4 ms·

The thing to wrap one's head about, in regard to the "pro-Russia"-slanting body of opinion (and not infrequent bursts of outright disinformation) that have beco

The thing to wrap one's head about, in regard to the "pro-Russia"-slanting body of opinion (and not infrequent bursts of outright disinformation) that have become increasingly prevalent in the past few years (not so coincidently with the start of Putin's apocryphal 3rd term): These people think this stuff up largely on their own, because it suits their own (half-baked) intellectual agenda (faux anti-globalism, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and all that). Yes, occasionally they'll suck up snippets of dialog, or memelets that might first have originated in sources actually supported by the Russian government (and indeed, there are more than a few bonafide trolls out there in certain media outlets; and of course, the occasional Putin-enchanted celebrity here and there; etc). But by and large, this contact is incidental. And if people go around denying that the invasion of the Crimea was really and invasion, or that we "don't really know" what happened to MH-17, or (as one very educated acquaintance of mine said to me recently) "Have you read Putin's Syria speech? It was actually quite thoughtful"... it's probably not because they've been brainwashed by RT and Sputnik News... it's because that's the way they think things "ought to be" (and because they apparently don't to a lot of primary source reading... they're very susceptible to letting their intuition and gut feelings run amok over the basic chronology of recent events). Sources directed by the Russian government might provide a bit of an echo, and "fluff" this mentality up a bit... but I suspect not by all that much. Or as the quote at the end of the article puts it: “To blame internal social effects on external perpetrators is very Putinistic.”

rahrahrah 10y ago
> people go around denying that the invasion of the Crimea was really and invasion The USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and never had any consequences over it.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  The "Whaddabout X?" response (that is, countering mention of an unpleasant topic by completely changing the subject) is one of the classic misdirection techniques that have, unfortunately, become so popular in recent years.
  - rahrahrah 10y ago
    The "whataddabout x response" response has also become popular in recent years. It allows one side to do whatever they want, and at the same time call out those things when the other side does it. That one side did a bad thing doesn't make that thing less bad when the other side does it, true. But somehow I care a little bit less when you call someone out on the thing you just did. I'm an impartial observer here in the sense that I'm not american or russian (in fact, culturally I'm practically american). But when you say "bla bla Crimea" I think... yeah... Iraq... that's what countries do.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      All I can say is, it's not about "calling people out". It's about finding out (and at least attempting to come to rough agreement on) what actually happened. Did 3,000 or members of various branches of the Russian armed forces slip over the border, not-so-covertly, in late February and early March of 2014 to enforce the expulsion of Ukrainian government authorities, or did they not? Did their surrogates in Eastern Ukraine manage to take down a civilian airliner (inadvertently, but that's beside the point) -- and top it off by interfering with the investigation -- or did they not? You know, simple, blameless, matters of objective reality like that. To which "What about Iraq?" response really aren't very helpful. Or as Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes put in the The Diane Rehm Show, on NPR, earlier today: “It’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.”
      - rahrahrah 10y ago
        Ok I hear you. Maybe I just lashed out too quickly. You're right that when you point out something like "some people deny that Crimea was an invasion", saying "the other side did X" adds nothing. But I guess that I find the hypocrisy so disgusting that I go out of my way to add it to conversations, even when not directly related :-/
        10y ago
pdx 10y ago
Instead of engaging in amateur psychoanalyzing of your educated acquaintance because he dares praise Putin's speech, you could have also chosen to read it yourself. Here, let me help you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28/read-putins-u-n-general-assembly-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28...
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Thanks, but I read it when it first went around. Like a lot of things he says, it was indeed cogent and thoughtful -- but also, at its base, fundamentally warped.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    That's quite a bold statement. Would you like to elaborate on it?
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Well, considering the text itself (and leaving apart one's feelings about the person speaking it): it does contain some valid points and interesting ideas -- about leveraging the "Yalta system" and the "anti-Hitler coalition"; and about the need to get beyond "bloc thinking" -- and raises valid criticism about American-led efforts to support various insurgencies in the region (and the damage caused by going outside, rather than through the international system). One could almost imagine some peaceful, alternate universe with the leader of genuinely democratic and non-aggressive (but still not necessarily western-oriented) Russia saying such things to the General Assembly, in so many words. But this is Vladimir Putin we're dealing with, after all, and the current historical context matters greatly. And it all unravels pretty quickly, for example on line 3: But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders. Right there, he's basically "gaslighting"† us -- blatantly attempting to fuck with our minds by asking us to accept that Yalta is a part of his nation's territory, completely side-stepping the issue of its forceful annexation less than 2 years previously, and the rather profound insult to the international system and the concept of rule of law that action caused -- while attempting to lecture on the importance of respecting established precedent and working through the international system. So like, right there -- a huge, steaming pile of WTF, right there on the Assembly floor. But rather than stop there, he keeps piling it higher and deeper: Whatever actions any state might take bypassing [UN] procedure are illegitimate. Like for example own pet insurgency movement in a certain neighboring country whose name starts with the letter U, the existence of which he also continues to attempt to deny most of the time (except when he obliquely praises it). With all the completely unnecessary and avoidable bloodshed and other human suffering that has gone with it. (to be continued) † https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

