|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah so this is what I mean with losing perspective by every bad thing automatically being the worst thing. quote:The answer to your question according to Putin is that he:
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah, no. You don't get to take all the times we assisted or supported in invading or couping independent countries and say "yeah that was hypocritical, but our principles stand". Respect for independent countries is patently not one of our principles. Believing that it is is falling for propaganda. This is not a question of good or bad, this is merely a question of how we define ourselves. Sure, you can say the EU is evil due failing its ideals. Indeed, on that level of aggregation everyone and everything is evil. Russia, China, the US, the EU. Hell, everyone. But your contention that we must give up our principles because they have been failed is, sorry, dumb. Consider this: Russia and the EU have now clearly brought forth parts of their ideals, which are clearly in conflict. If we give up on ours, the Russian ones are those that remain. Orange Devil posted:I've been agreeing since the very start that the blame primarily falls on Russia and especially Putin. I think it is useful to also look beyond this and examine the roles our own countries have played and the choices we made, for I do continue to believe that those choices had an impact on the eventual outcome. I don't believe that you mean for example that Ukraine would be attacked whether they were associated with the EU/NATO or not, for it would mean claiming that Russia would have also attacked had Ukraine been a full EU and NATO member, which is difficult to imagine. This is the crux though: There are many reasons why Ukraine could not have realistically become an EU or NATO member - at least in time. The major reason is that we simply could not have imagined that Putin had outright expansionist ideas. Until last week, many of us still bought the idea that NATO was somehow encroaching on Russia. The alternative you propose is simply unrealistic. On the other hand, the people who propose that Ukraine should have fell on its knees to appease Russia propose a miserable and despicable outcome which, in my opinion, is even worse than the chance for a people to fight for their freedom. In any case, and for good reason, this was not our choice to make.Ukraine chose to fight for their existence as a country, and by our own stated definition as an organization of people, we are compelled to support them. If you feel that past and present failures of the EU absolve us from this obligation, you are wrong. Orange Devil posted:The question though is, what good does repeatedly stating that Russia and Putin are primarily at fault do us? As you say, however, blame does not really matter, only consequences do. Orange Devil posted:It doesn't change a single thing about what is happening and the suffering being visited on, primarily, the people of Ukraine. Ultimately we do not appear to have the power to change Russia's actions. We do have the power to change our own. So it seems more productive to me to spend our time thinking about and discussing those. Especially because I don't think that there is anyone in this thread who actually believes Russia and especially Putin are primarily to blame. Orange Devil posted:OK but for example my country has been a de-facto US vassal state for many decades now, firmly in its imperial grip. It's not great, but it is also not the end of the world. Standing up to just Russia isn't going to "stop imperialism". Orange Devil posted:As for the economy, what specific resources does Russia require that it cannot get as a result of the economic sanctions that you think might stall their invasion? And again, I do not think there is going to be an occupation nor that one was ever planned to begin with. One of the reasons I think this is because of the costs involved. Economic sanctions are instead meant as a deterrence and they must therefore show that the EU, US and UK combined are able to inflict considerable damage on a country choosing to attempt such illegal, immoral and despicable acts. If these sanctions fail, they can never again be used as a deterrence and we can expect much more expansionary wars in the future. Instead, if these sanctions force Russia into submission, they will become a meaningful deterrence against such acts, which would be strongly desirable for the EU. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:Irrelevant, a greater danger exists for the EU in accepting these fait accompli without reaction. As a citizen of the EU I don't agree that "economically destroying a nuclear power" presents less of an existential danger to us than not doing so. We can all only hope that the risk is worth the reward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
It's basically the war between The Culture and the Idiran Empire. In this essay, I will… I am joking, please don't hit me
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:
Also, No. Putin wants to end the Ukraine, he said so. Beyond that, and the leaked article, you can now even read in the main newspapers that a neutral and demilitarized Ukraine minus the mentioned areas will "not be enough" as Nazis will seep back in: https://www.kp.ru/daily/27371.3/4552402/ Read it yourself dude, it's from the horse's mouth. "Ukraine, assembled over several decades from the territories torn away from Russia and its own territorial gifts, cannot remain united." Putin literally intends to destroy Ukraine. That's all there is to it. Stop pretending there's another out here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
