Vaguely implying all Russian media is propaganda is not assessing any truth. It’s repeating Liberal ideology. It’s mystifying, it does not lead to any further understanding but is a thought-terminating knee-jerk Liberal chauvinist reflex
Except I'm not vaguely implying anything about Russian media. You made a strong statement that you have seen no false or deceptive reporting about what's been happening. Those are your words.
Some of the responses to you in that comment chain clearly show that isn't the case with the example of the Moskva coverage.
What makes you think it's not just as bad? Every time I've touched pro-Russian news sourced they always presented info that makes Russia seem like the good guy and as the clearly winning side.
How am I, with limited knowledge of how warfare works, supposed to ascertain what is propaganda and what isn't?
Its all going to be propaganda. That's not the problem, we're all smart enough to realize this.
But which propaganda is more truthful and which is less truthful is where the money is. Western sources are doing a bang up job of making shit up whole cloth right now and Russian sources have less reason to.
Russian source exaggerated event, while western source put up ghost of Kiev, snake island, glorifying Nazi and put them on the front page, give Ukraine hope that they going to take back crimea. I know which is worst out of the two
I just don't think trying to figure out which is "worse" is useful. I think we can get more utility out of trying to figure out "what the propaganda is for" from our sources.
I touched pro Russian propaganda and most of them is just exaggerating event, not fabricated ghost of Kiev, snake island , put up illusion that Ukraine going to take back crimea and Donbass, put video games footage as war footage. At that point, western propaganda just putting up fake news
My bias is pro-colonized of the world and anti-imperialist, you got me. I should be more neutral and consider the empire the same as it’s colonies, you are right! Why didn’t I think of that?
Next time I’ll make sure I don’t prioritize the interests of the workers over that of the bourgeois either
It's interesting how you didn't respond to the second half of my first comment in this chain.
Allow me to pose a different question: How can you distinguish between anti-imperialism and countries trying to make plays for being an empire? For example, after the end of Japanese isolationism in the 19th century, by way of US Gunboat Diplomacy, a common position among those with political power in Japan became that the country needed to become an empire in order to avoid becoming a colony.
If we can't make the distinction between the two then we're just going to fall into conflating being against a specific empire with anti-imperialism more broadly. Iirc one of the lines of thinking of German Social Democrats in supporting the war effort during World War I was that a German victory was preferable to the triumph of the at-the-time dominant British Empire, which was the center of global finance capital. I think we want to avoid a mistake like that being repeated.
The world is unipolar and the empire is hegemonic. We are not in a multipolar, multi-empire world of competing imperialists. We are in the late stage of monopoly imperialism. Capital has globalized and become a single imperialist bloc, the anglo-American empire is the only empire in existence.
Therefore your example about imperialist Japan is irrelevant and no longer applicable to our world.
I can understand being skeptical of the anti-imperialist bonafides of capitalist Russia at first but they have proven themselves in Syria, Belarus and Kazakhstan. They have aligned themselves with the anti-imperialist bloc and forged alliances with AES.
Using a historical materialist lens to understand the motivations at play, checking dubious claims for further sources, following up on claims later once the fog has cleared to see a pattern of reliable sources & applying the claims that check out towards constructing a coherent idea of what is happening.
Ukrainian sources always lie and then change their story to the Russian one quietly weeks or months later. Russian sources don’t tend to lie, and don’t quietly alter their claims. Russians don’t make incoherent claims about the enemy being too strong and too weak, only the Ukrainians do that.
I'm not saying anything about one being more bad than the other or them being equally bad.
You're allowed to say that your claim that I linked is too strong in retrospect but that we nonetheless should consider Russian media coverage to be better than Western coverage. (Whether or not I agree with that is a different question.)
Vaguely implying all Russian media is propaganda is not assessing any truth. It’s repeating Liberal ideology. It’s mystifying, it does not lead to any further understanding but is a thought-terminating knee-jerk Liberal chauvinist reflex
Except I'm not vaguely implying anything about Russian media. You made a strong statement that you have seen no false or deceptive reporting about what's been happening. Those are your words.
Some of the responses to you in that comment chain clearly show that isn't the case with the example of the Moskva coverage.
