Russia declares war on memes

[cirdanx]

 

RT ! sure it lacks fineness but its straight, to the point, and saves time..

 

This is why i like RT and Sputnik. Despite opinion articles (which are clearly labeled that way, they are mostly doing a great job at simply laying out the facts. Usually their news goes like " X said this, Y this...this is the situation" end of story.

 

Compare this with most western media you find a striking gap between them, because wester narative is biased to no end AND full of lies. I see and hear that only a daily basis and it sickens me, which was the reason i turned to other news and mostly freelancer journalists. Reading the same story from various different sources who have nothing to do with eacher other gives at last a better impression of what is really going on than the same story, with the same logic faults on most western media, who are often owned by the same persons anyway.

 

Couple that with several high ranking journalists (especially here in europe) in the last decades coming out in the open and admitting their articles were given them by the sorts like CIA and there is no wonder that the **** propaganda on some "russian threat" isn´t working very well in europe.

[Tort]

Quote fail and BS.

 

Also I wish there was module for this forum that would allow to intersect activity to identify sockpuppets.

[cirdanx]

Quote fail and BS.

 

Also I wish there was module for this forum that would allow to intersect activity to identify sockpuppets.

 

Quotefail? That was intentional and i just made my point clear. You can call it BS but it´s a fact and easily proven if you compare articles from them on the same subject with western media. I see that **** every day in newspaper and on tv because i live in a western country in the middle of europe and it´s very easy to follow US media too. Too bad i don´t share your opinion but that hardly makes me a sockpuppet. Pff troll.

 

And i wish there would be an intelligence test for the use of internet.

Edited April 21, 2015 by cirdanx

[Tort]

You'll be happy to know that there quite few of you here, who purportedly live in a western country, and have an extremely opinion about the west...

 

"because wester narative is biased to no end AND full of lies" - what about your narrative MR, you are western too, no?

 

In fact there isn´t that much difference in free speech if you compare russia and the west. The whole idea that everyone in the east is oppressed is realy nothing but a propaganda tool..

All the data on the issue, disagree with your idea of facts.

[cirdanx]

You'll be happy to know that there quite few of you here, who purportedly live in a western country, and have an extremely opinion about the west...

 

"because wester narative is biased to no end AND full of lies" - what about your narrative MR, you are western too, no?

 

In fact there isn´t that much difference in free speech if you compare russia and the west. The whole idea that everyone in the east is oppressed is realy nothing but a propaganda tool..

All the data on the issue, disagree with your idea of facts.

 

 

Why should i be happy about it? I don´t need you to have the same opinion as me, but i also have no interest getting called a "sockpuppet" because i have a different opinion than you. Also my view on the "west" is not as extrem (whatever you are suggestion with that) as you may think.

 

In this specific subject, this thread here, i´m just sick with the same old story. "X country does this, how stupid are they look at us we are so much better" yeah no that is not true, this false sense of superiority is BS.

 

What kind of data disagrees with me? Some pools or "experts" on Fox? ABC? CBS? One very good friend of me spend half his life in russia and grew up there, i do believe him more than a news outlet. I also happen to know people living in Ukraine (before some had to flee).

 

Don´t get me wrong i do understand that you can easily find russians who would also disagree on that and frequently do so. They are allowed to have an opinion you know. Russia has a fifth column and there are people who are more pro-western. Though, they are a minority.

 

Also that was a fail quote, because i mention free speech and just like people are able to openly express their opinion against Obama, they do so against Putin in Russia too, just like in most countries the people in charge will have pro and contra followers. So whats the difference there? (and in both countries harsh critics will always get **** for their comments) I was talking about Media bias, as in propaganda and honestly after following this media campaign in the last 12 months, you have to be blind to believe that stuff that gets out there. Or maybe i was not being clear enough due to my lack of english skills i don´t know...

 

But again you can believe what you want, if there is no basis for a discussion to even begin with, there is no point in having one.

[Tort]

 

 

In fact there isn´t that much difference in free speech if you compare russia and the west. The whole idea that everyone in the east is oppressed is realy nothing but a propaganda tool..

All the data on the issue, disagree with your idea of facts.

 

What kind of data disagrees with me? Some pools or "experts" on Fox? ABC? CBS? One very good friend of me spend half his life in russia and grew up there, i do believe him more than a news outlet. I also happen to know people living in Ukraine (before some had to flee).

