4 ms·

The western media also runs rampant propaganda. The director of policy for reddit is an ex-nato person (no one know why reddit hired a non tech person for it) a

The western media also runs rampant propaganda. The director of policy for reddit is an ex-nato person (no one know why reddit hired a non tech person for it) and one reason why reddit is extremely inundated with russia-ukraine war with heavy tilt for how awesome nato is. Note that even Jeremy Corbyn was a target of heavy propaganda by the media and especially reddit since he is anti-war. Anyone anti-war in the western media is quickly character assassinated. There is a reason why someone who is a real people person and how is really best suited to be president: bernie sanders lost against a rambling senile dude. TLDR: it's impossible to have an anti-war mindset or politician in the west. The propaganda will quickly destroy them.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I think that you can be "anti-war" to the extent of saying that NATO should not directly be at war with Russia (if possible). I think you can get away with that position without being cancelled. If you're "anti-war" to the extent of saying "we shouldn't supply Ukraine with arms", or even worse, "Ukraine should just surrender", I think that most people rightly find those positions to be abhorrent. That looks far too much like Neville Chamberlain's politics (and morals) for most of our taste. And if you're "anti-war" in the sense of "this is all NATO's fault; Russia was right to invade", you get cancelled very quickly, because you have become indistinguishable from a Russian propagandist, and we know that there are plenty of Russian propagandists trying to influence the west's cultural mindset. If you have a thoughtful, considered reason to hold one of the positions I labeled problematic, you can probably express it on HN. You'll get argued with, you may get yelled at and downvoted, but you probably won't get banned. In the wider culture... no guarantees.
- native_samples 5y ago
  "we know that there are plenty of Russian propagandists trying to influence the west's cultural mindset." The interesting thing about this claim is the question of whether this is also propaganda. There have been an enormous number of high profile claims of Russian propaganda or interference in western affairs in the past decade, as far as I'm aware they always ended up collapsing, though sometimes people aren't aware of that. Hunter Biden's laptop story was claimed to be Russian propaganda and the New York Post's Twitter account was frozen for it. Nobody could even reshare it or link to it privately. The rest of the media united in claiming it was Russian propaganda. Now, years later the NYT admits that the contents are authenticated. For years people claimed Trump's election was due to Russian propaganda and electoral interference. A massive investigation followed, in which it turned out the primary evidence for this was made up. Then they tried the same tactic with Brexit. Nobody ever found any proof for this; the idea was absurd on its face and was quickly abandoned outside of only the most loony Remainer establishments. Then there were the claims of Russian hacking of electrical grids. Wrong. Russian servers being pinged by Trump's campaigns. Wrong. Dozens of other claims about Russian propaganda that I'd have to look up, but I know they've been made, always wrong. Then Russia invaded Ukraine, claiming it needs to be de-Nazified. Immediately described as Russian propaganda, until people start remembering about the unquestionably neo-Nazis battalions that have been fighting as an official part of the Ukrainian military for years and that, uh, this is actually true. The Russian soldiers actually are fighting Nazis. That doesn't mean the invasion was right! It does raise interesting historical/moral questions though, given the mention of Chamberlain. Would the Allies have been morally right to invade Germany and take out the Nazis before they invaded anywhere else? Or were the Allies correct to wait for them to make the first strike? I don't know and the question only just occurred to me to ask, but it seems relevant here. Now in fairness you made a weaker claim above, about "Russian propagandists" trying to "influence the cultural mindset", a claim worded sufficiently vaguely that it could mean almost anything. But this impression of pervasive Russian propaganda has come from somewhere. If not the endless run of false claims about the prevalence of Russian propaganda then from where?
- ShivShankaran 5y ago
  Russia and Putin should and will die for what's it worth. However my opinion has always been of cowardice: There is nothing more valuable than human life. There is no "courage" in fighting an idiotic war especially since all russia wanted was nato out and more especially since ukraine and russia are almost the same people. Holding on to donbas and similar russian territories have absolutely zero value. End the suffering, agree to what Russia wants, get NATO out and end the war. Zelenksy is a master actor and he played the role well. It's time he stopped crying on global platform 24x7 and drag the rest of the world into his war.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Look, if Ukraine decides to end the war (on whatever terms), that's their choice to make. It's sure not our place to tell them that they ought to surrender, though. If they decide that being under Russia is worse than all the suffering, that's their choice. (And they may have more data than you and I do...) There's a line from the Bible: "those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives". This isn't exactly the way the Bible meant that phrase, but... If your position is that preserving life is the most important thing, and I can credibly threaten to kill you, then you become my slave. You'll do whatever I tell you, to try to save your life. That's a horrible way to live. It's even more horrible when the one doing the threatening is a sociopath. I think some things are worse than death. "Live free or die" isn't just a propaganda slogan. A free life is far better than a life as someone's slave.
