Your “source” literally says they can’t understand what they mean when they’re speaking and gives two wildly different interpretations of what they’re saying
You really won’t see this in the USA, because few people even reach the border. After September 11, the United States is fine with eliminating threats. For example, the United States knew about this attack for 2 weeks.
UPD: I also remind you that after September 11, the United States did not limit itself to one person but beat up an entire country
I mean… knowing it’s likely a CIA funded attack, Russia didn’t really have any option other than to say it was the group that allows them to continue their war in the Ukraine.
Of course it could be CIA connected but likely is a too strong word with the information available at this point. Russia is fucking around with many groups all over the world
Oh, believe me, I tried. Paradox of tolerance, yadda yadda yadda.
Best I can do right now is let people know there’s no point in engaging with trolls. We don’t want to encourage them and give them a platform they’ll use to spread their nazbol propaganda.
Well dont stop, continue. Only in dialogue can we defeat our differences.
Otherwise you seperate and isolate people, and strengthen they’re belives.
There are people that you can show all the facts and logic and proof and they are not going to believe. Those people I refer to as stupid. ( I dont call em that. No need to be rude). Dont be such a person yourself.
Hence, always try to engage in dialogue and be flexible enough in your worldviews. But also know some people are not and there is nothing you can do.
But other people reading this will see you be right.
Nazbol? What does this dead movement have to do with anything?
The topic of discussion is how to prevent them from doing any harm, rather than which space crocodile is secretly controlling us with mind-control lasers, or whatever their lunacy-of-the-day may be. This is a win. They’re being exposed without giving them the satisfaction of censoring them. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
This is not high-school debate club. Anyone with a modicum of media litteracy knows you don’t give a platform to Russian shills, or anyone peddling any kind of similarly lunatic propaganda for that matter. If you want to know more, read their post history. The reason that you don’t do that is that the minute they get sufficient mindshare, they’ll be more than happy to bend the rules of civil discussion. We’re talking about people defending China and its censorship, after all.
And look, you’re more than welcome to criticize American imperialism and liberal hypocrisy. But shilling for authoritarian regimes is a red line any leftist worthy of the name should not cross.
And because Islamic extremists have never committed attacks in Russie based on Russias actions in Syria (directly engaging ISIS) and Russias friendly relations with the taliban, who in turn hate ISIS.
So many examples, but blaming the Americans/Ukranian/Europeans/InsertAnyOtherParty is just another way the Russian trolls sow chaos in an attempt to make everyone doubt reality.
You should stop eating soap, as apparently that is bad for your brain too.
A country defending itself from an invader is not committing killings and terrorist, it is engaged in asymmetric warfare for as far as it is actually involved.
Ascribing the work of partisans and anti putinists to Ukraine completely ignores the hellscapr Putin has created within Russia proper. There is plenty to be mad about at their own government for Russians.
Are you referring to the blowing up of a right wing extremist pro war blogger, inside the cafe of the wagner boss? Attended by fans of the blogger and his work calling for the extermination of Ukranians?
Because a link to Ukraine is only available by accusation by the person who did it, after she was arrested and in the hands of the Russian government for some time.
And judging by how the Russian security services treat their captives, I can imagine they will say whatever they need to in order to make the hurting stop or be less.
Presumably because they couldn’t find any Ukrainians to pin the blame on.
I’m somewhat skeptical about if these people are actually responsible, since I would have thought that a properly organized terrorist would actually leave the country pretty pronto.
A bunch of footage of what exactly? These individuals with their faces uncovered demonstrating they were the ones that committed the act I don’t think so.
In January 2019 mother-of-two Jasmin expressed milk for her baby during a 268-mile race along the Pennine Way to break the course record by more than 12 hours
This isnt a race with 1st or last. It only has “finished or didn’t.”
This year, 5 of 40 finished, which was a record. The “winner” finished at 58:44:59, with the other 4 finishing in the last hour. She is one of 17 people to ever complete the newer, fully unmarked race route.
For anyone who’s interested, there’s a really good documentary on the Barkley Marathons that was made several years ago. The Barkley Marathons: The Race That Eats Its Young.
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
What in cracker fucking hell. You know you could just fucking lie about your motives, right?
It is not a homage, it’s a mockery. It does retrace part of his escape, but goes 10x as far over much, much more brutal terrain. The race started as a joke about what a wimp the guy was to only cover 12 miles in 50hrs of running.
There is a documentary about the race called "the race that eats its young" that is excellent if you want to learn more.
I dunno, Cantrell seems kinda gleefully obtuse about the inspiration in the trailer. Now, I don’t think he’s intending to say anything nice about Ray, but there’s just something offputting about how casual he is about it, like he thinks the main cultural legacy of James Earl Ray is being bad at cross-country running. I guess not the end of the world, but… tacky.
