Jews are an odd outlier as it’s both an ethnicity and a religion and one doesn’t automatically indicate the other. You can have people with no ethnic link who are Jewish by dint of conversation to the religon, and ethnicly Jewish people who are entirely athiest. anti-Semitism is about racism against ethnicly Jewish people, not criticism of the religion.
Or maybe you (and others here) need to re-read my response to understand what the point of it was. I understand what the person was saying, just don’t think bickering over how the Jewish people are a “multinational ethnic group” is relevant to the discussion.
Not really true, but I guess it depends on the country.
In the United States at least, burning your own book, flag, or whatever is legally protected free speech. Just as long as you aren’t destroying someone else’s property.
Context also matters. Burning bibles during a religious service is probably a thin line.
Everything is important to someone, why do particular groups get privilege just because they’re a religion. Should we ban the burning of Star Wars DVDs as that’s a huge franchise with lots of hardcore fans who may get upset? Should it be illegal for me to burn a copy of Action Comics #1 because it’s important to comic fans?
To answer your rhetoric question: Because people believe in it for some reason. If millions of people were crazy enough to think Star Wars happened and molded their lives after it, and you started burning Star Wars DVDs because you despise Star Warite refugees, yes, people would be very upset at you for doing that.
People are clearly burning religious text to demonstrate their contempt to a group of people, it’s the definition of a hate crime.
The uncomfortable truth is that it matters whether the group in question contains enough people willing to kill indiscriminately if you upset them too much.
How about no burning anything in public? It’s a stupid thing to do and proves nothing, risks starting unintended fires, or people injuring themselves, etc.
Burning stuff is a classic protest move though, and that shouldn’t be restricted either - within safety limits of course; i.e. Don’t leave your burning flag, book, bra, whatever where it might destroy unrelated stuff.
Wait, am I reading this right that the plane was shot down by russian air defence? If this is backed up at all by anything like a russian source, then this will just further enforce option that russia can not be trusted to do anything it says and that putin is weak and threatened (both are true but I thought the kremlin would at least try to say/show otherwise).
How does russia keep messing up this bad? I am constantly shocked and awed.
Yeah, a pointless one that makes them look like predictable idiots. Most will not be unhappy at his death and those that would be are on russia’s side of this conflict. This (if it is what it looks like now) is like making a martyr just for assholes.
Putin is killing people and the purpose of the window assassinations is meant to be clearly not an accident. The whole point is to send a message, not to try and fool people.
If this is backed up at all by anything like a russian source
The Guardian is reporting this:
The cause of the crash was not immediately clear, but Prigozhin’s longstanding feud with the military and the armed uprising he led in June would give ample motive to the Russian state for revenge. Media channels linked to Wagner quickly suggested that a Russian air defence missile had shot down the plane.
I don’t understand the logic here. When the putsch occured and then ignomously fizzled out, I saw Putin as weak for letting Pringles walk out with a (relative) slap on the wrist. Taking Prigo out of the picture was overdue. Obviously, anyone would feel threatened by an semi-autonomous mercenary army, so removing its leadership and breaking it up is just a rational course of action that probably should have been done sooner from that POV
If they took him out before the deal was made sure, this soon after just shows weakness and a lack of credibility. They did the equivalent to getting into a bar fight, talking it out instead and then in front of every one sucker punching the other guy.
No, they were losing to tractors, and Moskva was sunk without a navy.
Now they’re getting real gear and training to play.
The only thing Russia ever wins are Darwin awards. Fucking being proud of almost hurting a country a fraction of your size right next door, like the US being proud of conquering Ottawa.
All of Europe hates Russia with an all-consuming passion, except sometimes Serbia.
And… that’s where you live! That’s like all my neighbors thinking I’m a piece of shit and me saying “Oh yeah, well there are people in North Korea who don’t hate me!”
See this is why no one can take you people as anything but a joke. Multiple people have asked for your opinion, position, argument, or any thing that would allow someone to seriously discuss anything, but you just reply with a joke, meme or provocation. What inside joke is this law enforcement agent from another country have to do with anything?
Not that you have shame? But this post is literally about putin assassinating a citizen of his in cold blood with no trial alongside several other innocent bystanders.
And you tried to use the word fascist to someone on the internet.
The people that died were fascists and Mercs, why do you care how they died? Do you hate Russia or not? This was a truly successful denazification action if you wanna get silly with it.
“Evil Russians.” Jesus Christ. As if the West did not rehabilitate European fascists immediately after WW2 and end up on the side of imperialism in every conflict around the world for the rest of the century and beyond. Many of which they themselves instigated. Get a fucking grip.
The enemy is both strong and weak at the same time. Russians are simultaneously cowardly, repulsive and primitive (and evil, according to you), while also being barely held at bay because their innate savage brutality lets them ignore casualties, but like in an evil way, not the good heroic way we ignore casulaties when we drive our tanks headfirst into minefields. Gotcha.
You claim they started with tractors. This is utter nonsense; the AFU started the war as a legitimate military, especially after it took the decade following the Minsk agreements to arm up in anticipation of this war.
You also claim they are pushing Russia back despite the front not moving appreciably in the past year, even during the latest vaunted counteroffensive.
You claim they started with tractors. This is utter nonsense; the AFU started the war as a legitimate military, especially after it took the decade following the Minsk agreements to arm up in anticipation of this war.
Russia used to call itself the 2nd strongest military on Earth.
Now they’re clearly the 2nd strongest military in Ukraine. And they’re sliding down.
You might not understand this, but they literally only survived because everyone was terrified of them, ‘Crazy Ivan’ who snaps and does something stupid.
That illusion SHATTERED with the failure to take Kyiv, it shattered and Europe’s fear turned to rage, rage at being intimidated for decades by a clearly broken joke of a power.
Until last year Russia wasn’t worth our interest, there was nothing there of value or threat, it was a far away, annoying country but it was someone else’s problem.
Now, Europe wants to watch them burn for fun.
