3 ms·

Your "logic", basically "choose your side and believe without questioning" is not appropriate for any more or less educated person, I need to say.

by kushti 8y ago

heavenlyblue 8y ago
You choose a side based on the environment you support. The fact is that those "educated people" make uneducated disappointed in their own government, and Russia is happy to take advantage of that fact. The problem isn't the truth, the problem is the platform where that truth is practically used against your own system of values.
- kushti 8y ago
  "truth is practically used against your own system of values" - if truth is against the system of "values", the problem is in the system, not the truth.
- azangru 8y ago
  This is a really interesting proposition. So what you are saying is, if your values do not agree with the truth (whatever that might be; I am not sure what you mean here), then so much the worse for the truth? It is not your values that need revising, it is the truth that needs to be ignored?
- megous 8y ago
  Your argument is suffering from being too abstract, I guess. It would help if you used more examples. Many people here are probably not aware of modus operandi of the Putin regime's propaganda and I'm only semi-aware as well. I can see one example of what you're talking about and that is how Putin co-opted some prominent western anti-US-imperialists in service of his own agenda and his own imperial ambitions (setting up permanent bases in other countries, exploiting natural resources by means of war, killing innocent people by thousands, pretty much anything anti-imperialists abhor about the US). Enemy of my enemy... I guess. These people then talk about how Russia was invited by Bashar, or whatever and that makes it ok for it to bomb people there for years - but this is usually unstated, you just sense the implied sense of legitimacy and lack of criticism for Russia. Many of these people have some followers that then repeats their talking points, or defer to their authority.
golergka 8y ago
You're misrepresenting the parent comment's logic and are constructing a strawman argument. Why?
- roenxi 8y ago
  He could have used a few more words, but it isn't necessarily a strawman argument. We have a (EDIT - silly me he's not dead) nearly dead body, so a crime has clearly been committed. We have in the courts a sophisticated process for determining whodunnit and what they done with a high standard of evidence. Given that the people accused of undertaking the killing are foreign state actors, that process is unlikely to be taken to conclusion. The situation is political, and the people who are publicising the information are closely involved with people who are hired to be _professionally untrustworthy_. We don't have any evidence, and should judge the situation by what the response is. If it is understated and a censure of the Russians, the UK secret service are probably being truthful. If it ties in to some real action (ie, is used as justification for something that wouldn't otherwise make sense) then the UK secret service were probably lying. It isn't like the Russians would have revealed any new intent or capability with this incident. This type of analysis is sorely lacking in the "which side are you on" comment. We should not lock in behind a western government doing something bad because they are pointing fingers at Russia. We've regretted doing that in the past - WMD and Saddam is a pretty cut and dried example (I have others, but they aren't as clear cut and a lot of people might not regret them).

Your "logic", basically "choose your side and believe without questioning" is not appropriate for any more or less educated person, I need to say.

by kushti 8y ago

Your "logic", basically "choose your side and believe without questioning" is not appropriate for any more or less educated person, I need to say.

heavenlyblue 8y ago

You choose a side based on the environment you support. The fact is that those "educated people" make uneducated disappointed in their own government, and Russia is happy to take advantage of that fact. The problem isn't the truth, the problem is the platform where that truth is practically used against your own system of values.

kushti 8y ago
"truth is practically used against your own system of values" - if truth is against the system of "values", the problem is in the system, not the truth.
azangru 8y ago
This is a really interesting proposition. So what you are saying is, if your values do not agree with the truth (whatever that might be; I am not sure what you mean here), then so much the worse for the truth? It is not your values that need revising, it is the truth that needs to be ignored?
megous 8y ago
Your argument is suffering from being too abstract, I guess. It would help if you used more examples. Many people here are probably not aware of modus operandi of the Putin regime's propaganda and I'm only semi-aware as well. I can see one example of what you're talking about and that is how Putin co-opted some prominent western anti-US-imperialists in service of his own agenda and his own imperial ambitions (setting up permanent bases in other countries, exploiting natural resources by means of war, killing innocent people by thousands, pretty much anything anti-imperialists abhor about the US). Enemy of my enemy... I guess. These people then talk about how Russia was invited by Bashar, or whatever and that makes it ok for it to bomb people there for years - but this is usually unstated, you just sense the implied sense of legitimacy and lack of criticism for Russia. Many of these people have some followers that then repeats their talking points, or defer to their authority.

golergka 8y ago

You're misrepresenting the parent comment's logic and are constructing a strawman argument. Why?

roenxi 8y ago
He could have used a few more words, but it isn't necessarily a strawman argument. We have a (EDIT - silly me he's not dead) nearly dead body, so a crime has clearly been committed. We have in the courts a sophisticated process for determining whodunnit and what they done with a high standard of evidence. Given that the people accused of undertaking the killing are foreign state actors, that process is unlikely to be taken to conclusion. The situation is political, and the people who are publicising the information are closely involved with people who are hired to be _professionally untrustworthy_. We don't have any evidence, and should judge the situation by what the response is. If it is understated and a censure of the Russians, the UK secret service are probably being truthful. If it ties in to some real action (ie, is used as justification for something that wouldn't otherwise make sense) then the UK secret service were probably lying. It isn't like the Russians would have revealed any new intent or capability with this incident. This type of analysis is sorely lacking in the "which side are you on" comment. We should not lock in behind a western government doing something bad because they are pointing fingers at Russia. We've regretted doing that in the past - WMD and Saddam is a pretty cut and dried example (I have others, but they aren't as clear cut and a lot of people might not regret them).