Page 67 of 153
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:09 pm
by Starmaker
I suspect Russia okayed this. For weeks after the crash, hired commenters attacked everyone suggesting it might be a terrorist plot. Now that the Turks are BACKSTABBING TRAITORS!!1! NEVAR FORGET, Egypt has seen an opportunity to lift the travel ban. Egypt was the most affordable destination; Turkey, the second most affordable. The [roubles per dollar] exchange rate is through the roof. The tourism industry is collapsing (I know it because I work there). The so-called [provincial] middle class can't help but notice that they can't afford to go abroad anymore.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:35 am
by Longes
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:07 pm
by Username17
It just means that the US got serious about getting a UN resolution together. Remember that the fact that the Russian Federation needs Syrian port access was a red line for a veto on any potential UN resolution. As long as the Russian Federation needed the ports and "not Assad" couldn't guaranty that those ports would stay under Russian control, the Russian Federation would veto any and all resolutions authorizing force of any kind that called for "not Assad" to take over when things were finished.
Frank Trollman, 2013 wrote:The Syria example is laughable on the face of it, because the killings in Syria are not failing to get international media attention (as of this posting, there are three stories about the human misery in Syria on CNN's homepage and four on the BBC's). They are failing to get a UN resolution for military intervention because The Russian Federation still needs Syrian port access in order to protect their sea lanes from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.
The United States dropping its regime change demands simply means that they are serious about getting a resolution through the security council. That they have decided that getting an actual UN resolution is worth more than being able to troll Russia saying "Why are you vetoing a UN resolution against ISIS and making all those refugees all sad face bro?"
Which means: Oh shit, we're going to war.
-Username17
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:48 pm
by hyzmarca
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_214
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_891
It happens. It turns out that carrying giant containers full of jet fuel is slightly dangerous.
FrankTrollman wrote:
Yeah, the timing is weird. But the acquittal is actually kinda more weird. These are laws that she breaks
all the time. Like, literally every single day her political party crosses the legal line of what is illegal hate speech in her country. She is explicitly the banner holder of a political movement that is the
direct descendant of the fascist movement those laws were created to eradicate. The
only way that she can avoid arrest and imprisonment is by claiming that a distinction exists between what she stands for and the forbidden ideology. But no distinction exists or ever has existed.
Her
actual defense in this trial is that when she said horrible things about "Muslims" she
actually meant "some small group of specific (yet unnamed) people who happen to be Muslims" and not "Muslims." That's ridiculous. She
obviously didn't mean that, and none of her supporters thought she meant that, and no one else did either. That semantic shell game was come up with
years later and served no purpose but to boggle prosecution with a tongue twister.
But it's like how Jeb! flagrantly violated election laws with his flatly illegal election finance structure. No one expects him to go to jail for that, even though he obviously should. There are certain laws that conservative politicians are simply expected to be allowed to break.
The National Front of France is a fascist movement. They are
constantly in violation of France's de-Nazification laws. Constant. And there is a general understanding that they are allowed to break those laws so long as they don't cross some rather ill-defined lines. Better to let the brown shirts contest elections as a permanent minority party than exclude them from public discourse altogether I suppose.
My assumption is that when the National Front became the plurality (if still minority) party in France's EU parliament, that some parliamentarians thought the understanding was void and it was time to start swinging the book around. And then when the National Front face planted in the regional elections and failed to get any of the regions at all, the judge said "Meh. Back to status quo I suppose."
-Username17
To be fair, hate speech laws are extremely difficult to balance against the need for open political discourse, and democratic societies probably shouldn't have them at all. They're more suited to dictatorships.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:05 pm
by Schleiermacher
I'm inclined to agree, but on the other other hand, if I go around saying all Muslims should be killed, and you go on a shooting spree one day and kill six Muslims, if a causal link can be proven I don't think I'm the only one who feels that I should be accountable for that somehow, even if I didn't make any spesific suggestions. But that might be covered by existing laws that don't have anything to do with 'hate speech' per se?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:56 pm
by DSMatticus
I do not think political discourse benefits from being so open that it permits calls for the death of, internment of, or disenfranchisement of a group of people. It is self-evident that the Jewish people have the same rights as everyone else, and anyone who openly advocates denying them those rights is advocating a very real, very unforgivable tragedy - the likes of which we've seen before, and should endeavor to avoid repeating whenever possible.
