Author Topic: Keep reading the news! (Read 75964 times)

Iryan · « **Reply #360 on:** February 14, 2011, 09:49:47 PM »

Quote from: Gpop on February 14, 2011, 09:46:46 PM

And Canada had that "peaceful" G20 protest.

Well, that was less a showing of the people being capable of rising up against the government as a showing of the police force being able to act like that of a totalitarian regime.

:fail:

Alfred F. Jones · « **Reply #361 on:** February 14, 2011, 11:17:20 PM »

Quote from: Tengukami on February 14, 2011, 08:58:35 PM

Precisely, and I see plenty of people in comfortable Western democracies looking at Egypt right now, wondering the same thing - what if we did like that? Do we even have it in us? I sometimes wonder.

My favourite part of this is how those same people in comfortable Western democracies are looking at Egypt and saying that it's too much of a risk to try and support a democracy movement, because at least Mubarak kept Egypt stable. (We're also getting a lot of this from the Israelis, which is plenty disturbing.) And from the Americans, that a democracy would be nice, but "it's not in America's best interest" to have insecurity in the region. Sure, a revolution is always a risk, but I find it really weird that no one is recognizing that a democracy in Egypt is in everyone's best interest. Unless you are the military and/or an authoritarian regime, I guess.

Tengukami · « **Reply #362 on:** February 14, 2011, 11:23:16 PM »

Quote from: Ruwako Moriya on February 14, 2011, 11:17:20 PM

My favourite part of this is how those same people in comfortable Western democracies are looking at Egypt and saying that it's too much of a risk to try and support a democracy movement, because at least Mubarak kept Egypt stable. (We're also getting a lot of this from the Israelis, which is plenty disturbing.) And from the Americans, that a democracy would be nice, but "it's not in America's best interest" to have insecurity in the region. Sure, a revolution is always a risk, but I find it really weird that no one is recognizing that a democracy in Egypt is in everyone's best interest. Unless you are the military and/or an authoritarian regime, I guess.

That's the comedo-tragic part of this to me. What's happening right now, from Tunisia to Yemen, is pretty much the collective Western wet dream of democracy just spontaneously erupting in the Middle East. Only now it's actually happening, without any armed "liberation" from foreign countries, and it makes people nervous. Frankly I don't get the skittishness.

You're right, Ruro, we should be cheering them on, just like we did when it was happening in the Ukraine and Georgia. The difference? These people are Muslims, and they cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs, they need a secular iron-fisted strongman to keep them the fuck in line, or otherwise they'll be galloping across Europe raping and pillaging and making us all quit pork. Just the same tiresome double-standard that the US, under Republicans and Democrats alike, has been giving the rest of the world: do as we say, not as we do.

Furienify · « **Reply #363 on:** February 14, 2011, 11:31:01 PM »

Quote from: Tengukami on February 13, 2011, 11:58:32 PM

It is possible to verify how truthful a news source is by looking at their track record. How many stories did they break? How many stories proved untrue? If so, why? If a news source has a good track record on the truthfulness of their reporting, then that's a source you can trust.

Seriously, this notion that "they all lie, so there's no point following the news" is lazy, over-simplistic, and inaccurate. There are good news sources, and testing how good they are is surprisingly simple.

Out of curiosity, how is the average reader/viewer going to even begin gauging all this information? Is it all neatly recorded somewhere? Everyone claims to be a truthful news source even when they're not. At least in my experience, news sources don't maintain a list of their track records. I honestly don't know of anything that does, so it's even harder to figure out where to start.

Tengukami · « **Reply #364 on:** February 14, 2011, 11:41:21 PM »

Quote from: Furienify on February 14, 2011, 11:31:01 PM

Out of curiosity, how is the average reader/viewer going to even begin gauging all this information? Is it all neatly recorded somewhere? Everyone claims to be a truthful news source even when they're not. At least in my experience, news sources don't maintain a list of their track records. I honestly don't know of anything that does, so it's even harder to figure out where to start.

I would recommend Reporters Without Borders, which focuses mostly on general press freedom but also what corporate interests may or may not be behind news sources. MediaMatters is also a great place to start, as is SourceWatch and 538. What all of these groups do is watch how different media sources cover the news, and then see if what they report turns out to be true. That's the long and short of it.

