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
2020-02-03 00:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
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?
Germany doesn't have any statues of Rommel or Ribbentrop or Goering.

Amazingly, there are statues of persons involved in the Confederate rebellion
standing in the South, and in general, since the end of the civil war, it simply
has not been the case that white people in the South did not _dare_ to display
any sign of anti-black bigotry... for fear of serious consequences.

The result has been that black people in the South have continued to suffer.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 01:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
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?
Germany doesn't have any statues of Rommel or Ribbentrop or Goering.
Mostly because laws were enacted prohibiting it. I'm not clear on
whether those laws were home grown or imposed by their conquerors. And
they bloody should have one of Rommel. He was part of the plot to
kill Hitler and he took his own life rather than risking giving up
other conspirators under interrogation when it was clear that that had
failed.
Post by Quadibloc
Amazingly, there are statues of persons involved in the Confederate rebellion
standing in the South, and in general, since the end of the civil war, it simply
has not been the case that white people in the South did not _dare_ to display
any sign of anti-black bigotry... for fear of serious consequences.
The result has been that black people in the South have continued to suffer.
I hate to break it to you but they suffer in the North too, more so
than in the South in some ways. And there's plenty of bigotry of all
sorts to go around. You're out of the game since you don't live in
the US, but your kind of bigotry just just as bad as the rest of it.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-03 01:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
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?
Germany doesn't have any statues of Rommel or Ribbentrop or Goering.
Mostly because laws were enacted prohibiting it. I'm not clear on
whether those laws were home grown or imposed by their conquerors. And
they bloody should have one of Rommel. He was part of the plot to
kill Hitler
That's somewhat disputed.
"Rommel opposed assassinating Hitler. After the war, his widow maintained that he believed an assassination attempt would spark a civil war.[78] According to journalist and author William L. Shirer, Rommel knew about the conspiracy and advocated that Hitler be arrested and placed on trial. The historian Ian Becket argues that "there is no credible evidence that Rommel had more than limited and superficial knowledge of the plot" and concludes that he would not have acted to aid the plotters in the aftermath of the attempt on 20 July,[72] while the historian Ralf Georg Reuth contends that "there was no indication of any active participation of Rommel in the conspiracy."[79] Historian Richard J. Evans concluded that he knew of a plot, but was not involved."

Also the plotters were insisting on retaining conquered areas
Post by J. Clarke
and he took his own life rather than risking giving up
other conspirators under interrogation when it was clear that that had
failed.
Not true,
Hitler presented Rommel with the option of suicide or a trial and Rommel chose suicide because he knew his family would be punished and he'd have been found guilty and executed anyway.
It wasn't a matter of he committed suicide to avoid giving up the conspirators (and he was on the periphery of the plans at best)
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 03:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
I hate to break it to you but they suffer in the North too, more so
than in the South in some ways.
Ah, but this way they wouldn't have to move to the North where the whites were
still free, and thus a potential danger. So everyone who counts is happy. The
black people get equality, and the white people of the North, whose fault slavery
wasn't, don't have to put up with them.

In other words, I'm well aware that the situation is more complicated than this.

My gut reaction ignores the fact that the United States really didn't have much
choice when it came to getting all of its white people reconciled so the country
could get back to being strong and united. That it happened on the backs of
black people... is just how the world works.

In order for the United States to have done better, it would have to hae been
situated in a world without foreign enemies, in which it had the luxury of
idealism.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 04:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
I hate to break it to you but they suffer in the North too, more so
than in the South in some ways.
Ah, but this way they wouldn't have to move to the North where the whites were
still free, and thus a potential danger.
WTF are you on about?
Post by Quadibloc
So everyone who counts is happy. The
black people get equality, and the white people of the North, whose fault slavery
wasn't, don't have to put up with them.
Except that they moved to the North because that's where the good jobs
were. You gonna make Ford build the Rouge in Birmingham or something?
Post by Quadibloc
In other words, I'm well aware that the situation is more complicated than this.
My gut reaction ignores the fact that the United States really didn't have much
choice when it came to getting all of its white people reconciled so the country
could get back to being strong and united. That it happened on the backs of
black people... is just how the world works.
In order for the United States to have done better, it would have to hae been
situated in a world without foreign enemies, in which it had the luxury of
idealism.
In order for the US to have done better it would have had to figure
out an effective way to integrate former slaves into society instead
of just casting them to the wolves which is what happened in the real
world.
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:14:17 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.
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.
I don't know about today, but, in the late 70s, there was at least one
political party in Germany (West) that kept on and on about
"recovering lost territory".

And, no, they didn't mean East Germany. They meant East Prussia --
that is, northern Poland. Plus a part of Western Poland, the idea
being that Poland had been moved West to let the USSR grab a bit on
the East.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Robert Carnegie
2020-02-02 22:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
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.
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.
I don't know about today, but, in the late 70s, there was at least one
political party in Germany (West) that kept on and on about
"recovering lost territory".
And, no, they didn't mean East Germany. They meant East Prussia --
that is, northern Poland. Plus a part of Western Poland, the idea
being that Poland had been moved West to let the USSR grab a bit on
the East.
I think I sort of remember the West German government
saying something like that at reunification. I don't
know the right or wrong of that, but it wasn't liked
in Warsaw.
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 00:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
No, it isn't. But it should have been in 1983.

