So they were doctors?

celibate wrote:Assigning blame to one side is the worst thing you can do in a situation like this, it'll just make matters worse with different groups using it as pretext for their political agenda. Unfortunately, you can already see the psychological theatre take form in the media. Everyone has to accept responsibility. Ukraine for continuing to war with separitists, Russia and America for continuing to create tension via propaganda, the international airspace control for allowing flights to follow that route , etc. hopefully the tragedy is a catalyst for resolution.

Yeah, how dare the Ukraine fight separatists from dissolving the sovereignty of their nation.

Addicted2Movies wrote:

celibate wrote:Assigning blame to one side is the worst thing you can do in a situation like this, it'll just make matters worse with different groups using it as pretext for their political agenda. Unfortunately, you can already see the psychological theatre take form in the media. Everyone has to accept responsibility. Ukraine for continuing to war with separitists, Russia and America for continuing to create tension via propaganda, the international airspace control for allowing flights to follow that route , etc. hopefully the tragedy is a catalyst for resolution.

Yeah, how dare the Ukraine fight separatists from dissolving the sovereignty of their nation.

the irony of that statement is that originally, the govt in ukraine was overthrown because people didnt agree with it....but now the new govt has a problem with a section of ukraine not wanting to have anything to do with it?





this is why all this shit is laughable. People justify their own actions, condemn those same actions when they see themselves in the mirror, then when tragedies occur because of the conflicts they use them to enforce their own self-pity and hatred of others.


and the media just uses this shit to create theatre and take advantage of the human ego...everybody cant wait to watch some news, read some articles, and then come to a conclusion about who the "good guy" is and who the "bad guy" is and take the side of "justice" and "freedom" because "im so smart"

really sucks that they might not even admit it or do anything

celibate wrote:

Addicted2Movies wrote:

celibate wrote:Assigning blame to one side is the worst thing you can do in a situation like this, it'll just make matters worse with different groups using it as pretext for their political agenda. Unfortunately, you can already see the psychological theatre take form in the media. Everyone has to accept responsibility. Ukraine for continuing to war with separitists, Russia and America for continuing to create tension via propaganda, the international airspace control for allowing flights to follow that route , etc. hopefully the tragedy is a catalyst for resolution.

Yeah, how dare the Ukraine fight separatists from dissolving the sovereignty of their nation.

the irony of that statement is that originally, the govt in ukraine was overthrown because people didnt agree with it....but now the new govt has a problem with a section of ukraine not wanting to have anything to do with it?





this is why all this shit is laughable. People justify their own actions, condemn those same actions when they see themselves in the mirror, then when tragedies occur because of the conflicts they use them to enforce their own self-pity and hatred of others.


and the media just uses this shit to create theatre and take advantage of the human ego...everybody cant wait to watch some news, read some articles, and then come to a conclusion about who the "good guy" is and who the "bad guy" is and take the side of "justice" and "freedom" because "im so smart"

Please go back to acting or whatever.

celibate wrote:
Yeah, how dare the Ukraine fight separatists from dissolving the sovereignty of their nation.

the irony of that statement is that originally, the govt in ukraine was overthrown because people didnt agree with it....but now the new govt has a problem with a section of ukraine not wanting to have anything to do with it?





this is why all this shit is laughable. People justify their own actions, condemn those same actions when they see themselves in the mirror, then when tragedies occur because of the conflicts they use them to enforce their own self-pity and hatred of others.


and the media just uses this shit to create theatre and take advantage of the human ego...everybody cant wait to watch some news, read some articles, and then come to a conclusion about who the "good guy" is and who the "bad guy" is and take the side of "justice" and "freedom" because "im so smart"

Technically, the government was overthrown via persistent protesting and the demands of those protests were merely the resignation of a corrupted figure and an approach towards european-centered politics. You can't compare that with what the separatists want, therefore you can't call it hypocricy. The demands of the protesters that overthrew the government didn't discriminate people. They just wanted a new government with less ties with russia and if they could've achieved that through unregulated, fair elections they would've done so but that's not the case in these countries.

The demands of the separatists though are highly discriminative. That's why they're called separatists. Your point is that it's hypocritical for the new government to act against separatism because just months ago they were fighting against a government. In reality though, the protesters were fighting against corruption, while...

