Discussion:
OT Climate Change Denial.
(too old to reply)
Titus G
2020-01-31 04:43:44 UTC
Permalink
"We in the news media, or what’s left of it, cannot simply treat
climate-change denial as we would disagreements over tax or health
policy. Even serious and violent disagreements over social and economic
policies can still be legitimate differences. But there is nothing
legitimate about climate change denial. It has the backing of a
trillion-dollar industry sector, but no actual credibility.
There are no experts to hear from. No counterpoints to be made.
It is all lies in the service of profit and power.
One day it will probably be a crime.
Until then, however, those of us who work in the media need to take a
hard look at our practices and ask ourselves whether we are really
serving our audience.
False equivalence will kill us all."
Brisbane Times. John Birmingham.
Chrysi Cat
2020-01-31 12:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
"We in the news media, or what’s left of it, cannot simply treat
climate-change denial as we would disagreements over tax or health
policy. Even serious and violent disagreements over social and economic
policies can still be legitimate differences. But there is nothing
legitimate about climate change denial. It has the backing of a
trillion-dollar industry sector, but no actual credibility.
There are no experts to hear from. No counterpoints to be made.
It is all lies in the service of profit and power.
One day it will probably be a crime.
Until then, however, those of us who work in the media need to take a
hard look at our practices and ask ourselves whether we are really
serving our audience.
False equivalence will kill us all."
Brisbane Times. John Birmingham.
I wondered what he was doing as our present caught up to the time the
protagonists of The Axis of Time departed from.

Which, incidentally, makes me wonder if this _is_ an off-topic thread at
all.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-31 15:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
"We in the news media, or what’s left of it, cannot simply treat
climate-change denial as we would disagreements over tax or health
policy. Even serious and violent disagreements over social and economic
policies can still be legitimate differences. But there is nothing
legitimate about climate change denial. It has the backing of a
trillion-dollar industry sector, but no actual credibility.
There are no experts to hear from. No counterpoints to be made.
It is all lies in the service of profit and power.
One day it will probably be a crime.
Until then, however, those of us who work in the media need to take a
hard look at our practices and ask ourselves whether we are really
serving our audience.
False equivalence will kill us all."
Brisbane Times. John Birmingham.
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birmingham

And we are interested in what a failed law student has
to say about because reasons.

It's not clear that John Birmingham is capable of even
posing the questions never mind understanding the answers.
But he sure seems to think he knows the correct actions.

Johnny was once arrested for holding up a piece of paper
that had the words "Free Speech" on it. He seems to have
learned the intended lesson pretty well.
Quadibloc
2020-01-31 17:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?
Outside the U.S., Holocaust denial is a crime.

But you are right that any criminalization of climate change denial should
exempt qualified climate science researchers, as otherwise such a law risks
obscuring the truth about the climate. It is only the unqualified layperson who
would be prohibited from engaging in heresy and error.

In fact, of course, if it ever became possible to make climate change denial a
crime in the Western democracies, it would no longer be necessary to do so, as
it would already have been marginalized to the point of being harmless. If you
have the votes to make climate change denial illegal, you have the votes to do
something about climate change despite the existance of denial.

