/b/ - Random

It's none of my business. I hope the average user of this site is smart enough to ask himself why he's being forced to have such a strong stance on the matter, pro-Ukraine or otherwise.

>>3410
I live in a country that shares a border with Ukraine, does that give me a right to form a strong opinion about it?

>>3409
I think it's good because the world was stagnating and drifting into a very weird direction. Finally people have some sort of solidarity again and have been forced to remember what the privilege of living in a more or less free country means.
Also people completely forgot to give a shit about covid by now, so the hotboy summer 2022 probably wont be cancelled.

The funny thing is that those people who have always been against war and selling weapons and armory are now the ones demonstrating to send more weapons to ukraine.

I hope the new won vigilance, activity and connectivity between western states - especially the wish to be independend from russia gaswise - makes it possible to accelerate the progress of green energy to a state where green energy isn't just a meme for rich managers to cricle jerk about.

Also russia heavily fucked up by underestimating the ukrainian military by only sending old trash there. The war is really important for china to see what would could if they'd attack Taiwan. China has been underestimating the power of the west lately, because the west was as well.

In the end all I want is a more or less stable life without big tech stealing my data, not having to fear starvation or being enslaved by companies and a world in which all of humanity can life under such circumstances. I think the reactions and outcomes of this war can be a step towards this dream, probably not though.

>>3411
>>3409
What are your opinions about it?

>>3410
ouuuuuuuu. Vague and spooky- I like it.

>>3410
How about me, can I have a "strong stance" about it if my country shares a border with Russia and has fought numerous wars against them in the past? Is it none of my business?

>>3414
Of course, smartass, I was talking about how the countries least affected by the conflict are the ones freaking out the hardest about it.

>>3415
I understand that you might find the media hysteria annoying, but you are being irrational if you think countries least affected are "freaking out" the hardest. You don't have a clue how people are reacting in EU countries, especially post-Soviet states and other neighboring countries who have experienced Russian invasion in their past.
For us this is not just annoying hysteria on the TV that you can turn off and take a centrist position like you have done. Our countries have been in the same position as Ukraine: we also had to fight Russia with our blood and flesh to protect our independence. We also had to put up with their aggression, propaganda, false flags and attempts at establishing a puppet government. Sadly it's nothing new to us.
Some people naively believed that Russia would change after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They would become a democracy and happily co-exist with the rest of the free world. With the invasion of Ukraine Putin has finally convinced even the blindest believer that this is not what happened. He continues the long tradition of totalitarian leadership, imperialism and cruelty that Russia has practiced for over half a millenium. It's sad for the neighboring countries but especially sad for the Russian people.
>>3412
I agree with many of your thoughts. The world was indeed becoming stagnated and it's good to see how people are becoming more focused.

>>3418
You're right. I was thinking about non-combatant nations who don't have a chance of being caught in the crossfire, and forgot to say "besides the people at actual imminent risk." The hysteria and polarization is both a trained response (especially in America) and an actively instigated one. I really don't want a war to happen, for the record.

It's really just shown us how it fucks up the average people - Ukrainians getting killed or emigrating, as well as the entire Russian economy getting fucked over.
I don't respect the invasion, but I'm also losing a lot of respect for Zelenskyy who has, for a while, been agitating the conflict along with other globos like the WEF & world leaders

>>3427
>I don't respect the invasion, but I'm also losing a lot of respect for Zelenskyy who has, for a while, been agitating the conflict along with other globos like the WEF & world leaders
Agitating how, exactly? Sounds completely delusional to me. Not surrendering when your country gets invaded is agitation? Responding to the said invasion with economic sanctions is agitation? I don't know, sounds like you have fallen for Kreml propaganda.

>>3430
He made a plea to my country using Churchill's speech, likening this to WW2. He, along with many other leaders and MSM, have been throwing around "WW3" and "Nuclear war" like it's a banana in an ape enclosure. I respect that he's staying in his country and fighting, but the way he tries to appeal to the western world seems distasteful

>>3432
You still haven't really noted what's distasteful?

This is the first instance of a full-scale invasion of a sovereign European nation since WW2. I happen to be quite an optimist when it comes to the possibility of nuclear war. However, I don't see how you can deny this is the closest to it many of us have been in our lifetimes.

