I believe charges of Russian interference in the US are overstated, but even if true would say more about the US citizenry than anything else. It seems incoherent to simultaneously argue the contents of hacked emails contained nothing damning but that they also determined the outcome of of the election.
It's not incoherent; the release of the hacked emails was specifically designed so that innocuous content would appear damning. That propaganda works is a problem with the audience, sure, or maybe with the fundamental psychological make-up of the human mind; but that doesn't make the propagandist blameless for taking advantage of those vulnerabilities, any more than a con man is blameless for choosing marks foolish enough to believe him, or a robber for stealing from someone too weak to defend themselves. You're just victim blaming.
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
How much access do you have to America media? Have you heard of news outfits like Fox News, and Breitbart?
But we don't have a thread here called "America: the Musical" in which 99% of posts are dedicated to how evil the US government is,
In fact, we do! Those are the American centric political threads*, posters here do have a never ending bone to pick wth the US. America's certainly earned that privilege.
* and other threads that cross over with politics, like the surveillance state etc.
Man, this feels like college all over again. Every time Russia's atrocities and misdeeds are a subject this and that American policy are brought up. I should to defend the US, I suppose, before I can criticize Russia? Well, fuck the US. But since the talk about Russia, a very special fuck you to Russia. I don't see why I need to play within the implied premise that to criticize Russia I need to carry American water. There are plenty eager to do the job, and they don't need one more.
Russia and Putin's war crimes in Chechnya and Syria and elsewhere are their own. The dead civilians are no less dead because Americans happened to kill and starve some others elsewhere, and the crime is no less criminal.
That's fine, but different than what others are arguing, and actions do not happen in a vacuum. Russia is not just killing people in Syria "for fun", they are trying to the prevent a regime change attempt sponsored by US and its allies which includes some very nasty types of people with identical ideologies and abuses the US will cite to justify longterm warfare against when they operate elsewhere, such as Afghanistan. The US is constantly trying to expand its own sphere of influence by pushing against others in a way that destabilises areas in the world, and many of the actions by Putin we can criticise for their tactical brutality occurred in response to US aggression.
Fundamentally there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in geopolitics because every power tends to seek maximisation of its own influence against others. The concept of a stable balance of power is crucial but for starters relies on a type of humility and empathy that jingoism or national-exceptionalism is antithetical toward.
Am I supposed to take the good guys bad guys shiny bait and run with it? That's basically the BS I was talking about. America. Afghanistan. US aggression! But the victims of American power are not mere props to excuse Russian violence. I don't give one fuck why the Russians are committing war crimes, I don't care about the balance of power, and their geopolitical justification for indiscriminate slaughter. I care that they have committed the crimes, and continue to do so. I recognize the lack of options for stopping their bloodletting, but I don't need to accept such apologia either.
But we don't have a thread here called "America: the Musical" in which 99% of posts are dedicated to how evil the US government is, presented without any context, each post getting 20,000 agrees. As it is, this is not really really a thread for discussing Russia but for attacking Russia -- and even discussing context, that there is history behind events, things don't occur in in a vacuum, world history is not "good vs evil", causes people to go all Joe McCarthy accusing you of being a Soviet agent. And every comment denouncing Putin gets 20,000 agrees. This is like "March of the Murka Mooks."
Can you understand why for anyone outside the US this looks absurdly nationalistic and unbalanced, to say the least? This seems not to be critical discussion at all -- and we have excellent critical discussion here at a places like the Middle East thread -- but a series of polemics. And anytime someone says, "well, wait, it's more nuanced than that," they are shouted down by angry nationalists. Americans have have a way of proving stereotypes true, often, I find.
For what it's worth, coverage of Putin in the French media is much more nuanced than in the english-language media (US and UK). This is the cover of the current issue of a major French news magazine (Le Point, roughly the French equivalent to The Economist) on stands now. (If you don't know French, the translation to that banner headline on the cover would be roughly: "Game over. U mad bro?") The cover story's interior headline is "Poutine Superstar." But I suppose French media must all be orchestrated by the Russian intelligence services...
...
I love Russia, I have Russian family and have visited it several times. Russia is a beautiful place with amazing people. It is also a dictatorship run by Putin, who has murdered journalists and jailed his political enemies. This isn't about not seeing Russia in a nuanced way, it's about not beating around the bush about exactly what kind of government they current have. As it stands Russia is undeniably a Kleptocracy, and Putin has for the last 18 years developed, reinforced and protected that Kleptocracy.
I also have gay friends in Russia. So maybe I am biased sure, let's say that, I hate Putin and hate his government. That doesn't mean my characterisation is innacurate
Prohass on
+25
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
How much access do you have to America media? Have you heard of news outfits like Fox News, and Breitbart?
But we don't have a thread here called "America: the Musical" in which 99% of posts are dedicated to how evil the US government is,
In fact, we do! Those are the American centric political threads*, posters here do have a never ending bone to pick wth the US. America's certainly earned that privilege.
* and other threads that cross over with politics, like the surveillance state etc.
Was just about to make a point about this.
Maybe stick around for more than few days in more than one thread before you start casting aspersions on this forum as a whole.
I am sympathetic to the idea that you would like to have a nuanced discussion—that's hard to find—but you also frustrate that stated goal by misdirecting or ignoring many of the fair points made to you
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
This isn't the Russian tourist board thread. Russia is a county like any other, its politics are what we are mostly going to talk about here
I mean what do you want us to say anti-climactus? Do you think none of us thought these things about Russia before the election? That we all now want to demonise Russia because Hillary lost? If that's what you're shooting for it won't happen. True, we could examine Putin and the challenges Russia has face with more nuance, but the results will still be extremely unfavourable on Putin. We can examine his reasonings, his justifications, his popularity, it's all very rich and interesting, it doesn't change what he is, a brutal kleptocrat dictator for life. He is a very successful dictator, so yeah I suppose he is a superstar.
We can criticise a dictatorship and a dictator without being "nationalistic". i also think it's a mischaracterisation of this board and this thread to say we are somehow biased against Russia because we focus mainly on the negatives or are being unfair. Most of us know the history of Russia is complex and nuanced, we simply haven't been interested lately in theoretical discussion topics like "is Russia better off under Putin" or "what has Putin done for Russia and the world that is good"
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
How much access do you have to America media? Have you heard of news outfits like Fox News, and Breitbart?
Are Fox News and Breitbart controlled by Russia? If not, how is Russia to blame for their coverage?
Russophobia is a seperate issue. If you think the tone of this thread is Russophobic fair enough, I disagree. Russophobia can exist and can be problematic, and Putin can also be a monster. These things are not mutuall exclusive. You seem to want us to have the discussions you want to have. It's a legitimate and interesting approach you are free to mention.
That's fine, but the thread goes where the thread goes
Russophobia is a seperate issue. If you think the tenor of this thread is Russophobic fair enough, I disagree. Russophobia can exist and Putin can also be a monster
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
How much access do you have to America media? Have you heard of news outfits like Fox News, and Breitbart?
Are Fox News and Breitbart controlled by Russia? If not, how is Russia to blame for their coverage?
They're not bad because they're controlled by Russia, or at least Fox News isn't - Breitbert I'm not sure sure about. What I was getting at was how they deliberately framed those innocuous "scandals" to harm Hillary from being president. Russia isn't the only group in the world who wanted to make sure this didn't happen - that's why Putin's such good friends with Trump.
edit: I'm surprised you haven't heard about Fox News, their bullshit is infamous worldwide.
Harry Dresden on
+9
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Russia has criticized US troop deployments in Europe, saying that the deployment of thousands of US soldiers as part of continuous troop rotations to Eastern Europe is "a threat" to Russian security.
When asked about US and NATO troops in Poland, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov told journalists on a conference call Thursday that Russia's response was a natural reaction to an increase in military strength by a neighbor
"We see it as a threat to us. This is an action that threatens our interests, our security, moreover, this is a third nation (apart from Russia and Poland) that is increasing its military presence near our borders in Europe, and it's not even a European nation.
"One thousand or ten thousand -- we're talking about the increase of military presence. There's nothing to add."
Putin is real upset that we haven't left NATO yet.
Russophobia is a seperate issue. If you think the tenor of this thread is Russophobic fair enough, I disagree. Russophobia can exist and Putin can also be a monster
Did you read the article?
No of course not, I will later. Will me reading it convince me that Putin isn't a Kleptocrat who hasn't murdered journalists? Will it convince me that's Russia isnt really that bad on its gay and poor populations?
We're arguing past each other here. I'm fully open to your argument, we do need to reexamine our biases, we do need to be aware of political trends and prejudices and phenomena like Russophobia. And?
