Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. Thinking of 9/11.

    Two Guys on Your Head talk about 9/11 and how a social consensus formed with our foreign policy and whether it is a good way to move forward. IMO it is good to be self aware about these sort of ideas. It is only 8 minutes in length.

    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/remembering-9-11/id845287058?i=1000534931910

    Looking at the raw numbers.

    2,996 people died from the attacks on 9/11. The cost of the war in Afghanistan included over $2 trillion or $300 million per day for 20 years and the lives of 2,448 US service members, 3,846 US contractors, 66,000 afghan military/police, 1,144 allied service members (NATO, et, al.), 47,245 afghan civilians, 444 aid workers, 72 journalists, and 51,191 taliban and opposition fighters. Another way to put things in perspective is to compare the 3k lives lost from 9/11 to the lives lost from covid (600k in US) or to any other cause of mortality.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/hanktucker/2021/08/16/the-war-in-afghanistan-cost-america-300-million-per-day-for-20-years-with-big-bills-yet-to-come/?sh=73f3fe4a7f8d

    https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-business-afghanistan-43d8f53b35e80ec18c130cd683e1a38f

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. On 9/2/2021 at 3:00 PM, ChickenSandwich said:

    Well someone is lying. 
     

     

    https://www.spcai.org/news/press/urgent-update-and-action-plan-from-charlotte-kabul-small-animal-rescue-ksar
     

    Appears to be a game of semantics 

    [NOTE: The above-mentioned working dogs are not working dogs owned by the U.S. military, they are contract working dogs that are owned and trained by private companies and are contracted for work that can include military and other operations.]

     

    Hmmm. It appears your SPCA source along with the US military is at odds with Russia Today reporter and the Taliban commander.  I wonder who we should believe?

  3. 3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

    So you're saying we bumped our troop strength.  Thanks for making my point for me.  Always a pleasure

    You may be the most dishonest poster on this site.  I had thought your main issue was that you were captured by right wing propaganda, but it is becoming clear that you are simply a morally flawed individual.  If your problem was just propaganda, there are solutions.  I don't know of a solution for a fixing dishonesty.  

  4. 1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

    You keep trying to tap dance on a pin head.  I think on a sports message board you can get away with interchanging "top military leaders" as so many publications have sourced and the term "general".  We have another chicken fucker.  

    Quote

    I would confidently argue that media literacy and digital citizenship are the most important topics of our time. Media impacts every aspect of our lives, specifically affecting the way we relate to, learn about, and interact with the people around us. Whether it be through social media, blogs, advertising, or the nightly news, all aspects of media cumulatively affect our perception of the world and what is happening within it. With such an incredible impact on our daily lives, the ability to navigate, verify, and trust information is vital for everyone.

    As educators, it is our duty to help students understand their impact in the digital world by teaching them the important skills of identifying “fake news,” detecting credible sources, and understanding their role in media creation.

    Beyond Identifying Fake News

    One of the first challenges media traversers encounter is keeping up with the speed of information. Oftentimes, news outlets don’t have the luxury of time because of how fast they are expected to keep information flowing to their audience. They are often forced to sacrifice accuracy for speed. As the consumers, we must be willing to do our own verification, especially in a world where the term “fake news” is being used with abandon.

    Information is much more complex than fact or fiction. It is important that we work with our students to help them truly understand their world, develop a system to comprehend the information around them, and engage with society.

    We should teach students to trust information, but always to inquire, confirm, and verify. Educating our students on what is “real” is critical to knowing how global headlines will impact them. One tool that I can confidently use in my work with students and teachers is myON News. This is a reliable news resource a number of schools use to inspire empowerment, engagement, and citizenship in an age-appropriate, relatable, and informative manner. The digital multimedia platform serves as an interactive and fun introduction to daily news and current events for kids, while encouraging them to become global citizens.

    The current conversation about fake news puts trusting news sources front and center. Work with your students to get to the core of trust and effective ways to verify that information.

    Find the Sources social media at school

    There was a time when the dots of information were clearly connected, with fewer go-betweens from the direct source to the media outlet that was publishing it. Now, everything is significantly more complicated. When it comes to online media, start by following the links. They’ll help take you back to the places where the information started. If they lead to a personal social media account, you might want to consider your confidence in the information before sharing it.

    For example, I often hear my students tell me that they receive their news from their phone or from social media platforms. We may trust these platforms, but it’s not accurate to trust all the news content we see on them. I work with students to help them understand where the information is coming from. What is the original source? Who created it? Were they paid to write it? Trusting is about asking more questions. By teaching students to slow down and verify sources, we can start to break the bad habits of our rapid-fire media consumption and sharing. Bottom line: if you don’t have time to verify it, you shouldn’t share it.

    Exploring Media as Creators

    Not long ago, the definition of media literacy expanded to include media creation. No longer are students primarily passive consumers of media—they are now active content creators via online sharing, posting, and commenting. Every time our students Snap a picture to a friend or comment on Instagram, they are contributing to the media landscape.