>>3432
What makes it distasteful? isn't it quite a well analogy?

Yeah it's bad, buuuut…
The level of news coverage is hypocritical, given that wars with similar humanitarian consequences - such as the ongoing crisis in Yemen - are completely overlooked.

Did you know that the Yemeni war has killed 400,000 people? No? Me neither, because it's never in the news and I had to go looking for articles on it. Latest news is that there is a two-month truce before the air-strikes start again: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-60962188

I wonder why the news coverage is so imbalanced. You could say that it's because the media I follow (in the UK) are closer geographically to Ukraine than Yemen. But this seems irrelevant. People under siege are going hungry in Ukraine. People under siege are starving in Yemen. Humans are suffering terribly in both places, yet one situation is always the most urgent story and the other is meh.

My friend says it's because white people only care when white people are being bombed. It's almost as if we think subconsciously that non-whites are used to being bombed and starving so it's not as big a deal.

>>3488
I don't think either of those explanations are why this gets so much more coverage, I think it's a mix of two things: cultural spheres and holdover attitudes from the Cod War.

Cultural spheres: of course European news orgs are going to care more about European wars (and between what are considered first world nations) than African wars. Especially since all of Eastern Europe is under threat of invasion as well. News spreads first along cultural lines. From Ukraine to all of Eastern Europe, to Western Europe, to the UK; where it is spread all throughout the Anglo-sphere. In America, we hear about it because of our massive cultural ties to the UK, who hear about it from Western Europe, who hear about it form Ukraine/Eastern Europe. And the sensationalizing propagandists we call journalists do the rest. If you're in the UK, think about how little you probably hear about China from the mainstream, despite it being one of the most powerful nations in the world, and being openly opposed to your nation and it's system of government. Because the Chinese are literally more alien, culturally, than Ukraine or Russia.

And the simpler explanation: boomers who still think of Russia as the Soviet Union. The greatest threat to their way of life. Of course they are scared shitless, this is the worst case scenario from 50 years ago made manifest. Obviously things aren't actually that bad, but it's hard to break thought patterns from growing up under the threat of nuclear war with Russia.

>>3488
>>3489
>You could say that it's because the media I follow (in the UK) are closer geographically to Ukraine than Yemen.
>white people only care when white people are being bombed. It's almost as if we think subconsciously that non-whites are used to being bombed and starving so it's not as big a deal.
>boomers who still think of Russia as the Soviet Union. The greatest threat to their way of life. Of course they are scared shitless, this is the worst case scenario from 50 years ago made manifest. Obviously things aren't actually that bad, but it's hard to break thought patterns from growing up under the threat of nuclear war with Russia.

In the discourse regarding the situations in Yemen, Ukraine, and Palestine. I see all of these explanations ringing true.

I've definitely observed the latter two explanations most though, and believe they are correlated. History, and the study of history in schools as we know it, is predominately white. We are taught of European conflicts, American conflicts, and their conflicts with the rest of the world.

Due to this dominant study of history, fresh in the mind of today's Western sphere, the notion that the Soviet Union is an enemy has been maintained. It has also created an incredibly Western-centric view of the world's important places. Ukraine (since we are taught more about it) becomes a much more important and imperative place to us than Palestine or Yemen.

It's also interesting to think about the fact that Ukraine and Russia have been skirmishing since long before the invasion, and nobody outside of Eastern Europe really gave a shit. I think an explanation that's missing is the media realizing that people actually cared this time, and running with it. Politicians, pundits, and corporations realized they could grandstand about it now and get praise for doing so, leading to a slew of coverage and controversies, as they all looked for ways to out virtue signal each other and tear down their opponents virtue signaling. Basically a positive feedback loop of more coverage leading to more responses, leading to more interest, leading to more coverage. Honestly, I'm really fucking sick of hearing about it. I'm American, I'm at no risk as the situation now, and don't think this really has anything to do with me, but I'm constantly beat over the head with news/grandstanding about it. Even the website I use to play chess is talking about it. I wish more people were willing to just be neutral on things.

I've become super skeptical and I still think there isn't even a war.

