There are other atrocities happening in the world, especially right next door. We should focus media attention on cartels as well. It's all about media propaganda at the end of the day and what they want you to focus your attention on. For instance Mao killed more people then any known dictator in history, but Hitler is more infamous, why? Vested international interest in propaganda. The same thing Is happening all over the world, there are major things happening and yet our media is focused in on one thing. Vested interest. It's time we ask, in what?
And yes the war on drugs is what spurned these cartels to pop up, which is another debate this country still is iffy about talking about. Thank you Nancy Reagan. You can read more here.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03 2014, @09:58PM
N/t
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03 2014, @11:16PM
Debian's infection by systemd is an atrocity. Here we have a case of the most robust and trusted Linux distro around being utterly destroyed by software that many consider to be no better, and maybe even worse, than malware.
I see people here speak out against it. They are brave heroes, standing up against such a destructive force. But instead of supporting them in the fight against this atrocity, many of these fine people are ridiculed and harassed.
They are told that systemd is "off-topic", when it is the most relevant thing in any topic of discussion these days! These people are treated like scum by those who are too ignorant to realize the severe danger that systemd poses not just to Debian, but to Linux and the entire open source community.
If we must talk about atrocities here, then we cannot forget to mention systemd. It isn't an atrocity that happened decades ago; it's an atrocity that is happening today, on our very own Debian systems.
(Score: 1) by malloc_free on Tuesday November 04 2014, @02:31AM
Give it a fucking rest already. Problem with SN is that all the dipshits that would post annoying shit on random threads about the atrocity of beta have come here, and now pollute threads with crap about systemd. If you don't like what they are doing with Debian, don't use it. Just like some of us quit Windows because we don't like what they did/do with it. You can always ask for a refund (here, I can give you one, right here, see that pixel----> )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @11:55AM
Are you a Somali?
Well, the rest of us aren't. We're Americans, using an American site. One of our core American values is FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. That means when we don't like something, we say so!
Maybe you don't like that, as a Somali. Well we don't give a damn! Systemd is an atrocity, and we'll damn well say so! Slashdot Beta is an atrocity, and we'll damn well say so!
It's called FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, my Somali friend. You've got two choices: LISTEN TO US, or suck it up!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @03:16PM
He has the same freedom of expression to bitch and moan all he wants about your misdirected efforts. Suck it up.
(Score: 1) by malloc_free on Wednesday November 05 2014, @02:07AM
Fucking anonymous coward is cowardly. And stupid posts in places where they don't belong are still stupid.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:35AM
Yes, living in Canada, I am really worried about w.t.f. is happening in the US. It appears the gov't has basically been purchased by the largest corporations, and most citizens seem to both not be happy about it, but are also unwilling to do anything to change the situation. And don't get me started on the whole concept of "republican vs democrat", like, of course, why would there be any other party worth considering?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03 2014, @09:59PM
That's not very nice. he leaves the house once a week and I noticed he changed his pants sometime back in May. Locally, we call him Frank but I think his name may be Charles.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday November 03 2014, @10:02PM
Also, Mao does not live next door to me.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Monday November 03 2014, @11:49PM
The Atrocity Formerly Know as Charles?
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Monday November 03 2014, @10:02PM
In other news,
tom-magliozzi-dies-at-age-77
Damn I hate death...and Alzheimers, incidentally.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03 2014, @10:21PM
so when people don't hate death the most then that seems like a good way to expose cognitive biases right?
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Monday November 03 2014, @11:25PM
FYI, that is the one of the klik and klak brothers from the radio show, "Car Talk"
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @01:47AM
Um, I still don't know who he was.
(Score: 2) by WillR on Monday November 03 2014, @10:16PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03 2014, @11:13PM
This cultural/religious group is traditionally associated with control of the US media and entertainment industries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @01:53AM
WASPs?
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Tuesday November 04 2014, @01:11AM
I think that you might have it the wrong way around. There was very clear pro-Mao propaganda in China, plus the fact that the US was directly involved in a war with Hitler while we haven't had such a large-scale war with China.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:29AM
My belief is that you never threaten the banker's ownership notes. Hitler did.
From what I can tell, Hitler was after the banking class just as the French went after the banking classes with guillotines.
