Isn't it canon that Kermit did 9/11?
Lupus108
joined 1 year ago
it took 2 nuclear weapons and the promise of more, and they were already in the verge of losing.
Some historians argue that the bigger factor was the sowjets preparing to enter the war against Japan and that the nuclear bombs just kind of sped up the decision that was coming anyway.
Yeah I once saw a "colorization" done by AI from a photo from the early 1900s or something, it was a photo from a house and some people in front of it, Russia or Ukraine somewhere.
The thing is that the photo that was used was in fact a color photo that they turned black and white and then gave it to the AI. The AI used very muted colors, a little beige a little dark green - colors you would expect from a photo of that time and region. In the original you could see, that the colors where actually very bright and plentiful, the house was a bright yellow not beige, the green fence was not dark green but bright green, the accents on the house were not brown but red. The people in the AI colorized picture had black, white, dark blue clothes, a man had a brown hat, in the original they wore blue dresses, yellow blouses, the hat was red and so on.
Of course you can extrapolate some things but the original photo was so colorful, these people clearly painted the house bright on purpose and they wore very bright clothes but the re-colorization was so much less colorful and it gave a wrong impression of the reality what was photographed. Of course the old film wasn't perfect and the colors maybe were also a little off - but it showed how many different colors were present in the original.
You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.
That's exactly my point, the Nazis never acted in good faith, they were never beholden to the freedoms they used, in fact they used those freedoms to get rid of them, so to protect them we have to restrict them. So unfortunately we have to exclude some things from the protection Democratic values can deliver. For example the swastika in Germany - all it represents, all it refers to in that context is anti democratic, anti freedom so if you show it outside of a educational context we have to assume it represents exactly that - that you want to get rid of democratic values like free speech, so we exclude that symbol from the protection of our democratic values TO protect said democratic values.
It's a little paradox and a lotta complicated. We should never take those measures lightly but imo they have to exist, because history showed that if you don't protect them , some forces are willing to use them to destroy them.
Your first link shows what happens when we don't apply those measures carefully and too broadly, the framework has to be very precise for them to make sense, otherwise they do the job of the deconstructors of democracy for them.
Your second Link refers to a private entity, those can not restrict free speech, they can censor what speech they want to host and it is their right under free speech to do so, so it is irrelevant. Like if you're in my house talking shit I can kick you out, no free speech was impeded by that action, I just exercised my free speech to show you the door.
Nope. They're right, you're wrong.
You didn't even give specific examples as you pretended to, it was just a blanket "both sides do it!" You just used more words.
And " the only answer to bad speech is more speech" is just factually and provable wrong. The Nazis and their enemies had free speech during the Weimarer Republik, they all used it extensively, the social democrats, the liberals, the communists, the clerics, the workers, the unions, they all used their right to free speech to try and fight the "bad speech" the Nazis could deploy openly, do you know how that story continues? They all lost their free speech because they were forced to let the cancer that is fascism roam free, with lies, propaganda, misinformation, calls for violence and just pure hate.
So the "bad speech" got plenty of "more speech" to counter but it didn't change anything.
There is only two responsible ways to cover Alex Jones, either not at all, no mention, nothing.
Or the knowledge fight way, which is producing thousands of hours of material disproving his claims one by one, all in context, all well researched with sourcing.
Everything else just plays into his hands. Like that Bon Iver folk song which was intended to mock his rambling theories? He LOVES that shit. He played it almost completely in one of his documentaries.
They recruited his dad because he was.the smartest kid in Texas. Also he was a CIA dentist. Also Alex was also recruited by the globalist because he was such a smart boy and he participated in some of their satanic rituals. Also they moved the family from Rockwall because it was such a.violent place. Or because Alex uncovered a drug ring operated by the police. Or because Alex killed a guy in a fist fight. Or because he left the globalist to uncover their satanic crimes so they had to move to Austin because it was.... Safer I guess?
The man is a habitual liar and his backstory is in large part just school yard talk about how strong his daddy is.
The funniest (real) fact about his dad is, that he is (or was, I don't know) the head of HR for Infowars. Imagine Ashley Beckford, she gets sexually harassed by the CEO of the company she works for and she goes to complain to the head of HR and it's the perpetrators dad.
Thank you! Honestly, the backdrop is of course tragic but the story about these two is nothing short of hilarious. I would watch a movie about them immediately, like for example Ben Kingsley and Ian McKellen playing the two.
I don’t have many complaints about the Taliban, but I have a lot of complaints about him.” Levi replied that Simentov was “a thief and a liar.'”
That line is just comedy.
Wow I almost scrolled by but seeing the words Kabul and synagogue together was so strange that I had to go back.
Very interesting read, also the bit about the two guys left arguing about the ownership of the synagogue and even complaining to the Taliban about each other is hilarious.
Etwas anderes Thema aber kreative Punkt erinnern mich an eine Geschichte aus meiner Realschule.
Eine Klassenkameradin konnte sich in einer Mathearbeit nicht an die korrekten Formeln erinnern und hat einfach das beschriebene Dreieck sorgfältig auf ein DIN A4 Blatt gezeichnet und die gefragten werte mit dem Geodreieck ausgemessen (erstaunlich genau auch noch).
Sie hat Punkte für das korrekte Ergebnis und Kreativpunkte für die Idee bekommen, aber Abzüge für den "falschen" Rechenweg. Und es gab nie wieder Aufgaben mit Werten die auf ein a4 Blatt passen würden.
To be fair, the US says pretty much the same.
Eeeh I have recently heard excerpts of his interview with Alex Jones about the documentary "Alex's war" and oh boy did Greenwald sell his soul on that one.
Alex Jones unpromted says "I didn't lie on purpose" 4 times within a couple of minutes, a couple of more times throughout the interview and Greenwald just ignores it.
For starters that's not what a lie is, either you made a mistake or you lied. Furthermore he says that so often and always unpromted, which journalist would just ignore that?
Since it was a promotional interview for the documentary he likely got paid for it, but to have so little integrity to just let that fly made me question everything Greenwald did from that point on. I mean to take money from Alex Jones for an interview is a bad move from the jump, then leading an interview that doesn't even address the answers Jones gives is bad, but to ignore that sentence at least 6 times completely is willfully shitty journalism to me.
Just to make sure, I am not questioning what he reported in the post, it is clearly and thoroughly documented what Israel did to the Palestinians during all of its existence. I am questioning Greenwalds motives and journalistic integrity in a broader sense than what was reported here.