Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

... unlike you, who creatively makes them up as he goes along? It is the ... encyclopaedia definition. It is ... reasonable to use it.

For instance when you for yourself define yellow as black, and use the word yellow to describe black, people will still think you refer to yellow when you say yellow. Very abstract, I know, but then, three year old children are known to do that too. In any event, it aptly describes your dilemma here: People will think you're a little crazy when you as a supposed grown-up talk like that. You don't want that, do you?

Pompous, are we? And wee, poor you. You are aware that everybody has a basic amount of respect he is entitled to, and he either earns more or squanders what he has. You did the latter. Don't complain about lack of respect. You brought it on yourself.

 

Rotku: Ragusa is probably critical on everything. Not a bad thing, but his conceited and I-know-everything-the-best manner makes him look like a person with inferiority complex.

Usually, people who present themselves perfectly self-confident in everything have some personality "flaw"; e.g. inferiority complex or something similar. Before someone would write a wall of text about it, let me tell: the above-mentioned great self-confidence seems to be very true on me as well, but obviously, I'm self-confident only in topics which I'm familiar with (e.g. Hungarian politics and situation), and not in everything (you may notice that in topics I don't know, I *ASK*, instead of SAYING; e.g. about the exact meaning of "power grab", about how to call "brandy" in Hungarian context, about press ownership in the USA, etc. etc. etc). On the other hand, when someone seems to be "clever" in everything, that's always suspicious.

EDIT: and apparently, he likes to remove complete parts from his posts silently, after posting. I just noticed he edited out the original ending of his post. (When I started writing my post, it was still there, so I just noticed it now when I refreshed the page that it disappeared.) He was quoting Rotku:

and then he answered to the quote with something like "Exactly, ...", I don't remember the exact words.

And now he silently removed it... This also reflects a hesitating personality. (Of course, the self-confidence-in-everything type of style already confirmed his weak personality, the silent remove only confirms it even more.) I don't know why he needed to remove it, that's not the point, the point is that he removed it silently. Showing the big self-confidence to the public, externally -- but inside, the big hesitation, and who knows what else... By the way, I didn't plan to make this analysis of his personality, but the topic again became very personal (because some of you started to criticize my posting style and asking who I want to convince etc.). I suggest that those who are interested in the topic return to on-topic discussion.

 

Right. Says ... you? The guy who laments he doesn't get the respect he feels entitled to, while behaving like a wild boar in a flower garden towards anyone who dares to dissent from his inerrant views?

And no, it is simply that you tell a lot or nonsense and don't like being called out on it, be it by me or anyone else. Like these self-appointed encyclopaedia a**holes with their pathetic I-know-everything-the-best manner and their so-called "expertise" and their "definitions" for words like neo-liberalism. What the hell do they know that you don't know better?

 

[snip]

[You'll really need to read our rules before posting again. -Tal]

 

Incranate,
thanks. "True Hungarian nature". I missed that. Brilliant.

Yes, it's that spicy Puszta temperament, as immortalised in Austrian operettas ... a cliché become flesh.

 

Time too break the silence from `lurking` as myself

[snip]

[You'll really need to read our rules before posting again. -Tal]

 

Oh awesome, Baronius, you got company.

gheorghe, speak for yourself. For my part, and I am not sure you noticed, I was being sarcastic about what was clearly a frankly hilarious and breathtakingly lame excuse from Baronius for behaving like an oaf (as in: 'I am that way, it's in my blood, I am Hungarian!').

What you ... may have ... read out of that is not what I said. Maybe it is the language barrier or whatever. Just to make this perfectly clear: I was not making any statement about Hungarians proper, their nature or national character, nor am I now, and much less am I lending my voice to ... whatever your views exactly are, quite the contrary.

 

I am sure gheorghe is only joking we think hungarians are truly wonderfull ppl wonderfull wonderfull ppl !!

 

Spoiler

I wrote a post earlier, but I waited until those chauvinist voices disappear (and I was sure that the SP administration wouldn't allow e.g. encouraging of violence against a nation on the BoM boards), so let's return to something which discussion actually made some sense. (To keep the condition set by Taluntain, i.e. the requirement of actual NEWS, I'll certainly post information as well that is strictly media law-related and news to this thread.)

So, the old post -- this will be for those who wrote me that they can see the situation of Hungary better as myself because they're outsiders and thus they can be more objective, as they're not emotionally influenced. (Which was a good point, and I didn't deny that; what I added to it is that I can also be conscious enough and thus not too much biased despite of the fact I'm Hungarian; and when my deep & implicit knowledge about my country is taked into account as well -- something outsiders don't have -- , then the result will be that probably I see things better than you, the outsiders.) So, enough introduction, let's see the example!