The original comment that started that thread was implying it by calling Russian media propaganda that was just as bad as western propaganda.
It’s not “just as bad” and if you think that you are a chauvinist. It’s that simple
What makes you think it's not just as bad? Every time I've touched pro-Russian news sourced they always presented info that makes Russia seem like the good guy and as the clearly winning side.
How am I, with limited knowledge of how warfare works, supposed to ascertain what is propaganda and what isn't?
Its all going to be propaganda. That's not the problem, we're all smart enough to realize this.
But which propaganda is more truthful and which is less truthful is where the money is. Western sources are doing a bang up job of making shit up whole cloth right now and Russian sources have less reason to.
Russian source exaggerated event, while western source put up ghost of Kiev, snake island, glorifying Nazi and put them on the front page, give Ukraine hope that they going to take back crimea. I know which is worst out of the two
I just don't think trying to figure out which is "worse" is useful. I think we can get more utility out of trying to figure out "what the propaganda is for" from our sources.
I touched pro Russian propaganda and most of them is just exaggerating event, not fabricated ghost of Kiev, snake island , put up illusion that Ukraine going to take back crimea and Donbass, put video games footage as war footage. At that point, western propaganda just putting up fake news
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Ok so if Iran and Hezbollah invaded and liberated Palestine you would call them “imperialist capitalists” and condemn their “aggressive invasion”?
Or is that different somehow? Because you have internalized Russophobia
deleted by creator
Ukrainians are being liberated from the fascist NATO installed junta and the banderite gangs that terrorize them
Russia cannot stop until the junta is destroyed and denazified and demilitarized, or else it will amass forces and do the same thing again.
You end a war by winning it, not by “sitting back and saying come at me”. That’s how you get eternal war.
I asked a legitimate question. It seems you're just biased and don't really have the answer.
My bias is pro-colonized of the world and anti-imperialist, you got me. I should be more neutral and consider the empire the same as it’s colonies, you are right! Why didn’t I think of that?
Next time I’ll make sure I don’t prioritize the interests of the workers over that of the bourgeois either
It's interesting how you didn't respond to the second half of my first comment in this chain.
Allow me to pose a different question: How can you distinguish between anti-imperialism and countries trying to make plays for being an empire? For example, after the end of Japanese isolationism in the 19th century, by way of US Gunboat Diplomacy, a common position among those with political power in Japan became that the country needed to become an empire in order to avoid becoming a colony.
If we can't make the distinction between the two then we're just going to fall into conflating being against a specific empire with anti-imperialism more broadly. Iirc one of the lines of thinking of German Social Democrats in supporting the war effort during World War I was that a German victory was preferable to the triumph of the at-the-time dominant British Empire, which was the center of global finance capital. I think we want to avoid a mistake like that being repeated.
The world is unipolar and the empire is hegemonic. We are not in a multipolar, multi-empire world of competing imperialists. We are in the late stage of monopoly imperialism. Capital has globalized and become a single imperialist bloc, the anglo-American empire is the only empire in existence.
Therefore your example about imperialist Japan is irrelevant and no longer applicable to our world.
I can understand being skeptical of the anti-imperialist bonafides of capitalist Russia at first but they have proven themselves in Syria, Belarus and Kazakhstan. They have aligned themselves with the anti-imperialist bloc and forged alliances with AES.
I literally just asked how do you personally distinguish fact from propaganda and you immediately started acting like a little bitch about it.
Using a historical materialist lens to understand the motivations at play, checking dubious claims for further sources, following up on claims later once the fog has cleared to see a pattern of reliable sources & applying the claims that check out towards constructing a coherent idea of what is happening.
Ukrainian sources always lie and then change their story to the Russian one quietly weeks or months later. Russian sources don’t tend to lie, and don’t quietly alter their claims. Russians don’t make incoherent claims about the enemy being too strong and too weak, only the Ukrainians do that.
I'm not saying anything about one being more bad than the other or them being equally bad.
You're allowed to say that your claim that I linked is too strong in retrospect but that we nonetheless should consider Russian media coverage to be better than Western coverage. (Whether or not I agree with that is a different question.)