4 ms·
> jumps to the "Kremlin propaganda" with tons of handwaving and no evidence at all The video is promoted by RT, there is enough evidence for it (like, you kno
by oytis 8y ago
> jumps to the "Kremlin propaganda" with tons of handwaving and no evidence at all
The video is promoted by RT, there is enough evidence for it (like, you know, links to a page on RT website containing the video). Even if it wasn't created as Kremlin propaganda, it is used as such now.
- coldtea 8y ago>The video is promoted by RT, there is enough evidence for it RT is a popular website. Of course it will link to a viral video. It's no more "Kremlin Propaganda" than anything posted on BBC is automatically "British propaganda".
- ForHackernews 8y agoThis badly misstates the relationship between the BBC and the UK government.
- coldtea 8y agoYeah, the BBC has been a cunning voice for British interests since forever. RT in comparison is amateur hour.
- lawlessone 8y ago>RT in comparison is amateur hour. And yet RT a Putin propaganda station are promoting the video in the article, a video made by Krelim supporters.. You can call them amateur , you can't deny what they are trying to do.
- coldtea 8y agoTalk about taking for granted what you need to prove...
- ForHackernews 8y agoYou pivoted from a poorly-executed reductio ad absurdum to full-on whataboutism in only two posts. Impressive mental gymnastics, but can you stick the landing?
- coldtea 8y agoSorry, but I'm not one who considers putting thing in perspective ("whataboutism") a logical fallacy. Or that thinks that one state has the right to have their own broadcaster (UK/BBC) and another not (Russia/RT), or that they broadcasting thing based on their own national interests and world views is propaganda whereas for a broadcaster I agree with its "objective journalism". I'm also not in the whole hysteria for Russia as some Bond villain behind everything, for things all sides do and that it does with 1/100 the resources (from Voice of America to financial support for all kinds of magazines, opposition parties and NGOs in Russia from US State Department sources, diplomatic pressure on their neighbouring countries and so on). Especially when I can see through the whole top-bottom neo-Cold War strategy of "let's corner them, surround them with NATO client states, throw in some sanctions, get some sympathetic lackey in power, and get their resources for free, plus increased control in their Southern borders". Of course people whose only source of news is American or European mainstream media will never hear about those things (and if they do, e.g. in someplace like Counterpunch they'll label it "Kremlin propaganda", as they are told). I guess some people never learn from the previous "successes" against similar enemies-du-jour in bringing democracy and making Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc into the current hell-holes they are.
- lawlessone 8y ago>RT is a popular website. Yeah i love their chemtrails stuff.... edit: Lol Fox is as bad as RT coldtea.. your attempt at whataboutism is terrible. Just because fox is crap doesn't mean RT isn't a Putin owned propaganda network.
- coldtea 8y agoLol, I don't care much for "thought-stoppers" like the accusation of "whataboutism". In fact, I'm ALL for whataboutism -- or, as they used to call it back in the day, putting things in perspective... You have to really be conditioned to never see the larger picture and to think your shit doesn't stink to even consider "whatabboutism" (that is, that a side accused of something might has a right to point back to the other's side's misdeeds) as bad...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 8y agoWhich is neither here nor there concerning the discussion. As if Fox for example doesn't have all kinds of crap in their programming?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gsich 8y agoIt's funny how often "whataboutism" arguments rise in russia-related news.