Hate speech laws are something of a delicate issue. Not as delicate as their detractors want everyone to think - remember PR's constant "another innocent man in jail over feel-good leftist hate speech laws! All he did was call her a dyke! While snatching the glasses off her face and breaking them in a blatant act of violence and intimidation"? But as hazy as you think the line may be, ultimately there is a point at which bigotry becomes the advocation of tyranny. There's a spectrum of racist bullshit from "I hate Muslims," to "Muslims are savages and they are destroying this country," to "we need to round up all the Muslims and put them in camps," and while deciding what to do about the first or the second can be difficult, it is not at all a tough decision to decide what to do about the third. You lock that person the fuck up, because Muslims have the same rights you do and attempting to deprive them of those rights should absolutely be a criminal act.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:50 pm
by Blade
- Le Pen was acquitted for this.
- Gilles Boudrouleix, a right-wing politician who said to a journalist that "maybe Hitler didn't kill enough Romas" was acquitted as well (on the grounds that it was not meant to be a public declaration)
- A 18 years old high school student who twitted pro-Daech messages was sent to prison for two years.
Hate speech laws are indeed hazy, but generally speaking as long as you're supporting the majority over a minority (preferably one that's not protected by the majority), you're clear.
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:31 pm
by tussock
Law found not to apply to rich and powerful people, news at 11.
Legal protections and rights found not to apply to poor and powerless people, news at 11.
Laws pretty much designed to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless in the first place, news at 11.
News at 11: Puppy rescued from drain by fire service, licked face of owner. Dawww.
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:11 pm
by Stahlseele
Ukraine nearking Bancruptcy.
Poland near civil war and polish military police under orders of the government took a leader of a nato anti-spy facility in a night action.
Germany in the middle of a gigantic right jump in europe.
Somehow, i don't see things ending well . .
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:13 pm
by Username17
Poland didn't break into a NATO facility and change the locks, installing a hand picked puppet of the new right wing government. They did that to a Polish/Slovakian contractor that does classified contract work forNATO. It's still a terrifying abuse of power and an international scandal. But they haven't technically invaded a NATO facility.
-Username17
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:52 pm
by Stahlseele
Other News that make living in europe seem unpleasant right now:
In Belgium a nuclear reactor that is, i think, about 100km from here, cought on fire. In a non nuclear part, yes, but it had to be shut down anyway.
And that was not even one week after it had been powered up again. Why was it powered down to begin with? Because the actual reactor casing has several thousand "micro"fractures of up to 30cm length in it and it had leaked radiation once before already if i remember correctly.
And in germany, in the 3rd attempt, after the night of terror in paris, our own secret police people finally pushed the unconditional saving of any and all connection data through.
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2015 10:26 pm
by Ancient History
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:33 pm
by Kaelik
So what's going on in greece now?
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:30 am
by Ancient History
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:35 am
by DSMatticus
Kaelik wrote:So what's going on in greece now?
I know this is a bit delayed, but outside of the refuge crisis there hasn't really been any newsworthy happenings yet. So far, Greece's government has only been asked to humiliate itself with token gestures of submission. The "reform" implementations should begin this month or the next, depending on how quickly they can
crush what little remaining spirit is left in the Greek people smooth out any kinks in the political process.
Right now, unemployment is still about 1 in 4. Greece's creditors are demanding massive pension cuts and that banks begin seizing homes that are in default. I wish I was making that last part up, but I'm not; right now, Greece has some very generous protections in place that have helped people make it through this crisis without losing their homes. Greece's creditors want those protections gone, which will directly result in a wave of foreclosures and the seizure of a bunch of property by Greek banks, who (let's be realistic) will probably be forced to turn around and sell it to Greece's creditors at prices just slightly above nothing.
This was seriously one of the sticking points in the last round of negotiations. I'm not even joking. Greece and its creditors are arguing about how many people to kick out of their homes. I believe they ended up reaching a compromise that would protect most people under the poverty line, but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the Greek government weren't whittled into conceding more ground on that point as implementation proceeds.
