7 ms·

But no matter the bias, you can get some facts that should allow you to make some judgements like Russia invaded Ukraine to "defend" breakaway republics it prop

by enkid 4y ago

But no matter the bias, you can get some facts that should allow you to make some judgements like Russia invaded Ukraine to "defend" breakaway republics it propped up itself by trying to blockade Ukraine's two largest cities. Russia is the aggressor and is shooting rockets at civilians and doing generally bad stuff like torturing people. That is "biased" but it's biased toward truth. Seeing anything anti-Russian as a government shill is going to lead you to seeing conspiracy theories everywhere because Russia legitimately is the bad guy here.

leereeves 4y ago
It's entirely possible for both sides of a war to be the bad guys. I don't know how many, if any, of the charges that have been levied against Ukraine are true, but given the history of the US, we should know better than to assume that we are on the right side, or that we are being told the whole truth. And we obviously aren't being told the real reason for the war. If torturing people, invading another country, and firing missiles at civilians were sufficient reason to oppose another country, we wouldn't support the Saudis.
- enkid 4y ago
  Why are you trying to change the subject from Russia aggression to US aggression? Something's aren't about the US, and viewing this war in that lens completely takes agency away from Ukraine and Russia. Instead, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine. Russia has nuclear weapons and promised to guarantee Ukraine's borders in exchange for them giving up theirs. Instead, Russia invaded and took territory from them in 2014. When that wasn't enough, they did it again a year ago. Before 2014, Ukraine barely had a military and posed no threat to anyone. What possible reason could Russia have to invade Ukraine that would justify this?
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Usa is a super power. Pretty much every geopolitical conflict is going to have at least something to do with usa. That is kind of implicit in the definition of super power.
    - enkid 4y ago
      "Having something to do with" doesn't mean explains, and only talking about the US still takes all agency away from other actors.
      - bawolff 4y ago
        Sure USA isn't the only actor here, but pretending they aren't a factor in this conflict and the geopolitical situation, is the same level of misleading as pretending they are the only factor.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    I'm sure you know what happened in 2014. Let's think about it for a moment from the Russian perspective: A violent revolution in which the democratically elected pro-Russian President was driven out, followed by "pro-Russian unrest"[1] and civil war between the new government of Ukraine and separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine who support the old government (and Russia)[2]. That war had been ongoing for eight years when the Russians justified the invasion of Ukraine by recognizing the separatists as independent states calling for Russian aid.[3] And historically, the US has considered intervention in a civil war to be sufficient justification for invasion. It's hypocritical to argue that it's ok for us but not for Russia. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukr... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%9320... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_...
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      The state department might have to deal with that paradox in press briefings (haha, as if that question would get asked) but as an internet commenter I have no problem stating the obvious: it's bad.
    - mopsi 4y ago
      There was no civil war before Russia manufactured it to take advantage of political instability and invade. There is no reason to speak of "pro-Russian separatists" as anything distinct from Russian armed forces. It's baffling how so many people in the west can't see through this simple deception. Russia saw an opportunity to invade, set up puppet states and then came to their rescue. The European Court of Human Rights ruled last month: > Among other things, the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It referred to the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest. It further found that the respondent State had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy; that it had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale from the earliest days of the “DPR” and the “LPR” and over the following months and years; that it had carried out artillery attacks upon requests from the separatists; and that it had provided political and economic support to the separatists. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7550165-10372782&filename=Grand%20Chamber%20decision%20Ukraine%20and%20the%20Netherlands%20v.%20Russia%20-%20Flight%20MH17%20and%20eastern-Ukraine-conflict%20case%20partially%20admissible%2C%20will%20proceed%20to%20judgment.pdf https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&...
- bawolff 4y ago
  > I don't know how many, if any, of the charges that have been levied against Ukraine are true, In terms of valid reasons to go to war, i dont think any of the reasons russia provided really make sense, even if you consider the other side extremely biased. Just because both sides are very biased, does not mean you can't critically evaluate the arguments. Bias means you should be cautious not discard all reasoning. > And we obviously aren't being told the real reason for the war. If torturing people, invading another country, and firing missiles at civilians were sufficient reason to oppose another country, we wouldn't support the Saudis. Moral justification for wars always differ from geopolitical reasons. That is true for literally every war ever. In this case its pretty obvious that its a fight over what russia's sphere of influence should be along with various strategic resources in ukraine (oil, port access). Letting russia invade a country for essentially deciding to have closer ties to the west, is a terrible precedent for the west, because other countries will see that and be less likely to pursue ties. So its not really a surprise they got involved.
d0mine 4y ago
Consider OpenAI vs Google in the chat AI stand off (who is David who is Goliath here). Then consider does it makes sense to talk about it without considering Microsoft vs Google?
xyzelement 4y ago
// That is "biased" but it's biased toward truth The point of the comment that started this thread is: how would you know? All you know is that in war, propaganda is ubiquitous, and that the way propaganda "feels" when it has worked is that 'oh, I know what's true." Now given that you are likely far removed from the conflict and are fairly limited in sources of information about it - what are the odds that you stumbled on the truth, vs you had consumed/bought into propaganda? They'd feel the same way, which is more likely. And I say that independently of what your actual views are.
danielheath 4y ago
The only evidence I have that these countries even exist is hearsay; I’ve never seen them. For all I know it could be an elaborate prank (unlikely as that seems). The human sense of reality boils down to “this input seems real enough to accept as fact”, and internalising that idea really helped me to stop and listen to the people in my life.
lazyeye 4y ago
"None of these search engines promote sources which could be seen as relatively neutral like Al Jazeera or Chinese news or whatever." I had to read this twice to check this is what had actually been written..