If they hadn’t invaded Ukraine they would have been able to hold this illusion for decades more while the oligarchs continued to rob the country to deposit into British banks, but now, Russia is a threat that needs to be dealt with.
Fortunately, it’s not much of a threat, and this shouldn’t take too long, the only reason it’s taking this long right now is because we can only help indirectly through Ukraine.
But Russia is stupid, hopefully they’ll do something Russian and pick a fight with the rest of NATO, because that’s just what they do.
Now they’re clearly the 2nd strongest military in Ukraine.
Delusions like this are sending Ukranians to pointless deaths right now.
The worst part is you will never stop to consider the implications of being so wrong on this when the war is finally resolved (with Russia and Ukraine in basically the same territories as now). Instead, you’ll toss this one in the “history” pile with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc., you know, the wars where you tell yourself you would have seen through the propaganda had you witnessed it in real time. Then you’ll cheerlead the next war because It’s A Good One This Time.
Delusions like this are sending Ukranians to pointless deaths right now.
Delusions like “a 3 hour special military operation”?
Yeah, I’m the one with delusions, not the country that’s shooting itself in the dick, and literally assassinated several of its citizens in this post without any due process whatsoever.
HA. Sometimes I think people forget how time works. That we did not watch russia make these statements in real time and somehow reddit would come into it as if its mere existence is an augment.
“I would like to emphasise once again that our men and officers are fighting in Ukraine for Russia, for a peaceful life for the citizens of Donbass, and for the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, so that no anti-Russia, which the West has been creating for years right on our border, can threaten us, including with nuclear weapons, as has recently become the case.”
Putin reportedly said. “But if I wanted to, I could take Kiev in two weeks.”
Besides the issue of not being able to verify this was actually said, “if I wanted to I could take Kiev in two weeks” is a lot different from “this entire operation will be over in three hours.” “If I wanted to” in fact implies taking Kiev was not a goal, which aligns with it not being officially stated as a goal.
You put it in quotes and called it a special military op instead of a tour, so it was a little bit obfuscated
Edit: not that you meant to, of course, but it is what it is
As an aside, I think Putin was probably right, but under the condition that he carpet bombs multiple major cities from the first available moment. The war is brutal, but Russia has not been carpet-bombing for a litany of reasons (and it is good that they aren’t)
Lmao so now you’re claiming Putin was using some old English idiom in a private conversation with a Portuguese politician? Then said politician quoted Putin as saying a different phrase?
Well by the conditions the russian federation placed 18 months ago would mean that yes Ukraine is winning. The fact the front lines are static does not mean what you think it does.
why should I give one shit about what russians goals where at the start of the war, the reality is its a meat grinder and the location of said meat grinder requires ukraine to move through it to advance, russia are setting the terms of this conflict and are in control.
I dont care about either sides goals because im not naive enough to buy into military propoganda, which the goals are.
During a war nothing either side says matters, you fatally misunderstand what happens to the media when a war breaks out, it just becomes another instrument of war, and as such nothing can be trusted but the satalite footage of where the war is and boots on the ground reports of people there, everything else is bullshit.
Ok please enlighten me on the winning condition for russia to end this conflict in their favour. No need for “military propoganda” just how does this end in your mind?
Ok, so what does that entail? I don’t think you can just jump on TV and call peace. Ukraine has stated many times that they will not agree to any peace deal without the boarders going back to 2014, russia has stated that will not fly.
Even if you assume its a full on meat grinder for both sides, how does russia win in this situation? They claimed this military operation was to de-milliteraze Ukraine, the opposite has happened. They claimed this military operation was to put a stop to NATO expansion, the opposite has happened. They claimed this military operation was to protect the Donbas people, now they are the group who has suffered the largest casualties in this conflict. They claimed this military operation was to ensure the russian people prosperity and security, the opposite has happened.
That is my point, there is no going back. Even if Ukraine before this was on shaky ground as a nation they are now determined to fight on and on and on. russia also has no credibility as shown today, and this has been stated many times by Ukraine that any treaty with russia is worth less then the paper it is printed on.
So I ask again, how does russia get anyone to show up and sign anything? How do they force peace?
Most of the collective west is currently undergoing a thinly veiled reccession and electing more and more unstable forms of government, like the neo-nazi gov of italy, the shitshow that is UK politics (which is doing worse economically than russia, a country at war) and the clown parade that is the american govs complete inability to do anything for its own people.
There is already talk of pulling aid from Ukraine in many EU states like Austria and the US is starting to pivot towards Taiwan and has been calling this recent push ‘Ukraines last chance’, which they are admitting is failing.
there is no re-armament, none of the western ecomonies are geared for war, only the american military is and they are done sharing there surplus.
all that the west had to give was what it could afford to give away from its reserves without crippling there own defence sectors, russia has a active war ecomony, the west does not.
cltr+f’d ‘aid’ on your first article, no results (other than it hitting other words with aid in it)
that article is literally just about the military industrial complex being spun up in western europe instead of shit like housing lmao, nowhere does it suggest that ukraine will be receiving any of that, only that the money will be going to ‘defence’, this is not a war ecomony and I suspect you dont know what that is.
furthermore I suspect most of that money will be spent replenishing all of the things they just gave away, you realize
“I would like to emphasise once again that our men and officers are fighting in Ukraine for Russia, for a peaceful life for the citizens of Donbass, and for the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, so that no anti-Russia, which the West has been creating for years right on our border, can threaten us, including with nuclear weapons, as has recently become the case.
<a href="">https://web.archive.org/web/20220308032650/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67903 </a>Parts to note:
“I would like to emphasise once again that our men and officers are fighting in Ukraine for Russia, for a peaceful life for the citizens of Donbass, and for the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, so that no anti-Russia, which the West has been creating for years right on our border, can threaten us, including with nuclear weapons, as has recently become the case.”
The return of Ukraine in its entirety to the russian nation for one.
