Politics - your views

[Greengoop]

Grokipedia seems to be… interesting. Despite your regular AI goofs, the main issue I noticed seems like the AI doesn’t have a sense of priority, how it hyper focuses on random stuff it finds and takes it as the most important point of the topic. Other than that, it kinda feels like a word-to-word Wikipedia copy.

[Hunchman801]

Well, take the gender article, and you'll see it's quite different... but I don't want to open another can of worms.

[Steo]

I believe there's a special place in hell for those who, in order to get their point across, purposely target people who have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at stake. This is not only incredibly dumb and unethical, but also completely inefficient, as those who have a say in the matter will likely not be affected by blocked highways when traveling in their private jets. If anything, this will only turn popular opinion against them, and the only people who will support such actions are those who already agreed with them to begin with.

And yet, those types of actions are becoming more and more frequent. Perpetrators often grow convinced of their higher moral ground and therefore feel entitled to resort to any means necessary for their cause. Furthermore, even pure vandalism and gratuitous violence are now commonly justified and lauded by the far-left, on the grounds that, for example, some of the infrastructure they are destroying belongs to companies they associate with capitalism.

I was thinking this is the case myself personally. It's affecting people who have absolutely nothing to do with it, and of course it's going to turn those people against them if anything. Someone who was planning to travel abroad that day for example. They're going to be angry because those protesters caused them to miss their flight due to the disruption. They may have needed to be somewhere for an important reason, but instead, they are stranded here and also very likely won't be getting a refund from their airline either. I doubt such a person is going to join in and agree with the cause if all it's doing is affecting them negatively while they're trying to live their life.

As for the mention of graffiti in another part of your message, all I see all over the walls everywhere down even just walking down a canal bank is "FREE GAZA" spraypainted all over the place. Once again, isn't that going to annoy people who have nothing to do with it? Maybe they're tired of seeing things being vandalised in such a way just to "spread awareness", which I may add, does nothing to actively contribute to the cause. I'm starting to think some people just like being noticed more than actually doing anything useful.

I still can't get over the fact people are idiotic enough to want to allow Palestinians into Ireland illegally and break the law for them. I'm pretty sure a group of Palestinians being refused entry at the border for not having correct identification and documentation (as they should) is what caused that entire protest in the first place.

[EdgyRabbid]

Steo. where else are they supposed to go when their economy is in shambles?

(my mom said it was okay to talk about this)

[Steo]

Steo. where else are they supposed to go when their economy is in shambles?

While it's of course not ideal for the people affected by it, I don't think other countries that have nothing to do with it getting polluted or having to compromise regarding their laws (which are in place for a good reason) is the right answer. It goes without saying that an illegal immigrant is not allowed into the country for a reason, hence why they were refused at the border. All the protesting and causing chaos over here did not solve anything, only resulted in vandalism and affected others who were simply trying to get on with their day and live their lives.

[dr_st]

I believe there's a special place in hell for those who, in order to get their point across, purposely target people who have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at stake. This is not only incredibly dumb and unethical, but also completely inefficient, as those who have a say in the matter will likely not be affected by blocked highways when traveling in their private jets. If anything, this will only turn popular opinion against them, and the only people who will support such actions are those who already agreed with them to begin with.

And yet, those types of actions are becoming more and more frequent. Perpetrators often grow convinced of their higher moral ground and therefore feel entitled to resort to any means necessary for their cause. Furthermore, even pure vandalism and gratuitous violence are now commonly justified and lauded by the far-left, on the grounds that, for example, some of the infrastructure they are destroying belongs to companies they associate with capitalism.

Oh, yes, this is something I relate to strongly, since we have been experiencing this exact phenomenon.

This is just a very strong case of organized bullying. It conveys the message "if you don't cave in to my demands, I will make your life living hell". However it conveys them to third parties as you said, which makes it even more immoral: "If you don't join me in pressuring (the boss / the government / the corporation) to do what I want, I will make sure you suffer, so you BETTER join me, no matter whether you are supportive, neutral or maybe even opposed to my cause".

It is brought about by a combination of feelings of entitlement, higher moral grounds, the "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" attitude, and, in many case, feeling of impunity, because the authorities with the power to put a stop to these shenanigans frequently turn a blind eye (this phenomenon might be only particular to some countries / states).

The liberal bias of Wikipedia has been extensively documented, but until now the only alternative I knew of was Conservapedia, which promotes... Young-Earth creationism and climate change denial. Yeah, I'll stick to Wikipedia.

I stick to Wikipedia too, and have simply learned that I cannot trust it one zilch on any political issue, especially one along the conservative-liberal (a.k.a. right-left) axis.

