4 ms·

> You can publish news and analysis that denounce the government and call for it to stop the war So you say, but: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/ru

> You can publish news and analysis that denounce the government and call for it to stop the war So you say, but: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/russian-law-bans-journalists-from-calling-ukraine-conflict-a-war-or-an-invasion https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/russian-law-bans-j... Oops, so much for being okay with publishing and protesting. It's now criminal to call it a "war" even if you don't take a position against it.

throwaway290 5y ago
Does China have a law against mentioning Tiananmen? Ah yes, there is no need for it, because no one knows and those who know do not dare speak. That's what totalitarianism is. Besides, focusing on the word 'war' is a straw man. You want the discussion to refocus on it without considering whether my point would stand had the word not been used. Here it is, slightly expanded: there is independent and oppositional media that honestly criticizes the government, tirelessly points out that elections are invalid, etc. It legally operates offline and online. Is that possible with your definition of totalitarianism?
- mechanical_bear 5y ago
  The use of “war” to describe the situation in Ukraine is not a straw man. Words mean things. How we discuss things informs our overall thoughts on the matter, this guiding our action or inaction.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
- quadrangle 5y ago
  What's your point? That because Russia has allowed various freedoms and the severe stifling of them over the past two weeks has a lot farther it could potentially go? And therefore "totalitarian" is an unfair judgment as long as a government hasn't yet stifled all the freedoms that they could? If focusing on the word "war" is a straw-man (which it isn't), then what's with you spending this whole thread being concerned with the word "totalitarianism"? If (I assume this is a big if) we accept the reporting of many international reports over the past week or so, then your claim about independent and oppositional media operating freely/fairly/online/offline and legally is basically bullshit. The story as I understand it is that Putin long ago decided that allowing some space (with some influencing and limitations) for oppositional media was a good thing that supported his claims about the system being fair. But it was always a choice of his to allow it, a politically strategic decision. And he had ways of keeping its influence constrained. But he doesn't now feel that it's okay with the current war, so that's that. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vladimir-putin-s-next-war-is-being-waged-against-russia-s-independent-media/ar-AAUH0MT https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vladimir-putin-s-ne...
  - throwaway290 5y ago
    My point is that Russia is not a totalitarian country, unless you stretch the definition of the word to accommodate your personal belief not founded in reality. You say 'allowing freedoms' as if it is not exactly what makes a difference between totalitarianism and not. You can take it for what you will and call me a liar but I know what I am talking about. Equipment seizures and office searches are a threat but then they were happening for years already, the editor in chief was jailed at least once and is basically on the run -- but the newspaper still has the license, operates and is popular in the region (well, among those who read newspapers) and its site is alive and well (hosted outside Russia, probably). I know people who work there officially and saw photos of the latest issue. I have seen democratic countries, I have seen totalitarian countries, I have seen Russia. I have no emotional attachment to Russia and it is at the very bottom of the list of where I might choose to live, but it is not totalitarian yet. Economist's Democracy Index concurs, Wikipedia's definition of totalitarianism concurs. You may be living in your own world (or a world created by the propaganda in the media you consume, which is probably weaker than Russian propaganda but still, sorry to break it to you, exists).
    - quadrangle 5y ago
      I agree that Russia isn't a quintessential example of "totalitarian". At some level, this can be just about clarifying semantics. But when I pointed out the new law criminalizing journalism that criticizes the current war, you pushed back on that. You gave an emphasis toward the other direction. So, that seemed more arguing about the nature of the situation and not just semantics. I'm not calling you a liar. I also myself wasn't the one who brought up "totalitarian" but instead was just pushing back on the dismissal of it. My impression is that there's a new fuzzy authoritarianism that Putin has developed where a government with few reliable checks on totalitarianism chooses to have a lot of democratic-theater that includes real stuff. Like a Reality TV show, it's not actually all scripted, it's not all actors, and they allow real sincere opposition to do and say things, but it's all within the directors of the show deciding how much natural stuff to allow or even encourage in order to keep up the public view of the legitimacy of their government. It's like an intentional non-totalitarianism out of an understanding of the brittleness of actual totalitarianism, and they just take care that things are controlled and limited just enough that it actually maximizes the power of the non-totalitarian government. So, it ends up being a question of "totalitarian" for real versus "might as well be totalitarian where it counts", and I'm NOT asserting even that I'm sure Russia is even the latter, but I'm rejecting the strength of the assertions about freedom of the press and other things used as evidence of non-totalitarianism. And anyway, I agree completely about the propaganda in the rest of the world. I have no illusions about any of that, and I don't think the U.S. or EU are really democratic. We can see quite blatantly that policies have very little correlation to overall public support but instead correlate only to the support of the wealthy.