That’s what you claimed as one of Russia’s war goals. You can see the excerpt you quoted isn’t anything like that, right?
I’m not even trying to do some sick own or anything. You do see the difference between the stated aims and the propaganda circulating about “Russia wants to conquer the whole of Ukraine,” don’t you?
no ones bragging here, the material reality of the situation is ukraines casualities are 3:1 and russia remains in control of the conflict and where the lines are; every ukranian advancement recently has come at heavy cost
no ones bragging here, the material reality of the situation is ukraines casualities are 3:1 and russia remains in control of the conflict and where the lines are; every ukranian advancement recently has come at heavy cost
That’s not even close to true, unless you count civilians, which isn’t surprising because they’re literally fighting in their country.
So yes, be proud, Russia has butchered more civilians!
Losing multiple cities to a tiny domestic invading force of mercenaries after completely losing control of said force due to lack of command discipline, and finally only being able to force them to disband by threatening the families of the mercenaries involved isn’t exactly a sign of strength, though, is it? It’s not exactly what we’d expect of a professional modern military.
It would be like if Erik Prince took his Blackwater army and started marching on Washington, capturing towns along the way, and the US army was helpless to stop them until the American government threatened to hunt down and kill the family members of Blackwater mercenaries.
That would be considered unusual, and not really a sign of political or military strength.
If Erik Prince marched Blackwater through some American cities and – instead of sending the U.S. military to start a hot war on its own soil – American leadership pressured Prince and Blackwater to go home, would you be calling the president weak for not turning Virginia into a battlefield?
I would think American leadership completely dysfunctional if they allowed that situation to occur. If they did not have enough command authority to trust that the US military wouldn’t confront Prince with immediate and overwhelming force when ordered, the US would be a laughingstock. The scenario is borderline unimaginable in a developed country with anything resembling a modern political infrastructure.
Don’t get me wrong. I love Russia. I was originally trained as a Sovietologist, when that was still a thing you could be an -ologist of. I could talk for hours about strategic weapons systems and Russian prep for NBC warfare and what the politics in the Kremlin were like under the troika approach and why the fascistic tendencies of Putin in rejecting Russian political history in favor of personal enrichment and plundering the nation have irrevocably broken Russian politics.
But that’s for another day. Putin responded the way dictators in developing nations do, not like someone who actually has command and control over their modern military forces. I mean, it’s a Russian tradition to threaten the families of people who publicly disagree with leadership. In the US, the forces brought to bear against Blackwater’s attempted putsch would have been so overwhelming that his own men would have arrested him. But as much as I hate Blackwater and think Prince should probably be in prison for war crimes, their cadre was recruited from a different class of people than Wagner.
the US military wouldn’t confront Prince with immediate and overwhelming force
You realize that’s the worst-case scenario of the incident we’re talking about, right? A sane leader would want to avoid starting a pitched battle in their backyard at all costs, and that’s entirely independent of speculation about control over the military.
The scenario is borderline unimaginable in a developed country with anything resembling a modern political infrastructure.
We had a half-assed putsch of our own not even three years ago.
A sane leader would want to avoid starting a pitched battle…
A competent government would have prevented it from occurring. The IS government is hardly a model of efficiency, and that goes double for the military. However, it doesn’t happen here because it’s not something that’s organizationally enabled. Blackwater would be slaughtered in hours, for instance. I absolutely hate Blackwater, I think Prince is a fascist just like Prigo who would absolutely pull a Wagner if he thought he could. He knows he’s better off using bribes to gain power and wealth.
And I wouldn’t call J6 a putsch if we’re using that term in context to describe a military invasion by heavily armed forces gone rogue. But even if we do, the point we are discussing is that it is characteristic of a crap-tier government to be unable to put it down. Trump left the US government almost unable to put down a riot that he invoked and that consisted of a few thousand angry but mostly unarmed rednecks. Again, it was on a different scale, but once a more competent government was in place we saw a thousand arrests, not a threat to kill the families of the J6 rioters. It was a planned violent coup, but the plan was absolute shit because the planners are absolute idiots.
Putin absolutely couldn't let Prigozhin walk, nobody could have. It's not just about the semi-autonomous mercenary army, if a government lets someone get away with an attempted coup d'état they'd effectively encourage others to give it their best shot as well because there was no effective punishment. Assassination is, well, a very Russian approach to the issue, but every government on this planet would have taken some form of action.
I'm not really surprised. They got more and more open about their assassination attempts for years. They're not meant to covertly get rid of enemies, they're very public warnings to other dissidents. It's rule by fear.
Russian assassination are pretty clear. Anyone with half a brain can put the pieces together, but there is just enough plausible deniability that there cannot be direct retaliation legally or politically. It is a clear threat but just barely veiled enough to avoid legitimate retaliatory action via legal or international responses.
You are absolutely right. The US would have an armed coup leader strung up so fast. Maybe not assassination style, but there would most definitely be a quick trial and execution. If the US government couldn’t catch the person, I imagine that assassination would be on the table.
The implication is that both events were ineffective at achieving anything meaningful, other than tasing one’s balls to death and getting shot by an anti aircraft missile
One side uses its legal system to deal with an institutional threat, while the other performatively offers an olive branch and then stabs them on the back. Not quite the same. One side smells a lot like a mafia
The USA has always been a fascist country (just ask Native Americans and descendants of slaves). If you think slapping a few leaders on the wrist is going to stop fascism here, I would invite you to have a look at the history of Weimar Germany.
This is true, but I was answering to a comment implying an equivalence between the indictment of the traitors in the US and a the extrajudicial plane crash in Russia. If instead of getting a slap on the wrist they were being thrown out of windows at someone’s whim, I would not feel more reassured about the state of the US.
then this will just further enforce option that russia can not be trusted to do anything it says and that putin is weak and threatened
If they let him live, they’re weak. If they kill him, they’re weak.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
The USSR is not the russian federation and the later is an oligarchy. Why do you think such cold war arguments (that over simplify) have some sort of play in this conflict?
