5 ms·

This is exactly how Russian propaganda works: “Other countries do bad stuff too, therefore we (Russian Federation) are not so bad after all” Have a read about

This is exactly how Russian propaganda works: “Other countries do bad stuff too, therefore we (Russian Federation) are not so bad after all” Have a read about Sputnik News, for example, which is considered to be “slick” propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency) Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. I get that we are in some really dark times, but this is appalling to tolerate as Americans.

int_19h 6y ago
The classic Soviet agitprop trope is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes But it's a bit different, because it's about bringing up some completely unrelated point to distract. In this case, though, the subject matter is the same. This isn't to say that Russia ought to be excused, or that countries that are not currently involved in militarizing space shouldn't criticize it. But if they do, shouldn't they be criticizing US, as well? And as for Americans, well, the hypocrisy there is rather obvious.
- mlindner 6y ago
  A lot of mainland Chinese people use a new version of exactly this. If Uyghurs are ever mentioned the first thing I hear from mainland people is "Yes but the US and Iraq" and similar statements.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    For the Uighurs' sake I wish that we hadn't invaded Iraq. Also, for all the other obvious reasons.
Someone1234 6y ago
Falling for what? Nobody quoted any Russian source nor position (except you, I suppose). If pointing out stuff that the US military readily admits it does is "Russian propaganda" I really don't know how to respond to that. The Space Force and X-37B aren't some conspiracy theory or hot take, they're official and somewhat public programs even with their own websites[0][1]. Nobody denies they're military programs either. I've seen people throw around unfounded accusations of repeating propaganda before, but this has to be one of the more farcical ones. [0] https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/ [1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index.page http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index....
- heartbreak 6y ago
  The “Space Force” has nothing to do with militarization of space, for starters. Its conception was a rearranging and centralization of command, not an expansion in capability.
  - simlevesque 6y ago
    Their website is literally https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    The domain name begs to differ.
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    Their "About Us" page literally starts with: > The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces. And goes on to say: > USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands. Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dx87 6y ago
      The fact that you have to make up the term "Space Combatants" shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Combatant Commands are the parts of the military actively involved in combat. Even if the Space Force only ran GPS satellites for the Army, they'd still be providing capabilities to combatant commands.
      - Someone1234 6y ago
vkou 6y ago
This is how all geo-political moralization works, by any country. There's always an excuse, there's always an enemy to blame, and there's always someone else you can point a finger at, and justify your behaviour. > Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. That is your takeaway from observing this phenomena? That we should stop giving other people a pass for behaviour we routinely engage in? How does that make any sense? If you want to denounce the militarization of space, this is a great place to start. But you need to approach it with a 'Yes, and', instead of a 'No, but'. One is intellectually consistent, the other is an argument of tribalism. If your goal is demilitarization, the solution to aim towards is a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. If your goal is to engage in tribalism, then the solution to that is to denounce Russia, with no followup.
- DFHippie 6y ago
  Whataboutism is bad even if we engage in it ourselves. See? That's pretty easy.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Great - we can move to practical questions, then. There are currently four countries that have successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. The United States, Russia, China, and India. If the existence of anti-satellite weapons is an existential threat to free space access, which of these four countries should dismantle their anti-satellite weapons programs? And how should that be brought about? Edit: It should be noted that putting weapons in space is not a violation of the Outer Space Treaty[1]. Putting nuclear weapons in space would be. But, as far as I can tell, this is not a nuclear weapon. The BBC is lying through its teeth, when it claims that this is an illegal weapon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty > The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. > Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space. > It specifically limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV). > However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable.
btilly 6y ago
More precisely their technique is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism. That is you respond to any criticism in the form, "What about X". And now the tables are turned on your attacker.
- knolax 6y ago
  "You are using up all the oxygen!" 'but you also use oxygen, and at a higher per capita rate?" "whataboutism"
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    I read this interesting thing about whataboutism: https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whataboutism-cold-war-trump https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whatab...
    - ketzu 6y ago
      Thank you for sharing this, it put a lot of things I don't like about some discussions into interesting words!
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        I've been really digging Vincent Bevins's work recently, but I didn't realize until I looked at the link above again in order to include it here that he had written that as well. See his page for more great stuff: https://vincentbevins.com/ https://vincentbevins.com/
- vetinari 6y ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
justicezyx 6y ago
This is exactly how ANY propaganda works. It's always producing information to aid the narrative.
YarickR2 6y ago
Well, Russians are playing by the US book, it seems; read about Voice of America and Radio Liberty

int_19h 6y ago

The classic Soviet agitprop trope is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes But it's a bit different, because it's about bringing up some completely unrelated point to distract. In this case, though, the subject matter is the same. This isn't to say that Russia ought to be excused, or that countries that are not currently involved in militarizing space shouldn't criticize it. But if they do, shouldn't they be criticizing US, as well? And as for Americans, well, the hypocrisy there is rather obvious.

