4 ms·

Any opinions on the actual article?

by staunton 4y ago

pydry 4y ago
That was an opinion. They're trying to sell this war on its benefits as hard as they sold the invasion of Iraq.
- staunton 4y ago
  It was an opinion on the source, not on what it says. Your second comment still doesn't adress any claims of the article, it just attributes malicious intent to it without mentioning what makes you think that. The claim is that while rich countries don't really care enough about the climate to seriously pursue a "green transition", many now realized that they do care about energy self-sufficiency to accelerate it. Do you disagree? Do you think the article says something different?
  - user3939382 4y ago
    My opinion is that The Economist is looking for any angle to support the fleecing of the American people to the tune of $130B which we just handed over to the arms industry. The war was crafted by this industry through its puppeteering of the US government for expressly this purpose. The Economist might as well write an article about the long-term positive impact on the planet of humans being obliterated by the nuclear war them and their neocon buddies are happy to risk. 95% of the people I've discussed this war with have absolutely no clue about the politics and history behind the current conflict and are repeating headlines they got from US corporate (propaganda) media outlets.
    - staunton 4y ago
      Which again is an opinion on the source and does not mention the content in any way. I must conclude that you're not interested in an object level discussion about the topic at hand.
      - pydry 4y ago
        I mean, how much would you expect people to try to constructively engage with the content of an RT article saying that the war is great for the Russian economy? You know the conclusion was manufactured in advance and why. It's the same here. In another comment I did try to engage with the content and it got buried harder than this one shrug
      - user3939382 4y ago
        I'm not sure how to make this more clear, but "the content" is presented in bad faith. This is like writing an article about how plant life is thriving in a field because they were fertilized by the blood of hundreds of soldiers and you're saying, "Yeah, but what do you think about the plants growing better?"
    - glogla 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - user3939382 4y ago
        [flagged]
        bootsmann 4y ago
        Can you elaborate on why the Minsk agreement had to be enacted in the first place, i.e. what conflict the ceasefire was meant to cease? And how that conflict started? And who fought in that conflict? I'd really like to know.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        pydry 4y ago
        Ukrainian civil war started by a trump style coup of a democratically elected president in Kiev who was elected largely because he was very popular in the East and South of Ukraine. Western propaganda pretends that the East and South of Ukraine had zero agency or will to decide its own future. This is why they called the crimean referendum a sham despite trustworthy western polls validating painfully clearly that it was accurate. The Minsk agreements gave limited independence to the Donbass. Apparently the regimes in Kiev couldn't handle that which is why they signed the agreements and then broke them.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - bootsmann 4y ago
      > My opinion is that The Economist is looking for any angle to support the fleecing of the American people to the tune of $130B which we just handed over to the arms industry. The war was crafted by this industry through its puppeteering of the US government for expressly this purpose. Care to explain how exactly the US is to blame for Putin invading Ukraine due to Ukrainians ousting Yanukovych 8 years ago?
      - user3939382 4y ago
        > Care to explain I did in a cousin comment but no answer your question, not really, no. 95% of the time people aren't looking for information with an open mind, they're looking to argue/debate and defend their foregone conclusions that have become part of their identity and so are immutable. Carl Sagan has a lot of good commentary on this problem.

Any opinions on the actual article?

pydry 4y ago

That was an opinion. They're trying to sell this war on its benefits as hard as they sold the invasion of Iraq.

staunton 4y ago
It was an opinion on the source, not on what it says. Your second comment still doesn't adress any claims of the article, it just attributes malicious intent to it without mentioning what makes you think that. The claim is that while rich countries don't really care enough about the climate to seriously pursue a "green transition", many now realized that they do care about energy self-sufficiency to accelerate it. Do you disagree? Do you think the article says something different?
- user3939382 4y ago
  My opinion is that The Economist is looking for any angle to support the fleecing of the American people to the tune of $130B which we just handed over to the arms industry. The war was crafted by this industry through its puppeteering of the US government for expressly this purpose. The Economist might as well write an article about the long-term positive impact on the planet of humans being obliterated by the nuclear war them and their neocon buddies are happy to risk. 95% of the people I've discussed this war with have absolutely no clue about the politics and history behind the current conflict and are repeating headlines they got from US corporate (propaganda) media outlets.
  - staunton 4y ago
    Which again is an opinion on the source and does not mention the content in any way. I must conclude that you're not interested in an object level discussion about the topic at hand.
    - pydry 4y ago
      I mean, how much would you expect people to try to constructively engage with the content of an RT article saying that the war is great for the Russian economy? You know the conclusion was manufactured in advance and why. It's the same here. In another comment I did try to engage with the content and it got buried harder than this one shrug
    - user3939382 4y ago
      I'm not sure how to make this more clear, but "the content" is presented in bad faith. This is like writing an article about how plant life is thriving in a field because they were fertilized by the blood of hundreds of soldiers and you're saying, "Yeah, but what do you think about the plants growing better?"
  - glogla 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - user3939382 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - bootsmann 4y ago
        Can you elaborate on why the Minsk agreement had to be enacted in the first place, i.e. what conflict the ceasefire was meant to cease? And how that conflict started? And who fought in that conflict? I'd really like to know.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        pydry 4y ago
        Ukrainian civil war started by a trump style coup of a democratically elected president in Kiev who was elected largely because he was very popular in the East and South of Ukraine. Western propaganda pretends that the East and South of Ukraine had zero agency or will to decide its own future. This is why they called the crimean referendum a sham despite trustworthy western polls validating painfully clearly that it was accurate. The Minsk agreements gave limited independence to the Donbass. Apparently the regimes in Kiev couldn't handle that which is why they signed the agreements and then broke them.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - bootsmann 4y ago
    > My opinion is that The Economist is looking for any angle to support the fleecing of the American people to the tune of $130B which we just handed over to the arms industry. The war was crafted by this industry through its puppeteering of the US government for expressly this purpose. Care to explain how exactly the US is to blame for Putin invading Ukraine due to Ukrainians ousting Yanukovych 8 years ago?
    - user3939382 4y ago
      > Care to explain I did in a cousin comment but no answer your question, not really, no. 95% of the time people aren't looking for information with an open mind, they're looking to argue/debate and defend their foregone conclusions that have become part of their identity and so are immutable. Carl Sagan has a lot of good commentary on this problem.