I also noticed you skated right on by the “can not be trusted” part of my quoted text.
Your entire argument was about the soviet union and its cold war relationship with the US. I have had it up to my nipples here on how fixated you all are on the US, I am not from the US, I don’t like the US, I am sick of somehow having to explain to people who apparently think the US is evil but simultaneously think the world revolves around it.
WE GET IT YOU ARE AMERICAN AND YOU ARE DIFFERENT BUT LIKE MOST AMERICANS CAN NOT STAND WHEN SOMETHING IS NOT ABOUT YOU.
The quote is from “inventing reality by michael parenti”. the cold war is an EXAMPLE, the authors POINT is that media will interpret literally ANY EVENT in a bad way to make enemies look morally inferior and bad.
But I am not media, the post I made is my honest take, and in this case the media stating this news is wagner and the russian state. How does this wall of text help me understand the apparent flaw in my statement?
I am lost and this is a reply to my own statement. May I ask you to expand on what a “lib” is, how I erred to be labelled as one, and finally how it is you think I care about aesthetics?
Can’t speak for anyone else but I may be able to answer this.
A lib is a liberal, someone who is pro-capital, not an anti-capitalist (very little overlap with how liberal tends to be defined in ordinary language in the US). Optics, relating to how people see the event, is idealism not materialism. Liberalism is idealist, unlike Marxism, which is materialist.
The dig at liberalism and aesthetics is likely a critique of the implication that what this looks like has much to do with the material reality. That’s an aesthetic argument. It doesn’t matter what this looks like because the optics don’t affect the material relations. Someone who elevates the optics at the expense of the material relations is making an idealist, likely a liberal argument.
Hence the comment embodying an aesthetic argument of the kind that liberals often make.
You’re welcome. I’m glad you’re taking this in the spirit in which it’s intended. When Marxists criticise idealism, the target is the liberal world outlook, not the individual.
By implication, really. Focusing on what people think of Russia’s/Putin’s trustworthiness rather than on it’s record or the factors that would keep it honest, so to speak. It’s Ukraine that violated Minsk, apparently prompted by France, Germany, and ‘NATO’. Looking at the optics, that seems a little more duplicitous than assassinating someone who attempted a coup (if this was an assassination and if what happened before can be called a coup).
Would I trust a single person, e.g. Putin to uphold an international agreement? It doesn’t matter. It’s not a one-man show. War is expensive and the longer it goes on for the more expensive it becomes, in support as well as the cost of arms, soldiers, etc.
Nobody has to trust Putin. An agreement would be maintained because material factors require it to be maintained. What westerners think it’s by-the-by. (I’m assuming you’re not Russian as you were asking about Russian sources—I’m not asking you to confirm or deny as I don’t want you to dox yourself; I’m just trying to give an answer that makes sense from the available evidence.)
I think the implied argument is that if Putin is untrustworthy and if you’re implying that means that he can’t be trusted to comply with agreements made with Ukraine, then we need to look at historic agreements between Russia and Ukraine. Two recent agreements between them include Minsk I and II. Ukraine, not Russia, violated both.
Both sides might have violated the first Minsk agreement. As to who violated it first? My understanding was that Ukraine did. Eventually it broke down. As for the second, it depends whether you consider an omission as bad as an action. Ukraine violated Minsk II by ignoring it, which led to the SMO: …yale.edu/…/frustrated-refusals-give-russia-secur…. Interestingly, France and Germany were part of these talks and officials have stated that they only ever intended to delay a war to better arm Ukraine; i.e. the NATO/Ukrainian side never intended to honour the agreement from the beginning.
What did Ukraine do to violate the agreement? From all I can read there is not much short of re arming with nukes that Ukraine could even do to break the agreement (Minsk I). And what do you mean ignoring the second one?
More than anything else, it was the refusal of Ukraine to implement the provisions of Minsk 2 – especially the provision that would give the predominantly Russian-speaking regions a special constitutional status – that caused Russia to threaten military action against Ukraine. Time after time in recent weeks, Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov made it clear in meetings and press conferences that the key to resolving the situation in and around Ukraine was the full implementation of Minsk 2, and many hoped the Normandy format meeting of representatives of the leaders of the four countries in Berlin on Feb. 10, two weeks after they had met in Paris for eight hours, would produce enough progress toward the full implementation of Minsk 2 to ward off the threat of a Russian invasion.
Yeah that is the russian statement but reading the agreement leaves me thinking that is not 100% on the level. They seem to think they where not an involved party in the agreement and did not have abide by it. Here is a translation of the agreement, if you have a better version let me know.
… the refusal of Ukraine to implement the provisions of Minsk 2 ….
What Russia did in response would be in Russia’s statement. But here the writer is reporting that Ukraine refused to implement Minsk II.
If your link is only a translation of the agreement, it won’t say anything about who violated it, so I’m unsure what good it does to comb through it. I don’t see how the clauses are relevant without a factual chronology from after it’s signing, such as the one in my link. I’ll note that I’m happy to be presented with contrary evidence but also note that the source I provided is from Yale university—hardly a pro-Russian outlet.
Oh I am sure he is just fine with it, but it does not really give any confidence to anyone entering into any agreement with russia with a 3rd nation brokering (say a ceasefire).
@CrypticCoffee
As for me, I will never, ever use any site that demands a drivers license or a face scan to get on. I'd sooner totally disconnect from the open Internet and move all my work to the darknet only.
I don’t think so. Porn is very much a mental thing too, not just a visual one. Knowing none of the subjects of the pictures and videos exist will ruin it for a lot of people.
Um, so, pretend you didn’t hear this from me, but there are LoRas you can use and even train yourself from a handful of sample images, for anyone in the world that you want to see.
If Netflix’s reporting on the matter is to be believed, then it’s an ironic outcome considering the wave of strongly-opinionated comments predicting the death of Netflix following the crackdown on password sharing. I guess convenience and habits really trump principles and posturing.
