5 ms·

I agree it’s not good to censor RT and similar, though I do remember Churchill’s comment that in wartime “truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a b

by dash2 5y ago

I agree it’s not good to censor RT and similar, though I do remember Churchill’s comment that in wartime “truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies”. RT are scumbags and it’s been depressing to see some of my stupider/more self-serving academic friends go on there to pump their personal hobbyhorses. But they don’t need censoring, just our contempt. The article would be better if it didn’t make spurious and unsupported assertions about how NATO “had a hand in starting” this conflict.

jesusofnazarath 5y ago
kragen 5y ago
You might think Johnstone's assertions are wrong, but you too are lying when you say they are unsupported; in the sentence you are referring to, she linked to her own previous article which explains the history https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/experts-warned-for-years-that-nato https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/experts-warned-for-y... as well as some guy named "Aaron I Killed" on Substack https://mate.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-crisis-sponsored-by-us?s=r https://mate.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-crisis-sponsored-by-... and, more credibly, a FAIR backgrounder by Bryce Greene https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/ https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukra.... These do in fact support the assertion. "Aaron I Killed" in particular seems perhaps partisan enough that his assertions should be handled with tweezers. The FAIR article is pretty solid and reliable; the only criticism I'd make is that, as progressives often do, it overstates the importance of the neo-Nazi movement in both Ukraine and in the US, for example neglecting to mention that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis lost all their parliamentary seats in the last election. I haven't been watching RT so I don't know firsthand how much they're lying, but see a lot of secondhand reports that they're lying an enormous amount, and those seem reliable.
- dash2 5y ago
  It’s a good idea, and IIRC part of this site’s guidelines, to “assume good faith”. If you find the linked articles more convincing than I do in making the case that NATO had a hand in starting this war, then maybe say “I disagree” rather than “you are lying”.
  - kragen 5y ago
    Normally I would do that, and I considered that, but the only possible alternative to you lying in this case would be that you didn't notice the three separate rather conspicuous links in the sentence you quoted, or didn't realize they were links to supporting information, or that they weren't there when you read the article, perhaps because Johnstone added them after you read it. This seemed extremely implausible to me. If that were the case, presumably you would have said, "I didn't see those links" instead of just "It’s a good idea, and IIRC part of this site’s guidelines, to “assume good faith”. If you find the linked articles more convincing than I do in making the case that NATO had a hand in starting this war, then maybe say “I disagree” rather than “you are lying”." Therefore the presumption of good faith in this case has been comprehensively overcome. Blitzkrieged, really. And you still haven't expressed any remorse, just complained that it's ill-mannered of me to point out your lie. Perhaps I shouldn't have talked about my evaluation of the reliability of those three articles, because the point about your lying is that, even if all three of those articles were nothing but lies, Johnstone's assertion still wouldn't be "unsupported", as you falsely claimed it was. It would be "supported only by lies". But I mentioned my evaluation of the reliability because I think the question of whether what's going on in Ukraine is much more important than the question of whether you were lying about what Johnstone said. Which, to be clear, you were. Please own up to it and don't do it again.
    - dash2 5y ago