John Savard
m***@sky.com
2020-02-01 18:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by p***@gmail.com
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?
Outside the U.S., Holocaust denial is a crime.
IIRC David Irving has repeatedly lost a variety of legal cases in the UK, but has not been convicted of a crime of Holocaust denial, because AFAIK there is no such specific criminal offense in the UK (although our laws have become less and less favourable to free speech recently under the guise of prosecuting hate speech). I'm pretty sure you could get away with Holocaust denial in Iran, too :-).
Post by Quadibloc
But you are right that any criminalization of climate change denial should
exempt qualified climate science researchers, as otherwise such a law risks
obscuring the truth about the climate. It is only the unqualified layperson who
would be prohibited from engaging in heresy and error.
In fact, of course, if it ever became possible to make climate change denial a
crime in the Western democracies, it would no longer be necessary to do so, as
it would already have been marginalized to the point of being harmless. If you
have the votes to make climate change denial illegal, you have the votes to do
something about climate change despite the existance of denial.
John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-01 18:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by p***@gmail.com
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?
Outside the U.S., Holocaust denial is a crime.
IIRC David Irving has repeatedly lost a variety of legal cases in the UK, but has not been convicted of a crime of Holocaust denial, because AFAIK there is no such specific criminal offense in the UK (although our laws have become less and less favourable to free speech recently under the guise of prosecuting hate speech). I'm pretty sure you could get away with Holocaust denial in Iran, too :-).
He was sentenced to 3 years in Austria but deported and barred future
entry after 13 months. There have been others successfully prosecuted
in Germany, France, and Switzerland.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
But you are right that any criminalization of climate change denial should
exempt qualified climate science researchers, as otherwise such a law risks
obscuring the truth about the climate. It is only the unqualified layperson who
would be prohibited from engaging in heresy and error.
In fact, of course, if it ever became possible to make climate change denial a
crime in the Western democracies, it would no longer be necessary to do so, as
it would already have been marginalized to the point of being harmless. If you
have the votes to make climate change denial illegal, you have the votes to do
something about climate change despite the existance of denial.
John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-01-31 23:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Titus G
"We in the news media, or what’s left of it, cannot simply treat
climate-change denial as we would disagreements over tax or health
policy. Even serious and violent disagreements over social and economic
policies can still be legitimate differences. But there is nothing
legitimate about climate change denial. It has the backing of a
trillion-dollar industry sector, but no actual credibility.
There are no experts to hear from. No counterpoints to be made.
It is all lies in the service of profit and power.
One day it will probably be a crime.
Until then, however, those of us who work in the media need to take a
hard look at our practices and ask ourselves whether we are really
serving our audience.
False equivalence will kill us all."
Brisbane Times. John Birmingham.
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?
One can argue for some time around 1980 when our incarceration rate
started to go through the roof, or it could be shortly when you need
to show what amounts to an internal passport to board an airliner, or
you can pick your own tipping point.
Post by p***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birmingham
And we are interested in what a failed law student has
to say about because reasons.
It's not clear that John Birmingham is capable of even
posing the questions never mind understanding the answers.
But he sure seems to think he knows the correct actions.
Johnny was once arrested for holding up a piece of paper
that had the words "Free Speech" on it. He seems to have
learned the intended lesson pretty well.
k***@outlook.com
2020-02-01 17:07:52 UTC
Permalink
New Yorker mag has a cartoon with 2 dinosaurs talking, and one is worried about a comet he sees in the sky, but the other is a comet-denier.

As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
J. Clarke
2020-02-01 18:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@outlook.com
New Yorker mag has a cartoon with 2 dinosaurs talking, and one is worried about a comet he sees in the sky, but the other is a comet-denier.
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.

Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-01 22:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by k***@outlook.com
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since
I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face
overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
She didn't. She called her a Russian "asset". She probably intended
that to be taken wrong, but it's a term that means specifically
someone helpful to Russia, who may or may not be conscious of that
helpfulness. I suppose I'm a South Korean asset in that sense, even
though I'm pretty sure I've never communicated with a South Korean
intelligence agent.

Tulsi Gabbard seems to me an isolationist. Someone like Clinton for
whom intervention is just another policy option would probably
understand American isolation as allowing Russian (and Chinese, and
...) triumph, and have trouble seeing it as having any other goal.
Post by J. Clarke
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.
Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so. In office, he started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1] It seems that
his campaign never got around to linking up with the Russians in a
useful way, so I suppose there was no fire, but there was a *lot* of
smoke, and it wasn't unreasonable to go look.

I didn't pay attention to complaints about Obama bowing at the time,
so can't evaluate the analogy.