 

All data. There are no organizations that are gathering information on the various freedoms worldwide that paint a different picture than that. (as opposed to your beliefs\facts that are based on the opinion of one friend)

 

i mention free speech and just like people are able to openly express their opinion against Obama, they do so against Putin in Russia too

No they don't.

 

 

The space for independent voices and diversity of opinion in traditional media grew even narrower in 2013, as the government penalized journalists for failing to conform to its increasingly strict definition of legitimate views and expanded its control over the broadcast and print sectors. The government of President Vladimir Putin has also begun to use a combination of the law, the courts, and regulatory action to crack down on online media, which some print journalists and bloggers, as well as new radio and television broadcasters, have used to reach audiences interested in alternative and more balanced sources of information. Despite this new government pressure, social media and web broadcasters continued to play an important role in fostering a wider debate about issues of public interest in 2013.

 

Although the constitution provides for freedoms of speech and of the press, politicians and government officials frequently use the country’s politicized and corrupt court system to harass the few remaining independent journalists who criticize widespread abuses by the authorities. Russian law contains a broad definition of extremism that officials invoke to silence government critics, including journalists; the enforcement of this and other restrictive legal provisions has encouraged self-censorship. link

 

 

 

In this specific subject, this thread here, i´m just sick with the same old story. [...]this false sense of superiority is BS.

This thread is about yet another law that is likely to limit freedom of expression in Russia, if you feel that pointing out the recent history of Russia's shrinking civil liberties has anything todo with "sense of superiority" look inward to check why is that. Add to that your initial silly generalization, and idea of fact, i'd suggest major butthurt or disenchantment.

[cirdanx]

 

 

 

In fact there isn´t that much difference in free speech if you compare russia and the west. The whole idea that everyone in the east is oppressed is realy nothing but a propaganda tool..

All the data on the issue, disagree with your idea of facts.

 

What kind of data disagrees with me? Some pools or "experts" on Fox? ABC? CBS? One very good friend of me spend half his life in russia and grew up there, i do believe him more than a news outlet. I also happen to know people living in Ukraine (before some had to flee).

 

All data. There are no organizations that are gathering information on the various freedoms worldwide that paint a different picture than that. (as opposed to your beliefs\facts that are based on the opinion of one friend)

 

i mention free speech and just like people are able to openly express their opinion against Obama, they do so against Putin in Russia too

No they don't.

 

 

The space for independent voices and diversity of opinion in traditional media grew even narrower in 2013, as the government penalized journalists for failing to conform to its increasingly strict definition of legitimate views and expanded its control over the broadcast and print sectors. The government of President Vladimir Putin has also begun to use a combination of the law, the courts, and regulatory action to crack down on online media, which some print journalists and bloggers, as well as new radio and television broadcasters, have used to reach audiences interested in alternative and more balanced sources of information. Despite this new government pressure, social media and web broadcasters continued to play an important role in fostering a wider debate about issues of public interest in 2013.

 

Although the constitution provides for freedoms of speech and of the press, politicians and government officials frequently use the country’s politicized and corrupt court system to harass the few remaining independent journalists who criticize widespread abuses by the authorities. Russian law contains a broad definition of extremism that officials invoke to silence government critics, including journalists; the enforcement of this and other restrictive legal provisions has encouraged self-censorship. link

 

 

 

In this specific subject, this thread here, i´m just sick with the same old story. [...]this false sense of superiority is BS.

This thread is about yet another law that is likely to limit freedom of expression in Russia, if you feel that pointing out the recent history of Russia's shrinking civil liberties has anything todo with "sense of superiority" look inward to check why is that. Add to that your initial silly generalization, and idea of fact, i'd suggest major butthurt or disenchantment.

 

 

Where is your data then? What do you think that the RF is the Soviet Union and Putin is a dictator? The picture drawn by western media has not much to do with reality and i think i have provied enough sources for this in the Ukraine thread and not "just one friend".

 

Oh and please Freedomhouse as a source? They paint themselves as an independent "watchdog" but when you look at who pays them money, (supporters) you get the picture. America in the top countries with press freedom is a joke. 90% of the media in US is owned by 5 big conglomerates and all of them sit in the COuncil of Foreign relations, it takes second to find that information because it´s not even a secret.

