4 ms·
A country at war has no moral or legal obligation to publish its enemy’s propaganda. This should be very obvious. And yes RT was always complete shite for gul
by twixfel 2y ago
A country at war has no moral or legal obligation to publish its enemy’s propaganda. This should be very obvious.
And yes RT was always complete shite for gullible morons, though it is rather beside the point in this case actually. The British government had no moral obligation on free speech grounds to allow the spread of nazi propaganda in the United Kingdom during WW2, either. Again, obvious stuff.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoPropaganda in war times is very often directed at a domestic audience. Examples are stories like the Ghost of Kyiv on the "western side". There are examples on the Russian side too.
- ajsnigrutin 2y agoSure, but it's still lies. Somehow we act as if our lies are better than their lies.
- twixfel 2y agoYes: A lie to boost the morale of a country fighting a defensive war against a genocidal dictatorship is unambiguously a better lie than the lies of the genocidal dictatorship to rile up its populace to more effectively execute the genocidal war. My country lied to its populace during WW2 to boost morale in its fight against Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany lied to its populace to more effectively execute the holocaust. They are not the same. So it's true, not all lies are equally bad, hope that helps. Most learn that as children.
- ajsnigrutin 2y agoSo we should lie that israel is losing hard, so good morale brings more and more people to fight for hamas?
- twixfel 2y ago[flagged]
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago[flagged]
- twixfel 2y ago[flagged]
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago[flagged]
- twixfel 2y ago[flagged]
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago[flagged]