The War in Europe

Your whole approach to finding out what is true is horribly flawed because instead of seeking facts, information and analysis you're looking for someone who has the answers. But that's a huge fallacy. No one has the answers.What the guys you're listening do have is YouTube channels where they're competing for attention with many other voices, so they're highly motivated to make the most provocative statements and claims. And you fall for it time after time, get all stirred up, then post here. You don't mean it's the news you don't trust. The news we get is pretty good. From a high level view nobody doubts the news that Russia invaded Ukraine. At a more detailed level, nobody doubts the news that Russia staged more drone attacks on Kyiv last night. By and large we're getting a fairly accurate picture of events.What you mean is that it's opinion you don't trust, and you're right, you shouldn't. Given your gravitation toward the least reliable sources you definitely should not trust the opinions you hear. Macgregor is not "an echo chamber for the far right agenda." He's just one of the many conservative voices contributing to the echo chamber that you inhabit. Gather your facts and information and assess what you're hearing against them. Until you have actual reliable information you are helpless. Stop looking for stories and start seeking reliable information. What does the evidence tell you? Questions like this reek of conspiratorial nonsense. Do you have something meaningful to add to the discussion?The next time you watch a YouTube video that just feels oh so important and are moved to post here, stop yourself.Concerning your question about what if Ukraine doesn't win, there are many possible outcomes ranging from Ukraine is defeated and becomes a Russian client state like Belarus to Ukraine decisively expelling the invader and taking back the Donbas and the Crimea.The threat to the west of a defeated Ukraine is a more aggressive and powerful Russia on Europe's eastern doorstep. No one knows what's going to happen yet, including the guys you're listening to. Why do you think someone has the answers?The important point is that they no one has a crystal ball. No one does. Gather your facts and information. Think for yourself and stop trying to choose who should be telling you what to think--Percy

Of course not. He is only a man now acknowledged as leader and inspiration for his beleaguered nation and the world beyond under siege by an overpowering outlaw aggressor.You are watching history being played out right in front of your eyes. Open them!Zelensky is not the sexist, racist, elitist, insultive, boorish, son-of-a-bitch that Churchill was but he has already set his legacy even above that cigar-chomping SOB.He's not a saint. He's a human level hero. A big one.

Irrelevant and again off topic Provide evidence for this or withdraw.

I bet if Joe Biden or Jerome Powell told you an assertion you wouldn't demand evidence from them.Anyway here is a bit of evidence: College professors donate to Democrats over Republicans by ratio of 95-to-1: Study

But they're not the ones saying obviously stupid things.

Of course, I would as does everyone else.Also, of course, you would post an article by a sexist, racist, and homophobic organization, whose agenda is to remove gender, race, and queer studies from every college campus. Whose agenda is to whitewash all of US history and politics.
What they claim is not evidence. They performed no studies they looked at a bunch of data, much unrelated, and conflate a bunch of data points to come up with a toxic-looking headline they knew would be picked up by the far-right press. I grant you academia is much more liberal than society at large, but I have seen no evidence that a 90% figure can be supported.
Instead of building some conspiracy about "liberal professors" maybe you should be wondering why highly educated people tend to be more liberal. Then again your cult leaders want you and the rest of their minions to stay uneducated and stupid.

It is only partially who things come from that affects how I would evaluate it. It also depends on how important the issue is to me.No one has time to fact-check ever single statement they see or hear. You pick and choose. An incomplete list of things to consider is:1) Does it make any difference to me or the world.2) Does it fit with other things I am very sure of.There are many good reasons to accept thermodynamics so if you tell me you have a perpetual motion machine you're going to have to work very hard to convince me even if you are a card-carrying professor of physics that I know a lot about.If someone pushes a gold standard I'd have to see a lot of detail since I know somethings that make that difficult.If someone tells me there is a whiz bang new battery tech coming to make EVs way cheaper and longer range. I won't bother checking it out. From past experience I'll wait until I can buy it. Until then it makes zero difference to me.If someone claims "I'm not a crook" I'll weigh that statement against all their past behavior. You can be fooled by this. When I was told about the Delhi Lama's behavior with a boy my first instinct was to believe it was fake news but I did a little googling around and was disappointed to find out that it appears (held tentatively) to be true.3) How many sources are there for and against the claim. I want to see reasoned logical discussions about it. This part will, of course, include the evidence for and against the assertion.For a very large number of assertions made to me by individuals or "news" sources I just let them slide because they don't matter or are so obviously wrong they can be discarded without effort.

From the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Because of your lengthy history of posting bare links, your link permissions have been removed. You will no longer be able to include links in messages.

Par for the course. Liberal authoritarianism lives on. Im obviously unwelcome here...why the hell do I stay around?

You are still welcome here.Maybe I disagree with you most of the time, but diversity is good. Admin did have a point. You do have a bad habit of posting bare links. It shouldn't be that difficult to write a sentence or two summarizing your position.

Yeah but now I cant use links at all! Ive never seen anyone else hit with that kind of discipline. Percy mentions my echo chamber, but his whole forum is virtually a left wing echo chamber! Well, if his discipline is in fact corrective rather than punitive, perhaps I will have to learn to make my points more in my own words....but I expect him to eventually reinstate my links since I have also used links creatively at times.

It isn't what you're saying. It's how you're saying it, or more accurately, that you're not saying it. The bare link issue has been explained to you enumerable times and has been in the Forum Guidelines since time immemorial. Here are some helpful excerpts from a discussion at reddit (Bare Links are Bad Posts). Discussions like this can be found all over the Internet:

quote:

---

I have seen a spate of posts here recently that contain nothing but a link.

​

These, in my humble opinion, suck.

​

I will not click on them, I will not comment on them, I won't engage with them positively at all.

​

I will downvote them without a second thought.

​

I think we should update our rules to disallow them.
...
There's just about no reason to just post bare links. Give some context.
...
I agree, and am not a fan of them in any regard.
...
If idiots want to say something, they really should add the context which says something.
...
We have made it clear in the past that this includes posts that are too short. We have also disabled link-posts. We did that for a reason; this sub is for discussion - hopefully good and meaningful discussion - not for links.

​

If you link something, describe it in the post itself.

---

Percy is no liberal.

No, the site really isn't an echo chamber. The lefties here often disagree with one another, and give reasons for their positions. They don't just echo.Honestly, I welcome your contributions. But they need to actually say something and not be bare links. Diversity and disagreement can be good. It broadens our horizons.

First of all, I thank all of you for bothering to encourage me and explain the motive of the corrective discipline. It may irritate me having to think rather than link, but its probably good for me.Meanwhile in Europe...

Sky News:

---

Riots have blazed through Paris, Marseille and Lyon, after police fatally shot 17-year-old Nahel Merzouk.

​

The violence comes as France reaches a tipping point after an influx of migrants over recent years.

​

“The heart of the problem is this parallel society that has grown up within France, the lost territories and politicians have known about this for 20 years,” The Spectator’s Gavin Mortimer told Sky News Digital Originals.

---

Im not sure what this parallel society comment refers to, but it seems to be targeting the immigrants to(in) France. One thing I *do* see is that the rioters...whomever they may be...are fighting against authority (the police) and this bothers me as I fear that this could happen here in America. People need to work with authority figures and authority figures need to respect people. Tearing everything up helps no one. The world needs to learn from these events and people need to educate themselves. The whole group (herd) mentality reaction is caustic to a civilized society/