1. The separatists don't even raise the issue of corruption
2. Their demands affect other people too directly. Separating Donetsk from Ukraine affects everyone anti-Russian directly. Even those that are pro-Russian but not necessarily FOR separatism. In that sense, there's an additional motive for the current government to act against them - because that way they protect the interests of all those in that area that aren't FOR separating. The previous government didn't have that. The protesters' demands didn't really discriminate -> the government didn't protect anybody's interest other than their own.

In other words, while it's true that ANY government is entitled to act against opposition, it's also true that when a government does that only out of self interest and in doing so does NOT protect any other interest than its own - then that government obviously is in the wrong.

The above doesn't even touch on the fact that the former government was dealing with citizens armed with pans and baseball bats while the current government deals with guerilla warfare constinuously armed by external militairy forces.

So you can't call it hypocricy. I don't even think you motivate anyone to assume responsibility by drawing the hypocricy card. In fact, calling out on each other's hypocricy is a justification of wrongdoing, not an incentive inviting assumption of responsibility. We've had this on NF a lot and you know it. People shout 'hypocrite' right before or after doing whatever they want to do anyway just so that they'd feel it's not so bad. So it's not hypocricy. Or at least not 'mutual hypocricy'. There's a one-sided hypocricy of the kind that tells a person he needs to arm himself to the teeth and become a separatist when he's dissatisfied with the current political order... to do what? prove a point in politics and democracy? by doing things that cancel the effects and aims of politics and democracy?

How much sense does the following make anyway: A pro-russian separatist is ok with politics as long as they're pro-russian. Once they're not, though, things call for separatism. As in, what kind of mentality guides a person to such disbelief in, simply, 'other means' of protecting their interests. Even if we substract those separatists that are in it simply for the game of dominance (and in all similar conflicts there's always a lot of those involved), the rest that actually supports separatism out of pure conviction- they show 0 support for democracy. They're mutually exclusive and no, I don't accept arguments of the kind 'modern politics proved that democracy doesn't work'. ANY game doesn't work when you aren't willing to play by its rules.

Someone even said that every new generation needs to rediscover democracy and that that's been happening through the centuries, so I guess it's normal.

prince0gotham wrote:

celibate wrote:
Yeah, how dare the Ukraine fight separatists from dissolving the sovereignty of their nation.

the irony of that statement is that originally, the govt in ukraine was overthrown because people didnt agree with it....but now the new govt has a problem with a section of ukraine not wanting to have anything to do with it?





this is why all this shit is laughable. People justify their own actions, condemn those same actions when they see themselves in the mirror, then when tragedies occur because of the conflicts they use them to enforce their own self-pity and hatred of others.


and the media just uses this shit to create theatre and take advantage of the human ego...everybody cant wait to watch some news, read some articles, and then come to a conclusion about who the "good guy" is and who the "bad guy" is and take the side of "justice" and "freedom" because "im so smart"

Technically, the government was overthrown via persistent protesting and the demands of those protests were merely the resignation of a corrupted figure and an approach towards european-centered politics. You can't compare that with what the separatists want, therefore you can't call it hypocricy. The demands of the protesters that overthrew the government didn't discriminate people. They just wanted a new government with less ties with russia and if they could've achieved that through unregulated, fair elections they would've done so but that's not the case in these countries.

The demands of the separatists though are highly discriminative. That's why they're called separatists. Your point is that it's hypocritical for the new government to act against separatism because just months ago they were fighting against a government. In reality though, the protesters were fighting against corruption, while...

1. The separatists don't even raise the issue of corruption
2. Their demands affect other people too directly. Separating Donetsk from Ukraine affects everyone anti-Russian directly. Even those that are pro-Russian but not necessarily FOR separatism. In that sense, there's an additional motive for the current government to act against them - because that way they protect the interests of all those in that area that aren't FOR separating. The previous government didn't have that. The protesters' demands didn't really discriminate -> the government didn't protect anybody's interest other than their own.

In other words, while it's true that ANY government is entitled to act against opposition, it's also true that when a government does that only out of self interest and in doing so does NOT protect any other interest than its own - then that government obviously is in the wrong.

