I do see why you're confused. You appear to conflate "propaganda" with "lie", and continue to ignore the point I make above. That best propaganda has a seed of truth in it. It only becomes a lie in the context that it's presented in.
So in your view, political violence is purview of the left only.
As I noted above, I use these things in the actual sense they're used. Not in the way that extremists on either side use them. National socialists are distinctly on the right, just like communists are distinctly on the left.
Let's test your mind reading skills. I'm thinking of a number. What number is it?
Here's a thing. Reading about a person does not make you a mind reader. Thinking about a person also does not make you a mind reader. No matter how convinced you are of this super power of yours.
I do mean it in the actual sense, not in the modern far left propaganda sense. As in people who share views of national socialists. Not people who happen to be to the right of Marx.
Far left and far right as two sides of the same coin here. Most reasonable leftists on the other hand share the opinion of the reasonable right wingers. Let the man speak and let everyone make up their own mind what he says.
You seem to assume that some of what you listed is not in that category, and that this is just a qualitative difference. It's telling that your core question isn't on principles. It's "which items on my list are propagandistic enough?"
I on the other hand am arguing about the core principle of the issue. Which is why I just call spade a spade here, having been able to read Soviet propaganda in its original language and what it did to its targets, and having the excellent opportunity to compare the two.
Your refusal to engage in any kind of discussion on principles, and merely discussing the "shades of propaganda" is the exact same mindset as those people who voluntarily went in front of the NKVD shooting squads, "because our ideology demands it, and our enemies will win if I don't".
I'm actually fairly certain that if hysteria didn't blow to the proportions it did, he wouldn't have gotten elected. Because the sense of urgency to resist the establishment narrative would not have gotten to the point that it did.
Essentially all the people who went to the booth telling themselves "I gotta vote Clinton, I gotta vote Clinton... FUCK IT, TRUMP" would have voted Clinton. And she would have won.
It's a good example of the fact that US still has its democracy intact, that when entire established order mobilizes to push one narrative, people can actually say "no and fuck you" and get it through in the political system. It's that one thing that genuinely makes US great. With no need to add word "again" to the sentence.
Sometimes I genuinely wonder how it got to the point where a free state like US has a large minority of citizens that are utterly uncritical of propaganda they're fed, even after said propaganda has been utterly debunked as false.
Then I see a poster like you and I realise that it's just because they're too ideologically invested in their current position. It's just a pragmatic approach to avoid pain caused by cognitive dissonance. Essentially the same reason many people willingly went to work camps and even before the NKVD shooting squads in Soviet Union of 1930s.
It's quite interesting to see the this similarity across such divergent cultural chasm.
It always amuses me that there are actually people that still believe that most of the slander layered against Trump is actually true in the context it was reported. Even in Soviet Russia, most people knew they were fed propaganda that had some seed of truth, but was utter lie in context.
Must be an interesting world to live in to actually buy the propaganda you do, hook, line and sinker.
We have more than enough fuel for at least a century. Likely more. Rather surprising to see this degree of idiotic environmentalist catastrophism still being regurgitated, in the age of shale and geopolitical struggles over huge marine deposits.
Here in Europe, a good example of this model is that you now have "secondary airport to secondary airport" travel that is widespread, instead of "drive/fly to the main hub, take off in a big aircraft, fly to another hub, fly/drive from said hub to your destination".
Small aircraft like Embraer/Bombardier models work well for the "secondary to secondary" model, as they are small enough to only require a relatively small payload of people for economically viable service of the route. But they used to be occupied mostly by the "main hub to secondary hub" travel, as triple and quad engine jumbos hauled people between the hubs. Now that dual engine aircraft are massively displacing these, the small aircraft are freed to service the "secondary to secondary" routes where it's possible in an economically viable fashion.
Literally, nothing. It's not that the aircraft is outdated. It's that it's very concept of large, heavy, four engine aircraft is outdated in civilian use.