I think those Germans had just about as much love for bankers as we have with the Landlord classes buying up all the houses and renting them out, even getting our government to allow them tax breaks for doing so.
Things go on for just so long until the elite ownership classes become so burdensome the commoners simply cannot support them anymore. Then there is a breakdown.
In politics, this is called a revolution.
And its the same thing we techies call "breakdown potential" in a relaxation oscillator.
It happens in circuits with gain. In electronics, the excess charges to reach breakdown come from a battery. In the financial world, its dollars from a printing press.
The math is the same. Ramp up. Breakdown. Rinse, Lather, Repeat.
Been going on since Biblical days.
The sword resets the ownership monopolies, then the new monopoly grows from the vanquished.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:36AM
Hitler is only more famous in the west because we were involved in a war he started. In the east Mao is more well known. TFA is stupid.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by GoodBuddy on Wednesday November 05 2014, @01:56AM
Exactly. I have relatives who died in WWII, because of Hitler, et. al.
Very, very few westerners have relatives that died because of Mao.
Plus the article is from Aljazerra America. I don't know why the article doesn't just plainly state that they believe the focus on ISIS is due to Islamophobia.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03 2014, @10:20PM
The people of the former Soviet Union, as well as those of China have always been quite educated and literate, however Stalin and Mao did a good job of keeping the word from getting out.
I don't know for certain but strongly suspect that Hitler killed far more mentally ill people than he did Jewish people. I do know for sure that the mentally ill were put into concentration camps far earlier.
However no one spoke for them. They didn't speak for themselves. It was not until the 1960s or so that anyone did - folks like Robert Pirsig with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mainenance, and Ken Kesey with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Among the reason I write so much about my own mental illness, is that had I lived in Europe during the 1930s, I would have been one of Hitler's victims too. My essays are at http://www.warplife.com/mdc/essays/ [warplife.com] and http://www.warplife.com/mdc/books/ [warplife.com]
-- Mike Crawford, who cannot be bothered to reset his password.
(Score: 1) by archshade on Monday November 03 2014, @10:52PM
I don't know for certain but strongly suspect that Hitler killed far more mentally ill people than he did Jewish people.
I think a lot depends on how you count things, does removing the aid needed by disabled people to live, and letting them starving to death count? Otherwise I was of the impression that Jewish people made up the most significant minority of people killed in the holocaust, at between 30% and 40%. With POWs and ethnic eastern Europeans also being quite high on the list. I have often wondered why one group was always talked about so much more than all the others. Maybe it was the fact that not only where they the largest group, it also represented the largest proportion of people form that group.
A quick DuckDuckGo found this [world-war-2-diaries.com] which seems [at a quick glance] to basically agree (although the link seems to suggest ~42% of victims where Jewish).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03 2014, @11:51PM
The united states is a christian nation by popular belief, not by origin or law. And the majority of these christians 'want' to support the zionist sect of judaism because the beliefs of said sect align with their own sect of christianity. It also helps that the anti defamation league makes it their business to attack ANYONE who publicly doubts the accepted narrative of the holocaust. Which is it was only an attempt to purge the world of anyone jewish.
This sect believes it is their 'right' given to them by god to retake and own the land that their holy book, the torah, claims they own. Never mind the fact all archeological evidence from the egyptians, greeks, and hittites for which we have several tons of verifiable written works from never mention such a nation of the scale or the importance that the torah claims. Which aligns with the dominant vocal protestant sect of christianity which is in the united states who believes that for christ to return, the temple has to be rebuilt and the jewish state to be reborn.(which ironically triggers armageddon in which all the jews die.)
It's this same group that starting from the end of ww2 till the u.n. creation of modern israel spent millions in the united states as well as other prominent nations in the u.n. to sell them the idea of carving out a jewish state. A state run by them as they became the dominant party to this day.
On the surface the country is a 'democracy' but it is a religious theocracy similar to Iran as in you can not run for office unless you are part of this party.
Of course stating these facts generally gets people like me labeled as an anti-semitic nazi skinhead racist for simply doubting...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @12:04PM
Never mind the fact all archeological evidence from the egyptians, greeks, and hittites for which we have several tons of verifiable written works from never mention such a nation of the scale or the importance that the torah claims.