The west, largely America, pushed for this war. Russia is a lite version of China and the west is looking more like a Bosch painting with each passing year but if I had to choose a side I'd pick Russia just to balance out the power between it and NATO as the latter's hands aren't clean either. Wish there was a union composed of Finland, the Baltics, V4, and Romania instead of being forced between soulless bureaucrats who hate you on an incomprehensible level and sloven cruel oligarchs who would love to outright incorporate you into their borders.
>>3418
Correct me if I'm wrong. Russia used to be a free and socially mobile society due to their roots as a nomadic culture plus viking democracy until the Mongols came and killed or enslaved half the country in under 5 years. The ruling structure of Russian society then became strictly hierarchy as Asian society and many royal/noble families have/had Mongol roots. With the defeat of Novgorod opposing these changed Moscow aliens, we have modern Russia which has been tortured by the FSB to KGB to NKVD to Cheka to Oxrahna to so on.
>>3488
It's just another war backed by the US and Saudi Arabia, they're causing that suffering so why tell their own citizens. Turkmenistan is never talked about in the news aside from some articles saying it's like North Korea (it's not really) because America gets a lot of oil from them.
>>3489
>boomers who still think of Russia as the Soviet Union. The greatest threat to their way of life.
Part of why this war gets so much encouragement I'd like to wager is because these people, politicians and brass, were trained to know of CCCP/Russia and how to understand, spy, conduct war, neutralize, post-war clean-up, establish Democracy(tm) for them. They know nothing else and so now the moment of their lives that was blueballed from them is finally realized and gives them a sense of job security. Same meatsacks who think (or would rather you think as stupid instead of crooks) solar panels drain the sun and nuclear reactors will blow up the planet.
>>3492
Russia has officially invaded and mobilized, that's why it's a deal now.

>>3409
basicly this gif.

even after the fall of the soviet union the imperial ambitions of the kremlin never themselfs went away.

to give the russian rethoric any credence is cringe to say the least and in the end of the day just serves as a justification of killing civillians.

>>3562
>Correct me if I'm wrong.
Your conception of Russian history seems somewhat idealist.
>Russia used to be a free and socially mobile society due to their roots as a nomadic culture plus viking democracy until the Mongols came and killed or enslaved half the country in under 5 years.

Novgorod was more predisposed towards a Roman-style Democracy, because of its function as a merchants republic. One cannot primarily ascribe the centralization of Germanic/Scandinavic Clans towards fiefdoms to cultural factors either. Advances in agriculture allowed for a fundamental decentralization of agriculture, while gradually centralizing the ruling structure. The integration of many former merchants republics was a noticeable characteristic of absolutism, wherein the urban guilds were dissolved into centralized manufacturing geared towards export (Merkantilism).

Though it might seem a modern "Western" democracy reverses this trend, its state apparatus was in fact largely inherited from the absolutism of the 18th century. The local restrictions on trade have shifted towards macroeconomic control and government collusion with naturally forming monopolies, trusts or cartels.

What might be more readily perceivable is, that through Novgorod's annexation by Russia, the state interests there shifted from those of a trader aristocracy of wealthy families and a labor aristocracy organized through guilds towards the absolutist monarchy, that mediated between the land nobility and emerging capitalists. Absolutism acts in the interests of the latter by generally abolishing custom borders and other trade restrictions, yet still reserving privileges to the former, as can be seen by the English Corn Laws or the transformation of serfdom into debt in Russia and parts of Prussia.

I don't use any major news outlets, watch bulletins on television or read newspapers. All the necessary ways to hear the latest about this war, I steer clear of.

Turn it off, block it out. Best way to form your own opinion.

>>3638
>Turn it off, block it out. Best way to form your own opinion.
lmaooo so how do you form an opinion on something if you don't even know it's happening

>>3640


Most major news corporations are biased with their opinions. It was just a simple way of saying think for yourself. ;)

>>3640

Most major news corporations are biased with their opinions. It was just a simple way of saying think for yourself. ;)

Bugger me, double post. Appy-polly-loggy's. Still getting used to this posting malarkey. Here at least.

>>3641
>It was just a simple way of saying think for yourself. ;)
Okay. But what you said - to wit, "turn it off, block it out" - is *not* the right way to think for yourself. If you didn't care about politics and world events at all, then yes, you could just stop listening to the news. But if you want to have an informed opinion about the world, you have to listen to the media (including mainstream journalists) because otherwise you don't have any information at all.