 

Yes i agree that it is a stupid law, i think i even said that, the background however has some interesting points with real damage done. Stupid laws get made all the time, including everywhere in the world, welcome to reality. As for shrinking civil rights, thats something that is worrisome in a lot of places, including the EU and especially the US.

 

"Add to that your initial silly generalization, and idea of fact, i'd suggest major butthurt or disenchantment." I suggest a pretty bad case of arrogance here.

 

But whatever, as i said before this seems to go nowhere, i disagree with you. End of story.

Edited April 25, 2015 by cirdanx

[Ineth]

A decent litmus test is to look up which nations outlaw questioning aspects of the 'Holocaust'.

 

How convenient, since it's pretty much the only choice of "litmus test" that will allow you to defend your radical anti-Western bias.

 

I know this is probably futile in an online discussion like this, but let me try and appeal to your rationality.

 

Why should the freedom of speech regarding a very particular historical issue, which different societies and governments stand in very different relations to due to historical circumstances, be considered the most fair and useful universal "litmus test"?

 

When something has a totally different historical importance and societal meaning to different groups, it should be plainly obvious to any fair-minded person, that it's not sensible to blindly compare the rules those different groups have built around that issue out of context and take them as an indicator for rules they would build around totally different issues.

 

Here's a suggestion for an actually fair litmus test for free speech across different countries:

 

Can a person with no wealth, power or influence publicly disparage the government (or even the head of state him or her-self), even in a crude and foul way, and not have to fear persecution?

 

Unlike yours, this litmus test is fair because the issues at the heart of it apply to every country equally. All countries have governments that would prefer to be glorified rather than disparaged, because the latter could threaten their continued stay in power.

 

Of course, you'll hate it because when applied to every country equally, it won't exactly confirm your anti-Western and pro-ruthless-semidictatorships biases. But deep down, the rational part of you will know that brushing it aside won't change the truth.

 

PS: Which is not to say that most Western liberal democracies would rank 10/10 on that scale. Not even close. But relatively, they'd rank the highest.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Ineth

[Ineth]

people will still look at memes and make them, just like people in the UK will still make and look at all the banned porn there (which is even more of a ridiculous law than this)

 

Yeah, the UK is probably the worst problem child when it come to free speech in Western liberal democracies.

 

The downwards slope that country is on in this regard is pretty sad, especially considering that it's the country where, once upon a time, civil rights were first acknowledged.

[Valsuelm]

 

A decent litmus test is to look up which nations outlaw questioning aspects of the 'Holocaust'.

 

How convenient, since it's pretty much the only choice of "litmus test" that will allow you to defend your radical anti-Western bias.

 

I know this is probably futile in an online discussion like this, but let me try and appeal to your rationality.

 

Why should the freedom of speech regarding a very particular historical issue, which different societies and governments stand in very different relations to due to historical circumstances, be considered the most fair and useful universal "litmus test"?

 

When something has a totally different historical importance and societal meaning to different groups, it should be plainly obvious to any fair-minded person, that it's not sensible to blindly compare the rules those different groups have built around that issue out of context and take them as an indicator for rules they would build around totally different issues.

 

Here's a suggestion for an actually fair litmus test for free speech across different countries:

 

Can a person with no wealth, power or influence publicly disparage the government (or even the head of state him or her-self), even in a crude and foul way, and not have to fear persecution?

 

Unlike yours, this litmus test is fair because the issues at the heart of it apply to every country equally. All countries have governments that would prefer to be glorified rather than disparaged, because the latter could threaten their continued stay in power.

 

Of course, you'll hate it because when applied to every country equally, it won't exactly confirm your anti-Western and pro-ruthless-semidictatorships biases. But deep down, the rational part of you will know that brushing it aside won't change the truth.

 

PS: Which is not to say that most Western liberal democracies would rank 10/10 on that scale. Not even close. But relatively, they'd rank the highest.

 

 

Like Tort has recently, you make assumptions based on your misinterpretation of the world and stereotypes you imagine. I have no 'radical anti-western bias' to point out one major mistake you're making. I'm not going to waste my time getting into the rest of it other than to stress the adjective I used: 'decent'. For plainly you ignored it.