It was of importance to the people who wrote the Torah. They lived there.
On the surface the country is a 'democracy' but it is a religious theocracy similar to Iran as in you can not run for office unless you are part of this party.
Iran is a theocracy in much the same way as England is a theocracy, in that the head of state is also the religious leader and has final say over all things political. In Iran, people vote for individuals approved by the religious leadership, which then make up the government.
Israel has no such religious leader (nor is faith a requirement), and the government are elected in general elections. The people vote for political parties, from which the government is formed. It is a secular parliamentary democracy like any other. It is not a one-party system, nor are there special provisions for the currently ruling party.
Of course stating these facts generally gets people like me labeled as an anti-semitic nazi skinhead racist for simply doubting...
You seem to have an agenda.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 04 2014, @04:29PM
Which aligns with the dominant vocal protestant sect of christianity which is in the united states who believes that for christ to return, the temple has to be rebuilt and the jewish state to be reborn.
Not sure what denomination you're thinking of, but the one I was raised in and, I dare say, the vast majority of mainstream ones do NOT say this.
Millenialism [wikipedia.org] is generally a thing with Mormons, 7th-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and suchlike.
Plus the problem with
dominant vocal protestant sect
The most vocal ones are not the dominant ones.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 04 2014, @12:40PM
When the Auschwitz' contribution was re-evaluated downwards to 1.5 million (more recent figures go even lower), the 6 million total didn't change.
So treat all citation-less parrotting of "6 million", such as your link, with suspicion.
My citations? The actual physical marble memorial plaques outside Auschwitz itself before and after 1989. Photos of which are available online, just use your favourite search engine, and follow the sources that you trust, I won't lead you to any one in particular. Even the preview thumbnails should be big enough to show you which say which number (they're different colour marble too).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by archshade on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:05PM
While Auschwitz was claimed to have been the place of 4 million jewish deaths, the total summed to 6 million. When the Auschwitz' contribution was re-evaluated downwards to 1.5 million (more recent figures go even lower), the 6 million total didn't change.
Neither plaques suggest that all the people where Jewish, the 4 million plaque makes no mention. The 1.5 million says "mainly Jews", So from that evidence may the missing 2.5 Million where non-jewish. I can see that if the 6 million number was based on this value then yes the number is suspect. It is also something very difficult to search for (the 6 million number is used without citation, and there is a lot of ranting). I was actually under the impression that the numbers where not based on body counts but from a selection of sources including censuses, and witness accounts both from perpetrators and survivors. I would be interested to give this more time but I am in the middle of an exam period, maybe after.
.
My key points still stand:
.
PS [OFFTOPIC]: My reference to DDG was due to me originally typing Google, which would have been incorrect (I am trying to move myself away from Google where I can). People should be free to use any search engine they want.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 05 2014, @05:37PM
Some presumably quite right wing people with an agenda have claimed that the inflated figures come from confessions under torture from perpetrators (camp leaders), who never reached a trial, and exposure of evidence. Lack of trial can be supported by research, I'm not sure the torture part can. However, torture is a notoriously efficient way of extracting bogus information, so can't be ruled out.
There are many sources, I have no reasons to trust any of them. There are strong reasons to distrust many though (e.g. those who copy a photo from Life magazine of the execution of german spies, touch it up a bit, and pass it of as the death of jews at Mauthausen - that's just an outright lie).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 03 2014, @11:50PM
I don't know for certain but strongly suspect that Hitler killed far more mentally ill people than he did Jewish people.
I think you'd be wrong in that suspicion. Wikipedia gives an estimate of deaths of almost 6 million Jews and only 270,000 disabled people (which would include the mentally ill). Just because you are mentally ill doesn't mean that you can't go die somewhere on the Eastern front. And socio-/psychopaths would have plenty of opportunity for advancement in the secret police or as prison guards.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Tuesday November 04 2014, @01:54AM
Probably because Mao and Stalin murdered their own people, and there is also enough of their own people that support them in it. Hitler didn't murder his own people (at that scale) and how many Jews do you know that supported him in doing so?
