3 ms·

Soviet literature of the period was definitely encouraged and even required to have ideological subtext, there's no arguing with that. However, that doesn't tel

Soviet literature of the period was definitely encouraged and even required to have ideological subtext, there's no arguing with that. However, that doesn't tell us much about how successful that policy was. The article is evidently trying to make a point that it was successful by presenting an example of a person who could recite "Barmalei" from memory, without mentioning that "Barmalei" was actually innocent and unrelated to the propaganda-infested books mentioned previously. That is either an error on the article author's part, or a purposeful omission. Please don't read this as a claim that the policy was not actually successful (which I don't know whether is true or not).

pvg 9y ago
That is not at all 'evident' which is the point of this increasingly odd thread. The article does not make such a claim.
- wruza 9y ago
  In modern reality, I think authors don't have a moral right to not check the perspectives of what they not say, if the article has "hey, look at these russians/americans/asians" vibes, especially when it hits front pages. We are not claiming that thing explodes, we claim that it is potentially misleading for unaware groups. I can't see any warm reason to refuse these clarifications to appear here. The article doesn't make such a claim, but it also doesn't make a contrary, leaving it to the structure, which feels questionable.
- kirillkh 9y ago
  Let me tell you a story about a particular generation of terrorists. Namely the ones born in the 1950's. First and foremost, Osama bin Laden (1957). We all know what he did. Second, Khaled Mashal, the current Hamas leader (1956). Finally, Abbas al Moussawi, one of the founding fathers of Hezbollah (1952). Many of us know what terrorists born in the 1950's did, but somehow we all miss the fact that they all belong to the same generation. Weird, eh? A lot of people think they know who Vladimir Putin (1952) is, but how many of them are aware that twenty years ago Putin was involved in the Chechnya war?

pvg 9y ago

That is not at all 'evident' which is the point of this increasingly odd thread. The article does not make such a claim.

wruza 9y ago
In modern reality, I think authors don't have a moral right to not check the perspectives of what they not say, if the article has "hey, look at these russians/americans/asians" vibes, especially when it hits front pages. We are not claiming that thing explodes, we claim that it is potentially misleading for unaware groups. I can't see any warm reason to refuse these clarifications to appear here. The article doesn't make such a claim, but it also doesn't make a contrary, leaving it to the structure, which feels questionable.
kirillkh 9y ago
Let me tell you a story about a particular generation of terrorists. Namely the ones born in the 1950's. First and foremost, Osama bin Laden (1957). We all know what he did. Second, Khaled Mashal, the current Hamas leader (1956). Finally, Abbas al Moussawi, one of the founding fathers of Hezbollah (1952). Many of us know what terrorists born in the 1950's did, but somehow we all miss the fact that they all belong to the same generation. Weird, eh? A lot of people think they know who Vladimir Putin (1952) is, but how many of them are aware that twenty years ago Putin was involved in the Chechnya war?