Trying out a new range of teas to drink in the garden? Not black tea though of course.

Or perhaps gathering his nearest and dearest around a laptop to show them all of the instances of him denigrating their challenges in life to a group of complete strangers?

Edited by BlueJay (04 Jun 2022 12.38pm)

Don't tell me. Done by Ukrainian Nazi's to make it look like the Russians did it.

NATO hasn't intervened with an invasion of a sovereign state, killing and torturing of civilians, cutting of fuel and food supply lines. What do a few old buildings matter ?

Or is it a Jubilee beacon lit by the Ukrainians ?

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (04 Jun 2022 1.04pm)

I disengage, I turn the page.

I am being a tad opinionated and wrong on a human level, but destroying these historic buildings and monuments (much like ISIS with the Christian Yadizi's, etc) is like destroying their heritage and culture at a stroke, so there is no significant evidence of the original inhabitants ever having existed.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Much of what made Ukraine what it is, is being wiped out. That often is through intention of course but sad all the same. Russia may well make gains, but they will be depressing wastelands of their own making. Still, wait they are making said gains, there is little interest in 'negotiating' anything.

Edited by BlueJay (05 Jun 2022 2.21pm)

The west aren't, and won't be, doing any negotiations. They aren't directly involved. No-one though is remotely interested in escalation. That's a ridiculous idea. An excuse not to allow Ukraine to defend itself.

What diplomatic efforts are being made behind the scenes is an unknown, but they will be happening for sure. In the meantime, we need to show resolve and make sure that Putin never tries this again. We know it's costly, but the cost of not doing it is greater.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

No single source offers a complete picture. Mainstream news does however operate within a socially understood range due to the numbers of eyeballs on screens, so nothing extreme or terroristic is likely to feature (unlike online). There is a reputational aspect and longevity (making accuracy at least a consideration), unlike the endless 'pop up' websites that cost about 12 pence to set up, or encrypted sites and chats that can totally veer off into the deep end with heavy crafted warped perspectives (often because that's would appeals rather than what is true) that excite their idler adherents. 'Group polarisation' at work.

There's often less structure online, and so people tend to more easily go down hyper partisan rabbit hole routes due to their own biases and hang ups to the point where they can become far more indoctrinated than they realise. Emotional crack for the socially inept and mentally unwell. These types routinely do not recognise that this is even happening to them (as that would require a modicum of self awareness that would put the brakes on it to begin with).

'Opinion' led news from rabble rousers of the Tucker Carlson and Keith Olbermann type moulds diverge from news in a significantly negative way though, as they instead push heavily emotion led narratives to those suseptable to them who enjoy 'performative' politically polarised offerings rather than actual news (indeed Tucker Carlon has defended himself again slander with the legal position that he's not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary' - which of course is true.) One eyed sensationalist 'commentator' led news is often derivative; a glossy version of the very same tripe people get on activist or basement dweller sites online. The opposite of having a genuine interest in nuance, people or current events.

The best way to take in news is to do so from multiple sources, often of somewhat different perspectives, to form a patchwork of sorts. The main pitfall online is fear and hatred based echo chambers of left and right, that so heavily curate and skew information and events that they just function as comfort blankets for the mentally weak - dark dives built intentionally blotting out other realities and perspectives. The information is certainly out there and can be taken onboard in a fair way by the principled, but there is so little quality control that the mix of what people end up taking in instead sometimes over time leads them to places and ideas that range from unfortunate to dangerous. 'Alt media scholars' often scoffing at the mainstream, would have a point if they were not typically the most mentally out of it people you could ever interact with.

Edited by BlueJay (05 Jun 2022 11.27am)