The above doesn't even touch on the fact that the former government was dealing with citizens armed with pans and baseball bats while the current government deals with guerilla warfare constinuously armed by external militairy forces.

So you can't call it hypocricy. I don't even think you motivate anyone to assume responsibility by drawing the hypocricy card. In fact, calling out on each other's hypocricy is a justification of wrongdoing, not an incentive inviting assumption of responsibility. We've had this on NF a lot and you know it. People shout 'hypocrite' right before or after doing whatever they want to do anyway just so that they'd feel it's not so bad. So it's not hypocricy. Or at least not 'mutual hypocricy'. There's a one-sided hypocricy of the kind that tells a person he needs to arm himself to the teeth and become a separatist when he's dissatisfied with the current political order... to do what? prove a point in politics and democracy? by doing things that cancel the effects and aims of politics and democracy?

How much sense does the following make anyway: A pro-russian separatist is ok with politics as long as they're pro-russian. Once they're not, though, things call for separatism. As in, what kind of mentality guides a person to such disbelief in, simply, 'other means' of protecting their interests. Even if we substract those separatists that are in it simply for the game of dominance (and in all similar conflicts there's always a lot of those involved), the rest that actually supports separatism out of pure conviction- they show 0 support for democracy. They're mutually exclusive and no, I don't accept arguments of the kind 'modern politics proved that democracy doesn't work'. ANY game doesn't work when you aren't willing to play by its rules.

Someone even said that every new generation needs to rediscover democracy and that that's been happening through the centuries, so I guess it's normal.

Do you know how the new govt in Ukraine was formed? They had a thug committee akin to the kangaroo court in TDKR go around and remove anybody they thought was Pro-Russian in the govt. So ofcourse, the separatists, who are pro-russian refuse to acknowledge the govt's sovereignty...its fairly easy to understand. Ukraine as a country was always divided over this issue, and you form a govt that only caters to the one side of the country, what do you expect to happen? In modern day, "democracy" is just a cover word people throw around to justify their political means and agenda. The world has been off of democracy long ago.

But that wasn't even the main point of what I was saying. The main point is that every country's media is just taking the narrative that is convenient for their govt's political agenda and motivations. Meanwhile, the people on the ground are getting riled up with contempt, hatred, and fear for people across the globe they know nothing about all in the name of "justice" and "freedom." It's a hamster wheel of division that can never lead to resolution and peace.

I'll adress your main point first then.

I don't think that by calling things illusions you're paving a way to a scenario where people are gonna assume responsibility. While I do understand what you mean when you say that 'media is an illusion because it skews truth' or that 'democracy is an illusion' and so on, I don't agree that you're being the one providing the conditions for responsible actions. Why?

Because that way you're cutting all connections between the current scenario and the theoretical scenario that we want. If media is a a 100% illusion now then what hope is there to make it not an illusion. As in what basis are we supposed to have? Whatever you say now is, more or less, going to be the truth later. You're pushing democracy aside as a solution, saying it's impossible, but then you still insist people should assume responsibility. How? By what standards?

That's why it sounds like empty, cynical and nihilistic complaints. I can talk to you for hours about how media twists truths or shows them selectively. That doesn't mean I can bust into debates and basically say 'it's all and illusion and because of that people should stop making assumptions and should simply assume responsibility'. Like, how does one, in the real world, jump from 'not making assumptions' directly to 'assuming responsibility'. You see how there's no connection between the two? You're not suggesting a process, you're suggesting cynicism. You want to have a say in this but all you end up saying is 'everything you'll hear is a lie' and then oversimplify the desired outcome. You don't suggest a solution, you simply oversimplify what would be a good outcome by saying 'it'd all be good if everyone assumed responsibility'. You reduce the issue down to 'fallacies and hypocrisy' and then hope for happy endings.

As for my point and concerning the courts:

I know how they did it. I also know that if they, as protesters, took the government down with protests and not guerilla warfare, then the separatists have no excuse to NOT try and do the same.

Think about it, one thing is true about both the protesters and the separatists. For whatever reasons and whatever conditions -> both were dissatisfied with the political order. Now, how did each approach that problem? The first protested and took the government down. The second decided it's worth it to shoot at people in order to prove a point.