But like I said, none of this has happened yet. Greece's economic woes will probably be news again in February and March when the reforms hit.
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:08 pm
by Longes
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:00 pm
by name_here
Okay, so the very first source email I found is someone emailing Clinton to say that Libyan advisers say France was supporting the rebellion because they're afraid of a gold-backed Libyan currency competing with the dollar and Euro on the strength of having seven billion dollars worth of gold.
Since that's kind of an obviously unworkable and nonsense plan, I am strongly inclined to believe that the email shows the Libyan leadership was delusional rather than anything about NATO motives.
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:42 am
by Longes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... -the-ussr/
“You are forced to make a particular kind of movie,” Lucas said to Rose, complaining about the need to make profitable films. “I used to say this all the time when people — you know, back when Russia was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And they’d say, oh, but aren’t you so glad that you’re in America? I said, well, I know a lot of Russian filmmakers, and they have a lot more freedom than I have. All they have to do is be careful about criticizing the government.”
That... was an odd comment.
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:12 am
by Starmaker
Longes wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... -the-ussr/
“You are forced to make a particular kind of movie,” Lucas said to Rose, complaining about the need to make profitable films. “I used to say this all the time when people — you know, back when Russia was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And they’d say, oh, but aren’t you so glad that you’re in America? I said, well, I know a lot of Russian filmmakers, and they have a lot more freedom than I have. All they have to do is be careful about criticizing the government.”
That... was an odd comment.
Nothing odd about it. WaPo even helpfully provides a clarification. He says it's awesome to be able to make whatever the fuck you want regardless of how profitable or unprofitable it might be. That's a perfectly understandable position. Hell, I'd take that deal. He is, of course, dead wrong about the actual facts -- it's not just not criticizing the government, a fuckton of tropes and ideas were banned because they didn't sit well with the officials -- but that's because he relies on
existing Russian filmmakers, who, unlike
potential Russian filmmakers, self-select for being fine with taking state funding in exchange for censorship, on account of the Russian cinema industry not having made a profit in a generation.
And of course, Lucas's toothless Romanticist politics could do well in just about any country, provided he's cleared as politically acceptable beforehand. Selling a Rebels vs the Evil Empire narrative to
Soviets is ricockulously easy. I mean, here's Han Solo. He doesn't hesitate to shoot, either.
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:55 am
by Mechalich
There are certain countries, France is one, that split the different and have a state-supported film industry to provide greater artistic freedom for filmmakers.
Of course the reality in the US is that you do't have to make profitable films if your films are suitably prestigious and award-winning on the festival circuit and at the major awards events. There are a number of well-known indie directors in the US who don't really care about making a profit. The only trick is that the budget for indie films is very limited and as a result there's certain kinds of films.
In Lucas's case, I suspect he's still pissed about having to finance Red Tails by himself since Hollywood wouldn't support that movie. Which is a shame really, with a little bit of studio-backed editorial control that could have been a much better movie.
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:26 pm
by Eikre
With a little studio-backed editorial control, Episodes I-III could have been much better movies, too. It was Lucas's innate propensity for marketable children's pap and glimmering post-production that likely got the executive meddlers off his back and which wrote him the blank check to fuck up his own magnum opus. Maybe what Lucas dreams of is not the opportunity to make a film without being held accountable for the profits, but for the opportunity to make a film without being held accountable for its quality.
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:16 am
by ...You Lost Me
Wrong thread, Eikre.
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:27 pm
by erik
Nope. Correct thread.
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:33 pm
by ...You Lost Me
Rip. I can't read.
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:46 pm
by hyzmarca
So, apparently, Finland has crazy Neo-Nazi vigilantes now.
https://www.rt.com/news/328851-finland- ... nt-patrol/
I don't know if I'm more dismayed by that, or by the fact that when some people point out that forming neo-Nazi groups to beat up immigrants is not a healthy response to what happened in Calogne, Conservative Europeans respond by posting memes about how feminists love Muslim cock.
When the hell did America become the non-racist non-sexist one?
