I guess, what I can be accussed of, is being highly intolerant of what I interpret to be a rationalisation of what Russia is doing. — Wayfarer

I can strongly sympathise with such an intolerance. What I have far less sympathy for is your (and other's) refusal to accept any fallibility whatsoever in the latter part.

That, having interpreted comments as being supportive of Russia's actions, you respond intemperately is not at issue. What is at issue is that, despite repeated explanations to the contrary, you continue with the interpretation leading there despite having abundant reason to believe it is erroneous.

it was an attempt not to lose sight of the actuality on the ground, for those living through it, which seems rather more important than a lot of the bickering going on. — Wayfarer

Important to what end?

Please do — Olivier5

The question was rhetorical. If you want to repost your gross indecency you do so, but I will flag it a second time. I was perfectly prepared to tolerate it once, as 'high jinx' I'm not going to tolerate a deliberate repeat as if you were proud of it.

Yes, I do. — Olivier5

Practically your first response to me in this thread...

Only Trump and Isaac do that kind of obscenity. I trust the rest of us have some decency left. — Olivier5

Shall I quote the section where you and @frank do your little skit about me being raped?

You and others here have made any conversation impossible by constantly insulting the other side, page after page, and by showing only contempt for us. — Olivier5

Fascinating. Is it the last 'all in' of the inveterate gambler? Or have you so thoroughly re-invented the narrative that you actually believe this?

Do you think that a trawl through the last few hundred pages is going to reveal a stream of insults from our side and a Gandhi-esque model of respectful patience from you?

Do you want me to provide quotes? You surely can't have forgotten your excesses so readily, they must be buried back in your mind there somewhere.

I think the correct thing is to engage in discussion that is worth wile. If some have problems to see the real picture from their anti-Americanism or somehow feel that some facts seem for them to be too "pro-US" (starting from the fact that this war was indeed of Putin's making) or whatever, it's their problem. — ssu

This is a discussion forum, not a blog. If you just want to talk to people who agree with you then, I suggest you start a forum to that end. Please don't waste time on a forum designed for debate posting about how you don't want debate.

So, the celebrated 'freedom' of Russians in the 90's, let's take a look at that: — StreetlightX

We could also add...

after 1990, a bad health situation got worse. As the society collapsed so did life expectancy. In the 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were somewhere between 3 million and 7 million excess deaths. — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33322-6/fulltext

...but at least they voted first. I'm sure they all died happy in the knowledge that their preferred colour of tie was on the autocrat feeding their bodies into the profit mill.

This thread is proof that a breakdown of moderation -- in both senses -- leads to cacophony and to a breakdown of the discussion. — Olivier5

'Discussion' is not furthered by eliminating opposing opinion. For the sort of engagement you want I suggest a very large cave.

Next time, quote the whole thing. — RogueAI

OK

Nonsense. Leaders in democracies are obsessed with public opinion and constantly monitor it through public and internal polling. — RogueAI

The claim that it's "nonsense" to say that politicians are unafraid of public opinion is false. If you want to retract that claim and only argue that they do, in fact, regularly poll, then it'd be a different argument. Polling doesn't mean that you're interested in the entire result. You might be interested in a key demographic in a swing region, but you can't only poll that demographic without making it obvious what your tactics are.

Regardless. The discussion is about the power ordinary people have in a democracy to affect policy. I've forwarded some evidence concluding that it's "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non significant".

Do you have any contrary evidence, such that we could actually discuss the relative merits, or is it just that you've had 'a bit of a think about it' and you 'reckon' they probably do have a big say?

Leaders in democracies DON'T monitor public opinion through polling? Is that what you think? — RogueAI

For a start, the comment I responded to was...

It proves they are not afraid of public opinion. — FreeEmotion


Nonsense. — RogueAI

Ie, the claim that it's "nonsense" to say that politicians are unafraid of public opinion. If you want to retract that claim and only argue that they do, in fact, regularly poll, then it'd be a different argument. Polling doesn't mean that you're interested in the entire result. You might be interested in a key demographic in a swing region, but you can't only poll that demographic without making it obvious what your tactics are.