From here on any talk about 'hypocricy' is pointless. Of course both governments will drive opposition out. What's important is is (1) how each government does that and (2) how its supporters do it. Do I need to point out how the previous government + its supporters, some of which are now separatists, were in the extreme in both cases?

And I understand being extreme in a case where you have no options. But if ordinary citizens were able to take a strongly corrupted government down without organisation of radicalized militairy then what tells the separatists that they can't do the same? Nothing. And that's important. Extremism can be expected in countries with no infrastructure (that's where people lack options) like those in the middle east. In Ukraine it's not supposed to be a normal thing. That's why I can't explain the separatist extremism there with anything other than external control. Separatists aren't just armed, they're employed. Often by external forces.

The above is another reason we can't talk about hypocrisy here. It can't be hypocrisy if they're being armed and employed, because if they're armed and employed we can't talk about pure conviction in their political views. If they're employed to fight the government then how can the government be hypocritical for fighting them if protesters from last year never were paid to fight the previous government?

You can't make media not an illusion because that's what it is. Nobody goes to to a magic show, expecting to see the mechanics of the trick, they want to be fooled to believe in the magic. In the same way, you have to just simple acknowledge that media is theatre, and turn it off. The problem is people still want to look at media and fool themselves into thinking that they are acquiring knowledge.

And taking responsibility is as simple as saying, today I'm going to be responsible for my own peace and freedom. No forces outside of my control are going to be able to take it from me. You can't give somebody else peace and freedom, each individual has to claim it for themselves and it has nothing to do with exerting force or taking action on something outside of you.


the argument about ukraine/separtists is moot and its just going around in the hamster wheel. no matter how you slice it, everybody acts and reacts in their own self-interest and you cant blame anyone for it. It's the example of what I'm talking about...you cant take a side in it, unless you have bought into a narrative framed by whatever media you indulge in. The minute you take a side, you have to take a step back and remember that you are buying into the theatre. Disassociate, and reclaim your peace and freedom. Because if you dont, you share responsibility for tragedies like this.

celibate wrote:You can't make media not an illusion because that's what it is. Nobody goes to to a magic show, expecting to see the mechanics of the trick, they want to be fooled to believe in the magic. In the same way, you have to just simple acknowledge that media is theatre, and turn it off. The problem is people still want to look at media and fool themselves into thinking that they are acquiring knowledge.

And taking responsibility is as simple as saying, today I'm going to be responsible for my own peace and freedom. No forces outside of my control are going to be able to take it from me. You can't give somebody else peace and freedom, each individual has to claim it for themselves and it has nothing to do with exerting force or taking action on something outside of you.


the argument about ukraine/separtists is moot and its just going around in the hamster wheel. no matter how you slice it, everybody acts and reacts in their own self-interest and you cant blame anyone for it. It's the example of what I'm talking about...you cant take a side in it, unless you have bought into a narrative framed by whatever media you indulge in. The minute you take a side, you have to take a step back and remember that you are buying into the theatre. Disassociate, and reclaim your peace and freedom. Because if you dont, you share responsibility for tragedies like this.

What I see in this is your excuse to not analyze the situation.

Calling the media an absolute illusion, which it is - only for the most part, is a green light for idle passiveness. You're basically telling people to give up on trying to make their own sense out of the cloud of fallacies and confusion. In that sense, you're not encouraging responsible actions or an 'active role' at all. You're encouraging the avoidance of it by preaching futility.

I mean it's not just with media. 90% of everything is bullshit and if 'giving up' applies to media then everyone should give up on anything.

You see, you're reducing things down to 'don't believe that and this, don't take a side, don't overthink it' and then say that things are as simple as saying 'i'm responsible'. You're cutting the connection between cause and effect here. Do you not see that you don't encourage responsibility by telling people 'not to do anything'?

Because essentially your point is that no one's opinion will ever be 100% objectively informed (not something I'd disagree with), so because an opinion can never be 100% informed and best suited for a task - then people shouldn't act on any kind of opinion simply because it could be wrong and because they may end up sharing responsibility for whatever goes wrong.

You're not encouraging responsibility that way, you're encouraging fear of action exactly because action means consequence and consequence means responsibility. In that way you make responsibility something to be feared.