The patrician way to think for yourself is to use multiple different media sources, maybe a combination of mainstream and alternative media. That way, you can balance the biases of each against each other.

In the UK we have a tradition of alternative media in the form of magazines such as Private Eye. The Eye has real integrity and devotes a section of every issue to exposing the big British newspapers for lying, or just not telling the whole story. Like, a newspaper will cover a corruption scandal but will omit to say that the corrupt businessmen involved have links to the newspaper's owner. Nuggets like that you can only get from the Eye.

>>3646
This might just be an American thing, but the idea of even small media companies being trustworthy seems absurd. I like to follow individual pundits to get my news, where I can learn their biases and what they value, and us that to judge what they say. Though that being said, even if I don't look into the news, most of the stuff you'd hear about from media companies gets shoved down my throat to the point where the only way not to hear the full story is to actively avoid it. But as for the war specifically, there's so much propaganda out there from both sides that I feel it's pointless to try and make sense of anything until after the war is over.

>>3646

I stand corrected, I am british and also live in the uk. On occasion I've bought a private eye annual for a satirical look. I can't explain exactly why I said that originally. I listen to a lot of bbc radio 4, that's where I get my news from most of the time.
I see I've got myself into a hole, I'm usually a bit of a lexicographer when wording something, but here is different from most ways I'd express opinions. I guess I'm not entirely used to explaining my words fully within this format.

In general, I'm an individual who usually spends a lot of time on decade old music forums. A lot less context is lost there than here.

Additionally, I'm usually a light-heated chap, serious subjects probably stray me out of my comfort zone. I now disagree with my above spur-of-the-moment posts.

>>3647
>This might just be an American thing, but the idea of even small media companies being trustworthy seems absurd.
Yes, this might be an American thing. To Euros, American news and politics just looks like another TV show made by 20th Century Fox. It's glamorous, hyperbolic, over-emotional and totally fake. For example, American politicians live or die by how romantic their back-story is. They paint themselves as hard-working son of a poor immigrant family, or wild frontier outdoorsman, or woman who has suffered discrimination and a difficult family life. Politicians are like characters which you root for while watching a show. You feel their tragic history and share their emotional journey to becoming a senator/POTUS/whatever. Needless to say this is seriously fucked up, because politics is serious and not just entertainment.

Your political news anchors/commentators are really weird as well. It's like they're chosen for their good looks and not the intelligence of their analysis. Pic related is Andrew Neil, who is far too ugly to be on American television. But he is well-respected here and has hosted several political programmes.

I guess what I'm saying is…your media do seem fake, and maybe it's because your culture is based around image and optics, not substance.

>I like to follow individual pundits to get my news
Do you mean people such as Joe Rogan?

>>3648
Yup, I use BBC News to get the basic details of world events. It's not good for deep analysis but, frankly, I don't care enough about most stories to need that. Lefties and right-whingers will tell you it's biased but, if you ask them for an alternative, they just say that whatever publication confirms their world view is the best.

>>3650
Pro-tip for a new chan user: don't namefag (post with a name). No one cares about the identity of the poster; this is a key difference between chans and forums.

>>3654
There definitely is a major aspect of reality TV from our media, but whenever you think about American media remember that it doesn't really matter all that much. The things they talk about aren't the things that the vast majority of people care about, and most people under 60 don't bother with them at all. The internet isn't real life, and neither it network television.

>Do you mean people such as Joe Rogan?
Sort of, I've never been a fan of him specifically, he hosts an interview show and my interest is entirely dependent on the guest. He also talks a lot about comedy/fighting, neither of which I really care about. His show isn't inherently political, just he doesn't stray away from the topic; most of the episode never touch the stuff. I'd still rather listen to him than *insert news organization here*, but his isn't amongst the few I do follow. I also recently took a break from following the news (this is how I realized that I was still hearing most of the major stories) and have begun reevaluating my sources, and looking for new ones, and most that I used to follow I no longer do.
The ultimate point is that it's independent (and thus not getting their views from some hidden person), that I know they believe what they say, and I know why the believe it.