[Steo]

It is brought about by a combination of feelings of entitlement, higher moral grounds, the "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" attitude

That alone highlights exactly why it's an issue. Black and white thinking: "you're either with us, or against us". A lot of people are very likely to keep to themselves and stay out of anything that they feel has "nothing to do with them". Now, once this starts affecting said people negatively, what happens then? Clearly they will rally against the cause out of frustration, as it's affecting them for no reason when they didn't even want any part in it, and now they've been dragged into it.

Myself being a partial example of the latter above, and while the scenario I've mentioned didn't exactly impact me personally, it still made me think of how nonsensical it actually is. "Let's get angry and cause disruption, riots, vandalism, and waste the time of the authorities when they have to deal with us." What has one achieved by doing so? Well, to me, they've just proven not to be very bright, extremely close-minded, with a sense of self entitlement is at such an unhealthy level that they need to be slapped off their moral high horse and back into reality. Such a person likely doesn't even know what they're standing for, just "following the leader". I wouldn't be surprised if it's all for attention, rather than any intention of "solving" anything.

[Pirez]

A lot of people are very likely to keep to themselves and stay out of anything that they feel has "nothing to do with them".

Now, once this starts affecting said people negatively, what happens then?

Ah, the good old :
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

"Let's get angry and cause disruption, riots, vandalism, and waste the time of the authorities when they have to deal with us."

The flaw in your argument is that the police is always on the side of peacefulness. Granted, that's supposed to be their job... Until it isn't. How's ICE going out for the Americans in the chat? Plus the myriads of repressed expression in lovely countries such as Russia, Serbia, Hungary and even France, where police brutality is often documented. They start shit up all the time.

What has one achieved by doing so?

I don't know about you, but protest, violent or not, gave us paid vacations and the women's right to abortion. You can also ask what would have happened in Nepal or Madagascar this year. Corruption didn't personnally affect the individuals, now, didn't they?

Well, to me, they've just proven not to be very bright, extremely close-minded, with a sense of self entitlement is at such an unhealthy level that they need to be slapped off their moral high horse and back into reality.

Realizing a situation is worrying and standing up for those affected is, I would argue, the sign that you are able to move past your field of view, on the contrary. Staying in line because "it has nothing to do with me (until it does and also god forbid I'm inconvenienced)". As such, I'd say that those kind of statement can easily be turned back on those who advocate for the status-quo.

[dr_st]

Plus the myriads of repressed expression in lovely countries such as Russia, Serbia, Hungary and even France, where police brutality is often documented.

Don't forget Great Britain! Or does that one not count?

[FanzotheBanzo]

@dr_st
It depends on your perspective, but I think that it doesn't count.

[Giant Chicken]

Supreme court allowed for SNAP funding to be blocked for the moment. The US also has been shut down for longer than ever in US history. This presidency sure has been... intresting, if anything. Hopefully SNAP will stop being shit on soon enough. :/

[RaypersonNikol]

Supreme court allowed for SNAP funding to be blocked for the moment. The US also has been shut down for longer than ever in US history. This presidency sure has been... intresting, if anything. Hopefully SNAP will stop being shit on soon enough. :/

Interesting is not the word I would use, but tbh yeah I can agree... it's been interesting.

[Hunchman801]

Taking over from here to avoid derailing that thread...

It's not that I have a particular disdain for Israel, it's that I just don't like anti-democratic practices/lobbying and corruption. I also don't think it's a problem whether Australia, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia or Azerbaijan are in Eurovision, in fact the only reason I think having Israel in it is a problem is because they're actively perpetrating a war/genocide and conquering Palestine. So: for me it's not really about topography, but more about shared values of democracy and freedom.

If you believe Israel's participation is problematic due to its actions in the Gaza war, how can you justify Azerbaijan participating, especially since you explicitly mentioned them? After all, Azerbaijan is a brutal authoritarian regime that celebrates murder on ethnic grounds and, just a few years ago, perpetrated the ethnic cleansing of an entire region, displacing its millennia-old inhabitants.

More broadly, it often makes me wonder about the inconsistencies in the wider public debate. There is a very strong movement to boycott Israel, yet many other countries accused of severe human rights abuses and the repression of minority populations seem to avoid the same level of scrutiny. There is certainly no shortage of such examples.

[Rsandee]

Taking over from here to avoid derailing that thread...

It's not that I have a particular disdain for Israel, it's that I just don't like anti-democratic practices/lobbying and corruption. I also don't think it's a problem whether Australia, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia or Azerbaijan are in Eurovision, in fact the only reason I think having Israel in it is a problem is because they're actively perpetrating a war/genocide and conquering Palestine. So: for me it's not really about topography, but more about shared values of democracy and freedom.

