3 ms·

It would appear the targets are all journalists. I think they're using this phrasing to denote that they're civilians.

• lupusreal 2y ago
  "Civil society" implies the existence of uncivil people; it's good guys vs bad guys, not civilian vs military. If Ukraine targeted civilian organizations in Russia, the headline wouldn't call it an attack on "civil society" (but Russian media might.)
  • samatman 2y ago
    > "Civil society" implies the existence of uncivil people It does not. You are conflating: civil 2b: adequate in courtesy and politeness : MANNERLY with civil 4: of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (such as military or religious) affairs https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil You can see that 'uncivil' does not include in its meanings an antonym of civil 4: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uncivil https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uncivil
    • lupusreal 2y ago
      You're being naive. Propaganda often employs double meanings, subtext and implications. This kind of language would not be used if the actors were reversed.
      • aaronblohowiak 2y ago
        Civil society as a term for “not government” goes waaaayyyyyy back.. I think you are mistaking a cloud for a ufo here..
        • lupusreal 2y ago
          As a term for "not government", it would not be used to refer to civilians of a hostile nation.