It is a shame and I kinda agree with the article. Genocide in the news should not be based on popularity. Yes the holocaust was very bad, but the Jews have been trumpeting this for half a century and more like its the worst thing that ever happened in human history. There are worst atrocities than that that never get the same spotlight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @02:47AM
Maybe not at that scale, but the Jews Hitler killed were his own people, namely Germans.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 04 2014, @03:54AM
As Eddie Izzard brilliantly put it: "Hitler killed people next door... 'Oh… stupid man!' After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?"
The Holocaust was a terrible crime. So were the mass killings by Pol Pot, and by Stalin, and by Mao, and by Milosevic et al in Bosnia, and by Theoneste Bagosora in Rwanda, and of course the near-complete genocide of American First Nations over the first 300 years or so of US history. Trying to rank them doesn't seem like it makes much sense: I guess you could measure the level of atrocity by body count, but in the end all of them are so beyond the pale of acceptable human behavior that really there's not much more to be said about it.
About all I can think of is to pay attention to the Milgram Experiment, and remember that if somebody tells you to do something that violates your conscience, it's a good time to stop what you're doing and think it over without that authority figure present. In other words, be August Landmesser, the man not saluting Hitler [all-that-is-interesting.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03 2014, @11:16PM
I'm no fan of Ronald Reagan and his policies, but IIRC Nancy Reagan made it her mission to go around the USA and tell schoolchildren, "Just say no" (to drugs).
How does that make NR complicit in the formation of Mexican drug cartels? That is quite a stretch, sounds like someone has an axe to grind.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday November 03 2014, @11:35PM
She was played a part in the public/private partnership that is called the drug war.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 03 2014, @11:56PM
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 04 2014, @12:13AM
How many millions were burned up in the pipe dream of "just say no"? Whoever pays taxes got burned.
Secondly, you would have to be seriously high to not see that this was part of the drug war -- there is the enforcement side (the stick) and the persuasion side (the carrot (though more often the butt of jokes but whatever, we'll call it the carrot while realizing the real carrot went to politicians who profited from people's dislike of drug users, prison owners, cartel owners, the CIA (Ollie North etc.), racists (see the book "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow [wikipedia.org] ), SWAT teams now well equipped enough to bust up home poker games, etc., etc. -- a whole panoply of public/private unsavory characters, assholes, and mutherfuckers has benefitted by the drug war while the average citizen who pays taxes and only uses alcohol or coffee for their drug intake, has been harmed).
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:20AM
Not being from US, I don't know if the "just say no" campaign tried to educate on the risk of drugs or actually just tried to plant a negative sentiment.
However, besides from costing money I don't see how this campaign could have any negative impact on society. Drug abuse (as in usage of drugs without any medical indication) is harmful to society. I say so even though I do like a good glass of Scotch once in a while, and if THC was legalized here and available without the smoking hazard (I find tobacco repulsive, pure weed would hurt in the throat - or so I've heard - and increases risk of lung cancer, and cookies are more difficult to dose due to the delayed effect. I could imagine it e.g. as a fluid for e-cigarettes), I'd probably not hesitate to use it for occasionally purely recreational purposes. Hell, eating the amounts of meat or sugar most people consume is also unhealthy, depending on the dosage even more than drugs (think of long-term effects of obesity and diabetics compared to an occasional THC-intoxication).
The problem with the aggressive, violent and legal war on drugs is just that it is apparently much more harmful than the drugs themselves, because the violent part causes direct human sufferings, the prohibition raises the prices and helps the dealers and cartels to get rich, and the investigations, trials and punishment costs the state quite a bunch, etc.
Anti-drug propaganda on the other hand does not have any of these negative side-effects (besides maybe some costs), and thorough information on the real risk and (side-)effects of drugs is an absolute necessity when legalizing drugs. It's only important not to try to mix these two aspects, otherwise the information campaign loses its credibility, as it is important not to mix propaganda campaigns with the harmful aspects of the war on drugs, otherwise you will harm the war on war on drugs :-)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday November 04 2014, @02:41PM
I don't know if the "just say no" campaign tried to educate on the risk of drugs or actually just tried to plant a negative sentiment.
I am from the US, and can tell you it wasn't an educational campaign, it was most certainly to plant a negative sentiment.