Yeah, I have been wondering just how bad their content has gotten, or of I somehow got pigeonholed by their filtering algorithms. Somehow almost everything was rated two stars out of five and just plain bad, or in some random language that I don’t speak.
I’m really pissed off when the same movie keeps appearing in every section with different thumbnail. Yes I’ve been fooled by both the category and the different appearance but I don’t recall ever being tricked into watching something, only annoyed and frustrated
What I'm finding and what's really annoying, is that every streaming service out there has like 1 or 2 shows and a couple of movies I want to see. Someone will bring up a show, but oh sorry, it's on Crave. Or nope, that one's on Disney Plus. That other show? It's on Prime.
I recently canceled Netflix and moved to Crave, and I am certainly no happier. Thank God I barely care to watch TV as it is.
I told my family I was going to cancel when they cracked down on our households sharing and they haven’t yet. My parents are still enjoying it at their house, and me at mine.
I hated the crackdown but resisting on “principles” is bizarre to me. I left Reddit and Twitter due to principles. Netflix wanting to get paid for their service and content is reasonable. Wanting a business to serve you up free entertainment with no catch?
Also before anyone tries to claim hypocrisy - The difference between that and Twitter/Reddit is myself and the community create the content and are forcefed ads.
I don’t pay for Netflix and think their content mostly sucks but thinking “I deserve this service for free” is a childish perspective. Go ahead and pirate it, I couldn’t care less, but don’t act like it gives you the moral high ground lol
With this whole “you pay for a screen package, love is sharing a password” business they just dug a PR hole for themselves. If they’d had offered price X per screen from the start, then introduced a “same household discount” or whatever, we wouldn’t have all this outrage. But execs can only see as far as next quarter and here we are.
Netflix wanting to get paid for their service and content is reasonable.
Sure, it's reasonable, and why I started subscribing in the first place. But if I pay for four screens, I expect to be able to use all of those four screens, no matter what address they are being viewed from.
You’re not paying for that though. The terms of service have never allowed giving other people your details and letting people outside your household use your account.
Also you can still use 4 devices no matter where you are - mobile devices and tablets and laptops are not IP restricted.
Company decides to change the deal and terms of service to require nudes and accompanying driver’s licenses photos every 21 days in this wild hypothetical
Whirlybird: Why do people think they’re entitled to use a private company’s service nude-free while still paying? It’s in the ToS!
About a month ago we could not use the account on a smart TV in the rental home because it was away from the home network. Updating the home network wasn't an option because the family members not on the trip were still watching things at home.
Being able to watch on a phone, but not on a TV, is stupid.
You skipped the part where Netflix actually encouraged account sharing for a long time. Now they frame the account sharers as thieves. Also the other part where quality of content goes down while subscription prices go up while still not providing plans with hq streams for single people. Which all was tolerable for a few bucks a month. Without sharing netflix is simply not worth the money
Can you point to where they’re calling account sharers “thieves”? I’ve just seen them say they’re now limiting screens. And agreed the content sucks which is why I unsubscribed awhile ago. No one is forcing you to use it, but at the same time no one deserves it for free.
They’re not saying it directly of course, but they clearly frame the account sharers as “bad guys” now. I mean you’re correct that no one is entitled to watch netflix for free but that “poor netflix just wants to get paid” narrative is some serious BS. I also kinda doubt netflix tells us the 100% truth about subscription growth/recession. The only reason I did not switch my account on/off over the years was because it was shared and it would have required coordination with the other party.
I think I am more annoyed by their pricing plans following this move. They are double dipping by charging more for additional screens and then preventing users from using said additional screens. They shouldn't have tiered pricing plans by number of screens if they have no intention of honouring them.
They’re not preventing you from using more screens. If you want to watch Netflix while the kids watch Netflix in another room, that’s what the multiple device plans are for.
Unless I want to watch from my holiday home. Or if my kids want to watch Netflix at my ex's house. Or if I travel regularly. Or I want to regularly watch Netflix with my friend or girlfriend at their house. There are numerous reports of restrictions on all of these, so they clearly are limiting the number of screens I can use.
You get a one time use PW in all those other instances. I was actually thinking about creating a shared email address with only a Netflix account associated to it so my whole family could still use it without having to pester one another about the one time use code, but at that point piracy is just easier.
Just because they don’t share the same opinion as you doesn’t mean they’re stupid. Netflix is great for just sitting down and watching something random and discovering new shows and movies - especially foreign ones. It’s also priceless for kids shows for parents.
Stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. You can judge me as stupid in return for thinking that of these new subscribers if you want and then we‘ll both go our ways. Only one of us will pay Netflix no matter how much they enshittify their service or how much they raise their prices (since it‘s "priceless") and one won‘t. C‘est la vie.
Why are you so upset about people watching Netflix? Given this news, it’s clear that most subscribers couldn’t care one way or another about password sharing.
Don’t let Internet forums be your guide to public sentiment, you’ll be disappointed.
I‘m already disappointed in people, this is barely making a dent, all that happened is the comment made me of think of a funny quote and then this other guy had to regale me with this "Netflix is priceless" crap, and now I get you heroes here advocating for the sorry ass corporation too. What a mistake of me to even be on social media at all, if it‘s just supposed to be a popular sentiment marketing circlejerk!
As I said, as a parent having a ready stream of endless Childrens content available at any time on any device in any place is priceless, and definitely worth the $20 a month or whatever it is you pay for it.
It’s unfortunate that George Carlin gets taken out of context so often. Also the insane amount of disdain for regular people who just want to sit on a couch, watch a show, and shitpost about it in a group chat with friends.
I guess some folks are really into pirating, and that’s whatever, but I work a 40hr workweek and go out with people regularly. $15 to netflix or $50/mo across a couple subscriptions is simply cheaper than any effort I need put into caring about pirating anything.
It was always going to lead to more subscribers because more people would lose access to Netflix so would subscribe themselves than would cancel their account because others couldn’t use their login.