You can do the same by taking any major event from recent history like, for example, the Iraq War. Look at how different media sources covered this event. Who was accurate? Who was off-base? Who was flat-out wrong? Do you see any patterns?

That's pretty much it.

JT · « **Reply #365 on:** February 15, 2011, 06:16:51 AM »

The news is always accurate. Except when they report on something you have firsthand knowledge of, in which case they are wrong about everything.

Stuffman · « **Reply #366 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:05:54 AM »

Quote from: Tengukami on February 14, 2011, 08:58:35 PM

Precisely, and I see plenty of people in comfortable Western democracies looking at Egypt right now, wondering the same thing - what if we did like that? Do we even have it in us? I sometimes wonder.

To be fair it's not really the same situation. Western governments have done a much better job of manipulating the social consciousness with propaganda.

If there was ever a revolution in the US there would be unspeakable bloodshed on all sides.

I personally don't have the stomach for that.

Conqueror · « **Reply #367 on:** February 15, 2011, 12:06:42 PM »

Quote from: MANSTUFF on February 15, 2011, 11:05:54 AM

To be fair it's not really the same situation. Western governments have done a much better job of manipulating the social consciousness with propaganda.

Also consider that people in the West are generally better off with higher standards of living and HDIs, meaning that they choose to prioritize the concerns of their own everyday lives over general social change and are overall more likely to be complacent.

Tengukami · « **Reply #368 on:** February 15, 2011, 12:10:18 PM »

Quote from: Conqueror on February 15, 2011, 12:06:42 PM

Also consider that people in the West are generally better off with higher standards of living and HDIs, meaning that they choose to prioritize the concerns of their own everyday lives over general social change and are overall more likely to be complacent.

My point entirely - because our lives are so comfortable and because democracy is supposedly in place in the West, organizing to enact social change should be easy-peasy, and yet few actually give a enough of a shit to push for any significant policy change, preferring instead to bitch and moan while doing nothing.

Iced Fairy · « **Reply #369 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:11:31 PM »

Quote from: Tengukami on February 15, 2011, 12:10:18 PM

My point entirely - because our lives are so comfortable and because democracy is supposedly in place in the West, organizing to enact social change should be easy-peasy, and yet few actually give a enough of a shit to push for any significant policy change, preferring instead to bitch and moan while doing nothing.

I don't know about Tengukami, but I specifically have an issue with the US, where 30+% of the eligible population doesn't even bother to vote. Usually the people in my generation or the one after mine.

Iryan · « **Reply #370 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:23:37 PM »

Quote from: IcedFairy on February 15, 2011, 05:11:31 PM

I don't know about Tengukami, but I specifically have an issue with the US, where 30+% of the eligible population doesn't even bother to vote. Usually the people in my generation or the one after mine.

Well, better than the people frustrated with the governing parties choosing to "protest" by voting for the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, leading to this party getting a hold in communal governments in several places in Germany.
A party which, as you may have guessed, is pretty much the regrouping of the braindead fallout from the party that governed our country about sixty years ago.

Talk about casting out the devil through the beelzebub...

Quad City QBs · « **Reply #371 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:27:38 PM »

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus?a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

first mandatory gun ownership, now this

Iryan · « **Reply #372 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:29:32 PM »

Quote from: Bad Appellant!! on February 15, 2011, 05:27:38 PM

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus?a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

first mandatory gun ownership, now this

* Iryan repeatedly smashes his head on the table*

THE PAIN! WHY WON'T IT STOP?!

Conqueror · « **Reply #373 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:37:25 PM »

Quote from: Bad Appellant!! on February 15, 2011, 05:27:38 PM

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus?a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

first mandatory gun ownership, now this

At least the mandatory gun ownership issue is a joke bill meant to make a point about health insurance.

On the "justifiable homicide" bill, I'd imagine the courts would have something to say about this. I doubt it would stand against a serious challenge. But it still has to pass first.

Edible · « **Reply #374 on:** February 15, 2011, 08:28:40 PM »

bahahahahahahah

AMD is hilarious.