  - moistly 5y ago
    The big difference between Ukrainians and Russians is that the former live in an internationally recognized democracy that has been improving its government and the rule of law, and the latter is a thoroughly corrupt mafia state. Kowtowing to the corrupt state is to condemn one’s children and grandchildren to suffer through insecurity, cruelty, retribution, and poverty. The action you promote might reduce your own risk of personal injury, but only by transferring it to future generations. It is selfish, short-sighted, and destructive to progress. But at least you admit cowardice drives your decision-making. It is not, by the way, something you should claim with pride.
- xg15 5y ago
  > I think that you can be "anti-war" to the extent of saying that NATO should not directly be at war with Russia (if possible). I think you can get away with that position without being cancelled. This is pretty much the official position of NATO and the Western governments. It might be a controversial position in the sense of "we're not doing enough", but I don't see who would cancel anyone for that. > And if you're "anti-war" in the sense of "this is all NATO's fault; Russia was right to invade", you get cancelled very quickly, because you have become indistinguishable from a Russian propagandist, and we know that there are plenty of Russian propagandists trying to influence the west's cultural mindset. I hope there'll eventually be room for a position along "We should investigate whether the West's methods actually match their values - but Russia still lost all legitimacy the moment they attacked a sovereign nation". I do believe there is a lot of hypocrisy in the current rethoric and in the rebuttals of russian claims. Of course the USA has a sphere of influence - it's commonly called "the West". And we (as in "the West") seem to have our fair share of propaganda outlets as well, such as Radio Free Europe or the National Endowment for Democracy. I'd like if this stuff was discussed more openly. (For my own sanity as well. My knowledge here is also not more than some bits and pieces and discussions with relatives. I'd absolutely be interested in arguments from both sides) What also worries me is that the term "misinformation" and "propaganda" now seems to be assigned solely based on where a claim comes from, without needing to present any arguments that actually contradict the claim. I can't see how that squares with the values of free speech and press freedom. I wonder if the Snowden leaks would also be labelled "misinformation" if they were released in today's climate. (To be clear - we're still better than Russia in that regard. At least, you only get cancelled for that stuff here and not jailed for 15 years. But I still think it's a worrying development)
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > I hope there'll eventually be room for a position along "We should investigate whether the West's methods actually match their values - but Russia still lost all legitimacy the moment they attacked a sovereign nation". Sure, I can agree with that. No need to wait - I can agree today.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I think that you can be "anti-war" to the extent of saying that NATO should not directly be at war with Russia (if possible). I think you can get away with that position without being cancelled. If you're "anti-war" to the extent of saying "we shouldn't supply Ukraine with arms", or even worse, "Ukraine should just surrender", I think that most people rightly find those positions to be abhorrent. That looks far too much like Neville Chamberlain's politics (and morals) for most of our taste. And if you're "anti-war" in the sense of "this is all NATO's fault; Russia was right to invade", you get cancelled very quickly, because you have become indistinguishable from a Russian propagandist, and we know that there are plenty of Russian propagandists trying to influence the west's cultural mindset. If you have a thoughtful, considered reason to hold one of the positions I labeled problematic, you can probably express it on HN. You'll get argued with, you may get yelled at and downvoted, but you probably won't get banned. In the wider culture... no guarantees.

native_samples 5y ago
"we know that there are plenty of Russian propagandists trying to influence the west's cultural mindset." The interesting thing about this claim is the question of whether this is also propaganda. There have been an enormous number of high profile claims of Russian propaganda or interference in western affairs in the past decade, as far as I'm aware they always ended up collapsing, though sometimes people aren't aware of that. Hunter Biden's laptop story was claimed to be Russian propaganda and the New York Post's Twitter account was frozen for it. Nobody could even reshare it or link to it privately. The rest of the media united in claiming it was Russian propaganda. Now, years later the NYT admits that the contents are authenticated. For years people claimed Trump's election was due to Russian propaganda and electoral interference. A massive investigation followed, in which it turned out the primary evidence for this was made up. Then they tried the same tactic with Brexit. Nobody ever found any proof for this; the idea was absurd on its face and was quickly abandoned outside of only the most loony Remainer establishments. Then there were the claims of Russian hacking of electrical grids. Wrong. Russian servers being pinged by Trump's campaigns. Wrong. Dozens of other claims about Russian propaganda that I'd have to look up, but I know they've been made, always wrong. Then Russia invaded Ukraine, claiming it needs to be de-Nazified. Immediately described as Russian propaganda, until people start remembering about the unquestionably neo-Nazis battalions that have been fighting as an official part of the Ukrainian military for years and that, uh, this is actually true. The Russian soldiers actually are fighting Nazis. That doesn't mean the invasion was right! It does raise interesting historical/moral questions though, given the mention of Chamberlain. Would the Allies have been morally right to invade Germany and take out the Nazis before they invaded anywhere else? Or were the Allies correct to wait for them to make the first strike? I don't know and the question only just occurred to me to ask, but it seems relevant here. Now in fairness you made a weaker claim above, about "Russian propagandists" trying to "influence the cultural mindset", a claim worded sufficiently vaguely that it could mean almost anything. But this impression of pervasive Russian propaganda has come from somewhere. If not the endless run of false claims about the prevalence of Russian propaganda then from where?