    Include tools in your classrooms that help empower students to create their own media. Consider teaching students how to create videos, integrate coding skills, and explore creating and using apps. As we empower students to become effective creators, we instill critical thinking skills to support them as they navigate the incredible information flow they encounter daily. By embracing their engagement in media creation, we can educate them on how to properly take part in the new world as media-literate participants.

    Media literacy and digital citizenship encourage students to use their critical thinking skills to ask questions about what they’re creating, consuming, and sharing. We should help students understand that simply because they see something online or in the news doesn’t always mean that information is 100% correct. The key is keeping an open and curious mind.

    https://thelearningcounsel.com/article/creating-quality-digital-citizens-through-media-literacy

  5. 7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Cute that you won't answer the question.  Tells us all we need to know

    I'm not having a debate with you. You position that all the generals told Biden to not give up Bagram is obviously an unsupported lie.  That isn't of issue. Rather than debating you, what I am doing is telling you what it takes to be a good citizen, which requires cleaning up your information diet - removing the daily mail and twitter until you are able to process information.   

  6. 5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    I will type this slowly:  Is the "narrative" that many military leaders do not want to pull out of Afghanistan "unsupported"?  Yes or no?  

    You can type slow.  That doesn't change the fact your positions are unsupported.  

    21 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

    The generals all told him to NOT give up Bagram ...

    The real question though is why do you have unsupported positions, share them with others, and then fail to change those positions when shown that your positions are unsupported.  I am giving you that answer. I'm helping you out.  The reason is your information diet and the information bubble you are in.  I'm telling you that today's world requires a good citizen to be properly informed and able to control their information diet.  You can change.  You can become a good citizen by choice and then by action.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  7. 7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Many US leaders wanting to maintain a presence in country is unsupported?

    Your positions and narratives are unsupported.  

    20 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

    The generals all told him to NOT give up Bagram ...

    I'm helping you out by letting you know that this (along with the doha and Fauci stuff) is the result of the information you choose to consume.  You have the ability to change your information diet.  It is hard and takes effort but is required in order to be a responsible citizen in today's US

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. Just now, BabaYaga said:

    What exactly is my world view as it relates to this topic?

    One that is likely amplified by an inability to properly manage your information diet.  There is a reason why you have accepted that all the generals wanted to use Bagram, that the taliban broke their promises in the DOHA, that Fauci went behind Trump's back to restart GOF research, or that Fauci's emails show he was the father of covid.  That reason has to do with your information diet and inability to properly regulate the media you choose to consume.  For example, the daily mail should be removed from your diet - along with anything on twitter until you are able to properly use it.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Brothahorn said:
    2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:
    Just last week or so Biden used executive order to sanction Russia, banning the importation of ammo into the United States (Russian ammo was a significant source of practice ammo for many folks here because of its affordability), for the poisoning of some dissident or something, I can't remember the exact details. Anyhow, that is something he has the authority to do under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991. Where do you think all that excess ammo is going to go? They already have the capability to make 5.56 NATO. And an M-16 is not that hard to maintain in working order. There's a reason its civilian counterpart is the best selling rifle in the US.

    What the hell? So they can have a pipeline to Germany. But, can't sell us ammo? Ass backwards

    Banning imports of ammo from an adversary shouldn’t be equated to an ally receiving a pipeline and increased energy capacity 

  10. 1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

    As stipulated by the agreement Biden was never bound to in the first place:

    The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al-Qa’ida, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.

    2. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will send a clear message that those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies have no place in Afghanistan, and will instruct members of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban not to cooperate with groups or individuals threatening the security of the United States and its allies.

    3. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will prevent any group or individual in Afghanistan from threatening the security of the United States and its allies, and will prevent them from recruiting, training, and fundraising and will not host them in accordance with the commitments in this agreement.

     

    From the UN report:

    As reported by the Monitoring Team in its eleventh report (S/2020/415, paras. 32–44), the Taliban and Al-Qaida remain closely aligned and show no indication of breaking ties.

    Member States report no material change to this relationship, which has grown deeper

    According to Member State information, Al-Qaida is resident in at least 15 Afghan provinces,

     

    I get it. You think that is evidence showing the taliban broke the conditions in the DOHA.  It isn’t.  

  11. 1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

    The fuck we didn't - the report below outlines that the Taliban and AQ ""remain closely aligned and show no indication of breaking ties.”

    UN report on AQ

    The agreement stipulated commitments the Taliban were expected to make to prevent terrorism, including obligations to renounce al-Qaida and prevent that group or others from using Afghan soil to plot attacks on the U.S. or its allies.

    The NYT published that the AQ were operating is as many as 15 different regions 

    AQ operating in as many as 15 provinces

    Yeah, no. That isn’t verification that the taliban violated conditions of the Doha.  Read the summary of the UN document you linked. Either you are an idiot or acting in bad faith. 