The people that lost Netflix weren’t subscribers, and lots of them would have them subscribed. The subscribers had no reason to unsubscribe.
I was the subscriber and I unsubscribed because I alone wasn’t using it enough to justify the price. When I knew my sister and her family were watching too, it felt more like it was worth it.
He will NOT be appointing officials for an organization that kills people until the government stops allowing abortions. Just let the logic sink in for a while. The guy’s a POS, and nobody should be surprised that a single issue candidate is only interested in a single issue.
Not to mention that because of the standing rules of the Senate, all you have to do is send an email saying you’re filibustering and any one person can bring to halt something all the other 99 Senators just want to move on to the next topic.
Literally this guy stands alone on this and the brain dead rules allow him and him alone to bring it all to a halt.
And the rules won't change because most of the Senate loves that someone else can halt things, take the heat, and then they won't have to deal with unpopular decisions.
Not in this case, but they're literally willing to force the military fuck over career professionals so that they can keep their cushy plausible deniability.
So many self-serving rules. And honestly, if we held any of them accountable to their campaign promises we might actually have a functioning congress. But here we are.
It funny/sad that allowing the Senate to function in the absence of a supermajority is seen as a desperate measure. Too me it seems like the only reasonable thing to do.
This is the real problem, and it’s infuriating. Not only because of the way it stops the Senate from doing so many things, but because so many people now believe it’s how the filibuster had always worked. And so people hate it.
But, in fact, the filibuster, in its original form, is a powerful tool the minority can use to make its voice heard and perhaps even effect change. It needs to come back - make Tuberville stand up and talk for hours on end for each of these appointees he opposes. Make McTurtle totter to center stage and wheeze for as long as he can the next time he wants to block a Democrat President’s Supreme Court Judge.
Ah, right, the plane took off on its own, did it? Remind me again of the avionics in an Embraer? I didn’t realise they had introduced communication with ATC, navigating the airport etc. completely automatically.
Dude I’m really not trying to build a conspiracy theory, all I’m saying is that it doesn’t need a Machiavellian genius to put 10 corpses on a plane, fly it at altitude and jump off with a parachute before it crashes in the forest. It’s like “Action movie 101”.
But the plane was flying at cruise speed and there’s only two exits on the Legacy 600 - left side passenger door or over the wings. Either of of those gets a pilot sucked straight into an engine. A few people have parachuted off a passenger plane, but only through emergency exits behind the wings (with wing mounted engines) or the tail staircase.
You obviously know about planes more than me.
Still I agree with @RonJonGuaido that Prigozhin had no logic reason to be on a flight in Russian territory (other than being someway forced to do that)
Also adding a quick comment to apologise for my snide comment in the beginning. I think I hadn’t gotten my morning coffee yes - an explanation but no excuse. Sorry.
They ARE wrong though. They’re acting like we’re only getting mad about one thing at a time. What kind of smug asshole goes on the internet to peddle moral superiority over strawmen?
It’s moreso that the emphasis on issues is very often skewed by MSM to the stuff that matters a lot less, and then the normies all get in an outrage. Does it really matter if BK is still in Russia? They’re not actively working with the Russian military right? The money is flowing out to the glorious USA BK hq no?
They outrage is such a great example of western exceptionalism. The existence of western consumer businesses in the countries of the non-Aryan jungle is supposed to be an immense benefit to these places and their departure must necessarily be disastrous for them. Nowhere is the idea entertained that Russians are perfectly capable of creating their own shitty burger restaurants to replace those if the west.
You're missing the point. For BK to operate in Russia means dollars flowing into Russia, because BK needs to buy Rubles. Dollars that Russia needs to buy arms on the international market, because nobody is accepting Rubles.
This is true. However, if I owned BK, I’d see this as an amazing business strategy, although a quite unethical one (but as we can see, multi million+ dollar companies aren’t the most ethical either way). I mean, now the literal government has an interest for it to stay in business, they may even start to promote the brand.
Except BK is an American company. They wouldn’t operate in Russia if they weren’t making a profit. So their net effect is to have money flowing out of Russia.
It’s like that 80s news footage of the first McDonald’s opening in Moscow where they’re like so-true ”finally those filthy commies get to enjoy our superior Western treats”
Then they interview someone who says it wasn’t really worth it to stand in line and pay so much lenin-laugh
Man your historical revisionism is almost endless at hexbear.
I grew up in a navy/embassy family, so moved around every 3-5 years onto new postings. At an embassy posting in Stockholm, it was common for the attaché-community to pair newly arrived families with someone who had been there for a while. My mum thus got paired with a newly arrived Soviet wife-of-an-attaché to show her the ropes of diplomat life. This lady was on her first posting (it was quite common for Soviet embassy staff to have a LOT of newcomers for fear that they would get to used to western life style and seek asylum) and she was showing this lady where to do shopping in Stockholm. I was joining as I was too small to be left at home on my own.
So we walk into this supermarket and the Soviet lady sort of walks in, stops for a second, then walks through the one-way gates and stops again. And then she bursts into tears.
Diplomat life is hard on partners - so tears in the opening days aren’t that uncommon. My mum pulls her to the side and starts saying the usual (“I remember when we started”, “it’ll get better” bla bla) and the Soviet lady says basically “you don’t understand! I’ve never, ever seen so much choice and food and my life”.
She wasn’t crying because she had left home. She was crying because she was realising how fucked up home was - and remember this is someone who was sent out as a diplomat so reasonably well connected at home.
The West had a reason for its exceptionalism back then. Compared to many places it still does. In others, of course, we need to wake the fuck up - China is a great example, where there is definitely no cause for a feeling of exceptionalism. Russia, oh boy, yes we can still feel exceptional.
Go on then, dismiss me with your hexbear memes and be gone.
if it was so bad why did the CIA report that the average russians diet was better than compartively an americans?