Argentina's actions led to the deaths of more than one innocent human. Once that
threshhold is crossed, nothing short of unconditional surrender should be
accepted. If the message that aggression is not tolerated sinks in, we will live
in a peaceful world.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 01:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
No, it isn't. But it should have been in 1983.
Yeah, more your of "let's you and him fight".
Post by Quadibloc
Argentina's actions led to the deaths of more than one innocent human. Once that
threshhold is crossed, nothing short of unconditional surrender should be
accepted. If the message that aggression is not tolerated sinks in, we will live
in a peaceful world.
So how many people have to die to bring about this "unconditional
surrender"? And how many of those were not involved at all and had no
say in the matter? And why are their lives worth so much less to you
than the life of that first "innocent human"?

Being drafted and sent to Vietnam would have done you a world of good.
You wouldn't be nearly so gleeful about sending other people to die
for your damned stupid _causes_.
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 03:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
So how many people have to die to bring about this "unconditional
surrender"?
Why should anyone have to die? Except maybe in the first such war.

In any subsequent ones, the mere appearance of one of our soldiers would result in
the enemy throwing down their weapons and surrendering _en masse_, thus ending the
war quickly.

I'm well aware that while it would be all well and good to deal with the world's
governments as if they were a bunch of misbehaving children, to deal with them
in this appropriate manner requires a greater disparity of military force than
is currently achievable.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 04:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So how many people have to die to bring about this "unconditional
surrender"?
Why should anyone have to die? Except maybe in the first such war.
The people who you want to "unconditionally surrender" are going to
take exception to surrendering. You are going to have to make them
stop taking exception. Generally speaking that results in them
becoming dead. Generally speaking they tend to shoot back and some of
them are accurate.
Post by Quadibloc
In any subsequent ones, the mere appearance of one of our soldiers would result in
the enemy throwing down their weapons and surrendering _en masse_, thus ending the
war quickly.
And why would the enemy do that?
Post by Quadibloc
I'm well aware that while it would be all well and good to deal with the world's
governments as if they were a bunch of misbehaving children, to deal with them
in this appropriate manner requires a greater disparity of military force than
is currently achievable.
Titus G
2020-02-03 04:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So how many people have to die to bring about this "unconditional
surrender"?
Why should anyone have to die? Except maybe in the first such war.
The people who you want to "unconditionally surrender" are going to
take exception to surrendering. You are going to have to make them
stop taking exception. Generally speaking that results in them
becoming dead. Generally speaking they tend to shoot back and some of
them are accurate.
In 1984, the USAF disclosed that it had dropped more tonnage of
explosives in the "North Korean War" than it had in the entire WW2. Each
of North Korea's six cities were flattened. One third of the civilian
population died and six plus decades later, they are still not a colony
of the USA. Of course, Fourbricks will discount these facts as illogical
being proof by isolated example
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
In any subsequent ones, the mere appearance of one of our soldiers would result in
the enemy throwing down their weapons and surrendering _en masse_, thus ending the
war quickly.
And why would the enemy do that?
Didn't they do that in Vietnam? Or was it Iraq?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
I'm well aware that while it would be all well and good to deal with the world's
governments as if they were a bunch of misbehaving children, to deal with them
in this appropriate manner requires a greater disparity of military force than
is currently achievable.
I will now fall over, mouth agape.
Kevrob
2020-02-03 06:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
No, it isn't. But it should have been in 1983.
Argentina's actions led to the deaths of more than one innocent human. Once that
threshhold is crossed, nothing short of unconditional surrender should be
accepted. If the message that aggression is not tolerated sinks in, we will live
in a peaceful world.
Last I checked, Canada was also a NATO member, and a Commonwealth
member, unlike the USA. What did Canada do?

[quote]

Canada has also refused to declare support for Britain's claim to sovereignty over the Falklands, saying that while any British attempt to retake the islands is an act of self-defense, the sovereignty issue should go to international arbitration.

[/quote] {from back in `82}

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/05/01/Canadian-military-aid-to-Britain-in-the-Falklands-dispute/2095389073600/

Kevin R
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.
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:20:07 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?
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.
Not if you are Republican.

If you are Republican, you declare victory, disband /their/ army,
allowing the troops to /take their weapons with them/, and then spend
a decade or two trying to calm things down enough to withdraw.

Whereupon ISIS break out, and you are right back in the thick of
things.

Then you announce a withdrawal, betray your allies, indulge in
personal vendettas, and -- find yourself right back in the thick of
things.

No pre-planning. Even before Trump, lack of pre-planning -- failure to
think -- was a prime Republican characteristic.

First in foreign policy, and then in domestic policy.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 19:20:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:20:07 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
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?
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.
Not if you are Republican.
If you are Republican, you declare victory, disband /their/ army,
allowing the troops to /take their weapons with them/, and then spend
a decade or two trying to calm things down enough to withdraw.
Whereupon ISIS break out, and you are right back in the thick of
things.
Then you announce a withdrawal, betray your allies, indulge in
personal vendettas, and -- find yourself right back in the thick of
things.
No pre-planning. Even before Trump, lack of pre-planning -- failure to
think -- was a prime Republican characteristic.
First in foreign policy, and then in domestic policy.
Whereas if you are a Democrat you bomb the living crap out of
everything, report "the body count" as if it's a game that you win by
keeping score, and when the public gets sick of your mess, elects a
Republican who then gets blamed for not winning.
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-02 19:44:13 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?
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
Oh, come now.

How can a person of your level NOT recognize that as false equivalence ?
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?"
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:22:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 18:07:43 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
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).
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?

Trump has /never/ realized he was being played for a chump. And he
never will. Indeed, if you asked him about it, he would assert that it
never happened. Even once. In his entire life.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 03:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.

I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-03 06:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup. Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday. We can hardly wait to vote for him again.

Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again. There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary. There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-02-03 08:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup.  Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday.  We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
You'd vote for a liar and a cheat...
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again.  There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary.  There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
...that's sad.

Loading...