3 ms·

Yep. I am observing this interesting gap in political correctness for a long time now. When Russians are concerned nobody (in my perception) is using a politica

Yep. I am observing this interesting gap in political correctness for a long time now. When Russians are concerned nobody (in my perception) is using a politically correct formulas (formulae?) like "a Putin-paid disinformation campaign", usually it's "a Russian disinformation campaign". Since all gaps in political correctness are (in my humble perception) deliberate, I've always wondered why it exists.

cbg0 5y ago
Saying that anything bad that Russia is doing is Putin's fault is very reductive.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  It also makes people pretend like understanding the conflict is just a matter of doing amateur psychology with the image they get of Putin through the television as a James Bond-style bad guy. Every time some plain old person tells me what Putin thinks or what Putin wants or what Putin can't stand, I have to leave or change the subject. The way they talk about the Ukraine conflict has no actual physical references. It's like they're telling fairy stories about an evil wizard.
- MikePlacid 5y ago
  Anything? Ok, let’s look at a couple of examples. 1. Stealing and publishing DNC correspondence. A team of security experts, doing a magnificently fast work named exactly two culprits: a) Russian military intelligence, b) Russian political intelligence. Both these entities are directly under Putin’s control. Still it was “Russian interference in elections”, not “Putin’s interference in elections”. The latter is both correct and politically correct, and in no way reductive. Why not use it? 2. Placing Facebook ads during the election campaign. The official indictment named Prigozhin’s media company (forgot its name) as a culprit. Prigozhin is the closest buddy of Putin. So blaming Putin was not reductive in this case. Still, “Russian meddling” was used, not “Putin’s”. Any idea why?

cbg0 5y ago

Saying that anything bad that Russia is doing is Putin's fault is very reductive.

pessimizer 5y ago
It also makes people pretend like understanding the conflict is just a matter of doing amateur psychology with the image they get of Putin through the television as a James Bond-style bad guy. Every time some plain old person tells me what Putin thinks or what Putin wants or what Putin can't stand, I have to leave or change the subject. The way they talk about the Ukraine conflict has no actual physical references. It's like they're telling fairy stories about an evil wizard.
MikePlacid 5y ago
Anything? Ok, let’s look at a couple of examples. 1. Stealing and publishing DNC correspondence. A team of security experts, doing a magnificently fast work named exactly two culprits: a) Russian military intelligence, b) Russian political intelligence. Both these entities are directly under Putin’s control. Still it was “Russian interference in elections”, not “Putin’s interference in elections”. The latter is both correct and politically correct, and in no way reductive. Why not use it? 2. Placing Facebook ads during the election campaign. The official indictment named Prigozhin’s media company (forgot its name) as a culprit. Prigozhin is the closest buddy of Putin. So blaming Putin was not reductive in this case. Still, “Russian meddling” was used, not “Putin’s”. Any idea why?