12 ms·

In 1989, I was a child growing up on the streets of a small town in Siberia. During those years, I believed everyone in America was prosperous - the 'common wor

by e1g 4y ago

In 1989, I was a child growing up on the streets of a small town in Siberia. During those years, I believed everyone in America was prosperous - the 'common worker' didn't exist, and it was wealth all the way down. My family was not connected, and we were firmly middle class (in the "all animals are equal" way). The Soviet propaganda machine was compelling before my time, but by the 90s, common folks in the USSR were not under any delusion that life in the US was equally bad.

actinium226 4y ago
My grandfather was born in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and lived there as a child through the Nazi siege. In the 40's and 50's in the USSR he and his friends saw through the propaganda and knew that things in the US were much better. But you know what's strange? He lives in NJ now, he's been there for the last 25 years. He watches Russian state TV and also CNN and thinks he gets both perspectives. When Russia invaded Ukraine, he defended Russia, and spit out all the lines about the "nazi leadership" of Ukraine. "Bucha was faked," all that. I think he realized that he was in the minority and toned it down, but this definitely made an impression on me. It's not that certain people are immune to propaganda and some aren't. Anybody can fall into it.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  What has you convinced you’re not falling for propaganda on Ukraine — that it’s him who is wrong?
  - thefounder 4y ago
    Well, one year long invadion should give you a hint. Detaining people for calling it war instead of "special operation" is another one. Calling other neighbours "fake/artificial" countries is another bad sign that Russia's intentions are not good.
    - nerdbert 4y ago
      People were not detained in the USA for using the wrong nomenclature to describe the Iraq invasion, and yet that was also an unspeakably cruel, venal war of cynical aggression knowingly perpetrated on laughably false pretenses. To this day roughly half of Americans think it was the right move - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-continues-to-divide-u-s-public-15-years-after-it-began/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co... So I don't think factors like that are so good at separating "good" invasions from "bad" ones.
      - freeone3000 4y ago
        Maybe the invasion of Iraq was also bad!
      - mlyle 4y ago
        The thing is, there's vanishingly few "good invasions". Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people. The logic error you've committed above: Stifling dissent about the war with authoritarian measures may not be a necessary condition for an invasion to be bad, but it still can be a hint that the invasion is bad. Rejecting the territorial integrity of the country invaded, similarly, can be a pretty good hint.
        FpUser 4y ago
        >"Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people." As ugly as it sounds I would actually prefer that the US had annexed countries it had invaded. This way it would at least be responsible and people would leave in more decent place than before. Instead they came in, murdered and otherwise fucked people and then left without much remorse and repercussion.
      - aeternum 4y ago
        People were detained for using the wrong nomenclature around communism though. Or are we brushing the whole McCarthyism era under the rug?
  - actinium226 4y ago
    Not sure if this is a troll or a bot but I'll take the question seriously and answer it seriously. After all, this did occur to me at the time. What convinced me that I'm not falling for Western propaganda? What it came down to was the following argument, and it has to be an argument and not a soundbite because in order to get beneath the propaganda we have to go deep. - Many of Russia's claims against Ukraine are either true or have real elements of truth to them. Yes the founder of Azov is an avowed nationalist*. Yes, there have been laws passed in Ukraine that required greater use of Ukrainian language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#2016_Ukrainian_language_quotas_in_radio_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#201.... Yes, the parliament of Ukraine considered giving Hero status to Stepan Bandera, who is a controversial figure because (among other things) he did work with the Nazis in WWII. Yes, there was fighting in Donbas, and while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014. - None of these arguments rise to the level of necessitating military intervention. - Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. If you're worried about persecution of Russians in Ukraine, make it easy for them to get to Russia. If you're concerned about fighting, use your status as a UNSC member to call for a peacekeeping mission. Russia did none of these things. I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments, the substance and the necessity of military action just aren't there. Bandera's quite a character, but put his history aside for a moment and ask yourself what's his relevance to the current conflict: Yushchenko awarded him hero status in 2010. Yanukovich cancelled this a couple months later. In 2019 Ukraine's parliament took up the issue and decided against giving him an award. And Russia wants to send in soldiers for that? Because they considered him for an award and rejected the idea? * He (Andriy Biletsky) is quoted as having said something about "lead the white races .. against Semite-led untermenschen" but the Guardian article that makes the claim provides no citation.*