Large four engined aircraft are significantly more expensive to operate compared to two-engined variants, while having much higher requirements of the airfield, making their potential flight destination list much smaller. Their primary advantage actually had to do with certain regulatory framework, which requires aircraft flying over oceans to have certain amount of flight time on minus one engine (i.e. case of engine failure). Essentially they are required to be always in range of an acceptable airfield if one engine dies. Modern twin engined aircraft like A350 and 787 have incredibly high range on one engine, meaning they are cheaper to operate on the same route while being acceptably reliable for regulatory agencies.
Add to this the fact that primary model of civilian aviation due to this change has largely shifted from hub model (large hub with large long range aircraft, from which small aircraft service nearby smaller airfields as connection flights) to point to point model (smaller twin engined aircraft are economical to operate directly to said small airfields, bypassing the hubs entirely) and you see why age of jumbo jets is slowly passing. It's not just that they are being replaced by other aircraft on the same routes. It's that route structure itself is changing.
And we have a winner. Apparently there are no competitive small and medium sized businesses in EU because of VAT. Nevermind that Germany's competitiveness is wholly dependent on such businesses, which flourish, while it's the US that is economically extremely dependent on large business to drive economic efficiency.
Not sure if you're genuinely this ignorant of reality, insane or just trolling. Regardless, this will be the last time I entertain it.
I cannot fathom the kind of sheltered world one must live in to spout this level of nonsense and think it has any relevance on the real world. People, normal ordinary people thinking certain law needing change and petitioning those in power to change it is one of the oldest mechanisms of law creation that exists in human history.
It's a very smart change. It's very hard to not do evil things. It's very easy to do "right things". In this case for example, they most certainly are doing the right thing for themselves.
You don't understand the very fundamentals of every human society. Laws are made by people, who in fact can take something perfectly legal and make it illegal for any reason they want. Feeling that this something is morally wrong is actually one of the biggest historic reasons things have been made illegal in human societies.
Too late with that thought. German relationship with US is already in the gutter due to political machinations of the elite that thought Clinton was a sure bet in last presidential elections.
Current administration views Germany as an openly hostile state in terms of economic cooperation. To US, economic cooperation traditionally is purview of national security first, and economy second. Reason for this is obvious when you look at portion of the total GDP that comes from domestic vs foreign trade and then compare to other countries. US built the current trade order, but it never invested itself in it to an extent even remotely similar that its allies did.
As for the rest of your broad and rather ignorant generalisations, I'll let you have them. If you even remotely think that US/European allies didn't for example play the Israel situation as "good cop/bad cop" scenario to avoid Second World getting the "primary sponsor of other side" spot, I have land on the moon to sell you.
Considering that there's a number of similar networks in existence that would love to have Trump, as whatever network Trump joins to post his thoughts of the day is guaranteed to receive millions of views for next three years, that would be one of those things that destroy twitter's value as a propaganda tool.
Right now, one of the key factors in twitters propaganda value is that Trump is actually there. That means that all the far left propagandists such as yourself get to promote themselves by being first to comment on Trump's tweets.
Japan was a massive economic and military powerhouse before the WW2. Globaliation started being a thing in 1800s. You should stop spewing opinionated falsehoods.
P.S. You really should read history, especially on your last claim. Weapons export to customers in other countries and wars not being controllable by said exporters was a thing for literally millenia. I could cite examples going all the way back to fall of Constantinople and beyond.
Slashdot Mirror
I do see why you're confused. You appear to conflate "propaganda" with "lie", and continue to ignore the point I make above. That best propaganda has a seed of truth in it. It only becomes a lie in the context that it's presented in.
So in your view, political violence is purview of the left only.
As I noted above, I use these things in the actual sense they're used. Not in the way that extremists on either side use them. National socialists are distinctly on the right, just like communists are distinctly on the left.
And both are indeed violent on ideological level.
