Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)C
Posts
1
Comments
235
Joined
8 mo. ago

  • Wait wait wait... Islam is more protected by the state? Can you go into detail a bit there please?

  • There's no conflation there because there isn't a defined boundary between the two things you think I'm conflating.

    You're describing how you think things are, I'm describing how I think they are. Dismissing my perception as fantasy before considering it is the root of the difference of opinion. Have a go at the argument.

    Nobody is saying that wishing or speaking things into existence is effective. I think you must know that nobody is saying this? I'm trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you'll have to convince me at this point.

  • Can you walk me through a hypothetical scenario where what’s being reported here is going to change someone’s mind?

    I literally. Just did that. Did you read my comment?

    For politicians, words are actions, because that is how the law works. When a politician "takes action", they just move some words into a document, and start the process of whatever policy they are enacting. They use words to tell the treasury to release funds to the local council which can be spent on road improvements, they don't dig up the potholes themselves. Now, before they can take these actions, they have a lot of discussion about what needs to be done, this might include saying something like "I think we need to address potholes in our roads," and that is an important part of the process. Similarly, denouncing Trump is an important part of the process of divesting from the USA.

    Also - I'm afraid this doesn't work as an example of media enforcing biases. This is a specific report about a specific thing a specific person has said. The tone of the report is neutral and the report is factual. I think seeing bias here may be, ironically, a result of your own confirmation bias.

  • Will this change anyone’s opinion on the matter? No.

    I guess that's where we differ. I don't agree. If even one person's mind is changed by what Steinmeyer said then you are wrong in what you say.He is the president of Germany, his words are important enough to make it into Reuters, and therefore a great many people are going to hear what he says. For some of them this might be the first they're hearing about the US efforts in Vietnam/Greenland/etc. and they will realise that the US is indeed destroying the world order, and that will be thanks to Steinmeyer speaking about it, and news agencies reporting on what he says. That's just one feasible example of how this might have an effect. There are infinite other possibilities.

  • The are so many layers to that word.Ioannes -> Johannes -> Jan -> Janke -> Yankee -> Yank -> Septic tank -> SeppoFrom the ancient Greek name for "John", through Dutch, into English as an insult against other English speakers, then finally through Aussie rhyming slang to make it completely unrecognisable.

  • Do you think politicians would influence public opinion if they could? I believe politicians would pay nearly any price to be able to do that. I also think that anyone telling you that politicians are not in the business of influencing public thought are either very naive or lying to you, your link above notwithstanding. I'm not thinking of influencers, I was thinking of propaganda, which is when a politician attempts to influence public thought. Sometimes it's very clumsy, sometimes it's very slick. Some times it's ineffective, others not so much.

  • The core claim I'm making is that political discourse is the primary means of moving the Overton window. Now politicians operate within it, sure. And they form a part of the discourse, too. And if you think politicians aren't interested in the power of shifting the Overton window then I wonder how you interpret the existence of propaganda for example?

  • That's not right. The Overton window shifts based primarily on political discourse. Politicians saying things has an (often measurable) effect.

  • No, you're not, but the other commenter is coming across as blinded by their own self righteousness.

  • What part of what I said entitles you to imply I would want more "enablists" in the EU? I am asking because if we've misunderstood each other that badly then we might need to calibrate a bit. For context: I'm a UK citizen, who wanted to remain despite having misgivings about the EU (from a leftist perspective, ie neoliberalism, the nature of NATO etc.) I still think we should rejoin ASAP even if it means a worse deal than we had.

    I think the next election here is looking like it will be fought between Polanski and Farage. If we get Polanski (and I sincerely hope we do) then you will get your EU - friendly, socialist leader of Britain, for whatever that will be worth at that point. It's still four years away and the situation at the moment is volatile internationally. I don't expect there to be any meaningful change quickly enough to make a difference, probably. But it's nice to hope.

    The broad sweep looks like the current world order is shifting very quickly, and the genocide enabling of the people who were supposed to be the good guys is a big part of that. Unfortunately it looks like that's just causing even worse guys to get hold of power.

  • I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

  • I'm glad you're able to criticise him. The cunt.

  • Mate, Bardella, Meloni, and the AfD are all right wing nuts. I'm sorry, putting the UK in the same bin as Hungary just because Farage lives here is nonsense.

  • I mean the EU member countries have their fair share of anti EU mainstream politicians. They are far from a curiosity these days.

  • Just fyi you're quoting a neonazi there.

  • It's absolutely not pure delusion. That's absolutely hyperbole.There's no definitive metric for "who is the better country", because the number of different methods of measuring that are on a similar order of magnitude as the number of crimes committed.We could go back and forth all day, all week, all year, shouting 'Tiananmen Square' and 'MKUltra' at each other and prove absolutely nothing, and in the end we would just look like USA and China stans, which I'm not. In this case, China does not have any moral high ground from which to decry the US's current imperialism, so they can fuck off. I'd be saying the same thing if a US senator complained about China's genocide of the Uyghurs. They are no better and can fuck off with that.

  • 100%. A big part of growing up and taking responsibility is recognising and unlearning the propaganda you were subjected to as a child, if that's even possible.