>>3655

It's a much shortened version of my forum username.
If your username is the only distinction between other users, I don't see much harm in that. Anonymity as a concept has driven me away from chans before.

>>3656
>I'd still rather listen to him than *insert news organization here*
Why? Why do you trust a single fallible man who has no training in journalism over news orgs with teams of frontline reporters, researchers and editors?

The news media are selective with what they report and they do distort the truth sometimes. However, it's just ludicrous to think that some dumb meathead podcaster has more insight into the world than they do.

>The ultimate point is that it's independent (and thus not getting their views from some hidden person), that I know they believe what they say, and I know why the believe it.
You're implying that mainstream journalists don't believe what they say. For example, do you think that when a correspondent does a live broadcast from Ukraine wearing a bullet-proof vest, they don't believe what they're reporting? They just tell lies to the camera? Do you have any credible evidence for this?

>>3658
>Why? Why do you trust a single fallible man who has no training in journalism over news orgs with teams of frontline reporters, researchers and editors?
The entire point is that I do not trust, but news orgs in the US are so bad that anything coming from them has negative credibility. I haven't been following politics long, and the whole time I have the media has been lying. They ALL have agendas, and will downplay/ignore things that go against it, and will indeed lie (through omission, unfair representation, or strait up fabrication) to pursue their agenda. And what you listed as a positive, I say is a negative; there are to many people involved. I don't know where one person's influence ends and another begins. I do not trust what I hear, but without knowing who said it, I cannot parse what is bias and what is true, Like I said, I need to understand why they say what they say, and I cannot do that with a faceless article.

>You're implying that mainstream journalists don't believe what they say. For example, do you think that when a correspondent does a live broadcast from Ukraine wearing a bullet-proof vest, they don't believe what they're reporting?
Yes.
>Do you have any credible evidence for this?
Credible is a trap word, what gives credibility to me is probably not what gives credibility to you. As I said my distrust comes from the fact that the whole time I've been watching, they've been lying, but to take some topical examples; Snake Island, tHe GhOsT oF KiEv, and generally eating up all the Ukrainian propaganda uncritically. For a more specific example: here's somebody I do follow breaking down a recent wave of dishonesty from the media: https://odysee.com/claims-us-leads-the-world-in-mass:a2f184a03600442fbd6ffcdda8831326decf3e5b . Again, I do not trust this person, but I am willing to listen because he explains himself in detail, what principles and facts he uses to come to his conclusions.

>>3658
>They just tell lies to the camera?
You must have a very jaded optimistic view of the world if you genuinely believe this is not the case.

>The entire point is that I do not trust, but news orgs in the US are so bad that anything coming from them has negative credibility. I haven't been following politics long, and the whole time I have the media has been lying. They ALL have agendas, and will downplay/ignore things that go against it, and will indeed lie (through omission, unfair representation, or strait up fabrication) to pursue their agenda.
This isn't exclusive to the US it's not much different in Europe. I could fill up a whole thread about political scandals involving the biggest (and defacto only major) media outlet where i live. It's so bad the biggest political scandal of the last decade was broken not by local media but by a comedy Talk-show host across the border. Our news agencies didn't report because the whistleblower was "too expensive".
I'm honestly at a loss as to where to get information nowadays since i do not have the time or energy to fact check news on every supposedly important thing that happens and if i do more often than not whatever is reported is not factually accurate or at the very least at least somewhat skewed to fit.

>>3660
Thanks for the video, that was interesting and well-researched. I take his point, namely that the media took a badly conducted academic study and used it as the basis for loads of articles without digging deeper.

I will point out one thing: ANY study of mass shootings (including the one mentioned in the video which contradicted the bunk study) have to compile a list of shootings, and this list comes from…uh…mainstream media reports. So you still have to trust the media on some level if you want to have an informed opinion on mass shootings in the US. Even if you don't believe what the NYT editorial says, in order to make a counter-argument you have to point to evidence about mass shootings which, ultimately, consists of media reports.

Again, I'm trying to distinguish between healthy scepticism of the media and this "I don't trust anything the media ever says" attitude, which can only end in believing nothing at all.

>>3660
Lmao. As if Matt Christiansen isn't the same as every other braindead conservative pundit. Refusing to watch CNN and then switching to him is like switching gruel out of your diet for pure shit.