It certainly would be nice getting a bunch of Azov Battallion leaders publicly getting bullets in their heads, if anything is going to come of this mess. Unfortunately more likely they get evacuated and begin their long, lucrative careers on 'bipartisan' social media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:It certainly would be nice getting a bunch of Azov Battallion leaders publicly getting bullets in their heads, if anything is going to come of this mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:It's basically the war between The Culture and the Idiran Empire. In this essay, I will… lol, if only 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:So much for the tolerant left! active censorship of news agencies seems relevant when discussing whether the commitment to free speech in the EU is an inherent part of the project imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:active censorship of news agencies seems relevant when discussing whether the commitment to free speech in the EU is an inherent part of the project imo Yeah, freedom of speech totally means copies of The Daily Stormer and Völkischer Beobachter at every newsstand, lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
not sure that i'd agree with the assessment of RT as Literally Hitler, but also, if the commitment to free speech is a fundamental EU value upon which there can be no compromise then the actual censorship of actual news sources in the present moment seems to be a specific contradiction of that the point isn't much broader than "the EU is not constitutively committed to free speech", i'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing e. i am not, myself, ideologically committed to free speech in all cases, and banning e.g. holocaust denialism in germany doesn't strike me as the end of the world
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:not sure that i'd agree with the assessment of RT as Literally Hitler, but also, if the commitment to free speech is a fundamental EU value upon which there can be no compromise then the actual censorship of actual news sources in the present moment seems to be a specific contradiction of that If the EU decided to arrest and jail people only because they're involved with RT then you would have had a point. But they are not arresting anyone. Walh Hara fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Banning media spreading conspiracy theories, xenophobia and fascism is good, and not "contradictory" to principles of liberty. Intolerance can't be tolerated, tolerance can only be a mutual contract, not a one way street, etc. - all these clichés are actually true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
the specific statement in question is: "Democracy, free speech and other values are deeply embedded in our institutions" the rather casual act of censoring news outlets - based on what criterion of truth and conspiracy theories? there has been no serious court treatment of this, it's a political act - seems to run contrary to the idea that free speech is "deeply embedded" in the institutions of the EU. i don't think that silencing outlets used for propaganda by a power considered hostile is an especially outrageous move in and of itself, but it doesn't speak to free speech as a "deeply embedded" value held as extremely important to the everyday functioning of the institution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
politically shutting down news outlets is often seen as restricting freedom of speech, is the point. i can see it being the right thing to do - i am not, myself, an absolutist on free speech matters - but this is not a great time to claim that the EU is totally committed to the principle of free speech. because there's a very compelling counterexample of that going on right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
The paradox of tolerance dates back to just after the second world-war; it's not a new concept.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
You are applying an absolutist view of free speech that has been proven to be utterly wrong during the Weimar Republic. No EU country is obligated to keep a hostile government's state media operating within its jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
sure but that tends to imply that the EU is not deeply institutionally wedded to free speech as a principle. this is not a condemnation of the EU on those terms, it's just a response to the attempt to characterise the union as having a certain attitude which i don't think it has
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
No, you just don't have a good concept of what free speech means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Free speech as in you don't get paid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
It is absolutely deeply wedded to free speech as a principle, it just doesn't subscribe to an absolutist definition yanks pretend they have absolute claim to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:No, you just don't have a good concept of what free speech means. i'm pretty sure that in countries we don't like, political institutions shutting down news outlets is seen as a free speech issue
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
this is not absolutist, it's pretty basic that if anyone regulates speech it's typically done through judicial systems and not directly via political or bureaucratic institutions
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Free speech as in what I say is required to be heard by everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Free speech as a matter of policy, rather than some half-assed abstract unrefined idea, is the freedom of speech which does not infringe on other freedoms of the polity that exercises this right. Including inciting hatred against its members, destabilizing its democratic institutions etc. This is commonly understood throughout Europe and there is nothing against being absolutely committed to free speech in banning outlets that violate the fundamental principles of the Union, any more than making murder illegal is a violation of commitment to personal freedom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
right but these things are typically decided by courts where individuals and institutions have an opportunity to make their case
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