  12. 1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

    We already verified the Taliban broke the terms on the agreement, specifically the verbiage about the Al Queda.  Further, it was stated by the earlier administration that they would be retaining control of Bagram airbase until ALL Americans were withdrawn.  A decision that was immediately reversed by Biden when he handed the airfield over.  

    No, you didn’t verify that the Taliban broke the terms of the DOHA agreement. 

  13. 31 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    JFC you are pedantic.  We already verified the Taliban BROKE the terms.  Further, the plan included a withdrawal, where the U.S. military would leave the country in increments if the Taliban met certain conditions. The Taliban were required to reject and repudiate Al Qaeda, and would have to negotiate in good faith. Additionally, the U.S. would keep a special operations contingent in place and would hold the capacity to launch air strikes under specific circumstances. 

    When presented with information disproving a position, you should revise your position.  To not do so, it makes you look like an idiot or someone acting in bad faith.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  14. 1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:
    1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

    Once we left.  Read it again.  Once.  We.  Left.  

    Not before.  Not during.  It was effectively a cease fire.  This isn't complicated.  The Taliban broke that cease fire.   

    Which is the whole fucking point.  JFC.  We made public overtures, augured in on a symbolic date, relied on faulty intel to justify it, then when shit hit the fan, were effectively painted into a corner because we refused to pivot or make changes as we saw things dissolving before our eyes.  

     

    Bullshit.  Leaving is the correct thing to do.  Stranding thousands of western civilians and abandoning billions in US hardware and sensitive com devices is fucking not.  Identifying the ways and means to prioritize western civilians stranded seems pretty fucking obvious.  As is having a contingency if/when the intel reports of the ineffectiveness of the ANA comes to bear - as it did.  

    Hahaha. Why is it Baby Yaga is always the biggest clown in these threads?  He states a position.  When asked to show evidence to support that position, he provides evidence that doesn’t support the position.   Others provide evidence countering Baby Yaga’s position. Baby Yaga doubles down with evidence that doesn’t support his position. Rinse and repeat. 
    make up clowns GIF by Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey

     

    • Haha 1
  15. 13 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:
    2 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

     

    Yes, dumbass, I used hyperbole to emphasize the following point: is such a dangerous cession of privacy justified by the threat to society posed by the existence of child porn?

    It is only a “dangerous cessation of privacy” when using hyperbole, extremism, exaggeration and slippery slope. 
     

    16 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

     

    Like, say your ex got her little hacker nephew to fill your cloud with child porn. Or maybe some just ends up in there by mistake..

    I get it. Tell us again that you aren’t a pedophile.  You aren’t a pedophile, but you are concerned that there may be some mistakenly on your iCloud account?

  16. Just now, El Diablo said:

    sometimes people use hyperbole to make a point. It's subtle in its extremism, ironic almost but a useful literary tool. You seem to be hammering at a point that no one took literally. 

    Sometimes people use hyperbole, extremism, and exaggeration to make shitty points such as folks on here equating the topic to home searches by cops, vehicle searches by cops, Chinese facial recognition monitoring, or auto mechanic searches.   I'm actually most shocked that folks have been able to freely keep their child porn stored on the icloud and have seemingly used icloud to transmit between parties.  Like, how the fuck have we gone this far without addressing it? 

  17. 1 minute ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

    I don’t have any illegal items in my house so I should be cool if the cops come in and look around while I’m not home right?

    That would be the sacrifice of all privacy.  We have the 4th amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.  The subject of this thread is about the scanning of icloud pics for pedophilia.  How is that the sacrifice of all privacy? That is a question I posed to MaybeACoordinator. Clearly it isn't.  There is clearly use of hyperbole and exaggeration in expressing the consequences of this topic.  I'm am pointing out the hyperbole through rhetorical questions.  

    8 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:


    the mechanic wouldn’t need a warrant to see your crime while this practice by a mega company seems to be skirting our civil rights. 

    “Noble causes” and “safety” are always the excuses given when the government want to limit a citizens rights. Additionally, giving up your rights rarely every actually help the problem. China still has a ton of crime and even with their facial recognition software, monitoring, etc they have an incredible (and hidden) problem with insane serial killers. 

     

    The mechanic doesn't need a warrant, just like Apple doesn't need a warrant.  My point is that this is not the "complete loss of all privacy" as presented by some of the smooth brain folks like MaybeACoordinator. 

  18. 2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

    Yes. It's basically federal policing being conducted by a technology company. Would you be cool if the mechanic/dealership you took your car to thoroughly searched your car as a part of working on it and reported any illegal or suspicious items to the authorities? 

    Why this doesn't alarm some of you amazes me but I know what site I'm on. 

    If there was a child bound in the trunk of my car, then I would expect the mechanic to notify the authorities.

    I don't have illegal or suspicious items in my car, just like I don't have child porn stored on my phone.

    So again, why do folks feel like the scanning of icloud pics for pedophilia to be the sacrifice of all privacy?

×
×
  • Create New...