Regardless. The discussion is about the power ordinary people have in a democracy to affect policy. I've forwarded some evidence concluding that it's "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non significant".

Do you have any contrary evidence, such that we could actually discuss the relative merits, or is it just that you've had 'a bit of a think about it' and you 'reckon' they probably do have a big say?

Nonsense. Leaders in democracies are obsessed with public opinion and constantly monitor it through public and internal polling. — RogueAI

By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the
preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non significant impact upon public policy. — Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - Martin Gilens Professor of Politics at Princeton University

...or we could just make shit up instead. Your choice

It looks like your average reddit thread — Olivier5

Oh. Do people disagree with you on reddit too?

You're right. Let's bring it back round.

I hate Putin. He's, like, really bad and stuff. He's killed people and killing people isn't nice, so that's, like, bad.

I hear there's some great bars in Budapest!

That better?

...or shitpost pointless emoticons. Ah...freedom!

Only in a democracy can you complain about your own government without fear of reprisal. — RogueAI

You can also play Scrabble. With equal effect.

I cited this earlier in the thread, worth reiterating in this context that America has form in this, it's right out of their standard playbook

My job [in Syria] is to make it a quagmire for the Russians — US envoy James Jeffrey

Is this a basic moral principle of yours or did you deduce it from more basic moral principles? Can you elaborate on this? — neomac

Wars cause enormous harms, including to people who have no say in the decisions (children, future generations), so only the plausible avoidance of greater harms justifies it. Having a different flag over your Parliament building is quite obviously not such a greater harm.

Do you mean that the only morally legitimate fight against a military aggressive ruthless tyrant is not through war but through economic sanctions and non-violent protests? — neomac

It depends on the circumstances, but I think at all times there should be a good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from all parties. I can't see any reasonable argument favouring war over dialogue on principle.

the claim that the West recklessly and knowingly provoked Putin into waging war against Ukraine at the expense of million of innocent civilians doesn’t seem to me supported by a more objective understanding of the historical and strategic interactions between Ukraine, Russia and the West with its related moral implications. — neomac

Then perhaps you could explain why so many experts in history and strategy have reached that exact conclusion.

So what would be the other available options that the strong-minded enough would go for? — neomac

You seriously can't think of any? Are you saying that the only two strategies you think are possible are Western neo liberalism and Russian anocracy?

Well then there are no national security concern for Russia after all. But Russia could yell "not yet". Couldn't they? So until Russia can ensure a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine the risk is still there — neomac

You're still assuming 'threats' can only come in the form of some military attack. Is there any plausible threat of military invasion to America? No Does America have legitimate security concerns? Yes. That should be all you need to know. There does not need to be an immediate threat of actual invasion for Russia to have legitimate security concerns.

you seemed to claim that Putin acted out of legitimate national security concerns triggered by the West. But if Putin didn’t act out of legitimate national security concerns, then there were no legitimate concerns that the West triggered in Putin leading him to start a war against Ukraine. — neomac

You appear to be unfamiliar with multi-causal events, perhaps read up about the concept before pursuing this further.

The point is that there were no provable aggressive intentions from Ukraine against Russian national security, — neomac

Why would they need to be provable? The illegality of Putin's attack is pretty much beyond doubt. We're talking about what was foreseeable, not what was provable.

the belief that all politics are equally fake and exploitative. — Olivier5

Has anyone suggested such a thing? Or is this another case of you just randomly blurting out something you happen to reckon for no reason?

Advising people is a business. Amateurs don't advise professionals. We are all amateurs here, are we not? — Olivier5

This just isn't relevant.

Experts merely constrain the range of options (to those which are not overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary). Choosing between that range of expert opinion is not itself done by experts, it's done by politicians - ordinary people like you and me. We are not just coming up with ideas off the top of our heads (other than within our areas of expertise), were citing experts, were advising (insofar as we're advising anything at all) which experts to listen to. Something we are all, simply by virtue of being intelligent, engaged citizens, eminently qualified to do.