Tengukami · « **Reply #375 on:** February 15, 2011, 09:24:11 PM »

Thailand and Cambodia are pretty damn close to going to war with each other. These two countries have had a border dispute since, well, there was a border between them, and there has always been sporadic fighting. Most of it centers around a Khmer temple called Preah Vihear. There have been some casualties between soldiers, and things are getting bad enough for the UN to urge a cease fire.

Should that happen, this would only be a temporary solution. The border dispute, illustrated here, needs to be resolved for there to be anything resembling peace. Thais and Khmers have a lot of bad blood between them already. I think a third party might be needed to mediate before it becomes a full-scale war.

Edible · « **Reply #376 on:** February 15, 2011, 09:42:08 PM »

Well, I certainly hope nobody's going there on vacation any time soon.

Tengukami · « **Reply #377 on:** February 15, 2011, 09:51:32 PM »

It should be safe to vacation in either country, so long as you stay away from the disputed area, which isn't exactly a tourist haven anyway. Which is part of the problem - Cambodia would love to make Preah Vihear a tourist destination, and it's already a World Heritage site, but it happens to sit in territory claimed by Thailand. So it's full of soldiers; not tourists.

Also, neither country is known for religious extremism or domestic terrorism, so it's almost certainly safe to go to Bangkok or Sihanoukville for vacation without worrying about being a target for reprisals.

Edible · « **Reply #378 on:** February 15, 2011, 09:58:34 PM »

I guess I could arrange to take a holiday in Cambodia, then.

Tengukami · « **Reply #379 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:08:24 PM »

Dryer than English toast, you are. Kudos.

ふねん1 · « **Reply #380 on:** February 16, 2011, 01:59:42 AM »

Quote from: Bad Appellant!! on February 15, 2011, 05:27:38 PM

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus?a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The level of stupidity in this country's government never ceases to amaze me.

Tengukami · « **Reply #381 on:** February 16, 2011, 02:10:07 AM »

Stupidity and brazenness. This is exactly how far the far-right in America is willing to go to create a Christian theocracy - by showing a complete disregard for civil law and common decency. Many of them are itching for armed combat, because ushering the End Of Days is their goal. Death isn't that scary when you're promised paradise. It's crazy, and I wish Democrats and Republicans were more vocal on this, and showed some bipartisanship over agreeing that these are dangerous people.

?q · « **Reply #382 on:** February 16, 2011, 02:47:55 AM »

Quote from: Tengukami on February 16, 2011, 02:10:07 AM

Stupidity and brazenness. This is exactly how far the far-right in America is willing to go to create a Christian theocracy - by showing a complete disregard for civil law and common decency. Many of them are itching for armed combat, because ushering the End Of Days is their goal. Death isn't that scary when you're promised paradise. It's crazy, and I wish Democrats and Republicans were more vocal on this, and showed some bipartisanship over agreeing that these are dangerous people.

Problem. The constituency actually endorses this kind of law, doesn't see the idea of a Christian theocracy as a bad idea, and elects people who promise to do things like introduce this legislation.

This is the other side of the same coin you were holding up when talking about how Egypt's potential Muslim democracy is a democracy nonetheless.

♛ Apher-Forte · « **Reply #383 on:** February 16, 2011, 03:02:31 AM »

Quote from: Yumemi OkaZengar on February 13, 2011, 04:45:00 PM

In b4 people insert USB ports on their own bodies.

Cyclone! ((CYCLONE)) Joker! ((Jokerrrrr))
I wanna be the Kamen Rider too man, I really wish this technology is real. Imagine performance boosters based on biological enhancement, all with something akin to a USB stick.

Quote from: Tengukami on February 13, 2011, 11:15:59 PM

Armies who assume control of countries have a tendency to want to stay in power. Welp, let's hope it turns out different this time around.

as are previous examples, I am inclined to believe this time the Egypt military was fed up with Mubarak and are not inclined to run a country with a voice they helped to build.

Tengukami · « **Reply #384 on:** February 16, 2011, 03:05:50 AM »

Quote from: Nit?na on February 16, 2011, 02:47:55 AM

This is the other side of the same coin you were holding up when talking about how Egypt's potential Muslim democracy is a democracy nonetheless.