an example of this: https://english.radio.cz/chief-prosecutor-warns-against-public-support-russian-aggression-8743179 this is how restrictions on freedom of speech are typically handled. i personally think that this is going too far, but it's presumably appealable to the ECHR if it actually ends up having legal consequences and you get to argue your case according to the law. it is not, notably, ursula von der leyen deciding that some czech is out of order and that their blog has to be taken down or w/e
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
Shockingly I agree that banning Sputnik and RT was not the best move, after having them available for years. It just doesn’t seem necessary, and it has a whiff of foregoing proper procedure to kill off some Putin mouthpiece on the quick. We do not need to operate like that. On the other hand, I prefer the spirited response by the EU even if imperfect, over the anemic posturing we’d otherwise get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:an example of this: Everything is appealable. It’s not like Ursula is some kind of extra-legal force majeure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
no but it's still an executive shutting down a press organisation by fiat, which doesn't imply being deep institutionally wedded to the principle of free speech, in which case one would expect more normal procedures to be followed
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no but it's still an executive shutting down a press organisation by fiat, which doesn't imply being deep institutionally wedded to the principle of free speech, in which case one would expect more normal procedures to be followed
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
i was not aware that the EU was at war with russia, it certainly hasn't been declared in any legal sense. the EU is not under martial law or state of exception or anything afaik
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:Shockingly I agree that banning Sputnik and RT was not the best move, after having them available for years. It's always been an option but ruled out because as Illych points out, it is an unconventional infringment on free speech. That's why I think this all just isn't about the invasion of Ukraine. This is all about sending a message to Russia that the bar on EU tolerance for all the disinformation/dirty tricks/malign activity it does all the time has been lowered permamently. No more just shrugging and saying 'free speech', now it comes with a reaction. At least I hope that's what it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Given that the EU is clearly on a war footing, this kind of seems normal within the context of how speech is handled? We're not talking EU news sources, but news outlets controlled by a state the EU is "at war" with. Are you saying that two nuclear powers are currently at war?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i was not aware that the EU was at war with russia, it certainly hasn't been declared in any legal sense. the EU is not under martial law or state of exception or anything afaik Alchenar posted:It's always been an option but ruled out because as Illych points out, it is an unconventional infringment on free speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
The EU has struck "against" a lot of its principles - freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of property, in the course of issuing its sanctions. Such is the nature of executive action at times of emergency. Doubt anybody would suggest the EU has secretly shown it is actually secretly Communist and its supposed commitment to politics based on liberal economics has been a ruse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I mean, the Russian war on Ukraine hasn't been declared in a legal sense either. In any case, you have the EU basically pushing every avenue of "not technically war under established norms", but with the exact same goals as if it was directly at war with Russia. In this case it's just going all-in on economically crippling Russia while supplying Ukraine with material and intel to make the war as bloody as possible for the Russians. Given that the EU can't declare actual war on Russia, due to the whole nuclear power thing, being directly at war in a shooting sense can't be a requirement for treating it as war. right but there's no formal suspension of the normal way of doing things, in which case the suppression of news outlets from unfriendly countries must be interpreted within the EU's normal institutional framework. such suppression does not obviously gel with a deep, institutional commitment to free speech. this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
War isn't the only "abnormal" state of things. The current international order is established specifically to feature a long tier list of normally non-permissible emergency measures in order to make war as unlikely as possible. Countries resorting to things that go against the normal way of doing business without declaring war is, in a way, a normal way of doing business, and international institutions working as intended in a crisis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:right but there's no formal suspension of the normal way of doing things, in which case the suppression of news outlets from unfriendly countries must be interpreted within the EU's normal institutional framework. such suppression does not obviously gel with a deep, institutional commitment to free speech. What is the manner in which these channels got shut down though? I mean, we are arguing on the basis that it was extraprocedual at least, but is this is really true? Another option is that the EU in whatever from does have procedure to do exactly that. In which case, it need not speak against an "institutional commitment of free speech" as such, except perhaps in the narrow sense that the institutions are constrained ex ante.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
yeah but having an executive option to shut down news outlets is not Great from a free-speech perspective, and is exactly the sort of thing which is often criticised by europe and the US on free speech grounds
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:11
|
|