What's weird is that you're supposed to be wary of giving Russia or Ukraine bad advice. Like, they might take it and then you own the consequences. — frank

Who on earth has suggested such a ludicrous thing?

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are. You are peddling the message that they know what they are doing. I just think they don't. — Olivier5

So @boethius is 'peddling' a message, but you're just offering an opinion? Care to share with us what the difference is?

They may not sound like it in your head, but I assure you your posts are coming out sounding just as self-assured and dogmatic as anyone else's. You're not some 'voice of moderate disinterest' in a sea of rampant ideology, you've been absolute hard-line apologist for the mainstream Western narrative throughout, and no less fundamentalist about it than the rest of us.

This is not a thread about the West — Olivier5

No, apparently it's about Hungarian baths and the pronunciation of New Orleans.

Funny how you guys were so offended that we dare mention US imperialism in a thread about Ukraine lest we divert attention from the awful suffering there, but you're happy to fill the thread with tourist advice. What's the matter, bored of war already?

instead of me explaining to you what you are trying to say, why don't you explain it yourself? — Olivier5

As with the last time you tried this...

I'm not writing [it] all out again. I've already stated [it], you opposed [it] with your knee-jerk tribalism, I pointed that out...now you want to avoid that whole discussion by pretending it never started. Fascinating though they are, there's a limit to the effort I'm willing to put in to play your games. It's entertaining to watch you dance, but if it takes too much to wind you back up again... — Isaac

beneath the appearance of a free choice there is an even more oppressive demand than the one formulated by the traditional authoritarian father, namely an implicit injunction not only to visit the grandmother, but to do it voluntarily, out of the child’s own free will. Such a false free choice is the obscene superego injunction: it deprives the child even of his inner freedom, ordering him not only what to do, but what to want to do.

Perfect.

Not only must you think this way, but it is you who are fundamentally malformed if you don't. Not merely no longer playing for the same team, but actually malfunctioning. If your 'free will' doesn't lead you to this choice, there would be demonstrably something wrong with your will.

But we were talking of propaganda dominance, not 'press dominance', whatever that means. — Olivier5

I assume you already understand the link between 'press' and 'propaganda', else why bring in Reporters Sans Frontières index for press freedom. You mentioned 'press' first here. Try to focus.

If the state can forbid all independent media, it can totally dominate the narrative. Think about it. It's not that hard to understand. — Olivier5

Indeed it can. So you've supplied a mechanism by which the state can dominate the narrative, well done.

Now explain why you providing such a mechanism in any way has any relevance whatsoever to the argument that threre is a similar dominance exerted over the narrative in the west by other mechanisms.

I know the concept of more than one mechanism to achieve the same ends might blow your neoliberal-constrained mind, but slowly, carefully, try to get your head round the concept.

The wonderful thing about Western propagandists is that it's propagandists really believe the shit they say. And it's all the more pernicious - along a certain axis - precisely because of that sincerity. — StreetlightX

Absolutely.

One thing I find disturbing about this whole discussion about propaganda is the inherent racism. The idea that there's all these dumb gullible Russians who'll believe whatever garbage Putin throws at them, but the discerning American will carefully sift through their wonderful diversity of narratives for the illusive truth, as opposed to the reality that most will just lap up whatever vomit comes out of the current talking head interrupting their passionate dissection of some celebrity's latest lapse of humanity.

You were saying that there was no way to assert or measure that the propaganda in Russia was more dominant than in the West. — Olivier5

No. I said that @SophistiCat had failed to provide such a measure (as such we couldn't critique it), I didn't claim that there was no such measure.

I said there was: the Reporters Sans Frontières index for press freedom, which is based on the degree to which journalists are free to do their job without being physically intimidated, beaten up, incarcerated or killed.