[Walsingham]

Laws everywhere are meant to be abused. We have an anti terror one that one can use to move on groups the government deems a threat. Like environmentalists, etc.

 

Oh well, usual narrative

 

Thought: If I posted the statement

 

"Laws are for arseholes"

 

I suspect many people I completely disagree with would upvote it, having misconstrued the syntax.

[Malcador]

Well, I suppose you could say that is true, laws are for arseholes as they are aimed chiefly at behaviour of said group. That would be stretching the 'for' a bit beyond the commonly understood usage though.

[Rostere]

Russia declares war on history.

[BruceVC]

Russia declares war on history.

Appalling but it shouldn't surprise us that Putin will look to present Communism and the history of the USSR as a benevolent movement that really only annexed countries like Czechoslovakia because  " they were protecting the Czechs from  West influence  "  

[Rostere]

Putin is not a communist in any sense of the word though. It is really Russian imperialism in the guise of Soviet imperialism he is trying to excuse.

[Chilloutman]

ex-KGB is not communist? hard to believe

[Meshugger]

The Tsarist reverence for a strong leader in Russia is far more ingrained in their culture that communism.

[Chilloutman]

The Tsarist reverence for a strong leader in Russia is far more ingrained in their culture that communism.

 

Well, there is problem - true communism never existed anywhere. Russians just use this ideology to get their imperium up and running. Lenin at least try to look as communist (and evil one to core) but from Stalim onward it was just dictatorship as any other

[Zoraptor]

Meh, whitewashing history is something everyone does. Not like the average British doco on Churchill mentions the crappy stuff he did, or the US doesn't celebrate a genocidal maniac on their bank notes, or the Poles get all knicker knotted about getting partitioned but didn't do it to Czechoslovakia nor stab Lithuania in the back when they were fighting the soviets. And our national myth involves lionising lots of naive chaps going off to die utterly pointlessly in Turkey for the benefit and at the command of imperialist buffoons half a world away.

 

You won't find a single country that even approaches frank and honest in their view of their own history. It's not what countries do, at heart they're just like sports fans- we're skillful, honest and brave supporting the bestest team in the entire world; otoh the referee is biased and the opposition are dishonest thugs who dive and cheat.

[Rostere]

Meh, whitewashing history is something everyone does. Not like the average British doco on Churchill mentions the crappy stuff he did, or the US doesn't celebrate a genocidal maniac on their bank notes, or the Poles get all knicker knotted about getting partitioned but didn't do it to Czechoslovakia nor stab Lithuania in the back when they were fighting the soviets. And our national myth involves lionising lots of naive chaps going off to die utterly pointlessly in Turkey for the benefit and at the command of imperialist buffoons half a world away.

 

This illustrates the worst of cynicism.

 

We should be morally obliged to be mad when people try to revise history to justify atrocitites, just as we should applaud and praise those who shine light on atrocities which have been forgotten or revised in the past. Russia had previously officially apologized for the brutal invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia. This catharsis was something which strengthened Russia in the global diplomatic scene and gave them increased credibility, especially in Eastern Europe. To backtrack on this is not only an indicator of the increasing disconnect with reality in the Russian internal political scene, but something which will greatly interfere with Russian relations with Eastern European countries, leaving them even more a diplomatic midget, sputtering jingoistic nonsense while country after country in their vicinity comes knocking at NATO's door. At this rate, Belarus will apply for NATO membership in 2017. Sadly, Russia believing that everything that goes against them in the geographical vicinity is a "Western conspiracy" turns out to be a very self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

You could write a list about every atrocity that has ever occurred, and calculate their awfulness, and see which political entities have the most luggage, and the most undeclared luggage. My perspective is mostly observing that the current state of global affairs is stable, but as things change, this might not be so. So drastic changes are of interest, and keeping track of which way every country is heading is of importance. Most countries are on the path of inceasing awareness of historical atrocities, so it is interesting and noteworthy to see a country heading in the other direction.

 

 

You won't find a single country that even approaches frank and honest in their view of their own history. It's not what countries do, at heart they're just like sports fans- we're skillful, honest and brave supporting the bestest team in the entire world; otoh the referee is biased and the opposition are dishonest thugs who dive and cheat.

