Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

I think this highlights the problem with "state run media" - too bad it can't be outlawed everywhere.

I've been reading the reports from BBC

:p

[Sirus]

Its bothered me a bit so I'll just post it.

But I find NATO standing up and applauding when Ukraine asked to be part of NATO and their speech they did...a bit more like them standing up and clapping Ukraine's demise. I mean imagine leader of a nation being invaded, putting up a great fight but almost for sure will be conquered. All NATO can do is clap for you some failing encouragement instead of actually doing anything that would actually prevent a big bully invading you, since sanctions aren't really doing anything to prevent that. Kinda sad to me more than anything. But anything that can be actually done would just be world war 3...still...it bothered me a bit enough to post. And especially since NATO refused the no fly zone over Ukraine...makes it more like just like they clapped Ukraine's demise, even though wasn't really intended to be that kinda gives it off that vibe to me.

Dunno if I was being conquered or beat to death, I wouldn't want people standing around clapping for me some encouragement. I'd want to be defended personally if someone was beating me to death.

The big problem we're facing is that (most of) the world is still hoping to avoid WWIII, and there's a considerable risk that bringing NATO forces into direct conflict with Russians could trigger such a conflict (even if it only occurs in defense of Ukraine).

Unfortunately we can't just declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine and expect Russia to honor it. They didn't pay attention to anything else that was said in the lead-up to this war and are resolutely ignoring the world's displeasure as much as they can. Ordering a no-fly zone would require the use of NATO air and anti-air assets to enforce the zone, and unless all the Russian pilots refuse to fly in protest it will (not might: will) lead to shots fired, war declared, and quite possibly nukes in the air.

It's a shitty situation and I wish the world were doing more to help Ukraine out, but the risks of escalation have to be acknowledged.

[McTraveller]

I think this highlights the problem with "state run media" - too bad it can't be outlawed everywhere.

I've been reading the reports from BBC

:p

Wait - I thought "BBC" was "public media", not "state-run media"?  Or is that the joke... 

[da_nang]

According to a Russian Senator in the Federal Council, the casualty rate of a Russian company (southern front, I think) is as high as 96%.

[MrRoboto75]

Literally decimated?

[Starver]

Wait - I thought "BBC" was "public media", not "state-run media"?  Or is that the joke... 

It's the closest thing we get to "State-run media" (together with Channel 4, actually, and I suppose S4C is also part-funded, etc), but that's only because the state controls the purse-strings and have strong opinions about how they get to spend money from said purse.

It doesn't stop the BBC criticising the current government (whichever colour), and just about anyone else it thinks it ought to - including the BBC itself in some fairly extreme cases[1]. People on the left say that the BBC is too right-wing, people on the right ay the BBC is too left-wing, people in the middle say the BBC doesn't represent the middle-ground.

Every government (but especially the Tories) squeezes the BBC through the power it has to control the funding (but then the Tories also try to do the same with the police, transport, basically whoever isn't toeing the line or making them look bad - and Labour has been known to be awkward in that regard, too, while the Lib Dems haven't had much chance, except for backing down on Tuition Fees promises!) and the current 'ultimatum' is that the next review of funding "Will be the last!", with apparently no practical plan for how the funding model can actually be changed.

Every other media/entertainment outlet envies at least some aspect of the BBC, too. Though they are not beholden (albeit mostly ill-disciplined) to the government, they have their own interested-parties doing more particular brands of influence (e.g. ITV is a martyr to its advertisers...).



[1] It is not unknown for the BBC News to announce that, in relation to some BBC-related news-happening, "We tried to get a comment from the BBC, but no-one was available...". This being the the bit of the BBC that is in trouble refusing to comment, rather than the bit of the BBC that is reporting the trouble refusing to try to get a comment...

[Madman198237]

That's the opposite of decimation, which is 10% casualties (as in, one in ten killed).

[TamerVirus]

nonagesimation, then?

[nenjin]

That's the opposite of decimation, which is 10% casualties (as in, one in ten killed).

Thank you. Decimation is a great word but it gets misused all the time now.

(Also, decimation was a disciplinary action taken by the Roman Legion. People currently use it to describe the outcome of battles or the impact of death on a particular group or species population. None of those are the original intention of the word.)

[Starver]

Can I thank my fellow posters, by the way. If I hadn't just posted something else (and been in too much of a rush to PPE at the time), I'd have been the one making that semantic 'correction', some people clearly getting mixed up with the phonemes of "devastate".  And others not caring or assuming the descriptivist stance.

[da_nang]

In other news...

Russian airports are having trouble sourcing jet fuel due to sanctions, according to Korean Air.

Unconfirmed:

Last night, a large explosion at the armory for the 1st Tank Army in Kursk, Russia. Possible saboteurs?
Kherson occupation may be trying to "declare independence" tomorrow with Russians brought in from Crimea.
Russia might start to send in An-2 biplanes to draw out AA fire.
Counteroffensive on the Kharkiv front has started.
Finally, 40-mile-long convoy is about to be encircled.

[Laterigrade]

That's the opposite of decimation, which is 10% casualties (as in, one in ten killed).

Thank you. Decimation is a great word but it gets misused all the time now.

(Also, decimation was a disciplinary action taken by the Roman Legion. People currently use it to describe the outcome of battles or the impact of death on a particular group or species population. None of those are the original intention of the word.)

Although I’d just say its usage has changed. It used to mean one-in-ten, now it just largely carries connotations of destruction.

[Starver]

Russia might start to send in An-2 biplanes to draw out AA fire.

For those confused by this, they're an old (1940s!) design, but some have been automated/remote-controlled as drones. They have minimal airstrip requirements[1], though I'm not sure how reliable the modern technological elements actually are.

now it just largely carries connotations of destruction.

Because we don't already have words for that, like "destruction", "anihilation", "devastation", "demolition", "ruination", "deprevation", of course, so why not use a very confusing term?  Naturally we should casually accept the subversion of the original meaning, for which we now need to invent/adopt further words to re-establish what we might want to accurately describe as a 10% loss (give or take poetic licence)... /s  Yes, I'm livid about this (i.e. slightly blue).


[1] Have been used for infiltration/exfiltration purposes upon hostile territory, and other "legacy stealth"/refuge-in-audacity uses.

[Il Palazzo]

Well I think prescriptivists should be decimated. All they are is a fancy label for the ackchyually guy. The remaining 10%(!) can be left alone to pen lugubrious manifestos on how they were mistreated by linguistic plebs and everyone else is wrong to be understanding each other just fine.

in before: Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the WWIII thread.

[TD1]

Descriptivism has its place. As does prescriptivism.

The issue is knowing where those places are.