Jump to content

 

 

Russia, Ukraine


Recommended Posts

On 05/08/2022 at 10:43, stewarty said:

Its amazing what a little bit of checking can do... my spidey senses remain in tact.  The emphasis in bold is all mine.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/05/the-left-should-lead-the-fight-against-russian-disinformation-not-hinder-it

 

Empower the people to win the war on disinformation

 

The left should champion state and community action to challenge the lies of its own pro-Kremlin fringe.

By Paul Mason

...

The choice of Paul Mason is rather odd given your line of argument.

 

He mentions the grayzone in his article.  That's a publication which has published allegations about Paul Mason and his relationship with the intelligence services.  I won't go into them but you can google it quite easily.

 

The contents of both his article and the grayzone articles are not really important.  What is important is to note how ineffective either side of that discussion is at informing decision making for the public.  If one is to take either side then one can take that side at face value while disregarding the other.  For example you remain credulous when reading Paul Mason.  I would guess that you are gripped by incredulity by the mere mention of the grayzone articles.  The converse will be true of someone on the opposite side of the argument.  It is not possible for either side to persuade the other.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Doubt any normal people will benefit at any point.  Same as most wars. 

 I think you're probably quite right about that.

 

On the other hand here is a related thought from Adam Smith:

 

Quote

In great empires, the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war, but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory, from a longer continuance of the war.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

The choice of Paul Mason is rather odd given your line of argument.

 

He mentions the grayzone in his article.  That's a publication which has published allegations about Paul Mason and his relationship with the intelligence services.  I won't go into them but you can google it quite easily.

 

The contents of both his article and the grayzone articles are not really important.  What is important is to note how ineffective either side of that discussion is at informing decision making for the public.  If one is to take either side then one can take that side at face value while disregarding the other.  For example you remain credulous when reading Paul Mason.  I would guess that you are gripped by incredulity by the mere mention of the grayzone articles.  The converse will be true of someone on the opposite side of the argument.  It is not possible for either side to persuade the other.

 

It’s not odd really.  Whether the grayzone and mason have some sort of beef, is secondary to the purpose on posting the article which was to underline my view (as I looked into it more) that as a minimum, this blog being portrayed as a valid and different perspective, is anything but, and should be treated with a high degree of scepticism.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/08/2022 at 10:15, stewarty said:

Its not about that for me. For example, I checked out the first source referenced and read the first para of the blog and found it to be bs. He says that Putin didn't want the Donbass regions to have their referendums so I checked that out... and guess what, you can't trust a single thing that Putin says, ever.   The day after the referendum, he fully supported the outcome and demanded that OSCE and the Ukraine government implement the alleged outcome.  There was not one country that supported the referendum in fact - not the US, the UK, France, Germany or even Belarus - everyone knows it was a sham, orchestrated by Putin for his own ends - much like the sham referendum in Crimea.  

 

I haven't read any further, but if such a basic point of fact is distorted in this way, I question the veracity of the source and its motivations.  

My general point from what you were replying to is that the rebuttal of arguments by the calling of names is empty and comes from the basic propaganda approach of discrediting an individual. 

 

 

Something we previously agreed upon was that there is propaganda on both sides and I would also say that in the age of social media, there is often a counter wave of propaganda to deal with as well. An oven ready rebuttal. Simple example, Russia have had concerns about bordering countries essentially becoming forward bases / No they havenae, Putin wants to take over the world.

Again, this will be from both sides an will lead to confusion. However, the confusion is qualified in that if you are so entrenched in one side of the argument, you won't be able to see anything other than confirmation bias. This is why patriotism is pushed so much at times like these, it helps to blind you.

 

I note that you go onto talking about the Syrian chemical attacks.

Suffice to say, you don't seem to be fully informed on a subject that is an excellent example of how to twist reallity. It is worth a thread of its own.

 

 

Truth doesn't seem to matter anymore

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, buster. said:

My general point from what you were replying to is that the rebuttal of arguments by the calling of names is empty and comes from the basic propaganda approach of discrediting an individual. 

 

 

Something we previously agreed upon was that there is propaganda on both sides and I would also say that in the age of social media, there is often a counter wave of propaganda to deal with as well. An oven ready rebuttal. Simple example, Russia have had concerns about bordering countries essentially becoming forward bases / No they havenae, Putin wants to take over the world.

Again, this will be from both sides an will lead to confusion. However, the confusion is qualified in that if you are so entrenched in one side of the argument, you won't be able to see anything other than confirmation bias. This is why patriotism is pushed so much at times like these, it helps to blind you.

 

I note that you go onto talking about the Syrian chemical attacks.

Suffice to say, you don't seem to be fully informed on a subject that is an excellent example of how to twist reallity. It is worth a thread of its own.

 

 

Truth doesn't seem to matter anymore

 

 

You either seem to either misunderstand my point, or are selecting the bits of what I have said to suit your own argument.

 

For example, I quoted someone who has directly criticised Baud's Pro-Kremlin stance on Syria, rather than go on to talk about it myself.  My point being that Baud's analysis appears to be one-sided.  Something backed up by others I have found who take him to task.  Some might even call Baud an apologist, but my analysis was only to the point where I had sufficient information to confirm that his analysis is written on paper thats not worth shitting on.  However, I do still try to keep an open mind so if anyone wants to offer a defence of his work, I'll give it a crack. 😁

 

As for me discrediting individuals, well shoot me!  I state my view based on what people say.   I'm entirely comfortable in analysing things for myself, as well as trusting my instincts.   This argument that because propaganda exists, that I must have fallen foul of it, is quite amusing.   I try, where time and concern allows, to at least explain where my view comes from.  That doesn't mean i get everything right, but it also doesn't mean that I've swallowed some massive lie/  Despite your and others protestations, you haven't said anything in this thread that provides a credible alternative perspective.  In fact, it all comes from a heavily propagandised perspective that is simply too easily and too amusingly disproved.  Keep it coming!

 

Bizarrely, your last sentence does resonate though.  Though I would go further, there are so few consequences any more.  

Edited by stewarty
Link to post
Share on other sites

An attack on a Russian airbase has caused considerable damage the Russians are saying it was an ammo explosion again we don’t know who to believe but it would give Vlad a good enough excuse to exact revenge by attacking a population centre .

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, compo said:

An attack on a Russian airbase has caused considerable damage the Russians are saying it was an ammo explosion again we don’t know who to believe but it would give Vlad a good enough excuse to exact revenge by attacking a population centre .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.