throwaway290 5y ago

Does China have a law against mentioning Tiananmen? Ah yes, there is no need for it, because no one knows and those who know do not dare speak. That's what totalitarianism is. Besides, focusing on the word 'war' is a straw man. You want the discussion to refocus on it without considering whether my point would stand had the word not been used. Here it is, slightly expanded: there is independent and oppositional media that honestly criticizes the government, tirelessly points out that elections are invalid, etc. It legally operates offline and online. Is that possible with your definition of totalitarianism?

mechanical_bear 5y ago
The use of “war” to describe the situation in Ukraine is not a straw man. Words mean things. How we discuss things informs our overall thoughts on the matter, this guiding our action or inaction.
- throwaway290 5y ago
quadrangle 5y ago
What's your point? That because Russia has allowed various freedoms and the severe stifling of them over the past two weeks has a lot farther it could potentially go? And therefore "totalitarian" is an unfair judgment as long as a government hasn't yet stifled all the freedoms that they could? If focusing on the word "war" is a straw-man (which it isn't), then what's with you spending this whole thread being concerned with the word "totalitarianism"? If (I assume this is a big if) we accept the reporting of many international reports over the past week or so, then your claim about independent and oppositional media operating freely/fairly/online/offline and legally is basically bullshit. The story as I understand it is that Putin long ago decided that allowing some space (with some influencing and limitations) for oppositional media was a good thing that supported his claims about the system being fair. But it was always a choice of his to allow it, a politically strategic decision. And he had ways of keeping its influence constrained. But he doesn't now feel that it's okay with the current war, so that's that. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vladimir-putin-s-next-war-is-being-waged-against-russia-s-independent-media/ar-AAUH0MT https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vladimir-putin-s-ne...
- throwaway290 5y ago
  My point is that Russia is not a totalitarian country, unless you stretch the definition of the word to accommodate your personal belief not founded in reality. You say 'allowing freedoms' as if it is not exactly what makes a difference between totalitarianism and not. You can take it for what you will and call me a liar but I know what I am talking about. Equipment seizures and office searches are a threat but then they were happening for years already, the editor in chief was jailed at least once and is basically on the run -- but the newspaper still has the license, operates and is popular in the region (well, among those who read newspapers) and its site is alive and well (hosted outside Russia, probably). I know people who work there officially and saw photos of the latest issue. I have seen democratic countries, I have seen totalitarian countries, I have seen Russia. I have no emotional attachment to Russia and it is at the very bottom of the list of where I might choose to live, but it is not totalitarian yet. Economist's Democracy Index concurs, Wikipedia's definition of totalitarianism concurs. You may be living in your own world (or a world created by the propaganda in the media you consume, which is probably weaker than Russian propaganda but still, sorry to break it to you, exists).
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    I agree that Russia isn't a quintessential example of "totalitarian". At some level, this can be just about clarifying semantics. But when I pointed out the new law criminalizing journalism that criticizes the current war, you pushed back on that. You gave an emphasis toward the other direction. So, that seemed more arguing about the nature of the situation and not just semantics. I'm not calling you a liar. I also myself wasn't the one who brought up "totalitarian" but instead was just pushing back on the dismissal of it. My impression is that there's a new fuzzy authoritarianism that Putin has developed where a government with few reliable checks on totalitarianism chooses to have a lot of democratic-theater that includes real stuff. Like a Reality TV show, it's not actually all scripted, it's not all actors, and they allow real sincere opposition to do and say things, but it's all within the directors of the show deciding how much natural stuff to allow or even encourage in order to keep up the public view of the legitimacy of their government. It's like an intentional non-totalitarianism out of an understanding of the brittleness of actual totalitarianism, and they just take care that things are controlled and limited just enough that it actually maximizes the power of the non-totalitarian government. So, it ends up being a question of "totalitarian" for real versus "might as well be totalitarian where it counts", and I'm NOT asserting even that I'm sure Russia is even the latter, but I'm rejecting the strength of the assertions about freedom of the press and other things used as evidence of non-totalitarianism. And anyway, I agree completely about the propaganda in the rest of the world. I have no illusions about any of that, and I don't think the U.S. or EU are really democratic. We can see quite blatantly that policies have very little correlation to overall public support but instead correlate only to the support of the wealthy.