Then you started to argue against that as well. Were you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing or what? — Olivier5

No. I was disagreeing because measures of press freedom are not measures of press dominance.

Per chance, do you now agree that one system of propaganda in Russia is immensely more dominant and forceful than the other in, say, America? — Olivier5

No.

Did you not? — Olivier5

I presume, unless you just accidentally tagged me into some unconnected comment you wanted to spew out to the world in general, that you were responding to something I said. In other words, asking now whether I did or didn't say the thing you're apparently responding to seems a little post factum.

The difference between living under Putin and under Biden in terms of freedom of access to accurate information is immense. — Olivier5

Did I say it wasn't?

You cut a piece out of my sentence, a classic disinformation trick. — Olivier5

You bleated 'disinformation' rather than actually point out anything of substance, a classic establishment apologist trick.

Why don't you explain how "In the end, ..." makes any material difference to the argument that Western media lack 'power'.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel, I know I shouldn't really...

your claim was that power was only the ability to wield brute force. — Isaac


That's not what I said. — Olivier5

power is about the capacity to wield brute force. — Olivier5

The argument is that they developed their influence not by killing people, but by creating new media. — Olivier5

the capitalist system commits violence against workers every day that Jeff and the Kochs can definitely be held accountable for. — Benkei

That is true but it's another topic. — Olivier5

Eh? Seems directly relevant to me.

Regardless, your claim was that power was only the ability to wield brute force. Are you now admitting you were wrong?

You'd need to show, either that Jeff Bezos was not powerful, or that he wields brute force.

What is the logic link between being Russian or talk to Russians and having reasons to believe that the Russian aggression of Ukraine is immoral? — neomac

None at all. The link is to having reasons to post about it, not reasons to believe it. I know it's hard for the Twitter generation to understand but I don't feel compelled to post everything I think online.

you have moral reasons to not voice your moral condemnation of Putin’s actions even if they are immoral because this would hypocritically deflect attention from Western’s moral responsibilities in the genesis of this war, and would be taken to promote the immoral indirect interventionism of the West. — neomac

No. I just haven't any cause to. I don't see why you're having such trouble with this, I don't have to provide a reason why I haven't posted something I think. It's quite normal to not post things one thinks.

Any demand that a ruthless tyrant of a nation can make against another nation (e.g. as Hitler made against Poland or Kim Jong-un makes against South Korea) that goes unsatisfied can be seen by him as a provocation, so should we meet his demands whatever they are to avoid a war and so endangering millions of people's life and wellbeing? — neomac

No. We should assess each on its merits.

Is it immoral to fight for one’s own nation’s independence and/or for the freedom that one enjoys in such independent nation? — neomac

Yes. Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.

Isn’t there any civic duty to fight for one’s own nation against the oppression of other nations’ tyrants? Don’t you really see any moral imperative in trying to contain the geopolitical ambitions of a ruthless tyrant even if at risk of total defeat? — neomac

Yes. I'm arguing against certain strategies, not the objective.

BTW do you consider the West immoral only when provoking a Russian ruthless tyrant or also when supporting his ruthless regime and ambitious geopolitical goals through economic ties? — neomac

Both.

an immoral turd doesn’t need any specific strategic provocation by the West — neomac

No one argued he needed it. A vase doesn't need me to knock it over in order to smash, any number of things might cause that. This doesn't excuse me if I did, in fact, knock it over.

If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West. — neomac

Only if you're weak-minded enough to see only two options.

Then Putin’s aggression will result in a total failure if he will not at least put a pro-Russian regime, because the West is already military equipping Ukraine — neomac

America is taking great pains not to equp Ukraine with any weapons which have a range long enough to present a credible threat to Russia. For this exact reason.

Then you can not be sure of Western moral responsibility in knowingly provoking Putin either. Can you? — neomac

Why not?

talked about attacking Russia, not about land invasion on Russia. — neomac

Well then what forms of attack are you claiming Russia should have no fear of?

