I think you mean sabre rattling and threatening to use nuclear weapons and something about provocative and aggressive and maybe wolf warrior diplomacy.
Rail is more expensive than flying in China and Europe as well. It's slower and costs more, but the experience is normal and dignified instead of airport security and aeroplane seats and Boeing quality pressurisation. It's also better for the environment and the senses of anyone unlucky enough to live close to a terminal.
You were supposed to upvote the best version of each argument/position or additional info and downvote the rest. Instead the site is the most popular opinion presented 6 different ways.
Germany has sanctions against Iran?
They tried to pass a similar law earlier this year on Taiwan and it was a whole circus
The two sources yogthos@lemmy.ml provided are nato.int for a NATO statement, a primary source, and the Wikipedia page for burden of proof, a concept that doesn't have a primary source. In this thread yogthos@lemmy.ml has a perfect track record of using 100% (1) primary source, and 0% (0) secondary sources.
I was just showing that the world outside russia agrees putin has on a few occasions threatened the use of strategic weapons.
Why? Why are you showing this? Your evidence is weaker than that shown by sweng@programming.dev and pushes the same agenda as that post. Your post is completely superfluous unless you can address the specific shortcoming of that post, which is a shortcoming of proof.
This is yogthos@lemmy.ml's reply to sweng@programming.dev's post.
Pretty much none of those were actually stated by Russia. The trend has been that it’s the west that make up these red lines, then crosses them and says, see nothing happened. Last I checked, the actual red line Russia set out was Ukraine joining NATO, and when that red line was ignored the war started. This notion that you can just keep pushing a nuclear superpower and nothing bad will happen is imbecilic beyond belief.
If you bother reading the sources, then you’ll see that these aren’t primary sources of anything the Russian government said. These are articles and interpretations by western analysts and think tanks. Feel free to link statements from the Russian government though.
To which you replied. Now given that your message is a reply and not a new thread, it's should be expected to actually respond to the criticism that there was a lack of proof. A proof of a statement is very easy to get, since all you need to do is link the statement or a recording of the statement. This isn't a case where you're asked to prove something where proof wouldn't exist or could be ambiguous.
Now in this most recent reply, you pretend that you didn't realise the current topic was about finding primary sources. But if we go further back in the thread, this reply from you shows that you do actually understand that you're being asked to provide a primary source:
Where are your primary sources?
I'm using "you're" to include your side of the argument, not "thou". You also claim to have a primary source available. Linking this source with a timestamp should be easy for you. This would completely win the argument in your favour. The only reason you wouldn't do this is if you are deliberately lying.
They did and some of us watched it live (we are told) on russian state TV in 2022,2023 and just last month. Please provide primary sources that contradict what I witnessed. But yes, if you want to have a official statement watch the victory day parade speech putin made.
Putin is a primary source on the statements Putin has made. This is excellent for you because if he said something to the effect of what was alleged by sweng@programming.dev then you will have addressed yogthos@lemmy.ml's two comments. sweng@programming.dev made a strong emotional argument which you agree with, its only shortcoming is that it's lacking supporting evidence. You joined this thread to provide supporting evidence, because emotional rhetoric was already supplied by sweng@programming.dev. Do you see now how adding additional and weaker emotional arguments is not further strengthening the emotional argument? This is because the emotional argument is already strong enough, it simply needs to be supported by evidence so that it can be considered.
You recognised this in the past and are now deliberately lying about your intentions. You wrote:
Should be [easy to find], go nuts look it up.
This is because you knew that if the evidence existed, it would've completed sweng@programming.dev's argument, which you agreed with. You didn't deny the existence of the proof because you understood that it would cause the argument to not be considered. You also didn't provide the proof yourself because didn't want to. Potentially because you knew it didn't exist, which would be a second lie. But regardless, you have lied once during this argument.
yogthos@lemmy.ml's next comment which you responded to is the following.
I can’t look up what does not exist. There is no such statement, you made it up and now you’re asking me to prove a negative.
This is the comment which you chose to respond to by "showing that the world outside russia agrees putin has on a few occasions threatened the use of strategic weapons."
This makes no sense. That is not a sensible reply to that comment. Why would you assume anyone else would follow when you switch topics unannounced? You wouldn't. You are lying about the intention of your comment. Your comment was meant to be interpreted as primary sources. You were hoping no one would notice that you failed to provide them.
This is the evidence for you now claiming to not have intended to provide primary sources. This is a quote from you, so it's a primary source.
