4 ms·

>The fact that Americans aren't always the good guys change nothing. I can show you many bad guys, this doesn't mean we should stop naming them. The issue is t

by osipov 12y ago

>The fact that Americans aren't always the good guys change nothing. I can show you many bad guys, this doesn't mean we should stop naming them. The issue is that you are applying your moral outrage selectively, against Putin but not against Obama, although Obama is objectively and provably committing atrocities above and beyond what Putin is doing. But Putin is the one getting all the bad rep from your media and you are content to uncritically recite their propaganda. Your selective moral outrage is as bad as French using laws that restrict free speech directed against Jews but not against Muslims.

ajuc 12y ago
So unless I criticize all the bad people on Earth I can't criticize anyone?
- osipov 12y ago
  I'd rather you be measured and balanced in your criticism.
  - ajuc 12y ago
    I am. When there was ACTA/SOPA debacle going on I criticized USA quite heavily for bullying small countries (including my country) to sign them. I even was on a street protest against it in my city [1]. the difference is - when USA bullies somebody to do sth it doesn't invade when they don't agree :) ACTA wasn't signed and no American invasion in sight. Anyway, to require people to criticize equaly or not at all is just dumb. Different people are intersted in different things, and it's OK. Just say "OK, Russia is bully there, but I don't care". Instead you try to defend such behaviour by showing that others do the same - not gonna work. This is just distraction debating tactic by you and you know it. [1] here you can see photos BTW https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajuc00/sets/72157629041344779/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajuc00/sets/72157629041344779/
tr352 12y ago
Putin with his actions has brought a nasty war to the doorstep of the western world. His actions are perceived (both in the US and EU) as harmful to the stability and peace in the western world. A stability and peace that took huge amounts of effort and time to be built. Putins actions are believed to go against every principle on which this stability is based: democracy, cooperation, no redrawing of maps (especially not without consensus), no raking up of old claims and disputes, etcetera. Now, you may not agree with all this (you probably don't) but you should understand that lecturing on the selectiveness of moral outrage is not going to change the fact that this is how current events are perceived in the west.
- osipov 12y ago
  >Putin with his actions has brought a nasty war to the doorstep of the western world Putin's point of view is that US brought a violent and dangerous regime to the doorstep of the Russian world. Sounds like this isn't a starting point for a discussion. >Putins actions are believed to go against every principle on which this stability is based Putin's point of view is that Russia has no seat at the table that decides what are the global governance principles and what is the Western consensus. Further Western actions in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Kosovo have been interpreted by Putin as harmful to stability and peace of the Russian world. Bottom line both West and Russia have different narratives of the past 10-20 years. The problem of the West is that it doesn't admit the validity of alternative narratives (i.e. unipolar world) while Russians understand both their own narrative and the Western narrative. Further, Russians are more effective than Westerners at winning the hearts and minds of those who don't belong to the "golden billion". I agree with you that ultimately this is a war of perceptions. I think it is one that the West is losing because the contradictions of its narrative are surfacing very quickly. Here's an example of where US is running scared of Russia's effectiveness in media space: http://rt.com/news/225543-rt-isis-us-broadcaster/ http://rt.com/news/225543-rt-isis-us-broadcaster/
  - ajuc 12y ago
    Timothy Snyder (historian, famous for the "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" book) has nice speech about Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and he describes the philosophy Russian use in recent propaganda as "applied postmodernism". It (this "applied postmodernism") starts with the assumption that truth doesn't exists, and goes to prove that all possible narratives are as good as any other, so don't criticize us, let us do what we want in our backyard (including ex-soviet countries). You do the same in most of your comments. I highly recommend his speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKFObB6_naw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKFObB6_naw Starts with short history of Ukraine but it's very short and most western viewers need it to understand anything anyway. The fragment about applied postmodernism starts at 44:00 but it's worth listening through the whole thing - a lot of insights (and some that you probably will agree with, even if you won't share the conclusions).

by osipov 12y ago

ajuc 12y ago

So unless I criticize all the bad people on Earth I can't criticize anyone?

osipov 12y ago
I'd rather you be measured and balanced in your criticism.
- ajuc 12y ago
  I am. When there was ACTA/SOPA debacle going on I criticized USA quite heavily for bullying small countries (including my country) to sign them. I even was on a street protest against it in my city [1]. the difference is - when USA bullies somebody to do sth it doesn't invade when they don't agree :) ACTA wasn't signed and no American invasion in sight. Anyway, to require people to criticize equaly or not at all is just dumb. Different people are intersted in different things, and it's OK. Just say "OK, Russia is bully there, but I don't care". Instead you try to defend such behaviour by showing that others do the same - not gonna work. This is just distraction debating tactic by you and you know it. [1] here you can see photos BTW https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajuc00/sets/72157629041344779/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajuc00/sets/72157629041344779/

tr352 12y ago

Putin with his actions has brought a nasty war to the doorstep of the western world. His actions are perceived (both in the US and EU) as harmful to the stability and peace in the western world. A stability and peace that took huge amounts of effort and time to be built. Putins actions are believed to go against every principle on which this stability is based: democracy, cooperation, no redrawing of maps (especially not without consensus), no raking up of old claims and disputes, etcetera. Now, you may not agree with all this (you probably don't) but you should understand that lecturing on the selectiveness of moral outrage is not going to change the fact that this is how current events are perceived in the west.

osipov 12y ago
>Putin with his actions has brought a nasty war to the doorstep of the western world Putin's point of view is that US brought a violent and dangerous regime to the doorstep of the Russian world. Sounds like this isn't a starting point for a discussion. >Putins actions are believed to go against every principle on which this stability is based Putin's point of view is that Russia has no seat at the table that decides what are the global governance principles and what is the Western consensus. Further Western actions in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Kosovo have been interpreted by Putin as harmful to stability and peace of the Russian world. Bottom line both West and Russia have different narratives of the past 10-20 years. The problem of the West is that it doesn't admit the validity of alternative narratives (i.e. unipolar world) while Russians understand both their own narrative and the Western narrative. Further, Russians are more effective than Westerners at winning the hearts and minds of those who don't belong to the "golden billion". I agree with you that ultimately this is a war of perceptions. I think it is one that the West is losing because the contradictions of its narrative are surfacing very quickly. Here's an example of where US is running scared of Russia's effectiveness in media space: http://rt.com/news/225543-rt-isis-us-broadcaster/ http://rt.com/news/225543-rt-isis-us-broadcaster/
- ajuc 12y ago
  Timothy Snyder (historian, famous for the "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" book) has nice speech about Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and he describes the philosophy Russian use in recent propaganda as "applied postmodernism". It (this "applied postmodernism") starts with the assumption that truth doesn't exists, and goes to prove that all possible narratives are as good as any other, so don't criticize us, let us do what we want in our backyard (including ex-soviet countries). You do the same in most of your comments. I highly recommend his speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKFObB6_naw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKFObB6_naw Starts with short history of Ukraine but it's very short and most western viewers need it to understand anything anyway. The fragment about applied postmodernism starts at 44:00 but it's worth listening through the whole thing - a lot of insights (and some that you probably will agree with, even if you won't share the conclusions).