Yet those demands do not seem enough to guarantee the national security of Russia from a now more likely hostile country. — neomac

So? That doesn't influence their likelihood of being met.

In the end, power is about the capacity to wield brute force. — Olivier5

So Jeff Bezos? No power at all (bit of a wimp by all accounts). Rupert Murdoch? Completely powerless (I mean, I could definitely have him). Larry Fink? Couldn't influence a child, after all, he's a bit skinny isn't he? Koch brothers? Too old to use brute force, so completely powerless...

What kind of bullshit argument is that?

It doesn’t alter the facts on the ground. — Wayfarer

Wow, you've actually been to Ukraine to look for yourself? That's admirable. What were your impressions?

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news? That they have a conscious strategy to report on this story in a particular way, for a particular editorial purpose, and that they’re concealing or distorting facts? That they are disseminating propaganda? — Wayfarer

You mean CNN, owned by AT&T the fourteenth-largest donor to United States federal political campaigns and committees from 1989 to 2019, also funded the far-right One America, and run by William Kennard former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?

Or the BBC? Run by millionaire, businessman and ex Tory party candidate Tim Davie, and millionaire Richard Sharp, previously of JP Morgan and 23 years a partner at Goldman Sachs.

Or Al Jazeera, owned by an hereditary constitutional monarchy that controls massive wealth from their substantial oil and gas reserves?

Or was it some of the many other news channels you were thinking of, collectively owned over 90% by just six companies and 15 billionaires between them?

Violence eliminates dissenting voices. Economics don't. — Olivier5

I mistook you for someone to be taken seriously, my mistake.

The crudeness of the method has no bearing whatsoever on the pervasiveness of the outcome.

Number of journalists in jail, assassinated, beaten up, could be a good indicator. More generally, indicators of state violence against the independent press such as the one developed by Reporters Without Borders. — Olivier5

What number? Is one too many? (Ask yourself where Julian Assange is). Two? Ten? At what threshold of journalists in jail, assassinated, beaten up does propaganda become 'dominant', a category difference, not a scalar one? Does economic suppression count? What about private buy outs of independent competitors? Do you have some good reason to relate 'dominance' to the use of violence as a tool?

Number of positive media pieces and public posters devoted to the Big Boss? — Olivier5

Why 'the big boss'? Can an ideology not be pervasive too? If so, then what numbers would you put to it? The number of media pieces supporting the war in Russia (opposing the dominant narrative there) vs the number supporting it in the west (opposing the dominant narrative here). Do you think you'd measure a tangible difference, one large enough to justify a difference in kind, not just scale?

The fact that journalists who speak out against the dominant narrative in Russia are likely to be killed or imprisoned is a moral outrage. It doesn't, of itself, make their propaganda more dominant or pervasive than ours. That would be a separate question.

Without getting into details, the most important thing about Russian propaganda is that it dominates public discourse inside the country (and is surprisingly influential outside, but let's put that to the side). It is univocal, institutionalized and pervasive. There is no public accountability for truth. Dissenting voices are suppressed. — SophistiCat

Aside from the last claim (which needs only one example to verify it) you'd need to supply some sources for all this. It's no good saying "we all know..." as a counterargument to interlocutors with whom you disagree. The very fact you disagree undermines the assumption of common belief on the matter.

Does it 'dominate'? What would be a measure of that, and how would you carry out such a measurement?

Is it 'pervasive'? Again what would be a measure of that, and how would you carry out such a measurement?

do you see something similar in the West? — SophistiCat

How similar is 'similar'?

You can manufacture any argument by using scalar terminology and just setting your threshold wherever needed to result in the conclusion you want.

If all you want to say is that, put on a number line, Russian propaganda would be worse than the West's, then yeah, I don't think anyone could disagree.

But that's not the point raised in any of the arguments you quoted. The point they raise is simply that western propaganda is sufficient to justify doubt about the truth of the main narrative.

The 'similarity' is that they both fall on that side of the threshold, they are both sufficiently pervasive to cause justifiable doubt in what they're saying.