Let's test your mind reading skills. I'm thinking of a number. What number is it?
Here's a thing. Reading about a person does not make you a mind reader. Thinking about a person also does not make you a mind reader. No matter how convinced you are of this super power of yours.
I do mean it in the actual sense, not in the modern far left propaganda sense. As in people who share views of national socialists. Not people who happen to be to the right of Marx.
Far left and far right as two sides of the same coin here. Most reasonable leftists on the other hand share the opinion of the reasonable right wingers. Let the man speak and let everyone make up their own mind what he says.
Actually, most reasonable people have no clue what he thinks. That's one of the main reasons why he has accomplished this much.
We do have many people who do claim to be mind readers however. Which says nothing about Trump, and everything about such people.
You seem to assume that some of what you listed is not in that category, and that this is just a qualitative difference. It's telling that your core question isn't on principles. It's "which items on my list are propagandistic enough?"
I on the other hand am arguing about the core principle of the issue. Which is why I just call spade a spade here, having been able to read Soviet propaganda in its original language and what it did to its targets, and having the excellent opportunity to compare the two.
Your refusal to engage in any kind of discussion on principles, and merely discussing the "shades of propaganda" is the exact same mindset as those people who voluntarily went in front of the NKVD shooting squads, "because our ideology demands it, and our enemies will win if I don't".
I'm actually fairly certain that if hysteria didn't blow to the proportions it did, he wouldn't have gotten elected. Because the sense of urgency to resist the establishment narrative would not have gotten to the point that it did.
Essentially all the people who went to the booth telling themselves "I gotta vote Clinton, I gotta vote Clinton... FUCK IT, TRUMP" would have voted Clinton. And she would have won.
It's a good example of the fact that US still has its democracy intact, that when entire established order mobilizes to push one narrative, people can actually say "no and fuck you" and get it through in the political system. It's that one thing that genuinely makes US great. With no need to add word "again" to the sentence.
Sometimes I genuinely wonder how it got to the point where a free state like US has a large minority of citizens that are utterly uncritical of propaganda they're fed, even after said propaganda has been utterly debunked as false.
Then I see a poster like you and I realise that it's just because they're too ideologically invested in their current position. It's just a pragmatic approach to avoid pain caused by cognitive dissonance. Essentially the same reason many people willingly went to work camps and even before the NKVD shooting squads in Soviet Union of 1930s.
It's quite interesting to see the this similarity across such divergent cultural chasm.
Of course it was. It isn't that he was elected on merits he ran on. It's that other people are stupid, and you're smart enough to see it.
It always amuses me that there are actually people that still believe that most of the slander layered against Trump is actually true in the context it was reported. Even in Soviet Russia, most people knew they were fed propaganda that had some seed of truth, but was utter lie in context.
Must be an interesting world to live in to actually buy the propaganda you do, hook, line and sinker.
Now now. Government only has your best interests in mind. In fact, it should just have an official newspaper for this sort of work during elections.
I even have a name for it. Pravda. Truth. In Russian, because Russia is the one with fake news!
As we have seen in last election, all the slander against Trump didn't work out in the end.
We have more than enough fuel for at least a century. Likely more. Rather surprising to see this degree of idiotic environmentalist catastrophism still being regurgitated, in the age of shale and geopolitical struggles over huge marine deposits.
Here in Europe, a good example of this model is that you now have "secondary airport to secondary airport" travel that is widespread, instead of "drive/fly to the main hub, take off in a big aircraft, fly to another hub, fly/drive from said hub to your destination".
Small aircraft like Embraer/Bombardier models work well for the "secondary to secondary" model, as they are small enough to only require a relatively small payload of people for economically viable service of the route. But they used to be occupied mostly by the "main hub to secondary hub" travel, as triple and quad engine jumbos hauled people between the hubs. Now that dual engine aircraft are massively displacing these, the small aircraft are freed to service the "secondary to secondary" routes where it's possible in an economically viable fashion.
