Syria

[Naruthiron]

Mmmm...Turkey...

[Naruthiron]

It has come to my attention that my attempts to keep the thread light and defuse the situation have been upsetting to those emotionally invested in this issue. I personally believe that such is all the proof needed to show just how much light humor is required at times, even in serious topics.

I don't like to argue politics. Issues like these tend to be ones where our opinions are like lines drawn in the sand. Over the course of a debate, we might toe that line, but a mixture of pride, willful ignorance, and skewed perspectives keep us from ever truly conceding our opinion. As such, these lead to a series of hurt feelings and annoyance. No bueno.

That's why I try to keep things light. Agree or disagree with that method, know that my intention isn't to make fun of anyone for their investment in such an era-defining issue, rather it is to preserve the sense of community inherent in an online forum. I'm not going to stop doing that. I care too much about you nerds to not invest myself in reminding everyone that life is serious enough with our help. I may not be the Compassion Immortal anymore, but I still lo..li...erm..tolerate... you guys.

<3 Naru <3

[Celerity]

This one is quite interesting:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/erdogan-blackmails-nato-allies/5493354?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

I think if you don't like to argue politics, you should not post in a political thread or you should state your view and skip the arguing. Posting inane, off-topic comments only worsens the mood and also makes you look shallow--quite bad for staff. If you truly want to improve the sense of community on the forum, you need to invest some time and write well-reasoned constructive posts. In the example of this thread, you could take a reconciliatory tone to your political thoughts. This goes for all threads though. People want real, meaningful responses, and the more the staff can provide, the better. Senseless, effortless comments don't help anyone.

Also, my opinions of Mali, Magick, and Valek haven't gotten worse because of their opinions in this thread and I've not felt personally attacked or insulted here. Finally, concerning opinions on an online thread--it isn't about the speakers. It is about the listeners.

[Naruthiron]

If you really want my opinion...

I think the fact that any of you pretend that any one side is more right than the other is just laughable. Each of you has, as I mentioned, an emotional investment.

F0xx's geopolitical location and cultural vilifies Turkey. It becomes a default stance of those wronged by slights in the past to forget that both sides play a part in almost every conflict in history - violent (war) or not (policy). To put it in perspective for the Americans... try to imagine the year is 1790. All the history and conflict between the US and the British Empire most certainly affected the citizens of both sides in the form of prejudice. We can see it in the post-9/11 world with how (regrettably) acceptable it is to racially profile middle-eastern people, as well as the religious persecution of the global Muslim population. That cultural barrier is very real, and a very potent bias. F0xx is a smart guy, as even Valek would begrudgingly admit, but even the smartest people in the world fall to bias. Happens all the time, even in the less opinion-based world of physics or medicine. It's very existence as a bias is something most people never even consider when making a decision, especially on issues like this.

Magick and Valek each have their own informational biases as well. We as people like to cherry-pick from research and news releases so that it supports our intrinsic beliefs. We see something we disagree with (Fox News, anyone?) and we discard it as incredulous and faulty information. Yet when the other side of the fence says something equally, but oppositely, charged - we ignore the bias because it suits our opinions. Even worse, we depend on these agencies to provide us with our opinions of the outside world. How is anyone that isn't involved first hand supposed to form a truly informed opinion? We do exercises as kids that point out this major flaw we have, and we casually ignore it or forget about it as we grow older. I refer to the exercise where a phrase is spoken in whisper to a person, who then relates it to the next, (etc. etc.) in a chain, and at the end, we end up with something entirely different than what we started with. The entire purpose of that exercise is to teach children that we should never take the word of another as fact. Even if they don't realize it, they are distorting the original message. It's worse in news media because there is a bottom line. Those are companies. With profit margins and red/black ink to consider. They sell their information. Just that by itself makes news outlets of all forms entirely untrustworthy as forms of definitive and comprehensive reports on anything more complicated that a cuddly puppy's first bark.

Celerity's lens is ego. I'm just going to be blunt about that. It's hard to debate with people that see their perspective as superior and more important than the perspective of others. Nobody is ever going to convince you of anything you don't want to be convinced of. That's a historical trend I've noticed for as long as I've had a forum account. That's not intended to be a slight at you, a healthy ego can be a great asset, and it's important that we value ourselves and our opinions. It does become toxic to a debate, however, when it prevents you from admitting, even privately to yourself, that perhaps you misinterpreted or misjudged an aspect of the topic. It undermines the most constructive part of debates - to reason with others to create a mutually beneficial dialogue where both parties emerge more enlightened - and creates a brick wall which eventually completely halts all healthy discussion and just becomes a battle between an stoppable force (annoyance is an amazing deterence) and an immovable object (stubborn refusal too stronk). 

My own lens is polarization. I'm naturally not an agreeable dude when it comes to my opinions. I come across as stand-offish and it has a way of discouraging debate. Also, I have issues with my own ego. I'm arrogant, first to admit that. I condescend, and so as staff I try to avoid being roped into conversations which might devolve into..well..this. Where I know I should just bite my tongue but I post anyway. Also... I am pretty practical, and don't really see the use in debating heavy topics on a forum. I'm fairly positive that the decision-makers on any side of the fence in these issues aren't waiting on baited breath to see what some nerds on a forum board are posting in regards to international politics. I'm also fairly positive that none of us are the charismatic grass-roots leader to inspire global change. Feel free to prove me wrong. So all that comes out of these debates where there's so much finger-pointing and emotionally charged rhetoric is petty little "hurt feelings" posts. It gets exhausting.