      Or, I read the links and thought their arguments were ridiculous. I’ll stop this conversation here: I see no point in arguing with someone who won’t offer me the basic assumption of good faith.
      - 5y ago
ajuc 5y ago
Russians are brainwashed into believing they have the right to decide what people in nearby countries do. You can see it even in comments here. "NATO expanded towards Russia" is used as an excuse for invading Ukraine. Doesn't matter that NATO expanded because these countries wanted to be in NATO. And that's PRECISELY because Russia routinely threatens them. NATO is hugely popular in Eastern Europe (with the exception of Balkans), much more than in the Western Europe. Why should Russia have a say in what defensive organizations a country can belong to?
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  Why does the west then have a say in whether North Korea builds nukes? What was the Cuban missile about? What gives the US the authority to build military bases all over the middle east, then assassinate a general in Iran when they retaliate? The blind hypocrisy annoys me. If Mexico started building missiles near the border for defense you can bet the US would throw a fit.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    1. there's no nukes in Ukraine nor new NATO countries, so it's not comparable But that's irrelevant, because 2. why should people in Ukraine be killed because USA did something in 60s? How exactly USA doing something bad justifies Russia killing Ukrainians? Also 3. how far back are we allowed to go with these? If 60s are OK, then can we go back to 40s? Russia murdered hundreds of thousands of captured prisoners back then. Does that make it OK for EU to kill some Cubans now? In 50s they also killed a lot of people, mostly anti-nazi resistance members who wanted independence for their countries. Then there was the whole Brezhnev doctrine and they invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Or maybe we can only go back to 90s? Russia sent KGB forces and army to invade Baltic states. They killed some people and went back after massive protests. This kind of "ethics" you present is why we had world wars. It's absurd, and I hope you realize that. BTW: have you defended USA invasions of Iraq by saying "but Russia invaded Czechoslovakia so it's fine"? Why not?
    - Thiez 5y ago
singularity2001 5y ago
Agreed, Without RT we would have even less insight into the monster the NSA has turned into
pinephoneguy 5y ago
>Churchill’s comment that in wartime “truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies”. 1) We're not currently at war 2) Don't forget that the man you're quoting is responsible for the end of the British empire and arguably got Britain into a war with Germany unnecessarily (remember that Hitler's ideology was heavily based on race and he saw the British as close to the Germans. He even intentionally let their army go at Dunkirk because of this.)
- dash2 5y ago
  I think your second point is the silliest example I have yet seen of guilt by association.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > 2) Don't forget that the man you're quoting is responsible for the end of the British empire and arguably got Britain into a war with Germany unnecessarily (remember that Hitler's ideology was heavily based on race and he saw the British as close to the Germans. He even intentionally let their army go at Dunkirk because of this.) What now? You seem to be talking like those were bad things.
  - pinephoneguy 5y ago
    If you think Britain is a force for good than taking power away from it would be bad yes.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > If you think Britain is a force for good than taking power away from it would be bad yes. You're presenting a false choice there. I'm more interesting in your perspective on this: >>> ...and arguably got Britain into a war with Germany unnecessarily (remember that Hitler's ideology was heavily based on race and he saw the British as close to the Germans. He even intentionally let their army go at Dunkirk because of this.) You seem to be implying that you think Britain should have let Hitler build his reich.

