nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqhkemrdyjz6vs8zwh2587t78rnx3s9a5mjdea54vzmqhrq9zl2vqs55du6u
You could say a 15 years old is “naive”, not a matured politicians, former prime...
@kravietz 🦇 interesting comparison. Yet I can't shake off the impression that the journalist is mostly nitpicking particular words because he doesn't like the overall message.
E.g. it is pretty clear how exactly this conflict started and goes on. At this point there is no need for five page introduction on that unless the goal is to aggravate someone.
Or "disputed territories" are indeed disputed. Also partly occupied. Disputed and occupied aren't synonyms obviously and don't always cancel or accompany each other. In fact "disputed" highlights Russia as an active actor and not like "it just happened somehow" so here he even contradicts himself somewhat while Varoufakis is more direct.
The verb "to commence" means "to initiate, proceed with something" and its meaning directly implies presence of an actor who drives it, not just self-inflicting phenomenon. Earthquakes don't commence, flu doesn't commence. I doubt an Euronews journalist doesn't get it. And again Varoufakis is pretty honest here. He doesn't want to poke Kremlin in the eye with a stick but he is not muddying the waters.
To me it is a lot of "do you know who also drunk water?" Twitter debate bs (no offense to you, I mean the quote). To say "hey, look how some of their narratives / word choices match with bad guys" is manipulative logical fallacy. Some narratives might match because these particular ones are logical, sane or just genuine preferences. If we take everything you (or me) ever expressed we probably can match some of it to the same ideas of Hitler - not because you are like him but because people can have some common ground or come to similar conclusions on some matters even being vastly different.
It is useless to compare narratives (and especially words) for the sake of it. It is the message that matters, what actions it implies and what these actions and their consequences bring. And what the alternatives are.
As for naivety... I mostly meant that "civil society" bit. While alienating civil society is certainly not productive in any way he seems to put a bit too much hope on revitalizing it as a political force (and ignores the fact that Kremlin would oppose this very much) so it is not something to touch right now when it comes to resolution of this situation in the near future.
E.g. it is pretty clear how exactly this conflict started and goes on. At this point there is no need for five page introduction on that unless the goal is to aggravate someone.
Or "disputed territories" are indeed disputed. Also partly occupied. Disputed and occupied aren't synonyms obviously and don't always cancel or accompany each other. In fact "disputed" highlights Russia as an active actor and not like "it just happened somehow" so here he even contradicts himself somewhat while Varoufakis is more direct.
The verb "to commence" means "to initiate, proceed with something" and its meaning directly implies presence of an actor who drives it, not just self-inflicting phenomenon. Earthquakes don't commence, flu doesn't commence. I doubt an Euronews journalist doesn't get it. And again Varoufakis is pretty honest here. He doesn't want to poke Kremlin in the eye with a stick but he is not muddying the waters.
To me it is a lot of "do you know who also drunk water?" Twitter debate bs (no offense to you, I mean the quote). To say "hey, look how some of their narratives / word choices match with bad guys" is manipulative logical fallacy. Some narratives might match because these particular ones are logical, sane or just genuine preferences. If we take everything you (or me) ever expressed we probably can match some of it to the same ideas of Hitler - not because you are like him but because people can have some common ground or come to similar conclusions on some matters even being vastly different.
It is useless to compare narratives (and especially words) for the sake of it. It is the message that matters, what actions it implies and what these actions and their consequences bring. And what the alternatives are.
As for naivety... I mostly meant that "civil society" bit. While alienating civil society is certainly not productive in any way he seems to put a bit too much hope on revitalizing it as a political force (and ignores the fact that Kremlin would oppose this very much) so it is not something to touch right now when it comes to resolution of this situation in the near future.
1