Actually I skimmed the article, holy shit, it blames the poverty in Russia on the west in parts. I'll give it a more thorough read but the parts I glimpsed I heavily disagree with, not least of all the fact that Putin and the system of government he has enshrined is chiefly responsible for his countries poverty. I mean for a start I dispute the notion that the main reason Russia currently is in such dire straights and has such poverty is anyone's fault but Putin's.
If you want to credit him with "saving" (I dispute this too, he plundered in such a way that it looked like Russia was recovering and strengthening, even though it was crumbling from within) Russia in the early 2000s, you can't turn around and say he had nothing to do with its collapsing economy in recent years.
Russophobia is a seperate issue. If you think the tenor of this thread is Russophobic fair enough, I disagree. Russophobia can exist and Putin can also be a monster
Did you read the article?
No of course not, I will later. Will me reading it convince me that Putin isn't a Kleptocrat who hasn't murdered journalists? Will it convince me that's Russia isnt really that bad on its gay and poor populations?
We're arguing past each other here. I'm fully open to your argument, we do need to reexamine our biases, we do need to be aware of political trends and prejudices and phenomena like Russophobia. And?
I was going to excerpt quotes from the article but it is better to read in total so I will come back here later today.
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
How much access do you have to America media? Have you heard of news outfits like Fox News, and Breitbart?
Are Fox News and Breitbart controlled by Russia? If not, how is Russia to blame for their coverage?
They're not bad because they're controlled by Russia, or at least Fox News isn't - Breitbert I'm not sure sure about. What I was getting at was how they deliberately framed those innocuous "scandals" to harm Hillary from being president. Russia isn't the only group in the world who wanted to make sure this didn't happen - that's why Putin's such good friends with Trump.
edit: I'm surprised you haven't heard about Fox News, their bullshit is infamous worldwide.
I'm very familiar with Fox News. I am just unsure how Russia can be blamed for the particularity of their spin.
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
How much access do you have to America media? Have you heard of news outfits like Fox News, and Breitbart?
Are Fox News and Breitbart controlled by Russia? If not, how is Russia to blame for their coverage?
They're not bad because they're controlled by Russia, or at least Fox News isn't - Breitbert I'm not sure sure about. What I was getting at was how they deliberately framed those innocuous "scandals" to harm Hillary from being president. Russia isn't the only group in the world who wanted to make sure this didn't happen - that's why Putin's such good friends with Trump.
edit: I'm surprised you haven't heard about Fox News, their bullshit is infamous worldwide.
I'm very familiar with Fox News. I am just unsure how Russia can be blamed for the particularity of their spin.
I wasn't blaming Russia (specifically) for that, I was explaining why this happened.
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
It also suggests that gays becoming increasingly persecuted was due to western support of gay rights becoming interwoven with a homegrown reaction against russophobia. It's like, yes, and? Let's just say I find the article interesting, a different perspective, but uncompelling. I don't disagree with its chain of events on things, I just believe it acts like Russia is just a helpless tiny nation merely reacting to the west.
It essentially argues it's the wests fault that gays are being targeted by Russian reactionaries because they have not felt more sorry for Russian poor. the whole thing is cart before the horse, hell its just the cart with no horse.
It acts as if NATO is just about arms manufacturers, ignoring the entire history of the region, and the withdrawal of Russia from the international community when Putin started jailing the oligarchs who were pushing for reform and a more transparent, stable, western economic model.
It essentially argues that Putin spent the last 18 years merely reacting to the west. Putin knew that he would need a scapegoat once the wheels fell off his gilded looting of Russia, and that scapegoat is the west. if the west had been ignoring Russia it would have been someone else. Russophobia I feel like is a poor term, because in this case it takes two to tango and Putin is dozens of steps ahead, he had to be, he'll be jailed if he loses control of the state and he knows it.
Characterising Russia as a scrappy underdog biting the big dog on the ass is neat and an interesting perspective, it doesn't absolve Putin and his state of its evils.
The poor loving him and him giving Russia a sense of pride again are indisputable. But Putin has no interest in reducing poverty, he can't without political and economic reform, which he has no intention of doing as it would compromise his power, and compromise his access to his estimated stolen 40 billion. So yes, the poor love him, he speaks to them, so do all dictators, it doesn't mean they do shit about their station
Also, I wish we could ask the poor Russian citizens killed by the FSB in the tower block bombings he orchestrated to light a fire under the Chechen war (and his assent to power) how they feel about him.