I don't think there's any danger of Egypt becoming a theocracy. What I was pointing out actually is that Egyptians have fairly moderate views when it comes to their faith, so even if the government were "flavored" with Islam, it would not be the scale of oppression that many pundits are trying to maintain it will be. What Egypt would be taking is a step forward, in other words.

In the South Dakota case, America has federal laws. I think a part of democracy, or having a democratic state, is that there are some things which cannot be decided on a local level. It's to put a check on mob rule or on the sort of flash-temper cause celebre political movements, such as abortion, which tend to fly in the face of basic human rights. Such as why the National Guard needed to get involved when the south was refusing to desegregate.

?q · « **Reply #385 on:** February 16, 2011, 03:23:50 AM »

Quote from: Tengukami on February 16, 2011, 03:05:50 AM

In the South Dakota case, America has federal laws. I think a part of democracy, or having a democratic state, is that there are some things which cannot be decided on a local level. It's to put a check on mob rule or on the sort of flash-temper cause celebre political movements, such as abortion, which tend to fly in the face of basic human rights. Such as why the National Guard needed to get involved when the south was refusing to desegregate.

Incidentally, we HAVE recently seen the far-right proposing to invalidate federal law in favor of states' rights...

I guess after thinking about it my question is - How would the federal government null this state's law? There would have to be some overriding federal law granting protection to abortion doctors, which I somehow don't see getting passed any time soon... Unless I'm missing something.

If the National Guard gets involved with protecting abortion doctors, things are going to get really, really ugly. Nobody wants to give the image of being ready to fire on fellow citizens.

(Incidentally, this is the first time I've heard the phrase "justified homicide".)

Iced Fairy · « **Reply #386 on:** February 16, 2011, 03:36:33 AM »

Quote from: Nit?na on February 16, 2011, 03:23:50 AM

I guess after thinking about it my question is - How would the federal government null this state's law?

Probably under the interstate trade clause, since granting anyone the legal right to murder people is a really bad thing for trade. When all you need to do to claim justifiable homicide is to claim someones a danger to an unborn child you've effectively legalized murder. It's not that hard to set up a "danger" to an unborn child.

Tengukami · « **Reply #387 on:** February 16, 2011, 03:42:12 AM »

If the language is vague enough to provide justification for shooting an obstetrician for performing an abortion, I think the bill - should it become law - would have a hard time in federal court. Even if all this is is rhetoric, it helps legitimize and mainstream-ize the idea held by anti-choice radicals; that murdering doctors saves babies. That's why I'm saying both parties need to seriously respond loud and clear to politicians - or really, anyone - who advocates such an idea.

JT · « **Reply #388 on:** February 16, 2011, 04:08:36 AM »

Quote from: Nit?na on February 16, 2011, 03:23:50 AM

If the National Guard gets involved with protecting abortion doctors, things are going to get really, really ugly. Nobody wants to give the image of being ready to fire on fellow citizens.

Can you imagine the reaction Fox News et al would have if Obama actually sent in the National Guard? Just hypothetically. Because I sure as fuck can't. I mean they called him Hitler and the Antichrist just for wanting universal healthcare/acknowledging the existence of non-Christians/being an uppity negro. They already went straight for the top shelf with their hyperbole, what the fuck is left for them to even say? I really wonder.

?q · « **Reply #389 on:** February 16, 2011, 04:14:17 AM »

Quote from: JT on February 16, 2011, 04:08:36 AM

Can you imagine the reaction Fox News et al would have if Obama actually sent in the National Guard? Just hypothetically. Because I sure as fuck can't. I mean they called him Hitler and the Antichrist just for wanting universal healthcare/acknowledging the existence of non-Christians/being an uppity negro. They already went straight for the top shelf with their hyperbole, what the fuck is left for them to even say? I really wonder.

Have they tried "Ayatollah" yet?

Quote

It's not that hard to set up a "danger" to an unborn child.

You're dating someone who could be my future spouse and therefore a threat to the child we could have together. :troll:

Quote

That's why I'm saying both parties need to seriously respond loud and clear to politicians - or really, anyone - who advocates such an idea.

And here we run into the issue that the Republicans don't want to lose the numbers they have with the Tea Party, etc. around.

But let's go with this court idea. How quickly could that law be rendered unconstitutional/void after (and assuming) it gets passed?