However, besides from costing money I don't see how this campaign could have any negative impact on society.
This [virginia.edu] explains the social costs of drug prohibition. That book was required reading in a class I took at SIU. It's a very good read.
Drug abuse (as in usage of drugs without any medical indication) is harmful to society. I say so even though I do like a good glass of Scotch once in a while
How does that glass of scotch harm society?
pure weed would hurt in the throat - or so I've heard - and increases risk of lung cancer, and cookies are more difficult to dose due to the delayed effect. I could imagine it e.g. as a fluid for e-cigarettes
Weed won't harm your throat, nor will it cause cancer; a study of four groups of elderly people was done a few years ago. One group had never smoked, one group smoked pot long-term, one smoked cigs long-term, and one smoked both. It was expected that those who smoked both would have twice the cancers as cigarette smokers, but they had only half the incidence of cancer, and te pot smokers actually had fewer cancers than nonsmokers although the difference was statistically insignificant.
It can cause emphysema, though. There haven't been any good studies on the health effects of vaping.
The problem with cookies would be that you forget how many you've eaten. However, unlike your glass of scotch, an overdose won't kill you or even make you sick, it will only make you higher than you want to be.
Anti-drug propaganda on the other hand does not have any of these negative side-effects
When someone finds out that they've been lied to about pot, they're not going to pay attention to the danger of crack. I personally know (well, knew) pot smokers who, when they faced possible drug testing at work, switched to crack because pot stays in the system for a month but cocaine only a few days. They're now addicted, unemployable, and homeless. THAT is the danger of propaganda. Real, truthful information would be helpful, but anti-drug zealots would never let honesty get in the way of their jihad.
Drug abuse (including alcoholism) is a medical problem like any other mental illness and should no more be outlawed than being bipolar.
Oh, that glass of scotch: More people die from overdose of alcohol than overdoses of all other drugs combined. Why is it legal? Click the above link.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 04 2014, @03:02PM
No offense intended, but I have a feeling you are contradicting yourself and ignoring the most relevant parts of my post in your reply. Therefore I will re-order the quotes to match them.
I think this roughly answers your own question. Ok, not exactly, since the single glass of scotch is not an addiction. But it's a starting point, and I for one are well aware that there is a slow tendency to want to increase frequency and amount. It takes conscious effort not to start down that road. Statistically, this taking this risk does harm society.
First of all, this refers to the prior mentioned side effect, like violence, strengthened cartels and prosecution-costs. Second, you ignored the subsequent clarification:
This already claims that misleading campaigns are damaging to the important goal of information, and it is a side-condition on how to do such a campaign, not a complete reason against it. So, if you want to claim that anti-drug propaganda is always harmful, please explain how it is harmful as long as it stays honest and without exaggeration.
Besides:
Maybe. Only that starting to use drugs is a choice, while starting to be bipolar isn't.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 05 2014, @02:49PM
My point about the glass of scotch is that it's one of the most dangerous drugs there are, yet only a small minority of people become addicted or die from an overdose. There are indeed social costs to alcoholism that extend way past the individual alcoholics, but those social costs are dwarfed by the social costs of its prohibition in the 1920s.
Maybe. Only that starting to use drugs is a choice, while starting to be bipolar isn't.
I've observed by haunting cheap bars (research for Mars, Ho!) that most addicts have worse mental problems than their drug and/or alcohol use. But yes, you're right that a sane but careless person can become addicted, but is being careless sane?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday November 04 2014, @08:53PM
Anecdotal, but relevant:
I went out of town to a convention with some people I knew, a few of them friends. One of them brought home-made pot-laced brownies of a substantially higher concentration than intended, which nobody realized until they were passed around and eaten. The distinction may be minor, but I would definitely call the results "being physically ill" among those that had some - no digestive distress to speak of, but they were unable to remain standing and had to sit out much of the evening's festivities at the hotel. I daresay I had more fun than they did, that day.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05 2014, @02:06AM
I personally know (well, knew) pot smokers who, when they faced possible drug testing at work, switched to crack because pot stays in the system for a month but cocaine only a few days. They're now addicted, unemployable, and homeless.