My “pithy one-liner” was a dig on how another .Ml person just so happens to show up to have the argument as the russian apologist. No where did I claim to provide any primary sources, in fact if you look you can see me making fun of that requirement.
Neither highalectical@lemmygrad.ml nor I are Lemmy.ml users. yogthos@lemmy.ml can't be described as a Russian apologist since no Russian claims were addressed or apologised for. The only claims that have been substantiated in this thread with evidence were western ones.
You end by saying you were making fun of the requirement to provide evidence. This is a stupid statement. This is clearly a lie because no reasonable person would think it is anything but expected for evidence to be part of an argument or statement.
Are you taking the piss mate??
The BBC.com is the UK government. They are not the Russian military. I'm confused why you thought they'd be. So no, they are not a primary source.
Politico.eu isn't the Russian military either. Did you think they were part of the BBC maybe and since BBC is Russia, Politico would be Russia too? Anyway, they're actually a German private business. They aren't a primary source either obviously.
ABC News also isn't the Russian military. Did you really think the Russian military controlled all the major Western news sites??
Aljazeera.com is also not the Russian state. They are the government of Qatar. It's a completely different country. Not a primary source.
Armscontrol.org is not the Russian government. They're a lobbying group in the USA. You need to scroll down to see where it says, but it's on the page you linked, so it's weird you didn't notice. As a general tip, Russian government websites are on the .ru top-level-domain.
Reuters.com is the UK government again. They're still not Russia and still not a primary source. Did you think the UK was part of Russia?
nypost.com isn't a primary source either. The "ny" is short for "new york" which is a city in the USA. The USA and Russia are different countries.
cbc.ca is a Canadian thing, the .ca means Canada. If you thought Russia owned the UK maybe that's where you went wrong, since The UK owned Canada at some point in the past, but actually Canada is a sovereign country now. They're not part of the UK or of Russia.
inquirer.com is the website for the Philadelphia inquirer, it's the same situation as the nytimes one, where it's named after a city in the USA, because they are not Russian. The Russian military didn't name themselves after a city in the USA. It's really strange you would think they did.
Washington post is named after another city in the USA. "Washington". Did you really think all of these outlets were the Russian military, or did you perhaps just not know what a primary source is?
Cars, including EVs are bad. Climate tax on EVs to encourage public transport use is good climate policy. I'm not trying to imply that's what's happening here. European EVs aren't* better. I just want to push back against EVs being a viable strategy for fighting climate change.
*In theory it's possible for a European made product to be made with the same emissions as a Chinese made product, and then there would be one fewer ship journey involved in delivering it to customers. But in reality, European production has higher emissions because of laxer environmental protection mandates.
But I agree with the sentiment of your comment 100%. There's evil desire among our policy makers to limit Chinese solar panels in the EU. Everyone's priority should be to maximise solar panel use, even if that means having to fully subside production. There shouldn't be any scenario where a manufacturer in China is willing to sell us solar panels and we put up barriers to that sale.
The actual fucking USA government argued some rando on Twitter and this was the best comeback they had??
He also came with some pretty good receipts that appear to show .ml mods removing criticism of China that, whether you agree with it or not, didn’t seem to violate any rules, and was well within the bounds of what most people would consider civil discourse.
but what he showed seems legit, and I’m not sure he could have provided more evidence without encouraging brigading.
Based on just your link, it just kinda looks like he was posting unsourced gore. That doesn't feel like civil discourse to me.
I don't really see any criticism being removed. If Katana314's message was congruent with reality it would count, but otherwise just making accusations isn't criticism.
Alright hold on setting up my GOG dead man trigger. I wonder what info I need to include. So far I have an email going to support with the text "I AM DEAD". I hope they don't change address between now and when I die.
Firefox has ads. Very many ads. Out of the box, Firefox sends everything you type into the URL bar to a 'search provider'. They also place traditional ads in the New Tab page, in the URL area chrome, and in your bookmarks. And probably other places I'm forgetting right now.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/change-your-default-search-settings-firefox
You're taking the manufacturer's word for it right now. They already have all the required components built in, GPS, antenna and computer.
Would be better if they bought Chinese trains
You don't need to watch the video. Tom Scott/None of the interview subjects ever point out how fucked this is, but basically the story is rich sadists would put coins in boiling water and then throw them at poor children to watch them endure injury for small amounts of money as a form of entertainment.
He used to be a super villain, and now every time I see his name it's related to something unambiguously anti-imperialist he's said. When did this happen? Am I just completely wrong on something? Either his recent statements or on his past.