mlindner 6y ago
A lot of mainland Chinese people use a new version of exactly this. If Uyghurs are ever mentioned the first thing I hear from mainland people is "Yes but the US and Iraq" and similar statements.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  For the Uighurs' sake I wish that we hadn't invaded Iraq. Also, for all the other obvious reasons.

Someone1234 6y ago

Falling for what? Nobody quoted any Russian source nor position (except you, I suppose). If pointing out stuff that the US military readily admits it does is "Russian propaganda" I really don't know how to respond to that. The Space Force and X-37B aren't some conspiracy theory or hot take, they're official and somewhat public programs even with their own websites[0][1]. Nobody denies they're military programs either. I've seen people throw around unfounded accusations of repeating propaganda before, but this has to be one of the more farcical ones. [0] https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/ [1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index.page http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index....

heartbreak 6y ago
The “Space Force” has nothing to do with militarization of space, for starters. Its conception was a rearranging and centralization of command, not an expansion in capability.
- simlevesque 6y ago
  Their website is literally https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/
- chillwaves 6y ago
  The domain name begs to differ.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Their "About Us" page literally starts with: > The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces. And goes on to say: > USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands. Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dx87 6y ago
    The fact that you have to make up the term "Space Combatants" shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Combatant Commands are the parts of the military actively involved in combat. Even if the Space Force only ran GPS satellites for the Army, they'd still be providing capabilities to combatant commands.
    - Someone1234 6y ago

vkou 6y ago

This is how all geo-political moralization works, by any country. There's always an excuse, there's always an enemy to blame, and there's always someone else you can point a finger at, and justify your behaviour. > Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. That is your takeaway from observing this phenomena? That we should stop giving other people a pass for behaviour we routinely engage in? How does that make any sense? If you want to denounce the militarization of space, this is a great place to start. But you need to approach it with a 'Yes, and', instead of a 'No, but'. One is intellectually consistent, the other is an argument of tribalism. If your goal is demilitarization, the solution to aim towards is a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. If your goal is to engage in tribalism, then the solution to that is to denounce Russia, with no followup.

DFHippie 6y ago
Whataboutism is bad even if we engage in it ourselves. See? That's pretty easy.
- vkou 6y ago
  Great - we can move to practical questions, then. There are currently four countries that have successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. The United States, Russia, China, and India. If the existence of anti-satellite weapons is an existential threat to free space access, which of these four countries should dismantle their anti-satellite weapons programs? And how should that be brought about? Edit: It should be noted that putting weapons in space is not a violation of the Outer Space Treaty[1]. Putting nuclear weapons in space would be. But, as far as I can tell, this is not a nuclear weapon. The BBC is lying through its teeth, when it claims that this is an illegal weapon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty > The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. > Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space. > It specifically limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV). > However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable.

btilly 6y ago

More precisely their technique is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism. That is you respond to any criticism in the form, "What about X". And now the tables are turned on your attacker.

knolax 6y ago
"You are using up all the oxygen!" 'but you also use oxygen, and at a higher per capita rate?" "whataboutism"
- jessaustin 6y ago
  I read this interesting thing about whataboutism: https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whataboutism-cold-war-trump https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whatab...
  - ketzu 6y ago
    Thank you for sharing this, it put a lot of things I don't like about some discussions into interesting words!
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      I've been really digging Vincent Bevins's work recently, but I didn't realize until I looked at the link above again in order to include it here that he had written that as well. See his page for more great stuff: https://vincentbevins.com/ https://vincentbevins.com/
vetinari 6y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

justicezyx 6y ago

This is exactly how ANY propaganda works. It's always producing information to aid the narrative.

YarickR2 6y ago

Well, Russians are playing by the US book, it seems; read about Voice of America and Radio Liberty