If you believe Israel's participation is problematic due to its actions in the Gaza war, how can you justify Azerbaijan participating, especially since you explicitly mentioned them? After all, Azerbaijan is a brutal authoritarian regime that celebrates murder on ethnic grounds and, just a few years ago, perpetrated the ethnic cleansing of an entire region, displacing its millennia-old inhabitants.

More broadly, it often makes me wonder about the inconsistencies in the wider public debate. There is a very strong movement to boycott Israel, yet many other countries accused of severe human rights abuses and the repression of minority populations seem to avoid the same level of scrutiny. There is certainly no shortage of such examples.

Yeah you are absolutely correct, and it's probably a good idea we brought the discussion to this topic. My reasoning is simple: I simply forgot. I know about the Nagorno-Karabakh situation but I'm not too familiar with it, I know Armenia controls it and Azerbaijan wants it. That's about it. Azerbaijan also wouldn't be allowed in the contest by that same logic I used to exclude Israel.

I forgot about it because there's simply so much conflict lately, with war in the Sudan not being talked about at all and me paying more attention to it, I didn't even realise the conflict with Armenia and Azerbaijan was still going on. I can read a bit between the lines and gain a sense of "what other countries" you are talking about, which is a fair assessment, but for me the focus lies on what is going on right now. I'm never going to burn myself on what happened in a previous century at this point, unless it starts becoming relevant again and these countries are eyeing for more territorial expansion.

Ten years ago I wouldn't really be in favor of banning certain countries from Eurovision, as it's just a song contest. I didn't particularly feel like banning Russia was an effective or necessary move for example, now I feel like treating Israel the same way we did Russia is kind of necessary in order to be consistent. That, and with conflicts rising up everywhere I do feel like we need to take a stance against countries such as Russia and Israel, as to not encourage authoritarian practices. I see it as a signal or a way to put public pressure on European leaders and corporations to discourage them from getting too friendly or involved economically with said countries.

[Hunchman801]

I know about the Nagorno-Karabakh situation but I'm not too familiar with it, I know Armenia controls it and Azerbaijan wants it. That's about it.

Azerbaijan actually gained full control of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 (fueled largely by Israeli weapons, ironically enough), but yeah, that was the case up until then.

I can read a bit between the lines and gain a sense of "what other countries" you are talking about, which is a fair assessment, but for me the focus lies on what is going on right now. I'm never going to burn myself on what happened in a previous century at this point, unless it starts becoming relevant again and these countries are eyeing for more territorial expansion.

You make a fair point about focusing on the present, but there are several other countries actively committing crimes against humanity and engaging in other forms of oppression right now.

Furthermore, your comment raises an interesting question: how much time needs to pass for an event to be considered a thing of the past? Let's consider a hypothetical scenario where Israel drives out the entire population of the Gaza Strip and effectively colonizes it. If we fast-forward two years, would you simply move on and stop boycotting them? If not, where do we draw the line? That's a tough question indeed...

Ten years ago I wouldn't really be in favor of banning certain countries from Eurovision, as it's just a song contest. I didn't particularly feel like banning Russia was an effective or necessary move for example, now I feel like treating Israel the same way we did Russia is kind of necessary in order to be consistent. That, and with conflicts rising up everywhere I do feel like we need to take a stance against countries such as Russia and Israel, as to not encourage authoritarian practices. I see it as a signal or a way to put public pressure on European leaders and corporations to discourage them from getting too friendly or involved economically with said countries.

I agree about the need for consistency, which makes me think there should probably be an actual legal framework for this established by governments. If countries passed laws regarding the exclusion of offending nations from international events, it wouldn't be left up to event managers to make their own subjective choices. This would avoid turning every event into a political battleground and allow the organizers to simply focus on the event itself.

[dr_st]

Furthermore, your comment raises an interesting question: how much time needs to pass for an event to be considered a thing of the past? Let's consider a hypothetical scenario where Israel drives out the entire population of the Gaza Strip and effectively colonizes it. If we fast-forward two years, would you simply move on and stop boycotting them? If not, where do we draw the line? That's a tough question indeed...

Yes, it is a tough one. Another tough, related question is - when does history start? In a certain area the dominant nation/group may have changed 3, 5, 10 times in the last 50, 200, 1500 years. Who would be considered "the original owner"? Who has a "given right" to that area? Can it even be defined?

One reasonable approach is - never mind the past, let's agree that in the present civilians should not be forcibly displaced. Great, but many people are willing to apply this selectively. What if someone moved into a disputed (or simply ungoverned) territory - how long until their presence is "legalized"? What if someone is mixing military infrastructure with civilian, and enacts military attacks directly from its civilian areas? Both these questions come up frequently in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as someone who experiences this more closely than most members here, I can tell you - these are not simple questions to answer.