Joe Bernstein

[1] Thinking about his term so far, Trump's enthusiasm for dictators
in general has turned out to have surprisingly clear limits. Yes, he
fights with our allies, but he also fights with dictators - Kim and
Xi for example. He's signed legislation unfavourable to Putin. He's
obviously more *comfortable* with dictators than with elected
politicians, and more inclined to say nice things about them, but it
isn't obvious to me that his actions as president are based on that,
so this particular bit of the smoke seems to have been a clear false
alarm.
I suppose, in a way, this speaks *for* Trump. In this regard he
doesn't let his personal preferences get in the way of his governing.
But I can't blame my side for assuming he meant what he said, back
when the whole Russia probe thing got started.
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
, although this has
since turned out to have limits, as has Trump's enthusiasm for
dictators in general. (He's also managed to fight with Kim and Xi,
for example, despite also effusively praising them.)
J. Clarke
2020-02-01 22:53:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Post by k***@outlook.com
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since
I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face
overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
She didn't. She called her a Russian "asset". She probably intended
that to be taken wrong, but it's a term that means specifically
someone helpful to Russia, who may or may not be conscious of that
helpfulness. I suppose I'm a South Korean asset in that sense, even
though I'm pretty sure I've never communicated with a South Korean
intelligence agent.
Tulsi Gabbard seems to me an isolationist. Someone like Clinton for
whom intervention is just another policy option would probably
understand American isolation as allowing Russian (and Chinese, and
...) triumph, and have trouble seeing it as having any other goal.
Post by J. Clarke
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.
Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
I suspect they exerted themselves to affect every election. So what?
Russia has a vested interest in who runs the US, and the US prides
itself on free speech--I guess that that's only for non-Russians
though. And yeah, the law this and the law that and the law is an
ass.

Russians didn't vote. Russians didn't interfere with the vote.
Russians tried to convince people to vote their way.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
Post by Joe Bernstein
In office, he started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1]
And this is an issue because? Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it. Russia _should_ be our ally against China. But Harvard fucked
that up real good.
Post by Joe Bernstein
It seems that
his campaign never got around to linking up with the Russians in a
useful way, so I suppose there was no fire, but there was a *lot* of
smoke, and it wasn't unreasonable to go look.
I didn't pay attention to complaints about Obama bowing at the time,
so can't evaluate the analogy.
Joe Bernstein
[1] Thinking about his term so far, Trump's enthusiasm for dictators
in general has turned out to have surprisingly clear limits. Yes, he
fights with our allies, but he also fights with dictators - Kim and
Xi for example. He's signed legislation unfavourable to Putin. He's
obviously more *comfortable* with dictators than with elected
politicians, and more inclined to say nice things about them, but it
isn't obvious to me that his actions as president are based on that,
so this particular bit of the smoke seems to have been a clear false
alarm.
I suppose, in a way, this speaks *for* Trump. In this regard he
doesn't let his personal preferences get in the way of his governing.
But I can't blame my side for assuming he meant what he said, back
when the whole Russia probe thing got started.
The thing is, with a dictatorship, to change anything you have to
convince the dictator to change. The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
Quadibloc
2020-02-02 00:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.

So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 00:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Kevrob
2020-02-02 02:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.

We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454

"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.

It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 03:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.
So? It was just as much "aggression" as anything that Russia has
done.
Post by Kevrob
We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
So? It was still aggression and did not result in a war, cold or
otherwise, between the US and Argentina.
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
Post by Kevrob
It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.
And how is that grounds for a cold war between the US and Russia?
Kevrob
2020-02-02 04:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.
So? It was just as much "aggression" as anything that Russia has
done.
Post by Kevrob
We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
So? It was still aggression and did not result in a war, cold or
otherwise, between the US and Argentina.
The Argies might have had a complaint that ehile we tried
to broker peace, and weren't active belligerents, we were
just shy of that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
When the textile and shoe factories started moving south,
you might have said so. NE is still losing jobs and
people to the SunBelt.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.
And how is that grounds for a cold war between the US and Russia?
I don't think a "cold war" with Russia is wise, and NATO expansion
right up to Russia's borders, while possibly well-intentioned, was
bound to cause a reaction among Russian/Soviet nationalists. If
Russia had gone down the Yeltsin road, the Kasparov road, it might
actually be in NATO, now.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 14:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.
So? It was just as much "aggression" as anything that Russia has
done.
Post by Kevrob
We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
So? It was still aggression and did not result in a war, cold or
otherwise, between the US and Argentina.
The Argies might have had a complaint that ehile we tried
to broker peace, and weren't active belligerents, we were
just shy of that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/
Coulda shoulda woulda. There is not at this time any cold war between
the US and Argentina. By your logic there must be. This is called
disproof by contradiction.
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
When the textile and shoe factories started moving south,
you might have said so. NE is still losing jobs and
people to the SunBelt.
Jobs moving from one locality to another is a "cold war"?
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.
And how is that grounds for a cold war between the US and Russia?
I don't think a "cold war" with Russia is wise, and NATO expansion
right up to Russia's borders, while possibly well-intentioned, was
bound to cause a reaction among Russian/Soviet nationalists. If
Russia had gone down the Yeltsin road, the Kasparov road, it might
actually be in NATO, now.
Soviet doesn't matter. There is no Soviet. Soviet is gone. It's
ancient history. There are children today whose parents have never
existed in a period in which there was a Soviet Union. The contention
was that there must be a cold war between the 2020 United States and
the 2020 Russia because of "Russian aggression" in two nations, both
bordering on Russia, that have chosen not to belong to NATO.