Some writers here were Americans, so I'll talk to one of you. So, as an American, imagine that you must travel to an unknown country (it does not need to be called Hungary). In this country, you will have to solve important tasks. It's a country that is unknown to you, and it is also known that the country has specifics which may influence your success greatly (in worst case, if you don't know the local specifics, you may even get into danger). So if you don't know versatile, deep and CURRENT i.e. fresh information about it, then your tasks will probably fail.

The government or your employer cannot give you any information, you are on your own. How do you prepare your traveling to that country? Since a "wealth of information" is available nowadays about everything, you start clicking with your mouse to gather information & knowledge...

In the meantime, you realize you have a friend who has lived in that country for decades, and still he lives there.

So you surely will contact him and ask him to tell useful information; and unlike on the internet, you can ask exact questions from him, so you can ask exactly the information you need about that country for your mission there. So your knowledge will be combined: what you found with "mouse clicks" + what your friend tells. But what if there are contradictions, inconsistencies? E.g. your friend says: "no, don't believe what they write there; it works in the way I described, you will see". Who will you listen to? It's not a joke -- if your knowledge has flaws in it, your mission might fail or even your life might be endangered.

Obviously, everyone would listen to his friend. Obviously. In cases when simply your logic, your common sense is not enough to decide (because some information is missing), you need to decide what source to rely on. And when two sources contradict, you would surely choose the one which directly talks from experience and has customized answers to your questions.

Ragusa wrote (bold and underlined added by me):

Thinking that the internet alone is a reliable source for a more serious research/understanding reflects incredible naiveness and a poor knowledge of knowledge theory.

First of all, for serious research, at least two requirements should be met:
1. The information you get should be sufficiently complete
2. The information you get should be sufficiently accurate
(1) means that you should get practically all information you need (nothing important should be missing), while (2) means that the the information you did manage to get should be accurate as well (i.e. what you get should not be wrong). So nothing should be missing, and what you have should be accurate.

Neither is true to the internet and "mouse clicks". For example, search engine use certain heuristics, and these usually don't directly result in matches that correspond to your requirements. Moreover, information may not be professional or accurate enough (and you can't filter the good from the bad, because you are not familiar with the topic). So there is TOO MUCH information at the same time (and part of it is inaccurate or outdated, or simply NOT NEEDED by you), and also TOO LITTLE (because some things that you NEED will be missing). Finally, the information is explicit, and as such, it cannot be compared to the tacit knowledge that a person living in that country can offer to you.

All in all, I think that if an American person is sent to a country where war just ended, and he has a good friend there, he will rely on the advice of his friend instead of searching on the internet (assuming that it's not a government mission where the government supplies information, aid etc.).

Yes, I know this is all so bloody obvious, so why I wrote a wall of text about it. OK, then why do people need to consider others totally stupid then? What makes some of you think that you can have a fundamentally BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the Hungarian situation than myself? (I'm not talking about Ragusa only; I just used his earlier post to illustrate the point -- there were other people in this thread too who thought self-confidently that they can know things better about Hungary than myself).

Yeah, it's easy to arrogantly "educate" me about my own country's situation and understanding, for the below reason:
- You don't need to take responsibility; there is no risk of being wrong
In my previous example, the American person had a big responsibility in his decisions, he needed the best knowledge. In serious situations of life, the "who-if-not-I knows the best" approach of forum hyenas does not work. You fail, or just get killed, easily. In real life, the goal is not to "convince forum users" or appear to be the "winner" of some forum debate; your career or life is at stake.
But sure sure sure, a person who has never lived in Hungary and just starts a mouse-click browsing on the internet obviously can get a much deeper understanding about Hungary than someone who was born there, has more degrees and lived whole his life there and in the surrounding countries. Sure sure!

Just a minor reply (since it was written to me publicly):

So this Ragusa possesses the eternal wisdom, because now he even seems to know better what Hungarian character is than Hungarians. To sum up, in this thread, certain person/people who are NOT Hungarians:
- seem to know better what is Hungarian mentality
- seem to know better the situation than those who actually live in Hungary.

Now some non-philosophical content, to meet the requirement of Taluntain for this thread:

Hungarian media law triggers EU debate over press freedom

It's from February, but it can be considered news for most readers who followed it in this thread, it hasn't been examined yet. About Germany, the article tells:

I like this, because then Hungarians will also feel that there is no double standard. Of course, the Hungarian law amendments were really minor (but law is about details as well, anyway; every details matters), but perhaps in other countries, there are bigger changes needed as well, who knows (just they weren't known, because there was no organized hysteria against them IMO).