I might have an irrational fear of Russia because their leader, Vladimir Putin, has murdered a lot of people and that makes me afraid, even though I'm not statistically likely to be murdered by Vladimir Putin. I also don't like heights.
Both Russia’s aggression and its weakness are overstated – that is, the desire (for reasons I’ll come on to) to construct an enemy produces an image (and to a small extent, a reality) which is then actually feared, the power of which needs to be understated. Since 1989, when it withdrew from Afghanistan, it has sent its troops only into Georgia, and that in support of the inhabitants of a semi-autonomous enclave which Georgian troops had entered in violation of international treaties. In fact it threatens noone.
My understanding of populist economic policies like Putin's, Trump's, or heck FDR's is they tend to very visably help certain parties while making the rest of the economy crumble. So it seems perfectly reasonable that Putin is credited for saving his country's economy while having actively destroyed it.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Hmmm a disruptive poster with a new account made this week talking about a singular political issue (the Russia Thread) on a nerd discussion forum, introducing itself as "not having a dog in the fight" and then spending 48 posts over 5 days doing nothing but white knighting Russian interests. Verdict: Not suspicious.
Posters who have been part of the community for years sharing their own worries and issues specifically with the Putin Administration and relating their personal experiences and how it has caused friends of their hardship inside Russia's borders and beyond. Verdict: Clearly Russophobia.
Hmmm a disruptive poster with a new account made this week talking about a singular political issue (the Russia Thread) on a nerd discussion forum, introducing itself as "not having a dog in the fight" and then spending 48 posts over 5 days doing nothing but white knighting Russian interests. Verdict: Not suspicious.
Posters who have been part of the community for years sharing their own worries and issues specifically with the Putin Administration and relating their personal experiences and how it has caused friends of their hardship inside Russia's borders and beyond. Verdict: Clearly Russophobia.
Sure, that seems reasonable.
Who cares if he/she is a Russian spy, it's D&D. Take up the argument or don't.
edit - I mean christ "Debate" is half of the forum's title. The only poster in the thread to argue against the general consensus gets the label "disruptive"?
Hmmm a disruptive poster with a new account made this week talking about a singular political issue (the Russia Thread) on a nerd discussion forum, introducing itself as "not having a dog in the fight" and then spending 48 posts over 5 days doing nothing but white knighting Russian interests. Verdict: Not suspicious.
Posters who have been part of the community for years sharing their own worries and issues specifically with the Putin Administration and relating their personal experiences and how it has caused friends of their hardship inside Russia's borders and beyond. Verdict: Clearly Russophobia.
If you show up to a forum called Debate & Discourse you should be prepared for the eventuality that someone will eventually try and debate you on something. We know about this guy. We're watching him. Stop screaming in threads that he's a propoganda account or troll. It's an ad hominem and against our rules. Meanwhile, what he's doing (arguing an unpopular opinion without insulting anyone) is not.
I will also remind all of you that none of you have any access to evidence as to whether someone is an astroturfer or not and are basing your assertions entirely on "I reckons"
Hmmm a disruptive poster with a new account made this week talking about a singular political issue (the Russia Thread) on a nerd discussion forum, introducing itself as "not having a dog in the fight" and then spending 48 posts over 5 days doing nothing but white knighting Russian interests. Verdict: Not suspicious.
Posters who have been part of the community for years sharing their own worries and issues specifically with the Putin Administration and relating their personal experiences and how it has caused friends of their hardship inside Russia's borders and beyond. Verdict: Clearly Russophobia.
Sure, that seems reasonable.
I'd have more respect for the kid if he'd actually acknowledge his own bias instead of trying to claim that he's some sort of neutral supporter.
Suggesting that we're bigots doesn't really help his case either.
+6
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Hmmm a disruptive poster with a new account made this week talking about a singular political issue (the Russia Thread) on a nerd discussion forum, introducing itself as "not having a dog in the fight" and then spending 48 posts over 5 days doing nothing but white knighting Russian interests. Verdict: Not suspicious.
Posters who have been part of the community for years sharing their own worries and issues specifically with the Putin Administration and relating their personal experiences and how it has caused friends of their hardship inside Russia's borders and beyond. Verdict: Clearly Russophobia.
Sure, that seems reasonable.
Who cares if he/she is a Russian spy, it's D&D. Take up the argument or don't.
edit - I mean christ "Debate" is half of the forum's title. The only poster in the thread to argue against the general consensus gets the label "disruptive"?
