Just a thread to discuss current events that may (or may) apply to us all such as the fact that the sensationalist media thinks that we are heading towards World War III, airliners are slowly turning into the Hunger Games, Turkey seems to be heading for even more civil unrest, and to nobody's surprise, YouTube is still a garbage platform for creative individuals.

Discuss.

So I saw this today... (Looked up since North Korea made a threat on Australia)



Actually made a lot of sense as to why North Korea is going down the road of Nuclear weaponry. I don't agree to it, but I understand their direction and the fears they have of their dynasty being wiped out.

To be honest I've seen a few videos that discuss aspects of the modern world like the ones above and it's rather interesting, confusing, and even scary.

@NuttsnBolts I think it's just MAD theory, no? I didn't watch the video (yet) but in short they're just using it as a deterrent for people to attack them.

Someone posted this on my facebook, bound to rustle a few jimmies in the 'classical liberal' or 'civic nationalist' circles.

@NuttsnBolts I think it's just MAD theory, no? I didn't watch the video (yet) but in short they're just using it as a deterrent for people to attack them.

I haven't watched the video either, but I know their entire government has built its legitimacy on ridiculous levels of fear-mongering. Their legitimacy is pretty shaky and its kind of impressive they've survived this long after the USSR caved.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

I haven't watched the video either, but I know their entire government has built its legitimacy on ridiculous levels of fear-mongering. Their legitimacy is pretty shaky and its kind of impressive they've survived this long after the USSR caved.

I watched it and it touches on MAD theory a little bit but generally the explanation they give is „... the Kim dynasty has seen US topple Iraq because they thought they had nuclear weapons, and has seen Gadaffi give up his nuclear program in favor of cooperation and ultimately get killed at the hand of US backed rebels. They are determined not to follow the same course. Hence they are determined to create ICBM's capable of reaching the USA because this would effectively shatter the alliances USA has with Japan and South-Korea [because it'd induce MAD theory] and topple the scale in their favor in terms of negotiations.”

It makes sense but it's not the only reason they want ICBM's. And yeah their legitimacy is shaky (but, ultimately, rooted in North Korea. There's no North Korea if the Kim dynasty falls, I reckon, because if the dynasty falls the USA will enter and enforce unity with South Korea/put in democracy) and it's kinda impressive that they did survive this long. Even China isn't really backing them *as much* anymore and yet they're there defying the odds.

The capacity and capability of North Korea to act on its threats has proven time and again their ineptitude in the matter, both short, medium and long range. This does not mean they do not present a threat, in that they could initiate a war by attempting a launch, but a true nuclear war is unlikely, namely because of the massive technological advantage employed against them. It also needs bear mention that Mutually Assured Destruction is not the current policy or the objective one either by the United States. Even if, and I do phrase that as an if, North Korea had the capacity to reach out on an attack and hold a continental United States city at risk, the odds of that weapon landing on target are extremely unlikely for a number of reasons. There are a number of factors that reinforce this, just from the basic science of it, to the quality and state of the platform it is on, the weapon itself and yield, to just the target, barring of course the myriad of assets the United States has developed and maintains, the majority of which were built to combat a far more advanced adversary.

Again it is important to note that this does not mean they are a non-threat, just the reaction of the general public is not well informed on the matters of the arms at hand. The real people at risk are the South Koreans and the Japanese, because those layers of complexity are significantly reduced just by proximity alone and a few associated issue of politics and culture. However, the notion of "damaging the alliances" is ill informed. Proliferation does not remove credibility, it reinforces it. In essence, the North Korean dynasty is incentivizing and building upon those bonds and making it a matter of consideration for their enemies.

For too long has the United States neglected to continue building its fundamentals of deterrence, both horizontally and laterally. It helps none that the average person, speaking to just the United States, is afraid and uneducated on nuclear warfare, ionizing radiation, effects there of and home nation policy. This is why the North Korea ordeal appears as frightening as it is despite being more sound over substance.

One side or the other, I'd suggest that every individual regardless of their specific view to read as many publications as they can.

NYTimes, Washington Post/Times, HuffPost, Conservative Tribune, Breitbart, CNN, RT, etc.

You can only learn more about the different sides the more you challenge yourself on every level of discussion.

With that said, I find the 'mainstream' news to indulge in a credibility-damaging amount of sensationalism. I'm not a fan of headlines due to their easily manipulated nature to express a misleading idea; the news is keenly aware of this. With regards to Korea, I find them a significant threat but not the threat the news would have you believe. The numerous failed missile tests lend to that idea and Vox's assessment of North Korea's nuclear range is mildly assessed as misleading.

It's the same with Russia. I generally enjoy 1791L's videos (at least within the videos detailing his personally stated viewpoints) for their tendency to lean less towards liberal bashing and a respectable attempt toward nuanced discussion.