Well, just from a media literacy stance, watching 90 seconds of a movie trailer and then deciding the blatantly irreverent presenter of a grueling triathlon/art piece that invites global participation is secretly a supporter of a racist murderer, is probably not rock solid analysis.
I can tell you as someone who watched the documentary in it entirely, dug deeper into the history afterwards, and has an ultra marathoner friend i’ve discussed it with, that I did not come to the same conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that the race has basically nothing to do with that piece of shit murderer. His sad ass escape may have been the inspiration 45 years ago for a joke that became an art piece that became a grueling ultra marathon, but now it is very much about the race. At no point do they venerate or even wink at the shithead. The closest they get i nthe documentary is that part of the race in 2014 involved wading through a stream that goes under the abandoned prison, but even that is just designed to plunge the runners and their many wounds into ice cold water over and over again as they lap the course over 60 insane hours.
As an example of the irreverence, of the 40 runners allowed each year, 1 runner who is deemed unqualified is allowed entry as the “human sacrifice.” They are given bib #1.
There is often a race fee of “a clean pair of socks” or tshirts, which he wears during the race. He demands “$1.60 and a license plate from your home country or state” as the entry fee.
Glad to hear it, and I hope was pretty explicit in stating I didn’t think he actually supported James Earl Ray. He comes off more as somebody who’s up his own ass than a crypto-racist.
Again, not the end of the world, just a bit tone deaf.
Again, 90 seconds of trailer isn’t exactly a great amount of source material for your conclusion, but okay then.
Dudes only “up his own ass” in the sense that he runs a brutal series of marathons in a whimsical fashion. He “keeps austin weird” basically, even if it is in Tennessee.
I hope the extensive list of articles, documentary links, and general feedback is enough to inspire a tasteful edit of something like “wow, I learned and that guy is great at making fun of the guy who shot MLK.”
Reading only the excerpt and knowing nothing else about the race, yeah I think it’s pretty fucking normal to be outraged. If it didn’t raise an eyebrow for you I find that very fucking suspicious.
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
It’s just about the escape, and the terrain covered, specifically. The point is he didn’t make it far on that terrain and the competitors do so much more.
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
They have willingly associated themselves with it after the fact, and to make no comment on what is an extremely dark chapter of American history seems pretty irresponsible. It would take absolutely no effort at all to say, “we are not valorising this man”, so not doing it is quite telling.
The point is he didn’t make it far on that terrain and the competitors do so much more.
If that is true and you have it from the organisers, then they have made some comment on the man himself. Could you share how you know about this?
Okay, reading the article itself and not just the summary:
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
Ray covered only about 12 miles (19km) after running more than 50 hours in the woods, hiding from air searches during the day.
Cantrell is reported to have mocked the distance covered by Ray, saying: “I could do at least 100 miles.”
So it’s just that the summary leaves out this information, which if they’re going to mention the origins of the race is a pretty crucial detail to omit.
I have to say though, when you say they “make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person” it really does create the impression they’re being neutral in the matter, which they obviously aren’t. I’m glad you explained more.
Look, the issue here is clearly that the race appeared crypto-racist on that summary, and instead of clearly explaining the issue, you stated exactly the things that the race organisers are neutral on, which seems to almost surgically sidestep the clearly anti-racist motivations. You weren’t technically wrong, but you can walk up to literally anyone on the street and say “you’re going to die” and you’re not wrong, but they’d want know why you were saying it.
This is about framing. There are infinite details in the universe, the trick with communication is to filter down to the important, salient details.
Cool talk, thanks, glad you took on board what I was saying.
You can see from my comments how easy it is to clarify this issue in a straightforward way once you have read the article, but if you don’t know how to do that I understand.
I was commenting based on the comment I was replying to, which on reflection seemed to be intentionally avoiding answering the question. I can’t think of another reason why someone who knew anything about this would have been as circumspect as they were.
Look, man, if you didn’t read the article and were misled by the auto generated summary, do not blame someone else for not spelling it out for you.
Maaaybe, step 2 of that miscommunication might’ve been them not explicitly spelling everything out for you, but what was step 1?
It was you commenting without having read the article at hand.
Guess which one of these two is within YOUR control to prevent future misunderstandings?
Things might be different if this comment thread wasn’t centered around a single article, but it is, so the reasonable assumption is that participants in the conversation have read the article.
EDIT: Don’t get me wrong, you get props for going back in the article and recognizing that it provides a very different context from the auto generated summary, but I just don’t think chastising someone else without acknowledging that you messed up by not reading the article is the play.
Okay, I didn’t read it and should have. Usually I would, but I was commenting on a conversation. It’s been dealt with now so we can drop it, right?