 

Challenge me, I have a frank and honest view of the history of my country, which is by and large shared by the general population, to the degree which they are familiar with history of course. Germany has handled Nazism's legacy in a way that almost borders on overcompensation (from personal experience - I have spent quite some time in Germany).

 

It is true, but typically obvious to the point of being meaningless, to state that everyone is guilty of most crimes to a degree. But to frame it to sound like an equivalence is where cynicism turns to idiocy through oversimplification.

 

BTW, you should change your avatar to this, it reflects your personality better:

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

The Tsarist reverence for a strong leader in Russia is far more ingrained in their culture that communism.

 

 

Well, there is problem - true communism never existed anywhere. Russians just use this ideology to get their imperium up and running. Lenin at least try to look as communist (and evil one to core) but from Stalim onward it was just dictatorship as any other

I thought Lenin said his government was State Capitalist?

[BruceVC]

 

Meh, whitewashing history is something everyone does. Not like the average British doco on Churchill mentions the crappy stuff he did, or the US doesn't celebrate a genocidal maniac on their bank notes, or the Poles get all knicker knotted about getting partitioned but didn't do it to Czechoslovakia nor stab Lithuania in the back when they were fighting the soviets. And our national myth involves lionising lots of naive chaps going off to die utterly pointlessly in Turkey for the benefit and at the command of imperialist buffoons half a world away.

 

This illustrates the worst of cynicism.

 

We should be morally obliged to be mad when people try to revise history to justify atrocitites, just as we should applaud and praise those who shine light on atrocities which have been forgotten or revised in the past. Russia had previously officially apologized for the brutal invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia. This catharsis was something which strengthened Russia in the global diplomatic scene and gave them increased credibility, especially in Eastern Europe. To backtrack on this is not only an indicator of the increasing disconnect with reality in the Russian internal political scene, but something which will greatly interfere with Russian relations with Eastern European countries, leaving them even more a diplomatic midget, sputtering jingoistic nonsense while country after country in their vicinity comes knocking at NATO's door. At this rate, Belarus will apply for NATO membership in 2017. Sadly, Russia believing that everything that goes against them in the geographical vicinity is a "Western conspiracy" turns out to be a very self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This particular paragraph is really pertinent, accurate and insightful. I hope everyone reads it...nice perspective 

 

But you do know it will be utterly lost on Zora, he is far too anti-Western to see the truth in what you say 

Edited June 2, 2015 by BruceVC

[Enoch]

The NYT Magazine with the latest on the Russian trolling industry.

 

 

 

One account was called “I Am Ass.” Ass had a Twitter account, an Instagram account, multiple Facebook accounts and his own website. In his avatars, Ass was depicted as a pair of cartoon buttocks with an ugly, smirking face. He filled his social-media presences with links to news articles, along with his own commentary. Ass had a puerile sense of humor and only a rudimentary grasp of the English language. He also really hated Barack Obama. Ass denounced Obama in posts strewn with all-caps rants and scatological puns. One characteristic post linked to a news article about an ISIS massacre in Iraq, which Ass shared on Facebook with the comment: “I’m scared and farting! ISIS is a monster awakened by Obama when he unleashed this disastrous Iraq war!”

[Malcador]

Russia declares war on history.

Hm, might be interesting to watch to see what is so objectionable. Point for the sensationalist tile of the link, though. I guess it does depend on Russia 1's nature, CBC here is a state owned network but it's not too tightly held.

[Agiel]

Putin is not a communist in any sense of the word though. It is really Russian imperialism in the guise of Soviet imperialism he is trying to excuse.

 

This. The Soviet Union really was just the old Czarist Empire in new clothes. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the subsequent break-up of the Soviet Union was part of the same breakdown of the old European colonial system represented by India and the like for the British Empire and Algeria and Indochina for the French, it just happened a little later for the Russian Empire, the only difference being that the Empire was land-based rather than sea-based as the British and French Empires were; only half of the pre-collapse population of the Soviet Union was Russian, and given the demographic problems plaguing Russia now even if its military hadn't spent itself into bankruptcy, the demographics issue would have had a similar result at maximum a few decades down the line.

 

Without the vestiges of the old Empire, Russia is "just" (emphasis not mine) another European country, albeit one that's abnormally large and doing its damnedest to go it alone a la Norway.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Agiel