I am taking up the argument. The guy can post whatever he wants, I'm pointing out his appeal to authority on declaring posters as Russophobic is pretty suspect.
This whole election and the social media aftermath is feeling more and more like a game of Mafia/Phalla.
Or maybe Paranoia.
When you can't be good, attack the concept of truth. If there is no objective reality, you can hardly be blamed for acting badly. After all, who's to say what the truth is?
Wow bless great philosopher king Putin king of epistemology
Look buddy, Russia, or more precisely it's fucking Putin run government, just installed a leader in my country that's going to result in the deaths of many of my countrymen, and likely a collapse of my economy. Russia, or more precisely it's government, can definitely get fucked.
I don't care if that makes me Russophobic. They, quite obviously, performed an outright act of war against my country, and have been doing it all over the place.
They hacked various organizations in my country and used the illegally obtained information to run a propaganda campaign to install a leader that is friendly to Russian interests.
That's not any kind of unfounded stretch based on bias, that's the fucking facts on the ground at the moment.
On Russia's actions in Syria - as brutal and morally reprehensible as any campaign of air strikes, but also what you'd expect any power to do. Geopolitical foes arm insurgency against allied government -> militarily assist allied government. It doesn't excuse Moscow's actions, but I think any argument against them could be abstracted into an argument against the way nation-states fight wars in general. I mean, think of what the US would do if, say, Iran armed Bahraini Shiite militia in an attempt to overthrow the island's oppressive monarchy. I'm not really cool with any of it but it's typical great power shit.
Russia's actions in Ukraine are much less defensible than their actions in Syria, in my opinion. While I suspect the US of involvement in Yanukovich's overthrow (in part because of that leaked Nuland phone call) and have a low opinion of the government that replaced his, annexing a chunk of the country and then militarily aiding a rebellion in the east is extremely dangerous and destabilizing.
At the same time, when the US is actively aiding a rebellion in a Russian-allied state, the fact that the Kremlin was willing to take such a step against a US/EU-allied government isn't all that surprising. I'm not saying that that Russia's actions are morally excused by those of the US, but that the dangerous and destabilizing phenomenon is not Putin/Russia per se so much as the geopolitical struggle between the United States and Russia. Syria became a global catastrophe because two geopolitical axes (Russia/Iran/Iraq/Syria vs. US/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Turkey) chose to use it as a battleground, not because Assad and Putin are more evil than Obama, King Salman, and Erdogan.
Look buddy, Russia, or more precisely it's fucking Putin run government, just installed a leader in my country that's going to result in the deaths of many of my countrymen, and likely a collapse of my economy. Russia, or more precisely it's government, can definitely get fucked.
I don't care if that makes me Russophobic. They, quite obviously, performed an outright act of war against my country, and have been doing it all over the place.
They hacked various organizations in my country and used the illegally obtained information to run a propaganda campaign to install a leader that is friendly to Russian interests.
That's not any kind of unfounded stretch based on bias, that's the fucking facts on the ground at the moment.
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
I believe charges of Russian interference in the US are overstated, but even if true would say more about the US citizenry than anything else. It seems incoherent to simultaneously argue the contents of hacked emails contained nothing damning but that they also determined the outcome of of the election.
It's not incoherent; the release of the hacked emails was specifically designed so that innocuous content would appear damning. That propaganda works is a problem with the audience, sure, or maybe with the fundamental psychological make-up of the human mind; but that doesn't make the propagandist blameless for taking advantage of those vulnerabilities, any more than a con man is blameless for choosing marks foolish enough to believe him, or a robber for stealing from someone too weak to defend themselves. You're just victim blaming.
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
Consider that an email exchange from the hacked DNC account talking about pizza, became a huge conspiracy theory about a child pornography ring, complete with death threats against the owner of the shop who literally had nothing to do with anything?
A completely innocuous e-mail, that had context without evidence inserted without cause, solely due to the fact that the participants in the email were people they didn't like?
It's incredibly easy to draw a line from 'private information was made public, so it must have been private for a REASON, so there must be Something Going On, even if there's no actual evidence of that.'
It's also why Wikileaks tends to release thousands of pages of innocuous documents. It's previously hidden information that was made available, so there MUST be something there. It all stems from the assumption that the only reason anyone ever exerts their right to privacy is to hide wrongdoing.
Posts
Exactly how were innocuous emails, released as such without commentary, "designed" to appear damning in a mass release of thousands of messages as occurred?