But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info? Because the moment I had it I clarified the issue very easily. I wonder what they were doing saying shit like:
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
Because that’s so wrong that if they did know the actual story then it amounts to a lie of omission. It’s so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate. Any thoughts on that or is this like a team sport sort of situation?
But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info?
No, because it’s in the article being discussed at hand. It’s already been shared, some folks have ignored it.
It’s so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate.
If you read the second paragraph of their comment, it further goes on to say it’s just about the terrain. That second paragraph then reframes the first paragraph, because that first paragraph just states that organizers didn’t comment on the crime, and the second paragraph says what the organizers actually focused on instead.
Sure, quoting the first sentence out of context makes it seem so deliberately precise that it could be misleading, but the second sentence provides the context that shows why they were so absolute in that statement.
They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren’t being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they’d be able to give it a go and get do much better.
Did I say that, or are you conflating the cognitive dissonance of me discouraging you from blindly trusting autogenerated summaries with me generally disagreeing with you on everything?
They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren’t being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they’d be able to give it a go and get do much better.
You can say you were just paraphrasing, but “simply claiming” implies you saw nothing wrong with what they were saying.
EDIT: And I actually said that “to pretend like that is devoid of politics” was a problem, I never said you were saying it. But apparently you’re happy to just repeat it as if it’s a fine thing to say.
Oh, well when I said , “simply claiming”, I was implying that most folks don’t have an issue understanding what they meant, because it’s simple when you take both paragraphs into consideration.
It seems like just as you chose to interpret things in an adversarial manner then, you are choosing to do so now.
EDIT: sigh, to address your edit:
And I actually said that “to pretend like that is devoid of politics” was a problem, I never said you were saying it.
It’s pretty clear that you were asserting it’s one of my beliefs here:
Yeah idk what app you’re using but in sync, once conversations have this many exchanges, it becomes completely unreadable as entire comments are compressed into a single column of 1 letter wide rows. Given this UI issue I’m not sure we can really continue the conversation if we wanted to.
I hope you have a good day - I appreciate the good faith and earnestness from everyone.
And the fact you couldn’t just say that in your comment is either because you don’t know how to just say what you mean, or you hadn’t read the article yourself at that point. Which is it?
And I didn’t brand the whole situation racist, that was conditional on the information you were giving me. If you wanted to say it wasn’t racist, you could have done that if you had the information.
Step 2 of being outraged by an auto generated summary would ideally be to read the actual article to get more context before expressing that outrage.
I don’t think the issue being raised here is that you were outraged by the excerpt, it’s that the excerpt was trusted at face value enough to mislead folks, and it seems people just double down after being misled by the auto generated excerpt.
The summary mentions this detail and completely omits the rest of that section:
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
Ray covered only about 12 miles (19km) after running more than 50 hours in the woods, hiding from air searches during the day.
Cantrell is reported to have mocked the distance covered by Ray, saying: “I could do at least 100 miles.”
So it appears to be an extended exercise in mocking the asshole, which I wholeheartedly approve of.
Honestly the summary could’ve omitted the origins, or given it that crucial context. Giving the first sentence and not the rest is like the worst way to summarise that and it’s a big issue to just leave out. I would’ve included all of that because frankly it’s hilarious.
Yup, not sure why I got attacked and downvoted for this, it’s pretty fucking clear that the summary tells a different story than the article. But hey it’s par for the course on here, where outrage is performative, and real rage is frown upon.
I’ve also noticed an interesting trend from way back on Reddit, but there’s always some reactionary who uses one of the GBU bombs as their nickname.
Give a reactionary even the slightest chance to “well ackshually” away racism and they’ll jump on it. They’re not generally correct about things, so if they have a chance to be technically correct it’s like catnip. It’s fascinating how easy it would have been to explain the situation but this GBU person wanted them to be all “no comment” about it, as if that would have been an acceptable answer. It’s almost like they didn’t want to acknowledge the actual anti-racist motivations.
And yeah, I thought the GBU thing was familiar. I can’t find anything about it being a dogwhistle though, it’s not an easy thing to google.
EDIT: Maybe it’s not a dogwhistle, it could easily refer to guided bombs. Maybe it’s just one person with way too much time on their hands.
Yup, and there’s definitely people in this thread that really want to say “ackshually it’s not racist” but then are working really hard to give the impression that the race is simply neutral about the man himself. It’s almost like those people don’t want to admit that it’s actually anti-racist and based as fuck.
EDIT: I don’t want to vague-post about this. This is what the person in question actually said:
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
That’s fucked up, right? If they knew… how did they so specifically avoid explaining what the race is actually about?
The course, at Frozen Head State Park, changes every year but covers 100 miles involving 60,000ft of climb and descent - about twice the height of the Mount Everest.