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      > while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014 Ukraine has intentionally shelled urban centers for a decade — and you think Russia is wrong to protect ethnic Russians from that? > Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. Do you mean like asking France and Germany to negotiate a peace that protects the people of Donbas while remaining part of Ukraine? Russia did that in 2014 — and it was cynically exploited to arm Ukraine for this conflict by NATO, who refused to protect the people in Donbas from Ukrainian shelling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwSNiCSpnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwSNiCSpnw What should Russia have done to protect the ethnic Russians in Donbas — having tried to negotiate a peace only for Ukraine to shell their cities for another decade? > I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments You’re the one making emotional strawmen about Banderites rather than focusing on the stated Russian objective of protecting Donbas after a decade of diplomacy failed. Is that because you learned about the Russian “position” from NATO propaganda rather than directly from RT? This is the Russian position, according to RT: > Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.” https://www.rt.com/news/569954-ukraine-us-nato-biden/ https://www.rt.com/news/569954-ukraine-us-nato-biden/
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    The crimes in Bucha were corroborated by not only the testimony of the residents there, but also the security cameras left in homes and businesses and even satellite photography. The Russians left corpses laying out in the streets for weeks as they occupied the town. https://youtu.be/8ek5jt8Ru3o https://youtu.be/8ek5jt8Ru3o
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      I have no idea about Bucha. I do know that US media has lied or propagandized numerous aspects of this war — from the origins to the current status. My question was that broader one: How do you know this isn’t like Iraq (where the media lied about reasons) or Afghanistan (where the media lied about status, until the sudden collapse)?
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > have no idea about Bucha Maybe start with international accounts of war crimes?
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        Why is that interesting? Both sides have presented evidence of war crimes and I already believe that soldiers do brutal things in conflicts.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > both sides have presented evidence of war crimes Both sides always do. One side, in this case, has international validation. If you’re ignoring evidence and going off headlines, of course you’ll have a shallower view.
- thefounder 4y ago
  Considering Iraq invasion and how it was "presented" at the time everything is possible but it's hard to me to understand how can someone trust an authoritan regime lead by someone like Putin. I think some people are just pissed off and try to find something against the system that treated them "unfairy"
  - actinium226 4y ago
    Not sure if this provides any insight to you, but FWIW my grandfather is not pissed off. He's one of the most easy-going, happy-go-lucky people I know. He doesn't really care a whole lot about the conflict, those are just his conclusions from what he's seen. And he has interests in life outside of what's covered on news programs, he just likes to keep up with the news, as do most normal people. As to how anyone can trust the regime, if the only information you consume is what's curated by the regime, and if interesting-but-crtical views are not pushed forward, your thinking will be skewed. This is human nature. I think this exchange between Lex Fridman and a girl who fled from North Korea is very interesting: https://youtu.be/usDqSEKDVsA?t=562 https://youtu.be/usDqSEKDVsA?t=562
FpUser 4y ago
I was born in 1961, was a child growing up on the streets of a small town in Siberia just like yourself but I guess I am an older version by what looks to be 10-15 years. The town was satellite science type called Akademgorodok. We were middle class "equals" just as you described but that was in 70s. In the 80s as far as I can remember neither myself nor my friends believed any of that Soviet Propaganda. Our parents were mostly scientists and some (very few yet) had visited the West and we had pretty good ideas what's in the stores over there ;)

