

There is speculation among "the experts" about what retaliation for this will look like this time. The following points seem broadly agreed on.

1) It will be coordinated and multi-national. Everyone is mad, everyone will participate.
2) They will not politely arrange it with the USA like they did last time. That goodwill has been expended.
3) Even Turkey MIGHT participate with some sort of air support. This point has gone from "they would never actually..." to now "actually... they might".
4) If they stop short of war they feel the need (probably correctly) to demonstrate to the rabid population of Israel that they do not get to let their leaders keep doing this without personally experiencing major consequences.
5) 4 means that even if they restrict themselves to military targets it would have to be big.
6) In fact BIG is really the number one thing agreed thing among the experts.

Of course, the USA is already at the UN on the back of the assassination before any sort of clearly delayed and thought out response denouncing how Iran keeps escalating the situation. So they WILL media spin this as Iran and its evil minions engaging in an act of senseless unprovoked aggression. Which would just be silly if doing so did not help Israel use it to FURTHER escalate and maybe either get the war they want or drop a nuke on Lebanon/Iran (yes they HAVE been openly considering that, yes even Lebanon, yes that is VERY close to themselves). And THEN that rhetoric only further serves to draw the USA in and lose the election for the Democrats.