‘I get to have 8 different brands of pepsi-cola im so free’ isnt a compelling arguement lmao, neither are annecdotes from your neo-liberal scum family.
listen up kid my dad worked in a european embasy and he said the people we bombed where poor so think again COMMIE about how many freeDOMS we have as a result of our rape of the third world
What sort of nonsense response is that? Anyone can poop out any anecdote they like to support their position and say “I know it hurts so it’s easy to reject”.
Give me a break. No system is perfect and the discussion isn’t about perfection vs horror. It’s about a series of tradeoffs and the tradeoffs done in the west broadly resulting in better outcomes, on average, for the population there than they did in the Soviet Union. For China nowadays, I’m less certain. Definitely in the big Tier 1 cities, life is on par with Western outcomes, for some better for some worse.
I’m just saying, it’s ironic to use that example of a diplomat as opposed to how many people live paycheck to paycheck barely able to make ends meet or are actually homeless, I doubt those people are crying in joy when they walk into a Walmart
I think you’ve missed my point entirely - that could be my fault.
The example illustrates that even for those well-connected enough in the Soviet Union the sight of a western supermarket was enough to make them weep (this was ‘88).
I brought this example up to address the false belief that people in Russia weren’t all that impressed with western products (like McDonalds) back when the Soviet Union existed.
I don’t know how you’re managing to connect that with how people live today and their experience of walking into Walmart.
Finally, this didn’t take place in Harrods but in ICA in Sweden. Hardly a luxury shop - just an average supermarket.
The idea of communism (extremely simplified) everyone has the means to live and people at “the top” don’t get special privilege on that, obviously almost all actual implementations turn into dictatorships so the point is somewhat moot, however the fact a well connected diplomat in a communist country had to live in the same conditions as other non-well connected people would be a positive, not a negative, they’d see and hopefully be able to improve the lives of everyone as they understand what it’s like.
Compare that to a majority of the rich and powerful in America, they’re so ridiculously disconnected from the average experience that they literally do not understand at all what it’s like for those with less.
Ah, with that I broadly agree. But I do feel the goalposts are shifting.
In the case of “was it right for the west to feel their system was better than the Soviet one” my example simply illustrates that a western supermarket in ‘88 reduced someone from the Soviet Union to tears.
But that’s really misdirecting of the overall issue right? That’s why I brought up homeless or very low income people in America as a counter-example.
Sure capitalism brings us some good things because of the profit incentive driving some to continue pushing the envelope (there’s pros and cons, don’t want to get too in the weeds) but there’s also massive inequality, compared to the ideal of a communist or socialist perspective where sure it might not be as shiny or you don’t have as many options, but you’re definitely housed and fed.
I agree but I wasn’t trying to address the overall issue. Certainly no more me than the people I responded to, who used the example of shitty junk food joints to claim the people of the Soviet Union didn’t look with envy on the choices offered to the western citizens.
In theory the communist system is fantastic, in the same way the society described in The Culture is. There just hasn’t been any implementation that got close to that ideal and certainly the median citizen seems better off in the west.
I guess the main thing they might have been talking about is how a lot of the “west culture” will only trumpet the “good” aspects of capitalism and downplay any/all negatives.
Like it’s cool we have McDonalds and many other fast food places available, but so many of them are bottom of the barrel quality/health wise and therefore it’s really not like it adds a ton of value to our lives over if we didn’t have to worry about having healthy food provided to us, even if we don’t have the choice.
Mostly splitting hairs at this point, I think we broadly agree :p
Better outcome is when everyone is homeless and dies from preventable diseases due to unaccessible healthcare, BUT they have a choice of 50 different shampoos.
And the horror is when everyone has a roof, is educated, in good health, but has to munch on the disgusting government provided nutritious food. 😡
On October 29, 2017, actor Anthony Rapp alleged that Spacey, while appearing intoxicated, made a sexual advance toward him at a party in 1986, when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was 26.[118][119] Rapp had also shared this story in a 2001 interview with The Advocate, but Spacey’s name was redacted from publication to avoid legal disputes and public outing.[120] Spacey stated through Twitter that he did not remember the encounter, but that he owed Rapp “the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior” if he had behaved as asserted.[121][122] On September 9, 2020, Rapp sued Spacey for sexual assault, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the Child Victims Act.[123]
Fifteen others then came forward alleging similar abuse,[124] including Boston anchorwoman Heather Unruh, who alleged that Spacey sexually assaulted her son;[125][126] filmmaker Tony Montana; actor Roberto Cavazos;[127] Richard Dreyfuss’s son Harry;[128] and eight people who worked on House of Cards.[129] The Guardian was contacted by “a number of people” who alleged that Spacey “groped and behaved in an inappropriate way with young men” as artistic director of the Old Vic.[130][131][132]
Spacey also appears on flight logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet from the early 2000s.[133]
Coming Out ControversyOn the same day as Rapp’s allegations against him, Spacey came out as gay when apologizing to Rapp. He said, “I have had relationships with both men and women. I have loved and had romantic encounters with men throughout my life, and I choose now to live as a gay man.”[134][135] His decision to come out via his statement was criticized by gay celebrities, including Billy Eichner, George Takei, Lance Bass, and Wanda Sykes, as an attempt to change the subject and shift focus from Rapp’s accusation, for using his own drunkenness as an excuse for making a sexual advance on a minor, and for implying a connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.[136][137][138]
Some readers additionally felt that by claiming he was “horrified” by Rapp’s story, Spacey was attempting to paint himself as the victim of the alleged abuse.[139] In October 2022, Spacey expressed regret over the way he came out and said that it was “never [his] intention” to deflect from the allegations against him or conflate them with his sexual orientation.[140][141]
Reaction and ramificationsAmid the allegations, filming was suspended on the sixth and final season of House of Cards. The show’s production company had implemented “an anonymous complaint hotline, crisis counselors, and sexual harassment legal advisors for the crew”, and stated that in 2012, “someone on the crew shared a complaint about a specific remark and gesture made by Kevin Spacey. Immediate action was taken following our review of the situation and we are confident the issue was resolved promptly to the satisfaction of all involved.”[142] According to the production company, Spacey “willingly participated in a training process and since that time MRC has not been made aware of any other complaints” involving him.[143] The show had been due to end in 2018.[125] The season was shortened from 13 episodes to eight, and Spacey was removed from the cast and from his role as executive producer.[144]
The Gore Vidal biographical film Gore, starring Spacey, which was set to be distributed by Netflix, was canceled,[145][146] and Netflix went on to sever all ties with him.[147] He was due to appear in All the Money in the World as industrialist J. Paul Getty; his scenes were cut and Christopher Plummer replaced him as Getty in reshoots.[67] In an interview with Variety, Plummer said, “It’s really not replacing [Spacey]. It’s starting all over again.” Plummer elaborated saying, “I think it’s very sad what happened to him… Kevin is such a talented and a terrifically gifted actor, and it’s so sad. It’s such a shame. That’s all I can say, because that’s it.”[148]
The International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences reversed its decision to honor Spacey with the 2017 International Emmy Founders Award.[149] On November 2, 2017, Variety reported that his publicist Staci Wolfe and talent agency Creative Artists Agency were ending their relationships with him.