by e1g 4y ago

actinium226 4y ago

My grandfather was born in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and lived there as a child through the Nazi siege. In the 40's and 50's in the USSR he and his friends saw through the propaganda and knew that things in the US were much better. But you know what's strange? He lives in NJ now, he's been there for the last 25 years. He watches Russian state TV and also CNN and thinks he gets both perspectives. When Russia invaded Ukraine, he defended Russia, and spit out all the lines about the "nazi leadership" of Ukraine. "Bucha was faked," all that. I think he realized that he was in the minority and toned it down, but this definitely made an impression on me. It's not that certain people are immune to propaganda and some aren't. Anybody can fall into it.

zmgsabst 4y ago
What has you convinced you’re not falling for propaganda on Ukraine — that it’s him who is wrong?
- thefounder 4y ago
  Well, one year long invadion should give you a hint. Detaining people for calling it war instead of "special operation" is another one. Calling other neighbours "fake/artificial" countries is another bad sign that Russia's intentions are not good.
  - nerdbert 4y ago
    People were not detained in the USA for using the wrong nomenclature to describe the Iraq invasion, and yet that was also an unspeakably cruel, venal war of cynical aggression knowingly perpetrated on laughably false pretenses. To this day roughly half of Americans think it was the right move - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-continues-to-divide-u-s-public-15-years-after-it-began/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co... So I don't think factors like that are so good at separating "good" invasions from "bad" ones.
    - freeone3000 4y ago
      Maybe the invasion of Iraq was also bad!
    - mlyle 4y ago
      The thing is, there's vanishingly few "good invasions". Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people. The logic error you've committed above: Stifling dissent about the war with authoritarian measures may not be a necessary condition for an invasion to be bad, but it still can be a hint that the invasion is bad. Rejecting the territorial integrity of the country invaded, similarly, can be a pretty good hint.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people." As ugly as it sounds I would actually prefer that the US had annexed countries it had invaded. This way it would at least be responsible and people would leave in more decent place than before. Instead they came in, murdered and otherwise fucked people and then left without much remorse and repercussion.
    - aeternum 4y ago
      People were detained for using the wrong nomenclature around communism though. Or are we brushing the whole McCarthyism era under the rug?
- actinium226 4y ago
  Not sure if this is a troll or a bot but I'll take the question seriously and answer it seriously. After all, this did occur to me at the time. What convinced me that I'm not falling for Western propaganda? What it came down to was the following argument, and it has to be an argument and not a soundbite because in order to get beneath the propaganda we have to go deep. - Many of Russia's claims against Ukraine are either true or have real elements of truth to them. Yes the founder of Azov is an avowed nationalist*. Yes, there have been laws passed in Ukraine that required greater use of Ukrainian language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#2016_Ukrainian_language_quotas_in_radio_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#201.... Yes, the parliament of Ukraine considered giving Hero status to Stepan Bandera, who is a controversial figure because (among other things) he did work with the Nazis in WWII. Yes, there was fighting in Donbas, and while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014. - None of these arguments rise to the level of necessitating military intervention. - Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. If you're worried about persecution of Russians in Ukraine, make it easy for them to get to Russia. If you're concerned about fighting, use your status as a UNSC member to call for a peacekeeping mission. Russia did none of these things. I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments, the substance and the necessity of military action just aren't there. Bandera's quite a character, but put his history aside for a moment and ask yourself what's his relevance to the current conflict: Yushchenko awarded him hero status in 2010. Yanukovich cancelled this a couple months later. In 2019 Ukraine's parliament took up the issue and decided against giving him an award. And Russia wants to send in soldiers for that? Because they considered him for an award and rejected the idea? * He (Andriy Biletsky) is quoted as having said something about "lead the white races .. against Semite-led untermenschen" but the Guardian article that makes the claim provides no citation.*
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    > while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014 Ukraine has intentionally shelled urban centers for a decade — and you think Russia is wrong to protect ethnic Russians from that? > Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. Do you mean like asking France and Germany to negotiate a peace that protects the people of Donbas while remaining part of Ukraine? Russia did that in 2014 — and it was cynically exploited to arm Ukraine for this conflict by NATO, who refused to protect the people in Donbas from Ukrainian shelling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwSNiCSpnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwSNiCSpnw What should Russia have done to protect the ethnic Russians in Donbas — having tried to negotiate a peace only for Ukraine to shell their cities for another decade? > I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments You’re the one making emotional strawmen about Banderites rather than focusing on the stated Russian objective of protecting Donbas after a decade of diplomacy failed. Is that because you learned about the Russian “position” from NATO propaganda rather than directly from RT? This is the Russian position, according to RT: > Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.” https://www.rt.com/news/569954-ukraine-us-nato-biden/ https://www.rt.com/news/569954-ukraine-us-nato-biden/
- mannerheim 4y ago
  The crimes in Bucha were corroborated by not only the testimony of the residents there, but also the security cameras left in homes and businesses and even satellite photography. The Russians left corpses laying out in the streets for weeks as they occupied the town. https://youtu.be/8ek5jt8Ru3o https://youtu.be/8ek5jt8Ru3o
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    I have no idea about Bucha. I do know that US media has lied or propagandized numerous aspects of this war — from the origins to the current status. My question was that broader one: How do you know this isn’t like Iraq (where the media lied about reasons) or Afghanistan (where the media lied about status, until the sudden collapse)?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > have no idea about Bucha Maybe start with international accounts of war crimes?
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        Why is that interesting? Both sides have presented evidence of war crimes and I already believe that soldiers do brutal things in conflicts.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > both sides have presented evidence of war crimes Both sides always do. One side, in this case, has international validation. If you’re ignoring evidence and going off headlines, of course you’ll have a shallower view.
thefounder 4y ago
Considering Iraq invasion and how it was "presented" at the time everything is possible but it's hard to me to understand how can someone trust an authoritan regime lead by someone like Putin. I think some people are just pissed off and try to find something against the system that treated them "unfairy"
- actinium226 4y ago
  Not sure if this provides any insight to you, but FWIW my grandfather is not pissed off. He's one of the most easy-going, happy-go-lucky people I know. He doesn't really care a whole lot about the conflict, those are just his conclusions from what he's seen. And he has interests in life outside of what's covered on news programs, he just likes to keep up with the news, as do most normal people. As to how anyone can trust the regime, if the only information you consume is what's curated by the regime, and if interesting-but-crtical views are not pushed forward, your thinking will be skewed. This is human nature. I think this exchange between Lex Fridman and a girl who fled from North Korea is very interesting: https://youtu.be/usDqSEKDVsA?t=562 https://youtu.be/usDqSEKDVsA?t=562

FpUser 4y ago

I was born in 1961, was a child growing up on the streets of a small town in Siberia just like yourself but I guess I am an older version by what looks to be 10-15 years. The town was satellite science type called Akademgorodok. We were middle class "equals" just as you described but that was in 70s. In the 80s as far as I can remember neither myself nor my friends believed any of that Soviet Propaganda. Our parents were mostly scientists and some (very few yet) had visited the West and we had pretty good ideas what's in the stores over there ;)