Whose fault is that? It's not the fault of the employers or government who went out of their way to discourage that behavior.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 04 2014, @02:25PM
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday November 03 2014, @11:43PM
Is this comparison between Hitler and Mao in absolute or relative numbers? Because, you know, China is quite a bit larger than Germany, especially when considering the number of people.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @02:54AM
The comparison is in their reputation, it's not measured in deaths.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 04 2014, @07:41AM
Err ... "For instance Mao killed more people then[sic] any known dictator in history," is not about the number of people killed?
Yes, they are also compared for their reputation. But the claim is that the reputation comparison goes the other way than the comparison of what they actually did. Which of course needs both comparisons to be made. And I'm asking about the other comparison.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday November 03 2014, @11:53PM
Spurn: to refuse to accept (someone or something that you do not think deserves your respect, attention, affection, etc.)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spurn [merriam-webster.com]
Spur: #2: a goad to action : stimulus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spur?show=0&t=1415057875 [merriam-webster.com]
As written, the sentence suggests that the cartels rose to the top because the US hated them, which is obviously not what the author meant (they didn't exist to hate before the drug war). Rather: the US government spurred the cartels to the top because the cartels filled a space in the marketplace created by the banning of some drugs -- that those engaging in criminal businesses would employ criminal methods was undoubtedly contemplated by the US Government given our recent experiences with the rise of organized crime in America during alcohol prohibition. It is thus reasonable to ask, 1) why do the pro-drug-war people hate America so much, and 2) what was the real reason for the drug war? The second is easy to answer. It is profitable for both sides in different ways (money, votes, money). As for the first, I'm at a loss.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday November 04 2014, @01:08AM
That was a long winded way of pointing out a typo.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @02:51AM
Well, to correct that typo he needed to really grind down that ax first.
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Tuesday November 04 2014, @12:28AM
I'm an American, and I probably let that show to some extent when writing summaries. I don't see that as an issue, and I don't see it as an issue when I see stories with British spellings of words or other little giveaways about the author. I actually kind of like it. But I try not to use terms like "us" and "our" unless I'm referring to the entire human species. I could theoretically see using those terms in reference to Americans if previous language made it clear what country I was talking about, but even then I think I would shy away from it. I was really unclear where the author was talking about when (s)he started talking about the atrocity "next door," and while the mention of cartels made me guess it was in reference to Mexico this wasn't really confirmed until the invocation of the war on drugs (which is international but clearly led by the US) and Nancy Reagan (no, not Richard Nixon, Nancy Reagan).
tl;dr
Please don't use region-specific language without at least making it clear what region you're referring to first.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 04 2014, @09:32AM
+1 Insightful (if only I had mod-points). Phrasing it a bit more careful makes the article easier to read for people from other parts of the world because it avoids the search for the "We"-context. It also avoids to look self-centered and shows a more metropolitan way of thinking.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 04 2014, @02:19PM
And the sarcasm about Nancy Reagan is silly. She had nothing to do with it.
Finally, the linked story is over-the-top ridiculous. I get that the author is just trying to portray the US as being hypocritical, a no doubt arduous task, but saying that ISIS/ISIL/IS (and whatever they end up calling themselves six months from now) is less bad than half a dozen drug cartels because they kill less people last year than a vigorous war in Northern Mexico does, sets rather low expectations for ISIS, especially given that 2013 was a rather bad year for Mexico and ISIS is still warming up and consolidating power. Nor does the author offer anything in the way of a solution, except that disparaging Islam apparently is bad, despite it having a relatively high level of baked in craziness for a religion.
(Score: 1) by GoodBuddy on Wednesday November 05 2014, @02:15AM
The article can be summed up as: The US is Islamophobic and here is a comparison of ISIS v. Mexican Drug Cartels to prove it.