Legal issuesThe Los Angeles District Attorney’s office stated in April 2018 that it would investigate an allegation that Spacey had sexually assaulted an adult male in 1992.[158][159] In July 2018, three more allegations of sexual assault against Spacey were revealed by Scotland Yard, bringing the total number of open investigations in the UK to six.[160] In September 2018, a lawsuit filed at Los Angeles Superior Court claimed that Spacey sexually assaulted an unnamed masseur at a house in Malibu, California, in October 2016.[161]
In December 2018, Spacey was charged with a felony for allegedly sexually assaulting journalist Heather Unruh’s 18-year-old son in Nantucket, Massachusetts, in July 2016.[162] Spacey pleaded not guilty to the charge on January 7, 2019.[163][164] Unruh’s son told police he was texting with his girlfriend throughout the alleged “groping” incident. Spacey’s defense attorneys spent months trying to obtain copies of the texts and the phone itself. In mid-May 2019, Unruh’s son’s personal attorney informed the court that the cell phone in question is “missing”.[165] On June 4, 2019, the defense learned that when Unruh gave her son’s cell phone to police in 2017, she admitted she had deleted some of the text messages.[165] Later that month, her son filed a lawsuit against Spacey, claiming emotional damages. On July 5, 2019, he voluntarily dismissed the claims with prejudice.[166]
On July 17, 2019, the criminal assault charge against Spacey was dropped by the Cape and Islands prosecutors.[167] When the anonymous massage therapist who accused him died, the last remaining criminal case against Spacey was closed.[168]
On September 9, 2020, Anthony Rapp accused Spacey in a complaint about actions that allegedly happened in 1986 (sexual assault and sexual battery) and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the Child Victims Act, which extended New York’s statute of limitations for suits related to child sexual abuse.[123] Joining Rapp in the suit against Spacey was a man who requested to remain anonymous who accused Spacey of sexually abusing him in 1983, when he was 14 and Spacey was 24.[169][170] On June 17, 2021, the anonymous accuser was dismissed from the case due to his refusal to publicly identify himself.[171] As Rapp’s trial lawsuit against Spacey commenced in October 2022, it was revealed that he had given an inaccurate description of the apartment where he alleged the abuse took place.[172][173] On October 17, the judge dismissed the emotional distress charges due to them being a “duplicate” of the battery charges.[14] On October 20, a jury found Spacey not liable.[174][175]
In 2020, Spacey and his production companies M. Profitt Productions and Trigger Street Productions were ordered to pay $31 million to MRC, the studio that produced House of Cards, for violating its sexual harassment policy.[176] Spacey appealed to have the arbitration award overturned, but the request was denied on August 4, 2022.[177]
On May 26, 2022, Spacey was charged by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the United Kingdom with four counts of sexual assault against three complainants. The alleged offenses occurred between 2005 and 2013 in London and Gloucestershire.[178][179] According to the Crown Prosecution Service, it would only be possible to formally charge Spacey if he entered England or Wales. If Spacey refused to do so voluntarily an extradition process would have been necessary.[180] Nevertheless, in a statement to Good Morning America on May 31, 2022, Spacey said that he would “voluntarily appear in the U.K. as soon as can be arranged”.[181]
In his first British court appearance on June 16, Spacey denied the allegations against him.[182] On July 14, 2022, Spacey pleaded not guilty to the charges in London. [183][184] On November 16, 2022, the CPS authorized an additional seven charges against Spacey, all related to a single complainant arising from incidents alleged to have occurred between 2001 and 2004.[185][186] Three charges were dismissed before or during the trial which began on June 28, 2023, and on July 26, 2023, a jury found Spacey not guilty of the remaining nine charges.
Frankly I wish more court details were in the articles about this. There are a lot of accusers and info on the wiki, I can’t help but feel if he was accused of assaulting women this would have gone differently
Yeah, we need to see more details. The allegations against him were serious. This was a spot copy so is understandably sparse on details. I guess we will see more in depth stories being published by tomorrow.
Wait, his OWN TEAM didn’t have questions for him, their own client? It’s a civil trial, they could have asked him anything, he could have had the whole court room listening to aIl the stupid bullshit he was trying to say in answer to the state. No questions?
I… can’t fathom taking the stand in your own defense and then not having any questions from your own attorneys. How about: “did you do it?” “No, I did not.” Or “why is the da trying to railroad you.” “Magamagamaga”.
His legal team is all to well aware that Trump under oath is a ticking time bomb. He’s got not verbal control what so ever and liable to admit to wrong doing as a casual boast.
His legal team is really bad, but they are not stupid. They can’t trust Trump to no go off script while under oath. They want him to spend as little time up there as possible before he perjures himself. That’s why they declined to cross examine him.
bbc.co.uk
Top