rahrahrah 10y ago

> people go around denying that the invasion of the Crimea was really and invasion The USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and never had any consequences over it.

kafkaesq 10y ago
The "Whaddabout X?" response (that is, countering mention of an unpleasant topic by completely changing the subject) is one of the classic misdirection techniques that have, unfortunately, become so popular in recent years.
- rahrahrah 10y ago
  The "whataddabout x response" response has also become popular in recent years. It allows one side to do whatever they want, and at the same time call out those things when the other side does it. That one side did a bad thing doesn't make that thing less bad when the other side does it, true. But somehow I care a little bit less when you call someone out on the thing you just did. I'm an impartial observer here in the sense that I'm not american or russian (in fact, culturally I'm practically american). But when you say "bla bla Crimea" I think... yeah... Iraq... that's what countries do.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    All I can say is, it's not about "calling people out". It's about finding out (and at least attempting to come to rough agreement on) what actually happened. Did 3,000 or members of various branches of the Russian armed forces slip over the border, not-so-covertly, in late February and early March of 2014 to enforce the expulsion of Ukrainian government authorities, or did they not? Did their surrogates in Eastern Ukraine manage to take down a civilian airliner (inadvertently, but that's beside the point) -- and top it off by interfering with the investigation -- or did they not? You know, simple, blameless, matters of objective reality like that. To which "What about Iraq?" response really aren't very helpful. Or as Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes put in the The Diane Rehm Show, on NPR, earlier today: “It’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.”
    - rahrahrah 10y ago
      Ok I hear you. Maybe I just lashed out too quickly. You're right that when you point out something like "some people deny that Crimea was an invasion", saying "the other side did X" adds nothing. But I guess that I find the hypocrisy so disgusting that I go out of my way to add it to conversations, even when not directly related :-/
      - 10y ago

pdx 10y ago

Instead of engaging in amateur psychoanalyzing of your educated acquaintance because he dares praise Putin's speech, you could have also chosen to read it yourself. Here, let me help you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28/read-putins-u-n-general-assembly-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28...

kafkaesq 10y ago
Thanks, but I read it when it first went around. Like a lot of things he says, it was indeed cogent and thoughtful -- but also, at its base, fundamentally warped.
- throwanem 10y ago
  That's quite a bold statement. Would you like to elaborate on it?
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Well, considering the text itself (and leaving apart one's feelings about the person speaking it): it does contain some valid points and interesting ideas -- about leveraging the "Yalta system" and the "anti-Hitler coalition"; and about the need to get beyond "bloc thinking" -- and raises valid criticism about American-led efforts to support various insurgencies in the region (and the damage caused by going outside, rather than through the international system). One could almost imagine some peaceful, alternate universe with the leader of genuinely democratic and non-aggressive (but still not necessarily western-oriented) Russia saying such things to the General Assembly, in so many words. But this is Vladimir Putin we're dealing with, after all, and the current historical context matters greatly. And it all unravels pretty quickly, for example on line 3: But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders. Right there, he's basically "gaslighting"† us -- blatantly attempting to fuck with our minds by asking us to accept that Yalta is a part of his nation's territory, completely side-stepping the issue of its forceful annexation less than 2 years previously, and the rather profound insult to the international system and the concept of rule of law that action caused -- while attempting to lecture on the importance of respecting established precedent and working through the international system. So like, right there -- a huge, steaming pile of WTF, right there on the Assembly floor. But rather than stop there, he keeps piling it higher and deeper: Whatever actions any state might take bypassing [UN] procedure are illegitimate. Like for example own pet insurgency movement in a certain neighboring country whose name starts with the letter U, the existence of which he also continues to attempt to deny most of the time (except when he obliquely praises it). With all the completely unnecessary and avoidable bloodshed and other human suffering that has gone with it. (to be continued) † https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting