either way?

look, the headline makes it sound like the SG of NATO made ceding land conditional to join NATO, which simply didn’t happen. What seems like did happen is that he merely suggested it as a possibility during a panel discussion, and not even to Ukrainians.

One is an outrageous diplomatic blunder of international proportions, the other is a somewhat insensitive gaffe and nothing more. It’s huge difference, and it’s important not only to note that but how shitty it is of Newsweek to make it sound like the first happened when, in reality, it was the second. as I pointed out, the first 3 sentences is backtracking from the total lie of a headline.

Ok, so here’s the headline:

NATO Official Gives Ukraine ‘Unacceptable’ Conditions for Joining

Then the first sentence:

The chief of staff for NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has angered Kyiv officials for suggesting Ukraine could become a member of NATO if it ceded some of its territory to Russia.

Then the second sentence.

Stian Jenssen, who has held the title of director of the Private Office of the NATO Secretary General since 2017, reportedly made the suggestion while speaking on a recent panel in the Norwegian city of Arendal.

Now we have 3 slightly different versions of the story, but the differences are very important. Which one is the truth? The headline says he gave conditions to Ukraine, the second implies it, and the third clarifies that he was speaking to a Norwegian discussion panel. In Norway, where there may not have even been an Ukrainians present.

WTF, Newsweek?

from MediaBiasFactCheck.com

Mint Press News – Bias and Credibility

FAR LEFT BIAS

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Mint Press Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the publication of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience anti-Israel propaganda, poor sourcing, failed fact checks, and false claims.

Detailed Report

• Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracies, Pseudoscience, Poor Sources, Failed Fact Checks
• Bias Rating: FAR LEFT
• Factual Reporting: LOW
• Country: USA
• Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
• Media Type: Website
• Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
• MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

Mint Press News is an independent Minnesota-based news website launched in 2012 by Mnar Muhawesh. It covers political, economic, foreign affairs, and environmental issues. According to their about page, “We focus our coverage on issues relating to the effects of special interest groups, big business and lobbying efforts and how they shape policies at home and abroad, including American foreign policy. Through the lens of social justice and human rights, we report on how these dynamics drive our foreign affairs and impact the world, and examine the effects they have on our democracy and freedoms as defined by the constitution.”

Analysis / Bias

Mint Press presents news with a strong left-leaning bias in story selection. Headlines and articles use moderately loaded language like this: NFL Freezes Policy Barring Players From Kneeling During Anthem. This particular story is republished from the conspiracy website ZeroHedge. Typically, Mint Press sources their information, but sometimes it is from Mixed factual or conspiracy websites. In general, story selection moderately favors the left, such as this Trump Administration Opens Door for Corporate Attack on Vulnerable Wildlife.

Read more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com

I got to tell you, I don’t really miss those subs. I don’t think they are good for people. 

safari has been able to do this for years

how is this not a HIPAA violation?

conservatives view social hierarchy as a necessity which must be enforced. if you’re at the bottom, you deserve to be there, and if you’re there, you suffer because you deserve it, and because you’re at the bottom, you deserve to suffer. cruelty is the point, and without it, there can’t be the joy of their success.

anything else, to them, is profane and must be fought/destroyed. anyone who tries to climb above their position must be punished.

relevant videos:

The Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish

Endnote 3: The Origins of Conservatism

they spam several top communities with Russian and Chinese propaganda - often from dubious sources - and instigate hostile, combative arguments in the comments. when others point out that it’s just propaganda, they respond with more hostility and more propaganda. a quick look through their post history shows a clear pattern of toxic abuse towards anyone who disagrees with them.

that’s nothing to admire.

He’s actually a nice enough guy

not if their comment history is anything to go by— insulting, hostile, and combative comments, many of which are heavily-downvoted (except on lemmgrad.ml, which is an echo-chamber for tankies).

probably the best advice you’ll find in a fortune cookie

there’s this:

https://take-me-to.space

its free, and it’s licensed under the MIT license. it’s a bit bare-bones, but it works!