>>3663
Sometimes imageboards are great. Someone who is on the same wavelength as you joins the discussion. You connect and share your thoughts and insights to each other. You feel connected and inspired by some random anon from the other side of the world. In the best case scenario those beautiful moments stay with you for the rest of your life.
Sometimes imageboards are not so great. You try to express your thoughts in a clear way to initiate a discussion. An anon enters and completely either ignores or fails to understand the content of your posts and the thread gets filled with angry insults and white noise.
All I can gather from your message is that my comment about IQ probably made you feel inferior, perhaps powerless, which in turn made you angry. Your post brings absolutely nothing of value to this thread (or Wirechan in general), quite the opposite. You did not respond to any of the content of my post, instead you chose to churn out a weak attack on my character.

>>3664
This person say's "my post" but didn't make the post being replied to. Ignore.

>>3662
Point taken, and it's definitely true. I said I don't trust, but it's more accurate to say I seek not to rely trust, and try to let it build up slowly and be lost easily. Matt Christensen is somebody I'd say has a large reserve of trust, as I've followed him for a long time and he has avoided any catastrophic blunders (as far as I know) for as long as I've followed him, and also he defaults to principles rather than pragmatism, which makes it easy to parse his biases. But as you pointed out, ultimately the information will come from someone (and because of tier advantage in resources, probably mainstream media). So I have to either listen to the original breaker of news; do my own research, which is incredibly time consuming and often impossible; or go to someone else who has taken the time to do the research and listen to them.
I'm definitely closer to "I don't trust anything the media says" then not; in fact that is literally my position on the Russia/Ukraine war. But the war is far away from an American like me, and for now at least I can watch the Europeans kill each other at no risk, and so I don't take any side on the issue. But when it's about American politics I feel I must take a position, and so I must learn what's going on.
Honestly, it's so exhausting sifting through media that I have to have a few sources that I can just go to to get news, and not consider over much what they say, but it's so hard to find anyone worthy of this. People like Tim Pool and Phillip DeFranco, who bill themselves as just the facts reporters I've found to be some of the worst people to listen to, as they inevitably do add their opinion in, but disguise it as fact. And so I've developed this super cynical way of consuming news where I need the person to out and out come to a conclusion, so I can judge them for it. Because everyone who makes a living talking about anything has an opinion on said thing, so if they don't make it know I assume they're putting it it their reporting anyways, but being dishonest about it.
Perhaps because of this exhaustion I've developed a deep respect for neutrality and people who keep their political opinions to themselves. The last thing I want to know when I give someone online my attention (or meet someone in the meatspace) is their politics, If someone tells me they don't vote my opinion of them raises sharply.
Though perhaps I'm just another sheep, as despite all my grandstanding the people I bother listening too have an odd habit of being people I generally agree with. Maybe it's truly impassable to be accurately informed, and we should all just stop pretending that propaganda is something that only happens to other people.
This was much more of a ramble then I intended, but it feels good to get to express my philosophy about news media.

>>3663
Thanks for adding literally nothing to the conversation, go back to Twitter where insults are the main form of communication.

>>3666
>>3665
Its pasta you retards

nazi ukiebros > soviet scum
seeth cope, cope seeth

>>3664
mmmmm linguini

The way I see it, it's just another case of their corrupt leaders fighting and dragging the common people into it. The slavemasters fight and the slaves suffer the consequences. That said, it's not the US's business as we have our own issues of authoritarianism to fix on our own soil.

>>3719
If Republicans win in 2024, the supply of weapons to Ukraine is going to be dropped like a hot potato. That's not right.

>>3729
Authoritarianism is ever encroaching within the US's own borders. At this rate Ukraine wouldn't be free, just under new management. There may be an advantage to protecting Ukraine for it's neon used in semi-conductor manufacturing, but even then the cost to benefit of that may depend on what other options are available. Regardless, a government's first priority should be to make the best decision for and with it's own people, and we sure as fuck cannot trust the United States government to do that.

>>3677
Those “nazis” are funded by israel and thats a proven fact.

Furthermore they accept gays.

They aren’t nazis they are larpers.

I just wish my country would stop sending Ukraine absurd amounts of money.

>>3735
Think of it as an investment.