How much access do you have to America media? Have you heard of news outfits like Fox News, and Breitbart?
In fact, we do! Those are the American centric political threads*, posters here do have a never ending bone to pick wth the US. America's certainly earned that privilege.
* and other threads that cross over with politics, like the surveillance state etc.
And, of course, the fact that someone now one damning email of Trumps leaked. Funny that.
...
I love Russia, I have Russian family and have visited it several times. Russia is a beautiful place with amazing people. It is also a dictatorship run by Putin, who has murdered journalists and jailed his political enemies. This isn't about not seeing Russia in a nuanced way, it's about not beating around the bush about exactly what kind of government they current have. As it stands Russia is undeniably a Kleptocracy, and Putin has for the last 18 years developed, reinforced and protected that Kleptocracy.
I also have gay friends in Russia. So maybe I am biased sure, let's say that, I hate Putin and hate his government. That doesn't mean my characterisation is innacurate
Was just about to make a point about this.
Maybe stick around for more than few days in more than one thread before you start casting aspersions on this forum as a whole.
I mean what do you want us to say anti-climactus? Do you think none of us thought these things about Russia before the election? That we all now want to demonise Russia because Hillary lost? If that's what you're shooting for it won't happen. True, we could examine Putin and the challenges Russia has face with more nuance, but the results will still be extremely unfavourable on Putin. We can examine his reasonings, his justifications, his popularity, it's all very rich and interesting, it doesn't change what he is, a brutal kleptocrat dictator for life. He is a very successful dictator, so yeah I suppose he is a superstar.
We can criticise a dictatorship and a dictator without being "nationalistic". i also think it's a mischaracterisation of this board and this thread to say we are somehow biased against Russia because we focus mainly on the negatives or are being unfair. Most of us know the history of Russia is complex and nuanced, we simply haven't been interested lately in theoretical discussion topics like "is Russia better off under Putin" or "what has Putin done for Russia and the world that is good"
Maybe she is a Russian agent.
Are Fox News and Breitbart controlled by Russia? If not, how is Russia to blame for their coverage?
Russophobia is a seperate issue. If you think the tone of this thread is Russophobic fair enough, I disagree. Russophobia can exist and can be problematic, and Putin can also be a monster. These things are not mutuall exclusive. You seem to want us to have the discussions you want to have. It's a legitimate and interesting approach you are free to mention.
That's fine, but the thread goes where the thread goes
Did you read the article?
They're not bad because they're controlled by Russia, or at least Fox News isn't - Breitbert I'm not sure sure about. What I was getting at was how they deliberately framed those innocuous "scandals" to harm Hillary from being president. Russia isn't the only group in the world who wanted to make sure this didn't happen - that's why Putin's such good friends with Trump.
edit: I'm surprised you haven't heard about Fox News, their bullshit is infamous worldwide.
Putin is real upset that we haven't left NATO yet.
No of course not, I will later. Will me reading it convince me that Putin isn't a Kleptocrat who hasn't murdered journalists? Will it convince me that's Russia isnt really that bad on its gay and poor populations?
We're arguing past each other here. I'm fully open to your argument, we do need to reexamine our biases, we do need to be aware of political trends and prejudices and phenomena like Russophobia. And?
If you want to credit him with "saving" (I dispute this too, he plundered in such a way that it looked like Russia was recovering and strengthening, even though it was crumbling from within) Russia in the early 2000s, you can't turn around and say he had nothing to do with its collapsing economy in recent years.
I was going to excerpt quotes from the article but it is better to read in total so I will come back here later today.
I'm very familiar with Fox News. I am just unsure how Russia can be blamed for the particularity of their spin.
I wasn't blaming Russia (specifically) for that, I was explaining why this happened.
It essentially argues it's the wests fault that gays are being targeted by Russian reactionaries because they have not felt more sorry for Russian poor. the whole thing is cart before the horse, hell its just the cart with no horse.
It acts as if NATO is just about arms manufacturers, ignoring the entire history of the region, and the withdrawal of Russia from the international community when Putin started jailing the oligarchs who were pushing for reform and a more transparent, stable, western economic model.
It essentially argues that Putin spent the last 18 years merely reacting to the west. Putin knew that he would need a scapegoat once the wheels fell off his gilded looting of Russia, and that scapegoat is the west. if the west had been ignoring Russia it would have been someone else. Russophobia I feel like is a poor term, because in this case it takes two to tango and Putin is dozens of steps ahead, he had to be, he'll be jailed if he loses control of the state and he knows it.