Pictures show her legs scratched from pushing through sharp bushes and scrub in dense forest on steep slopes.
David Miller, a professional photographer at the race, told BBC Scotland he had witnessed the “greatest ultramarathon achievement of all time”.
"There was a lot of anticipation at the finish line and three minutes before the 60 hour cut off we heard shouting and a roar and it was people cheering Jasmin on.
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
Racers are also required to bring an additional “fee”, which in the past has included things such as a white shirt, socks, or a car registration plate, as a donation for being a non-finisher.
The original article contains 870 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Also, put an end to their union busting garbage. Then quality that they were known for was established when all of their labor was done by well-compensated union labor, instead of outsourcing to get around union contracts.
Be careful what you wish for. Some of the most likely contenders are Lockheed, Raytheon, and a few other military contractors that haven’t broken into the civilian market yet.
Not really. The most likely contenders I could see now are Embraer and Comac (Chinese aircraft manufacturer). A few years ago Bombardier could have been a very likely contender, but not today.
I could see Lockheed and Raytheon entering the civilian market only if the demand on the military side starts drying up, which in this climate I find doubtful.
I remember reading the Chinese had stagnated investment into Comac because it was more cost effective for their airlines to buy Boeing planes instead. But after the two 737-MAX crash, the Chinese was restarting investment and R&D for a Boeing replacement, however because they were far behind due to lack of investments, they wouldn’t have anything ready until 2026 the earliest. So I doubt they will be able to compete anytime soon.
Even if Boeing doesn’t face any real consequences, I hope airlines take this time to just go full Airbus even if it’s out of fear from future litigation and not inherent customer safety. Airbus should also jump on this opportunity and offer some good deals for actual functioning and safety tested aircraft.
By what measure is it a much smaller company? By planes sold it appears negligible: between 2007 and 2016 Airbus delivered 5,644 and Boeing delivered 5,718, for a difference of 74. In terms of market share they’re roughly equivalent in twin-aisle jets and Airbus has a significant lead in single-aisle jets (for obvious reasons).
You’re right. i was pulling from something i read a couple weeks ago but looking at it now they do seem comperable. airbus even delivered more airframes last year than boeing did by a significant margin. although i imagine that boeings safety concerns do contribute to that lack of deliveries
Their market cap is comparable, but that’s after Boeing’s stock took a hit. About a 50% cut over the last 5 years. Airbus’ stock is slightly higher than it was 5 years ago.
Remember that Boeing is all over the military market on top of their civilian programs. Airbus does do a few conversions of their civilian aircraft for military use (transport and aerial refueling, mostly), but it’s not a huge part of their revenue. Boeing does that stuff (the hump in the 747, in particular, has led to some specialized uses), plus more specialized designs. They’re still cranking out new versions of the F-15, for example. In fact, military stuff is the largest part of Boeing’s revenue.
Sure but the context of the comment I replied to was that many airlines don’t have a choice but to buy aircraft from Boeing because Airbus is much smaller and therefore unable to service the required orders. In actual fact they deliver nearly an equivalent number of (civilian) aircraft over 10 years from 2007-2016 and Airbus has been delivering more aircraft per year recently. If everyone suddenly only ordered with Airbus then sure it would create a supply bottleneck but that’s not because Airbus is a smaller company.
The main issue is that Airbus has a huge backlog for their aircraft which continues to grow. They’re slowly adding more capacity, but not nearly fast enough to satisfy their current demand, let alone what additional customers would bring.
Objectively? In a lot of trouble. Real world, though? They are one of the largest companies that feeds/works for the American Military Weapons Complex plus they are also among the largest lobbying/donors of the Federal Government. Just behind pharma.
I’d say no trouble at all. They should be sweating drops but they are not. Like you said, huge company with a “handle shit” budget. Am fully expecting nothing will happen and if they get sued they will settle outside of court, like they did with 737MAX issue. And problem solved.
The real world has a habit of catching up even to the biggest budgets.
My suspicion of what is currently going inside the company is that an army of consultants are going through every inch trying to produce reports of how to improve the “processes” to avoid such future incidents. However the percentage of change that will be implemented is only as big as management’s willingness to upset current stakeholders including itself. So unlikely to be very big.
I would expect a continuous decline with ever-decreasing new orders from airlines - fire sales to attract new customers, reduced investment because of declining revenues etc.
The government titty will keep them operating for a while though - or at least until their incompetence embarrasses the government/army sufficiently.
That is where this will fuck Boeing, you can buy regulators for having the side of your plane fall off in flight, or an Auto piolet that loves to use the lithobreak, but don’t fuck with the US military contracting system. The DOD contracts for things with very specific and some times stupid standards, but they get exactly what you paid for or else.
bbc.co.uk
Newest