by enkid 4y ago

leereeves 4y ago

It's entirely possible for both sides of a war to be the bad guys. I don't know how many, if any, of the charges that have been levied against Ukraine are true, but given the history of the US, we should know better than to assume that we are on the right side, or that we are being told the whole truth. And we obviously aren't being told the real reason for the war. If torturing people, invading another country, and firing missiles at civilians were sufficient reason to oppose another country, we wouldn't support the Saudis.

enkid 4y ago
Why are you trying to change the subject from Russia aggression to US aggression? Something's aren't about the US, and viewing this war in that lens completely takes agency away from Ukraine and Russia. Instead, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine. Russia has nuclear weapons and promised to guarantee Ukraine's borders in exchange for them giving up theirs. Instead, Russia invaded and took territory from them in 2014. When that wasn't enough, they did it again a year ago. Before 2014, Ukraine barely had a military and posed no threat to anyone. What possible reason could Russia have to invade Ukraine that would justify this?
- bawolff 4y ago
  Usa is a super power. Pretty much every geopolitical conflict is going to have at least something to do with usa. That is kind of implicit in the definition of super power.
  - enkid 4y ago
    "Having something to do with" doesn't mean explains, and only talking about the US still takes all agency away from other actors.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Sure USA isn't the only actor here, but pretending they aren't a factor in this conflict and the geopolitical situation, is the same level of misleading as pretending they are the only factor.
- leereeves 4y ago
  I'm sure you know what happened in 2014. Let's think about it for a moment from the Russian perspective: A violent revolution in which the democratically elected pro-Russian President was driven out, followed by "pro-Russian unrest"[1] and civil war between the new government of Ukraine and separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine who support the old government (and Russia)[2]. That war had been ongoing for eight years when the Russians justified the invasion of Ukraine by recognizing the separatists as independent states calling for Russian aid.[3] And historically, the US has considered intervention in a civil war to be sufficient justification for invasion. It's hypocritical to argue that it's ok for us but not for Russia. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukr... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%9320... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_...
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    The state department might have to deal with that paradox in press briefings (haha, as if that question would get asked) but as an internet commenter I have no problem stating the obvious: it's bad.
  - mopsi 4y ago
    There was no civil war before Russia manufactured it to take advantage of political instability and invade. There is no reason to speak of "pro-Russian separatists" as anything distinct from Russian armed forces. It's baffling how so many people in the west can't see through this simple deception. Russia saw an opportunity to invade, set up puppet states and then came to their rescue. The European Court of Human Rights ruled last month: > Among other things, the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It referred to the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest. It further found that the respondent State had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy; that it had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale from the earliest days of the “DPR” and the “LPR” and over the following months and years; that it had carried out artillery attacks upon requests from the separatists; and that it had provided political and economic support to the separatists. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7550165-10372782&filename=Grand%20Chamber%20decision%20Ukraine%20and%20the%20Netherlands%20v.%20Russia%20-%20Flight%20MH17%20and%20eastern-Ukraine-conflict%20case%20partially%20admissible%2C%20will%20proceed%20to%20judgment.pdf https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&...
bawolff 4y ago
> I don't know how many, if any, of the charges that have been levied against Ukraine are true, In terms of valid reasons to go to war, i dont think any of the reasons russia provided really make sense, even if you consider the other side extremely biased. Just because both sides are very biased, does not mean you can't critically evaluate the arguments. Bias means you should be cautious not discard all reasoning. > And we obviously aren't being told the real reason for the war. If torturing people, invading another country, and firing missiles at civilians were sufficient reason to oppose another country, we wouldn't support the Saudis. Moral justification for wars always differ from geopolitical reasons. That is true for literally every war ever. In this case its pretty obvious that its a fight over what russia's sphere of influence should be along with various strategic resources in ukraine (oil, port access). Letting russia invade a country for essentially deciding to have closer ties to the west, is a terrible precedent for the west, because other countries will see that and be less likely to pursue ties. So its not really a surprise they got involved.

d0mine 4y ago

Consider OpenAI vs Google in the chat AI stand off (who is David who is Goliath here). Then consider does it makes sense to talk about it without considering Microsoft vs Google?

xyzelement 4y ago

// That is "biased" but it's biased toward truth The point of the comment that started this thread is: how would you know? All you know is that in war, propaganda is ubiquitous, and that the way propaganda "feels" when it has worked is that 'oh, I know what's true." Now given that you are likely far removed from the conflict and are fairly limited in sources of information about it - what are the odds that you stumbled on the truth, vs you had consumed/bought into propaganda? They'd feel the same way, which is more likely. And I say that independently of what your actual views are.

danielheath 4y ago

The only evidence I have that these countries even exist is hearsay; I’ve never seen them. For all I know it could be an elaborate prank (unlikely as that seems). The human sense of reality boils down to “this input seems real enough to accept as fact”, and internalising that idea really helped me to stop and listen to the people in my life.

lazyeye 4y ago

"None of these search engines promote sources which could be seen as relatively neutral like Al Jazeera or Chinese news or whatever." I had to read this twice to check this is what had actually been written..