I agree about the need for consistency, which makes me think there should probably be an actual legal framework for this established by governments. If countries passed laws regarding the exclusion of offending nations from international events, it wouldn't be left up to event managers to make their own subjective choices. This would avoid turning every event into a political battleground and allow the organizers to simply focus on the event itself.

In theory, yes. The problem is that no such 'legal framework' can exist without the joint consent of countries, and worse - it cannot be applied evenly, without all countries agreeing, which will never happen with the political division, conflicts of interest, and various forms of struggles between countries.

Case in point - as a Russian speaker, I am familiar with how many Russians feel extremely bitter that their country was excluded, ostracized and labeled as an evil aggressor for their invasion of Ukraine, and then they see that nothing of this sort is happening right now to Israel and the US, who have started a large-scale military offensive against Iran. I'm not going to get into whether this or that can or should be justified, but I can completely understand the feeling of these Russians. But who's going to "impose sanctions" on the US? The US itself? Europe? Japan? I suppose Russia can impose its own sanctions and refuse to deal with the US and Israel. Are those sanctions going to be felt? By whom?

The moral of the story - that international laws and treaties matter only as much as you have political, economical and military power to back them up. And there is a lot of power in unity. So alliances matter.

[Rsandee]

Furthermore, your comment raises an interesting question: how much time needs to pass for an event to be considered a thing of the past? Let's consider a hypothetical scenario where Israel drives out the entire population of the Gaza Strip and effectively colonizes it. If we fast-forward two years, would you simply move on and stop boycotting them? If not, where do we draw the line? That's a tough question indeed...

I'm not going to say I like it, but this is something I think about a lot and I can't exactly give you an all-encompassing answer that I agree with wholeheartedly. I guess from a pragmatic standpoint, that's exactly my opinion; if enough time passes then I will consider it an old issue. What I'm saying is that I don't think chasing revenge endlessly like in blood feuds is a good or productive thing, even if people would be in their (personal) right to do so. I'm saying that I would not give a carte blanche and call it righteous, because as a government/corporation you're held to higher standards of conduct in order not to create divides or facilitate violence. I do think two years is a bit short though. I can't give you a concrete answer on what timescale I would find it to be acceptable, I think it's very context-sensitive on a case-by-case basis.

I agree about the need for consistency, which makes me think there should probably be an actual legal framework for this established by governments. If countries passed laws regarding the exclusion of offending nations from international events, it wouldn't be left up to event managers to make their own subjective choices. This would avoid turning every event into a political battleground and allow the organizers to simply focus on the event itself.

Yes, ideally I agree it would have to be done by their respective governments. I do think every event is already a political battleground at this point though.

Case in point - as a Russian speaker, I am familiar with how many Russians feel extremely bitter that their country was excluded, ostracized and labeled as an evil aggressor for their invasion of Ukraine, and then they see that nothing of this sort is happening right now to Israel and the US, who have started a large-scale military offensive against Iran. I'm not going to get into whether this or that can or should be justified, but I can completely understand the feeling of these Russians. But who's going to "impose sanctions" on the US? The US itself? Europe? Japan? I suppose Russia can impose its own sanctions and refuse to deal with the US and Israel. Are those sanctions going to be felt? By whom?

The moral of the story - that international laws and treaties matter only as much as you have political, economical and military power to back them up. And there is a lot of power in unity. So alliances matter.

I guess in a roundabout way, that's exactly what the US did: imposing sanctions on itself. From what I can tell, they're sabotaging theirselves on a massive scale, shooting theirselves in the foot and turning every friend they have into an enemy. You are correct that laws and treaties only matter in the context of such alliances, but I'm sure people won't forget what the US has done and I don't think people will be as blind as to blame Trump for it and nobody else.

[DaveRattlehead]

I don't doubt that Trump has crazy ideas and has said some real outrageous things both in his current campaign and in his campaign 8 years ago, but I think people are greatly exaggerating the consequences of his victory, both his admirers and his detractors.

LOL, this post has aged pretty badly. Not even in the worst-case scenario I imagined that this psychopathic manchild (not to mention even worse insults) would cause such a mess.

[PluMGMK]

I hate being right

I hear Viktor Orbán's up for reelection next week. Not too familiar with the candidates but from the little I've heard, his opponent sounds like a bit of a Goldstein - an underdog, but maybe not so different...

[Hunchman801]

What do you guys mean, isn't that exactly the kind of statement you expect the president of the world's leading power to make?

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP

This reminds very much of me of this parody account of a far-left politician in France, whose actual statements are often so ludicrous that people make quizzes in which you have tell apart the real account's tweets from the parody's. Surely, something like that must exist for Trump.