But enough about that... This is about Syria.

All sides are stupid. All of them. America, Turkey, Syria, ISIS, Rebels, Russia, everyone. Blowing stuff up is never an endearing action. Conflict is kept alive through destruction and destabilization of life. All sides are complicit in that. You want to stop ISIS? Stop blowing up cities. You want to stabilize Syria? Interface with its people, not its government. Loosen border restrictions and encourage immigration. Think Putin is being a bully? Stop personifying a government by its figurehead (Americans in particular are guilty of that, look at what all they blame on their presidents). Each side does this "It's not me, it's them!" crap and the public eats it up. Confirmation bias is a bitch. Everyone knows ISIS got its start through the US. It's that thing we can't prove, but everyone knows. Like that one dude who totally has syphilis, you just KNOW... but you can't just go about pulling his medical record. Destabilization of a region fuels proxy wars. The fall of the wall was false symbolism for a fake end to the cold war. It's still going on. It's been going on for as long as two nations have existed on this earth. It's going to continue until either we kill ourselves or we somehow manage to become a global federation. And Russia? Totally doing it do, bee tee dubs. Even with this showing where they're kind of exposing the true objective of America's involvement in the region (which again, everyone knows... Sins of our fathers and all. Al Quada in the 70's ring a bell?) They're just better at it. Always have been. We all KNEW Russia was sending their troops and weapons into Crimea to arm separatist rebels. We knew, they still did it, and nothing's been done nor will be done about it. They won their proxy. China too. The US gets their butts kicked in proxy war because, quite frankly, they suck at it. What they DO excel at, however, is economic warfare. NATO is extremely powerful, and we know who the driving force is there. 

So yeah. Every side in this conflict is dumb. This whole proxy fighting and behind-the-curtain dick waving contest is destroying the best chance humanity has of getting off this rock before we bleed it dry and kill each other.

[Celerity]

That was by far the best post I've seen by you and you've definitely gained respect in my eyes.

[Imoutgoodbye]

It's true.  I have my biases.  I ignore the fact that there exists a narrative in the Civil War where many of the soldiers were fighting for the belief their individual rights were being infringed upon, that their way of life would be threatened.  They were fighting for a different narrative than slavery, especially since only the uppermost echelons of society had slaves.  Every house in the South was not a plantation spread out every five miles.  There is also the issue of local narratives.  I could go on and on, but I would quickly point out every theory I have advanced takes into consideration ALL the research.  The only bias that I could possibly be accused of is that I chose one reason above the rest when I decided nationalism (federal law) was the area that should ultimately be considered for the beginning of the war and that the legislation was the proper evidence to use.  I'll spare everyone Jean Baudrillard's Desert of the Real (map).

 

Also, I dig your style, Naruthiron.  I'm not particularly keen on these discussions myself anymore since I've come to the conclusion everything is subjective and there is no right or wrong, else everyone is right or everyone is wrong.  Precedents are ridiculous in inquisitorial and adversarial law systems which try to separate right from wrong.

 

Might I suggest an Ecocritical lens?  This does seem to be about land, after all, and the way people treat it through differance.  

[mya]

Very nice analysis on Syria Celerity. Never knew you followed such stuff.

 

On Turkey, I know not one person that loves Turkey on my country. On contraire, we are all extremely weary of them due to cultural/historic  reasons. And I have no idea why UE keep pushing to integration of Turkey when most Europeans are against it.

 

In my view all this Syria/Ukraine/Russia situation is very ... troublesome ... people are already saying we are ATM in WW3. Let's hope not.

[Naruthiron]

To be fair, people also heralded the Hezbolah attacks on Israel from Lebanon several years as the start of WW3. That sentiment likes to get throne out by news media, and the reason is (I feel) obvious. It sticks. It plays to a fear that we all have. Which in turn, sells their product (their stories) and eats up airtime.

[hotspring monkey]

Merry xmas! 

 

https://youtu.be/Y9_YXGVmco4

[f0xx]

Meanwhile in Ukraine's parliament...

[Telufial]

For those of us that don't know what that was about, can you explain?

[f0xx]

Some silly polotics.

[f0xx]

Here's an interesting lesson in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_3Ynmah0Q4

[Celerity]

Although the stuff covered in that particular video happens to be pretty well-known and sourcable, that the video was created by Alex Jones is a huge negative strike against its credibility. I think there are other videos that describe similar history that weren't created by the dubious profiteer.

[Celerity]

What is the refugee situation like in Bulgaria? I wonder if this kind of article is accurate: http://m.dw.com/en/why-do-so-many-refugees-avoid-bulgaria/a-18707897

[f0xx]

I live in a small town (50k citizens) and here you can't sense any difference, but there are refugee camps in the country and I talk to friends who say that certain parts and neighborhoods of the capital are now complete refugee ghettos. Also, Bulgaria has many small villages that have been completely deserted and there are refugees who settle in those villages and houses.

There is one thing in the article that struck me as absolute truth though: "Bulgaria is poor and Christian; we don't want you!" It's just how it is. No idea about that certain incident described in the article, with the guy jumping on the refugee like a trampoline, seems a bit made up to me really.

To be honest, the refugees are treated much better by the state compared to some of the elderly and not working population (which in turn sparks a lot of violence towards them by the general population). When you compare it to the treatment they receive in Germany and Finland though, it does appear to be much more miserable, but that's only because Bulgaria as a whole is much poorer.