NATO "expanded right up to Russia's borders" because Estonia and
Latvia asked to join and busted their butts to meet the criteria. It's
not like NATO engaged in a war of conquest or something.

If the Harvard Business School's "experts" hadn't stolen Russia blind
when the Russians asked for help with their economy, Putin might never
have been heard of. They were on that path--that's why we orbit
satellites with Russian engines and Lockheed is currently milking a
Russian aircraft design for all it's worth.

Quadibloc
2020-02-02 00:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
In that case, why wasn't West Germany ruled by someone worse than Adolph Hitler
when Hitler was removed from office?

Nature abhors a vacuum, it is true. But once you bring force into a country to
overthrow a dictator, then you leave it there to occupy the country until its
new government is solidly on its feet.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 00:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
In that case, why wasn't West Germany ruled by someone worse than Adolph Hitler
when Hitler was removed from office?
Well, among other things it was occupied by powerful military forces
that had previously pounded it to rubble and given every indication
that they weren't going to leave until they were happy with the new
government.
Post by Quadibloc
Nature abhors a vacuum, it is true. But once you bring force into a country to
overthrow a dictator, then you leave it there to occupy the country until its
new government is solidly on its feet.
That is not how dictators are pulled down in the modern world.
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-02 02:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Post by k***@outlook.com
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since
I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face
overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
She didn't. She called her a Russian "asset". She probably intended
that to be taken wrong, but it's a term that means specifically
someone helpful to Russia, who may or may not be conscious of that
helpfulness. I suppose I'm a South Korean asset in that sense, even
though I'm pretty sure I've never communicated with a South Korean
intelligence agent.
Tulsi Gabbard seems to me an isolationist. Someone like Clinton for
whom intervention is just another policy option would probably
understand American isolation as allowing Russian (and Chinese, and
...) triumph, and have trouble seeing it as having any other goal.
Post by J. Clarke
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.
Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so. In office, he started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1] It seems that
his campaign never got around to linking up with the Russians in a
useful way, so I suppose there was no fire, but there was a *lot* of
smoke, and it wasn't unreasonable to go look.
I didn't pay attention to complaints about Obama bowing at the time,
so can't evaluate the analogy.
Joe Bernstein
[1] Thinking about his term so far, Trump's enthusiasm for dictators
in general has turned out to have surprisingly clear limits. Yes, he
fights with our allies, but he also fights with dictators - Kim and
Xi for example. He's signed legislation unfavourable to Putin. He's
obviously more *comfortable* with dictators than with elected
politicians, and more inclined to say nice things about them, but it
isn't obvious to me that his actions as president are based on that,
so this particular bit of the smoke seems to have been a clear false
alarm.
I suppose, in a way, this speaks *for* Trump. In this regard he
doesn't let his personal preferences get in the way of his governing.
But I can't blame my side for assuming he meant what he said, back
when the whole Russia probe thing got started.
Some of those "not friendly to dictators" actions weren't Trump's
choice. The legislation aimed at Russia had enough votes that Congress
would have easily overridden a Trump veto. The situations with Kim and
Xi are more a matter of Trump getting pissy that he didn't get what he
wanted (or perhaps finally realized he was being played for a chump).
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Loading...