3 ms·

I'm asking you to clarify your view by presenting some scenarios that I consider relevant to the analysis of the main issue we are discussing. Your point would

I'm asking you to clarify your view by presenting some scenarios that I consider relevant to the analysis of the main issue we are discussing. Your point would be a lot stronger if you are able to convey a consistent world view for analyzing those scenarios, or by explaining how the scenarios are different. I mention them because I think they are similar and ought to be analyzed similarly, but I'm open to persuasion.

CalChris 9y ago
No, you are not. First, there is an accepted meaning for destabilization. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition and it certainly doesn't match your changing the status quo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation Secondly, your whataboutism is an effort to change the subject away from the topic, a private company concluding that it didn't want RT+Sputnik's advertising money. It then ventures into not very good equivocation (Judith Miller was not the Times; indeed, she was forced to resign by the Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller Given this, I accept no burden of proof. It is what it is.
- grandalf 9y ago
  If you read the Wikipedia definition you posted, the first definition is to undermine political power. That means the same thing as changing the status quo. Powerful interests by definition want the status quo to continue because it's what makes them powerful. When powerful interests talk of "change" it's not change that would endanger their power, hence it would not change the status quo in any significant way. Of course Judith was forced to resign once the sloppy reporting was fact checked by people who did not work at the NYT. The NYT had to let Judith go to save face after it helped defeat the anti-war activists and other people who were cautious to believe George W. Bush's claims about Saddam. Keep in mind that for a major company like the NYT firing one reporter is not a big deal at all. It should be shocking that simply firing one person is enough to make the journalistic scandal of the millennium go away.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    You are still misreading the definition, intentionally it would appear. And again, this is a misdirection from the topic of the post.
    - grandalf 9y ago
      It's actually not a misdirection, it's the main point. The crux of the issue is whether you define certain journalistic behaviors as being bad/wrong just because they threaten the status quo power structure of the US. If you think about it, your assertion that the alleged political motives of RT are inappropriate hinges upon your judgment that it is in Russia's national interest to undermine the legitimacy of powerful interests in the US, and (apparently) thus to weaken the US or put it at some sort of disadvantage. I realize you are convinced that my views and comments fit some schema you feel duty-bound to try to refute, but I think that if you examine your belief system on the matter you will find that you simply feel loyalty to the status quo power structure in the US, which is closely aligned with its government. Thus you oppose any sort of disruptive or revolutionary behavior or ideas that might threaten this status quo that you are fond of. Note that the status quo in the US is corporatism and militarism, and that there is really not a leftist movement of any stature in the US. HRC and Trump are both slight permutations of a more authoritarian version of Bush or Obama, since the nation has turned more toward authoritarianism as time has gone on. Only if you view this authoritarian, militaristic course of action as being strongly in the US national interest is it possible to believe with full certainty that RT publishing stories that might appeal to the American far left or the most disempowered Americans is a bad thing. For only then does the amplification of those ideas/movements, etc., threaten anything that is a force of good. In my view, the biggest weakness in the US is that there is very little dissent and we put far too much trust in our leaders, and apply far too little scrutiny to our institutions (public and private), allowing significant diversion of resources to various groups who benefit from the status quo. Politicians should fear journalists and should fear the public finding out about their excesses, their side deals, and the true stories of how they became millionaires on $150K public servant salaries. If RT helps expose these fraudulent people for what they are, the US will be far better off for it. And yes, a consequence of some toppling of the existing power structures would probably be less global militarism, but I think it's hard to argue that our laying waste to so many countries abroad is remotely in the US national interest, but no disrespect intended if you do feel strongly that Trump's action in Yemen, etc., is bold and necessary to the world order.

CalChris 9y ago

No, you are not. First, there is an accepted meaning for destabilization. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition and it certainly doesn't match your changing the status quo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation Secondly, your whataboutism is an effort to change the subject away from the topic, a private company concluding that it didn't want RT+Sputnik's advertising money. It then ventures into not very good equivocation (Judith Miller was not the Times; indeed, she was forced to resign by the Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller Given this, I accept no burden of proof. It is what it is.

grandalf 9y ago
If you read the Wikipedia definition you posted, the first definition is to undermine political power. That means the same thing as changing the status quo. Powerful interests by definition want the status quo to continue because it's what makes them powerful. When powerful interests talk of "change" it's not change that would endanger their power, hence it would not change the status quo in any significant way. Of course Judith was forced to resign once the sloppy reporting was fact checked by people who did not work at the NYT. The NYT had to let Judith go to save face after it helped defeat the anti-war activists and other people who were cautious to believe George W. Bush's claims about Saddam. Keep in mind that for a major company like the NYT firing one reporter is not a big deal at all. It should be shocking that simply firing one person is enough to make the journalistic scandal of the millennium go away.
- CalChris 9y ago
  You are still misreading the definition, intentionally it would appear. And again, this is a misdirection from the topic of the post.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    It's actually not a misdirection, it's the main point. The crux of the issue is whether you define certain journalistic behaviors as being bad/wrong just because they threaten the status quo power structure of the US. If you think about it, your assertion that the alleged political motives of RT are inappropriate hinges upon your judgment that it is in Russia's national interest to undermine the legitimacy of powerful interests in the US, and (apparently) thus to weaken the US or put it at some sort of disadvantage. I realize you are convinced that my views and comments fit some schema you feel duty-bound to try to refute, but I think that if you examine your belief system on the matter you will find that you simply feel loyalty to the status quo power structure in the US, which is closely aligned with its government. Thus you oppose any sort of disruptive or revolutionary behavior or ideas that might threaten this status quo that you are fond of. Note that the status quo in the US is corporatism and militarism, and that there is really not a leftist movement of any stature in the US. HRC and Trump are both slight permutations of a more authoritarian version of Bush or Obama, since the nation has turned more toward authoritarianism as time has gone on. Only if you view this authoritarian, militaristic course of action as being strongly in the US national interest is it possible to believe with full certainty that RT publishing stories that might appeal to the American far left or the most disempowered Americans is a bad thing. For only then does the amplification of those ideas/movements, etc., threaten anything that is a force of good. In my view, the biggest weakness in the US is that there is very little dissent and we put far too much trust in our leaders, and apply far too little scrutiny to our institutions (public and private), allowing significant diversion of resources to various groups who benefit from the status quo. Politicians should fear journalists and should fear the public finding out about their excesses, their side deals, and the true stories of how they became millionaires on $150K public servant salaries. If RT helps expose these fraudulent people for what they are, the US will be far better off for it. And yes, a consequence of some toppling of the existing power structures would probably be less global militarism, but I think it's hard to argue that our laying waste to so many countries abroad is remotely in the US national interest, but no disrespect intended if you do feel strongly that Trump's action in Yemen, etc., is bold and necessary to the world order.