Characterising Russia as a scrappy underdog biting the big dog on the ass is neat and an interesting perspective, it doesn't absolve Putin and his state of its evils.
The poor loving him and him giving Russia a sense of pride again are indisputable. But Putin has no interest in reducing poverty, he can't without political and economic reform, which he has no intention of doing as it would compromise his power, and compromise his access to his estimated stolen 40 billion. So yes, the poor love him, he speaks to them, so do all dictators, it doesn't mean they do shit about their station
Also, I wish we could ask the poor Russian citizens killed by the FSB in the tower block bombings he orchestrated to light a fire under the Chechen war (and his assent to power) how they feel about him.
Maybe you're having to deal with having unpopular opinions.
I personally don't consider being upset at Russia for their actions to be Russophobia.
Both Russia’s aggression and its weakness are overstated – that is, the desire (for reasons I’ll come on to) to construct an enemy produces an image (and to a small extent, a reality) which is then actually feared, the power of which needs to be understated. Since 1989, when it withdrew from Afghanistan, it has sent its troops only into Georgia, and that in support of the inhabitants of a semi-autonomous enclave which Georgian troops had entered in violation of international treaties. In fact it threatens noone.
Oops.
I would be crazy interested in your take on some of this.
Posters who have been part of the community for years sharing their own worries and issues specifically with the Putin Administration and relating their personal experiences and how it has caused friends of their hardship inside Russia's borders and beyond. Verdict: Clearly Russophobia.
Sure, that seems reasonable.
edit - I mean christ "Debate" is half of the forum's title. The only poster in the thread to argue against the general consensus gets the label "disruptive"?
Not even 2 pages ago, dude:
I'd have more respect for the kid if he'd actually acknowledge his own bias instead of trying to claim that he's some sort of neutral supporter.
Suggesting that we're bigots doesn't really help his case either.
I am taking up the argument. The guy can post whatever he wants, I'm pointing out his appeal to authority on declaring posters as Russophobic is pretty suspect.
Or maybe Paranoia.
When you can't be good, attack the concept of truth. If there is no objective reality, you can hardly be blamed for acting badly. After all, who's to say what the truth is?
Wow bless great philosopher king Putin king of epistemology
NNID: Hakkekage
I don't care if that makes me Russophobic. They, quite obviously, performed an outright act of war against my country, and have been doing it all over the place.
They hacked various organizations in my country and used the illegally obtained information to run a propaganda campaign to install a leader that is friendly to Russian interests.
That's not any kind of unfounded stretch based on bias, that's the fucking facts on the ground at the moment.
Russia's actions in Ukraine are much less defensible than their actions in Syria, in my opinion. While I suspect the US of involvement in Yanukovich's overthrow (in part because of that leaked Nuland phone call) and have a low opinion of the government that replaced his, annexing a chunk of the country and then militarily aiding a rebellion in the east is extremely dangerous and destabilizing.
At the same time, when the US is actively aiding a rebellion in a Russian-allied state, the fact that the Kremlin was willing to take such a step against a US/EU-allied government isn't all that surprising. I'm not saying that that Russia's actions are morally excused by those of the US, but that the dangerous and destabilizing phenomenon is not Putin/Russia per se so much as the geopolitical struggle between the United States and Russia. Syria became a global catastrophe because two geopolitical axes (Russia/Iran/Iraq/Syria vs. US/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Turkey) chose to use it as a battleground, not because Assad and Putin are more evil than Obama, King Salman, and Erdogan.
but but the CIA did things!
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
Consider that an email exchange from the hacked DNC account talking about pizza, became a huge conspiracy theory about a child pornography ring, complete with death threats against the owner of the shop who literally had nothing to do with anything?
A completely innocuous e-mail, that had context without evidence inserted without cause, solely due to the fact that the participants in the email were people they didn't like?
It's incredibly easy to draw a line from 'private information was made public, so it must have been private for a REASON, so there must be Something Going On, even if there's no actual evidence of that.'
It's also why Wikileaks tends to release thousands of pages of innocuous documents. It's previously hidden information that was made available, so there MUST be something there. It all stems from the assumption that the only reason anyone ever exerts their right to privacy is to hide wrongdoing.
let's stop pretending they did a simple data dump they ran a propaganda camapign based on the emails