Analysis Episode #14 - Russia/UkraineKeep your private data private with our sponsor, Aura! Get two weeks free, no strings attached, with our link: https://a...
Has anyone watched the new episode from First Thought/JT?
I think in this case the easiest answer is probably the most correct: they don’t say much, or anything at all, because it might result in a lot of vitriol. I understand being worried about being labeled as a propagandist for Russia (I had to face this at school when writing a paper about the Donbas) but thats why education is the best outlet. If you approach the topic from that angle without any polarizing language then it can be hard to call someone a Putin-simp or whatever.
I think it's a mistake to obsess so much about appearing "unbiased". There is no such thing. Everyone has to make a choice which side they stand on. Are you with the empire or against it? You should not be afraid of being called names, in fact it's an indication that you are doing something right. Let the facts speak for themselves. Pandering to liberal sensibilities does not make liberals to come closer to your side, you just move closer to theirs. Whatever the Deprogram think they are achieving, they are wrong. There are plenty of people who are receptive to the anti-imperialist message, and outside of liberal circles too. The right is very successfully courting them and they are not afraid of being labeled Putin puppets. If leftists continue in this misguided strategy of appealing exclusively to liberals and on liberals' own terms that is a recipe for defeat. As we are clearly seeing right now in Europe.
If you approach the topic from that angle without any polarizing language then it can be hard to call someone a Putin-simp or whatever.
This is categorically false and I would encourage you to make a single post on .world to see how it is so. They will call you all sorts of things because the view you're espousing is one they are hostile to, any question of presentation is secondary. Most dedicatedly-political spheres (and many besides) are like that.
That’s fair, I guess maybe I am too optimistic. I still don’t believe them making this video was worth it because it doesn’t add anything to the overall conversation, it just regurgitates the same information seen elsewhere. Because of how Russophobic the western side of the internet/political sphere is, maybe it’s best to avoid this topic if you can’t handle any backlash. I wish people didn’t get so aggressive when talking about this war objectively, but they do. Reading the comments on the Boy Boy video was disheartening but it does prove your point, no matter what you say, if you give the slightest hint of “justifying” the “invasion” then cognitive dissonance kicks in.
Yeah, like I said in another comment it's just textbook tailism the way they did it, and if we assume they aren't revisionists it would have been better strategy to just ignore the topic completely.
I think the only rhetorical hope that doesn't rely on deception (and we should not deceive!) focuses on the fact that Ukraine has no realistic hope of triumphing militarily, so what is the fighting actually for? Ukronazis love to pretend Russia wants to genocide them, but that's not the case, so the biggest danger to the Ukrainian population is not caving to the invasion but fighting it militarily in the vain hope of winning. Holding Russia off in the early stages while negotiating a conditional surrender would have been infinitely better for the average Ukrainian, even completely excluding those who live in Donbas and Crimea.
I think in this case the easiest answer is probably the most correct: they don’t say much, or anything at all, because it might result in a lot of vitriol. I understand being worried about being labeled as a propagandist for Russia (I had to face this at school when writing a paper about the Donbas) but thats why education is the best outlet. If you approach the topic from that angle without any polarizing language then it can be hard to call someone a Putin-simp or whatever.
I think it's a mistake to obsess so much about appearing "unbiased". There is no such thing. Everyone has to make a choice which side they stand on. Are you with the empire or against it? You should not be afraid of being called names, in fact it's an indication that you are doing something right. Let the facts speak for themselves. Pandering to liberal sensibilities does not make liberals to come closer to your side, you just move closer to theirs. Whatever the Deprogram think they are achieving, they are wrong. There are plenty of people who are receptive to the anti-imperialist message, and outside of liberal circles too. The right is very successfully courting them and they are not afraid of being labeled Putin puppets. If leftists continue in this misguided strategy of appealing exclusively to liberals and on liberals' own terms that is a recipe for defeat. As we are clearly seeing right now in Europe.
This is categorically false and I would encourage you to make a single post on .world to see how it is so. They will call you all sorts of things because the view you're espousing is one they are hostile to, any question of presentation is secondary. Most dedicatedly-political spheres (and many besides) are like that.
That’s fair, I guess maybe I am too optimistic. I still don’t believe them making this video was worth it because it doesn’t add anything to the overall conversation, it just regurgitates the same information seen elsewhere. Because of how Russophobic the western side of the internet/political sphere is, maybe it’s best to avoid this topic if you can’t handle any backlash. I wish people didn’t get so aggressive when talking about this war objectively, but they do. Reading the comments on the Boy Boy video was disheartening but it does prove your point, no matter what you say, if you give the slightest hint of “justifying” the “invasion” then cognitive dissonance kicks in.
Yeah, like I said in another comment it's just textbook tailism the way they did it, and if we assume they aren't revisionists it would have been better strategy to just ignore the topic completely.
I think the only rhetorical hope that doesn't rely on deception (and we should not deceive!) focuses on the fact that Ukraine has no realistic hope of triumphing militarily, so what is the fighting actually for? Ukronazis love to pretend Russia wants to genocide them, but that's not the case, so the biggest danger to the Ukrainian population is not caving to the invasion but fighting it militarily in the vain hope of winning. Holding Russia off in the early stages while negotiating a conditional surrender would have been infinitely better for the average Ukrainian, even completely excluding those who live in Donbas and Crimea.