Literally, nothing. It's not that the aircraft is outdated. It's that it's very concept of large, heavy, four engine aircraft is outdated in civilian use.
Large four engined aircraft are significantly more expensive to operate compared to two-engined variants, while having much higher requirements of the airfield, making their potential flight destination list much smaller. Their primary advantage actually had to do with certain regulatory framework, which requires aircraft flying over oceans to have certain amount of flight time on minus one engine (i.e. case of engine failure). Essentially they are required to be always in range of an acceptable airfield if one engine dies. Modern twin engined aircraft like A350 and 787 have incredibly high range on one engine, meaning they are cheaper to operate on the same route while being acceptably reliable for regulatory agencies.
Add to this the fact that primary model of civilian aviation due to this change has largely shifted from hub model (large hub with large long range aircraft, from which small aircraft service nearby smaller airfields as connection flights) to point to point model (smaller twin engined aircraft are economical to operate directly to said small airfields, bypassing the hubs entirely) and you see why age of jumbo jets is slowly passing. It's not just that they are being replaced by other aircraft on the same routes. It's that route structure itself is changing.
No longer being made is not even remotely anything like no longer being flown.
Sunk cost of already produced aircraft is going to be recouped through decades of use.
And we have a winner. Apparently there are no competitive small and medium sized businesses in EU because of VAT. Nevermind that Germany's competitiveness is wholly dependent on such businesses, which flourish, while it's the US that is economically extremely dependent on large business to drive economic efficiency.
Not sure if you're genuinely this ignorant of reality, insane or just trolling. Regardless, this will be the last time I entertain it.
I cannot fathom the kind of sheltered world one must live in to spout this level of nonsense and think it has any relevance on the real world. People, normal ordinary people thinking certain law needing change and petitioning those in power to change it is one of the oldest mechanisms of law creation that exists in human history.
It's a very smart change. It's very hard to not do evil things. It's very easy to do "right things". In this case for example, they most certainly are doing the right thing for themselves.
And being evil in process.
You don't understand the very fundamentals of every human society. Laws are made by people, who in fact can take something perfectly legal and make it illegal for any reason they want. Feeling that this something is morally wrong is actually one of the biggest historic reasons things have been made illegal in human societies.
Google does love social justice. As in intersectional one.
As the paraphrasing of old saying goes. It's not that they love the poor. It's that they hate the white men.
Too late with that thought. German relationship with US is already in the gutter due to political machinations of the elite that thought Clinton was a sure bet in last presidential elections.
Current administration views Germany as an openly hostile state in terms of economic cooperation. To US, economic cooperation traditionally is purview of national security first, and economy second. Reason for this is obvious when you look at portion of the total GDP that comes from domestic vs foreign trade and then compare to other countries. US built the current trade order, but it never invested itself in it to an extent even remotely similar that its allies did.
As for the rest of your broad and rather ignorant generalisations, I'll let you have them. If you even remotely think that US/European allies didn't for example play the Israel situation as "good cop/bad cop" scenario to avoid Second World getting the "primary sponsor of other side" spot, I have land on the moon to sell you.
Considering that there's a number of similar networks in existence that would love to have Trump, as whatever network Trump joins to post his thoughts of the day is guaranteed to receive millions of views for next three years, that would be one of those things that destroy twitter's value as a propaganda tool.
Right now, one of the key factors in twitters propaganda value is that Trump is actually there. That means that all the far left propagandists such as yourself get to promote themselves by being first to comment on Trump's tweets.
Japan was a massive economic and military powerhouse before the WW2. Globaliation started being a thing in 1800s. You should stop spewing opinionated falsehoods.
P.S. You really should read history, especially on your last claim. Weapons export to customers in other countries and wars not being controllable by said exporters was a thing for literally millenia. I could cite examples going all the way back to fall of Constantinople and beyond.