ShivShankaran 5y ago
Russia and Putin should and will die for what's it worth. However my opinion has always been of cowardice: There is nothing more valuable than human life. There is no "courage" in fighting an idiotic war especially since all russia wanted was nato out and more especially since ukraine and russia are almost the same people. Holding on to donbas and similar russian territories have absolutely zero value. End the suffering, agree to what Russia wants, get NATO out and end the war. Zelenksy is a master actor and he played the role well. It's time he stopped crying on global platform 24x7 and drag the rest of the world into his war.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Look, if Ukraine decides to end the war (on whatever terms), that's their choice to make. It's sure not our place to tell them that they ought to surrender, though. If they decide that being under Russia is worse than all the suffering, that's their choice. (And they may have more data than you and I do...) There's a line from the Bible: "those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives". This isn't exactly the way the Bible meant that phrase, but... If your position is that preserving life is the most important thing, and I can credibly threaten to kill you, then you become my slave. You'll do whatever I tell you, to try to save your life. That's a horrible way to live. It's even more horrible when the one doing the threatening is a sociopath. I think some things are worse than death. "Live free or die" isn't just a propaganda slogan. A free life is far better than a life as someone's slave.
- moistly 5y ago
  The big difference between Ukrainians and Russians is that the former live in an internationally recognized democracy that has been improving its government and the rule of law, and the latter is a thoroughly corrupt mafia state. Kowtowing to the corrupt state is to condemn one’s children and grandchildren to suffer through insecurity, cruelty, retribution, and poverty. The action you promote might reduce your own risk of personal injury, but only by transferring it to future generations. It is selfish, short-sighted, and destructive to progress. But at least you admit cowardice drives your decision-making. It is not, by the way, something you should claim with pride.
xg15 5y ago
> I think that you can be "anti-war" to the extent of saying that NATO should not directly be at war with Russia (if possible). I think you can get away with that position without being cancelled. This is pretty much the official position of NATO and the Western governments. It might be a controversial position in the sense of "we're not doing enough", but I don't see who would cancel anyone for that. > And if you're "anti-war" in the sense of "this is all NATO's fault; Russia was right to invade", you get cancelled very quickly, because you have become indistinguishable from a Russian propagandist, and we know that there are plenty of Russian propagandists trying to influence the west's cultural mindset. I hope there'll eventually be room for a position along "We should investigate whether the West's methods actually match their values - but Russia still lost all legitimacy the moment they attacked a sovereign nation". I do believe there is a lot of hypocrisy in the current rethoric and in the rebuttals of russian claims. Of course the USA has a sphere of influence - it's commonly called "the West". And we (as in "the West") seem to have our fair share of propaganda outlets as well, such as Radio Free Europe or the National Endowment for Democracy. I'd like if this stuff was discussed more openly. (For my own sanity as well. My knowledge here is also not more than some bits and pieces and discussions with relatives. I'd absolutely be interested in arguments from both sides) What also worries me is that the term "misinformation" and "propaganda" now seems to be assigned solely based on where a claim comes from, without needing to present any arguments that actually contradict the claim. I can't see how that squares with the values of free speech and press freedom. I wonder if the Snowden leaks would also be labelled "misinformation" if they were released in today's climate. (To be clear - we're still better than Russia in that regard. At least, you only get cancelled for that stuff here and not jailed for 15 years. But I still think it's a worrying development)
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > I hope there'll eventually be room for a position along "We should investigate whether the West's methods actually match their values - but Russia still lost all legitimacy the moment they attacked a sovereign nation". Sure, I can agree with that. No need to wait - I can agree today.