by dash2 5y ago

jesusofnazarath 5y ago

kragen 5y ago

You might think Johnstone's assertions are wrong, but you too are lying when you say they are unsupported; in the sentence you are referring to, she linked to her own previous article which explains the history https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/experts-warned-for-years-that-nato https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/experts-warned-for-y... as well as some guy named "Aaron I Killed" on Substack https://mate.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-crisis-sponsored-by-us?s=r https://mate.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-crisis-sponsored-by-... and, more credibly, a FAIR backgrounder by Bryce Greene https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/ https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukra.... These do in fact support the assertion. "Aaron I Killed" in particular seems perhaps partisan enough that his assertions should be handled with tweezers. The FAIR article is pretty solid and reliable; the only criticism I'd make is that, as progressives often do, it overstates the importance of the neo-Nazi movement in both Ukraine and in the US, for example neglecting to mention that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis lost all their parliamentary seats in the last election. I haven't been watching RT so I don't know firsthand how much they're lying, but see a lot of secondhand reports that they're lying an enormous amount, and those seem reliable.

dash2 5y ago
It’s a good idea, and IIRC part of this site’s guidelines, to “assume good faith”. If you find the linked articles more convincing than I do in making the case that NATO had a hand in starting this war, then maybe say “I disagree” rather than “you are lying”.
- kragen 5y ago
  Normally I would do that, and I considered that, but the only possible alternative to you lying in this case would be that you didn't notice the three separate rather conspicuous links in the sentence you quoted, or didn't realize they were links to supporting information, or that they weren't there when you read the article, perhaps because Johnstone added them after you read it. This seemed extremely implausible to me. If that were the case, presumably you would have said, "I didn't see those links" instead of just "It’s a good idea, and IIRC part of this site’s guidelines, to “assume good faith”. If you find the linked articles more convincing than I do in making the case that NATO had a hand in starting this war, then maybe say “I disagree” rather than “you are lying”." Therefore the presumption of good faith in this case has been comprehensively overcome. Blitzkrieged, really. And you still haven't expressed any remorse, just complained that it's ill-mannered of me to point out your lie. Perhaps I shouldn't have talked about my evaluation of the reliability of those three articles, because the point about your lying is that, even if all three of those articles were nothing but lies, Johnstone's assertion still wouldn't be "unsupported", as you falsely claimed it was. It would be "supported only by lies". But I mentioned my evaluation of the reliability because I think the question of whether what's going on in Ukraine is much more important than the question of whether you were lying about what Johnstone said. Which, to be clear, you were. Please own up to it and don't do it again.
  - dash2 5y ago
    Or, I read the links and thought their arguments were ridiculous. I’ll stop this conversation here: I see no point in arguing with someone who won’t offer me the basic assumption of good faith.
    - 5y ago

ajuc 5y ago

Russians are brainwashed into believing they have the right to decide what people in nearby countries do. You can see it even in comments here. "NATO expanded towards Russia" is used as an excuse for invading Ukraine. Doesn't matter that NATO expanded because these countries wanted to be in NATO. And that's PRECISELY because Russia routinely threatens them. NATO is hugely popular in Eastern Europe (with the exception of Balkans), much more than in the Western Europe. Why should Russia have a say in what defensive organizations a country can belong to?

zaptheimpaler 5y ago
Why does the west then have a say in whether North Korea builds nukes? What was the Cuban missile about? What gives the US the authority to build military bases all over the middle east, then assassinate a general in Iran when they retaliate? The blind hypocrisy annoys me. If Mexico started building missiles near the border for defense you can bet the US would throw a fit.
- ajuc 5y ago
  1. there's no nukes in Ukraine nor new NATO countries, so it's not comparable But that's irrelevant, because 2. why should people in Ukraine be killed because USA did something in 60s? How exactly USA doing something bad justifies Russia killing Ukrainians? Also 3. how far back are we allowed to go with these? If 60s are OK, then can we go back to 40s? Russia murdered hundreds of thousands of captured prisoners back then. Does that make it OK for EU to kill some Cubans now? In 50s they also killed a lot of people, mostly anti-nazi resistance members who wanted independence for their countries. Then there was the whole Brezhnev doctrine and they invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Or maybe we can only go back to 90s? Russia sent KGB forces and army to invade Baltic states. They killed some people and went back after massive protests. This kind of "ethics" you present is why we had world wars. It's absurd, and I hope you realize that. BTW: have you defended USA invasions of Iraq by saying "but Russia invaded Czechoslovakia so it's fine"? Why not?
  - Thiez 5y ago

singularity2001 5y ago

Agreed, Without RT we would have even less insight into the monster the NSA has turned into

pinephoneguy 5y ago

>Churchill’s comment that in wartime “truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies”. 1) We're not currently at war 2) Don't forget that the man you're quoting is responsible for the end of the British empire and arguably got Britain into a war with Germany unnecessarily (remember that Hitler's ideology was heavily based on race and he saw the British as close to the Germans. He even intentionally let their army go at Dunkirk because of this.)

dash2 5y ago
I think your second point is the silliest example I have yet seen of guilt by association.
tablespoon 5y ago
> 2) Don't forget that the man you're quoting is responsible for the end of the British empire and arguably got Britain into a war with Germany unnecessarily (remember that Hitler's ideology was heavily based on race and he saw the British as close to the Germans. He even intentionally let their army go at Dunkirk because of this.) What now? You seem to be talking like those were bad things.
- pinephoneguy 5y ago
  If you think Britain is a force for good than taking power away from it would be bad yes.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > If you think Britain is a force for good than taking power away from it would be bad yes. You're presenting a false choice there. I'm more interesting in your perspective on this: >>> ...and arguably got Britain into a war with Germany unnecessarily (remember that Hitler's ideology was heavily based on race and he saw the British as close to the Germans. He even intentionally let their army go at Dunkirk because of this.) You seem to be implying that you think Britain should have let Hitler build his reich.