5 ms·

> before Moscow sent its troops into Ukraine on Feb. 24. Do we really need to smooth "Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24"?

scotty79 4y ago
I guess it's a force of habit from reporting on US instigated wars.
- davidro80 4y ago
tokai 4y ago
I don't see it as smoothing at all. "sent its troops into" is literally the definition of invading. Also the Russo-Ukrainian war started over 8 years ago. Calling the feb. 24. date for day-0 of the invasion is actually smoothing Russians aggregation even more.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ComodoHacker 4y ago
  Troops could be sent for other purposes, though. Like they were sent to Kazakhstan before Ukraine, without invading. So it's kind of smoothing. I'm not sure was it intentional or not.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    Except there's no need to account for that nuance because we know why Russia "sent their troops" to Ukraine. It was an invasion and they started a war.
    - butthatsit 4y ago
      You'd be surprised how many people think the opposite. For example in Slovakia more than half of the public blames Ukraine.
- hericium 4y ago
  Putin's propaganda during the first hours of war was a rescue operation[1] and you can definitely send troops to help someone. Wording chosen by the Reuters editor leaves unnecessary room for interpretation imo. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30450498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30450498
aa-jv 4y ago
Do we really need to embellish reality with trigger-words designed to be as inflammatory as possible? What do you want - even more outrage?
- Sakos 4y ago
  Since when is the truth a trigger-word? Wtf? They started a war. It's not "triggering" to state the facts.
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    The question is, why clamour for more dramatic language when its quite clear that the words used adequately communicate the situation, in the first place? Your outrage won't make the world a more peaceful place - those who skillfully use language to de-escalate, do however. If only that skill were more widespread, we might actually have diplomatic solutions to this problem...
    - Sakos 4y ago
      It's not outrage to point out that it's a war. It's not dramatic to state what it is, that it's a war. And if you think there's a diplomatic solution here possible only through "softer" language, then you haven't been paying attention for the past 30 years, or even just in the past year. We didn't fuck this up. Putin did. He wanted to start a war and he did. It had nothing to do with language used.
      - aa-jv 4y ago
        Why do you want to use more violent language about this war than is necessary? Whats your intention behind tone-policing people to be more violent in their language when discussing Russia's aggression? Nobody said it wasn't a war. The whole world knows its a war. The only ones clamouring to make it more of a war, are the ones who stand to profit from yet more, endless war. Is that your intent? If so, consider this: we've had 30 years of this kind of rhetoric, from both sides. We, who do not profit from this war in any way, would benefit from better language being used - by everyone.
koheripbal 4y ago
Don't read too much into that. You're thinking more about that phrasing than the author probably did.
- scotty79 4y ago
  Ok. But that's worse. You do get how that's worse, right?

scotty79 4y ago

I guess it's a force of habit from reporting on US instigated wars.

davidro80 4y ago

tokai 4y ago

I don't see it as smoothing at all. "sent its troops into" is literally the definition of invading. Also the Russo-Ukrainian war started over 8 years ago. Calling the feb. 24. date for day-0 of the invasion is actually smoothing Russians aggregation even more.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ComodoHacker 4y ago
Troops could be sent for other purposes, though. Like they were sent to Kazakhstan before Ukraine, without invading. So it's kind of smoothing. I'm not sure was it intentional or not.
- Sakos 4y ago
  Except there's no need to account for that nuance because we know why Russia "sent their troops" to Ukraine. It was an invasion and they started a war.
  - butthatsit 4y ago
    You'd be surprised how many people think the opposite. For example in Slovakia more than half of the public blames Ukraine.
hericium 4y ago
Putin's propaganda during the first hours of war was a rescue operation[1] and you can definitely send troops to help someone. Wording chosen by the Reuters editor leaves unnecessary room for interpretation imo. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30450498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30450498

aa-jv 4y ago

Do we really need to embellish reality with trigger-words designed to be as inflammatory as possible? What do you want - even more outrage?

Sakos 4y ago
Since when is the truth a trigger-word? Wtf? They started a war. It's not "triggering" to state the facts.
- aa-jv 4y ago
  The question is, why clamour for more dramatic language when its quite clear that the words used adequately communicate the situation, in the first place? Your outrage won't make the world a more peaceful place - those who skillfully use language to de-escalate, do however. If only that skill were more widespread, we might actually have diplomatic solutions to this problem...
  - Sakos 4y ago
    It's not outrage to point out that it's a war. It's not dramatic to state what it is, that it's a war. And if you think there's a diplomatic solution here possible only through "softer" language, then you haven't been paying attention for the past 30 years, or even just in the past year. We didn't fuck this up. Putin did. He wanted to start a war and he did. It had nothing to do with language used.
    - aa-jv 4y ago
      Why do you want to use more violent language about this war than is necessary? Whats your intention behind tone-policing people to be more violent in their language when discussing Russia's aggression? Nobody said it wasn't a war. The whole world knows its a war. The only ones clamouring to make it more of a war, are the ones who stand to profit from yet more, endless war. Is that your intent? If so, consider this: we've had 30 years of this kind of rhetoric, from both sides. We, who do not profit from this war in any way, would benefit from better language being used - by everyone.

koheripbal 4y ago

Don't read too much into that. You're thinking more about that phrasing than the author probably did.

scotty79 4y ago
Ok. But that's worse. You do get how that's worse, right?