(Score: 2) by b on Tuesday November 04 2014, @01:13AM
The great leap forward was not an intentional holocaust, unlike Hitler's. It was supposed to bring greater prosperity and stability to China. Unfortunately, it failed horribly at a practical level. However, to compare it to Hitler's intentional slaughtering is ludicrous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @01:34AM
What's that they say about good intentions paving the road to hell? Wasn't hitler's whole national socialist party based on improving his country ? it's kinda the same in some ways
(Score: 2) by b on Tuesday November 04 2014, @01:44AM
Well, Mao attempted to improve China for all Chinese. Hitler attempted to improve Germany (and the world) for all, except the Jews, homosexuals, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @03:10AM
That is complete rubbish. You can say the exact same thing for all previous rulers of China. Where "all Chinese" = "those on my side". Everything taking place in China is pretty much repetition of the same old practices except that today, instead of the emperor, you now have the Communist Party as the figurehead. Hilter was the same except that he had different criteria for his definition of "those on my side". Don't tell me that there no ethnic minorities in China that are not being marginalized. Hilter was open and proclaimed to the world but Mao was, in a typically Chinese way, more secretive. Why do you think the last Communist Party leadership emphasized that China cannot return to the days of Mao Zedong? Because they were there and not fooled by the propaganda that they had been promoting in times past to the current generation about Mao Zedong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @02:25AM
At a secret meeting in the Jinjiang Hotel in Shanghai dated March 25, 1959, Mao specifically ordered the party to procure up to one third of all the grain, much more than had ever been the case. At the meeting he announced that "When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill." From http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16iht-eddikotter16.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
That was after many reports of the effect of his policy. My father's family were landowners and my father himself a target of persecution even though he was but just a child/young teen before he managed to escape from China in the last border crossing over to Hong Kong. He himself told me of accounts of cannibalism and other atrocities and I am very sure that that childhood trauma contributed to some of the warped thinking that he has.
There is a Chinese saying: 借刀殺人 which literally translated says: borrow knife kill person. Even if Mao Zedong did not give direct orders for the massacre of most of those who died, he did give orders against landowners and knowingly increased the effect of his policy that led to the death of way more than those he targeted directly. The comparison to Hilter is fair game given that in his eyes 'useless people' were to be got rid of however implemented by his supporters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @10:43AM
Ever heard about the "Cultural Revolution"? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 04 2014, @03:14AM
Yeah, well sorry you're pissed off because your favorite recreational drug(s) have been illegal and you're looking to justify your use of them, but 800,000 people were killed in 100 days and no one gave a shit. Maybe if the Tutsi grew weed you would have gave a flying fuck.
(Score: 2) by SuperCharlie on Tuesday November 04 2014, @03:21AM
In one of our freedom and glory, save the children and get the turrist bills we made it OK for the govt to outright lie to us directly, aka legal military propoganda. So we got that going for us.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mrchew1982 on Tuesday November 04 2014, @06:42AM
What exactly is the point of this little tirade?
I'm really not trying to bitch... I am genuinely lost as to the point of this. The Hitler/Mao thing just seems like a red herring. And the war on drugs has been argued ad nauseum, I think that we can all agree that it hasn't worked. So where exactly are we going with this again?
(Score: 2) by TGV on Tuesday November 04 2014, @10:54AM
Indeed, WTF. The front page text is totally incoherent. Let's start: "There are other atrocities happening in the world, especially right next door." This sentence refers atrocities without naming them, squarely fixes on the present, and then goes on to tell me it's next door. Then it says "We should focus media attention on cartels as well." This sentence bears no relation to the previous sentence, yet ends in "as well". And that's followed by "it's the a media conspiracy" kind of sentence.
If that's not bad enough, the text then jumps decades back, claiming it's an example ("For instance") of the current argument. The purported clarification mentions mass killings, so we can only assume it's referring back to the atrocities from the first sentence. However, those were said to be in the present. What do Hitler and Mao have to do with my present day neighbors? Nothing.
It's not a tirade, it's not a rant, it's a conspiracy theorist's rambling.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 04 2014, @04:29PM
I think it's the whole Almost-Took-Over-the-World thing that makes Hitler more 'interesting.'
That is a much simpler explanation than some propaganda conspiracy.
(Score: 0) by oldmac31310 on Tuesday November 04 2014, @04:32PM
How does a submission like this get past the editors? It makes almost no sense and is essentially a deranged rant. Raise your standards SN or I and I expect others will give up on you. Read this and tell me if it makes any sense at all:
'the war on drugs is what spurned these cartels to pop up, which is another debate this country still is iffy about talking about.' Pathetic.