Hacked Twitter Accounts Post Swastikas, Pro-Erdogan Content

When I was in combat training (U.S., mid 2000s), a corporal who was teaching a munitions class one day started pointing to things and listing off random objects. Clothes, chairs, computer, projector, weapon lubricant, etc. He asked what all of these had in common. The answer was that they all contain petroleum derivatives. And that's why we go, he said. The 18-year-old idiot me didn't understand, so that night I went into my Green Monster (didn't have internet) and started reading about recent U.S. military involvement. It culminated in a rather dramatic mental image of Iraqi forces retreating through Kuwait and burning hundreds and hundreds of oil wells as they went. I was still very confused, but I was overcome with a sharp feeling that I was a pawn in a game being played by gods I couldn't see or hear or meet or understand, a game that had been going on since before I was born. I became depressed and cursed my father for not teaching me anything at all useful about the world.

I don't know why I wrote all of that. Maybe just to say that I'm sorry for my part in all of this bullshit.

History is written within the perspective of the writers and benign things constantly drive revisionism. It's often to support a mythical narrative and provide some kind of cohesive abstract framework to justify policy positions and a depiction of an austere past.

For instance, free speech, as we know it, really came around WW1-era and was due to people like Learned Hand convincing Oliver Wendell Holmes. But since then, history has been seemingly rewritten to make it look like it was part of the revolutionary war.

There's plenty of other things ... non-citizens could vote up to 1926. The "American Dream" was coined in 1931 and was essentially backdated to colonial times, etc.

Accurate realities will bunch the pants of essentially everyone regardless of politics. One could argue being openly gay, for instance, in the 1800s was not seen as insufferable. James Buchanan, the 15th president, lived with a man and was referred to by terms that were contemporary to homosexual. I've done fairly extensive private research and can't find it being a controversial thing during his campaign, even though this was a well known fact (I've meant to do some more microfish reading at the library about it). See, there I go messing up the narrative of progressivism and civil rights. Sorry.

The guy after him, Lincoln, was seen so unfavorably at the time that he won the popular vote in 1864 by only 10% - this was after everyone who disliked him had ostensibly already left. You think he'd be a landslide in the remaining states.

There's a narrative of a cordial press during FDR being too polite to take photographs of the man in a wheelchair. Nope, the secret service would confiscate your camera, possibly strip you of press privileges and destroy your film. Kinda like a repressive state.

This isn't the tropish "victors write the history" - this is a more nuanced instance of people framing benign things to support a narrative arc and defend a lensing through the politics of storytelling. The deviations, far-reaching connections, and omissions, can often reveal preferences on what the underlying culture of the author would prefer them to see and can be as revealing as the text itself.

I think you underestimate the adaptative capacities of human society. If global warming doesn't exterminate all human life it'll take about one generation for people to get used to it. On the scale of human history a single generation really isn't much.

2001 was the first time I thought that. Then 2008. Now, I agree, 2016 is on the list.

Why 1848?

I agree, but the PM (Rutte) and his party are definitely benefiting. He had many opportunities before to go harder on Erdogan i.e. when Erdogan bought oil from IS but "we" needed him to keep refugees out of Europe.

The stance is certainly not against Muslims although people might feel it that way. It is against the fact the pro-Erdogan Turks and anti-Erdogan Turks and Curds etc cause unrest in the Netherlands. Most people are welcoming of other cultures but not when they bring their political unrest with them. This whole circus was a signal to Turkey to keep Turkish politics within Turkey. Still, I'm certain our PM would have been less strong if there weren't any elections.

I don't understand Erdogan though, he called on the dutch Turks to not vote for the current PM and Geert Wilders (PVV, far right, anti immigration, pro Netherlands), and now this?! He must know that the couple of Turks that will listen to this will be overwhelmed by Dutchies wanting to vote anything that Erdogan doesn't like... It's like he is intentionally putting oil on the fire, helping PVV. Why is the very important questions, what does he or some other party have to gain? Who benefits from poor EU/Turkey relations?

Edit: after thinking some more: Of course Erdogan is the one who benefits greatly from the created "us against them sentiment" of the Turks. It distracts from all the turmoil and the approaching power grab.

>It is a disaster in terms of democratic values to block a Minister 30 meters away from the Consulate and send her back.

A minister of the Turkish government is not entitled to campaign in the Netherlands. She was asked not to do so, yet the consulate arranged for a rally and she attepmted to address that rally. She was therefore escorted out of the country as she abused her privelege of being there.

It's not as if a Dutch politician were blocked from campaigning a pro-Turkish message; this is about a member of a foreign government campaigning to Dutch citizens in the Netherlands (ironically campaigning for the furtherance of a regime which is increasingly undemocratic).

> catastrophic system failure

Those three words encompasses an awful lot of death and poverty.

> Putin's new pal Erdogan

Wait what?

I'm 50/50 on it actually being Erdogan supporters or something more "norteastern"in origin.