@Dark Wind
Totally agree with everything that you said. It aggravates me to no end how much people trap themselves in circles of what they only agree with. At the very least, news all around is quickly falling to shit as evidenced by the overly sensationalized articles that have been floating around recently.

At this point I follow individual journalists/analysts more than I do actual media channels (Mark Galeotti and Bonnie Glaser immediately come to mind), although a few are just worth it: The BBC, the Atlantic, New York Times, the Economist, Strafor. Also as an American, and veteran, I still follow a few sources in that realm because it's news the mainstream just glances over: USNI News, CHINFO clips, Defensenews's Early Bird Brief are either daily must reads, or at least read a few times a week.

Likewise, non-fiction books are something I'm constantly into when I want a deeper dive. (Right now that's Black Flags by Joby Warrick.)

@Cynder The Achilles' Heel of modern and past news coverage is the push towards ratings and cash flow. Because of that particular trend, we've entered into the full-blown force of a media era where roundtable discussion is considered journalism. It's not. It's opinion spouting based on a rather gray area centered on what is fact and what is not. What is alternative fact, what is fact, what is false? It's dangerous to me that any form of media would want to silence others behind the battlecry of 'fake news' because it's not an attempt at justice but rather a thinly hidden agenda toward censorship. My first journalism class talked about not using adjectives in an article because it presents a bias.

It's amazing how far the current news reporting has fallen from that particular concept. If I want opinions, I'll read a blog or watch a vlog, or listen to podcasts and the like. And it's all well and good if newscasters make it clear that what they're saying is their personal perspective. But it's transparent that the media wants to establish their words as gospel. If you're a journalist, I want the news as it happened, not your distortion of it.

EDIT: There's also the possibility of more sinister handling as to why the news is as it is. Thy name is propaganda.

EDIT: There's also the possibility of more sinister handling as to why the news is as it is. Thy name is propaganda.

Are you referring to the common theory that sensationalized headlines are drawing attention away from issues that governments wish for their people to "ignore"?

<Snipped quote by Dark Wind>
Are you referring to the common theory that sensationalized headlines are drawing attention away from issues that governments wish for their people to "ignore"?

Partially. Goes much further than that.

Weaponizing the people against each other is a hell of a trick, yes it is.

<Snipped quote by Cynder>

Partially. Goes much further than that.

Weaponizing the people against each other is a hell of a trick, yes it is.

This right here. It's easy to take someone's mind off the fact that the world is caving in around them if you can point to another race/party/culture/literally anything else and say "They're evil!" then go to that group and tell them that the one you were just talking to is also evil.

Partially. Goes much further than that.

Weaponizing the people against each other is a hell of a trick, yes it is.

This too. My Government and Politics teacher recently invited a political scientist professor to our class who told us that he believes that party politics are far too polarized these days. Not only that, but there's also social divides such as seen with the MRA vs. feminist debate and the like.

Anything interesting going on lately @Cynder?

<Snipped quote by Dark Wind>
Are you referring to the common theory that sensationalized headlines are drawing attention away from issues that governments wish for their people to "ignore"?

Media control strategy. I have a .pdf of a book somewhere that I'll forward you if I can find it.

Anything interesting going on lately @Cynder?

Definitely! I think it depends on your interest though. For me, I've been following YouTube boycotts, Philip Defranco upgrading to his own news station, and the situation that has been unraveling on the Korean peninsula.

Media control strategy. I have a .pdf of a book somewhere that I'll forward you if I can find it.

I saw it and I'll take a look tomorrow. Thanks! Quite curious to see what it contains.

I saw it and I'll take a look tomorrow. Thanks! Quite curious to see what it contains.

Nothing majorly important but it offers some info on how politicians see media (in some countries). It also offers insight on how Marxism kickstarted propaganda efforts for example.

It's a good read if you are interested in information warfare (which is a real thing though it's nowhere near as conspiracy like as websites like infowars like to portray it). Intelligence agencies have engaged in information warfare since forever and the best examples are probably from the Cold War. Soviets were masters of disinformation tactics.

Nothing majorly important but it offers some info on how politicians see media (in some countries). It also offers insight on how Marxism kickstarted propaganda efforts for example.

It's a good read if you are interested in information warfare (which is a real thing though it's nowhere near as conspiracy like as websites like infowars like to portray it). Intelligence agencies have engaged in information warfare since forever and the best examples are probably from the Cold War. Soviets were masters of disinformation tactics.

All those damn dystopian and politically-based novels that I have been reading lately has made me extremely curious in seeing exactly how the world works. Naturally, of course, I don't expect it to reach dystopian and/or conspiracy theory levels.