The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

[blutoski]

Because he doesn't believe that we would do it.

Honestly, I don't think that's the case. I think he's fine with it.

Being the craziest guy in the room does sometimes have its advantages.

As somebody who's done a degree in psych, I think he's possibly not crazy so much as impacted. Perhaps vascular dementia. Unable to think straight, and ultimately perhaps unable to 'care' about consequences properly. Damaged saliency network &c.

 

[trustbutverify]

Why has this rhetoric been all one sided? Why not tell him we're ready to revenge nuke, and let him crap his pants and back down for a bit?

We can say anything we want. Unfortunately, Putin knows full well the free world isn't going nuclear first... and so do we.

 

[Oystein]

...
It's a bit different. Propagandists have also often been convicted. My examples were spying because the convicted were executed in a time of no official declaration of war - I was pointing out that under conditions exactly like today, severe punishments are considered appropriate.

Propagandizing is also illegal, but I didn't list any famous cases because the sentencing is bland. But the vagueness of it in the past is s one of the reasons countries introduced laws requiring foreign agents to register. The ones who were acting for foreign government's benfit but not registered can be, and are, charged with a crime.

Canada has similar laws to the US, and I expect we would find it's pretty common in the West. Lobbying for a foreign government without disclosure is criminal and considered borderline treasonous, with maximum sentencing proportional to perceived damage.

Seriously, this is new to me.
People have been tried and convicted for propaganda in the USA? In Canada? Like - who?

 

[Frank Newgent]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/russia-ukraine-war-deaths.html

Anonymous are offering $52k worth of bitcoin for every surrendered tank

https://cryptopotato.com/anonymous-...-of-bitcoin-for-each-surrendered-tank-report/

That is great, thanks for this story.

 

[Oystein]

...
As somebody who's done a degree in psych, I think he's possibly not crazy so much as impacted. Perhaps vascular dementia. Unable to think straight, and ultimately perhaps unable to 'care' about consequences properly. Damaged saliency network &c.

I find the model more plausible that he has cut himself off of reliable, truthful, 360 °C all around information and instead placed himself in an echo bubble, where all he hears is echos of his own lies, which he has come to believe. Bad decisions follow from bad information.

 

[blutoski]

I remember a while ago when Skeptic Ginger said that, in her experience and perception, RT is often doing pretty good journalism, often going with actual journalists where many others don't, and presenting views from all sides rather neutrally.

RT follows the government's playbook, which is to give the appearance of objectivity by introducing scripted and approved opposition opinions where they do not draw from core messaging.

To the point where they used to hire actors to be 'critics' of Putin back when he had press room meetings. He'd humiliate them, showing how the opposition were morons with dumb criticisms. The exchange was all written in advance.

It was interesting from a philosophy point of view, because it reminded me of Socratic dialogues where Socrates gets to write a 'debate' where he walks all over the fictional stupid opponent, and get in a great last word. By posing it as a dialogue, he gives the impression that he has genuinely and fairly considered but ultimately rejected opposing views.

Same with RT. Sprinkle in a bit of concurrence with western outlets, and they can draw somebody into the vortex.

 

[Michel H]

The same part that was **** ing retarded the last you floated the same idea. This has already been addressed.

Do you mean, giving them modern jets, which was dismissed by Captain Swoop as a "stupid idea".

I still think this could be a useful idea, although I am not a military expert:

Bulgaria will not send troops or fighters to Ukraine, Prime Minister Kiril Petkov announced on Monday, noting that his country does not have enough planes to protect its own sky.

(https://www.euractiv.com/section/po...ria-will-not-send-fighters-troops-to-ukraine/)

 

[Olmstead]

I took a look at current RT reporting earlier this evening just to check whether their homepage is still available here (it is) and found they actually do some rather fair reporting e.g. on today's UN General Assembly vote. Another article reflected criticism of Russia so clearly that I considered whether maybe I am not seeing the real RT, but a hacked version with Western positions!

I mean, it's not egregious. One thing of note is that it's almost completely quiet with regards to the attacks on Kyiv and other major cities, except when the Russian government wants information released. Kind of like talking about the cold numbers of the Blitz while failing to mention all the Jews that are being rounded up.

 

[mgidm86]

Because he doesn't believe that we would do it.

Being the craziest guy in the room does sometimes have its advantages.

This, duh ^

 

[trustbutverify]

It's no longer Russia Today, it's RT now (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)).

Did you actually read a few times this news website, or have you just been swallowing all the Western propaganda which was fed to you?

KFC is still Kentucky Fried Chicken and RT is still Russia Today. I don't care what either of those organizations do to try and fool the gullible. And I've probably read and viewed more Russia Today over the years than you have.

 

[trustbutverify]

Because he doesn't believe that we would do it.

Being the craziest guy in the room does sometimes have its advantages.

Right.

 

[blutoski]

Seriously, this is new to me.
People have been tried and convicted for propaganda in the USA? In Canada? Like - who?

I'm sure we could dig up lists, if somebody bothers compiling them.

Here's Canada's 1989 Lobbying Act: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-12.4/

There have been convictions from time to time; obviously most claim ignorance. "I didn't know that if I was lobbying or publishing in Canada, on behalf of a foreign government, I needed to disclose that fact to the RCMP."

In any case, this is quibbling. My main point was that we don't need a declaration of War to be at war and to take measures to protect our democratic traditions.

Police are authorized to shoot people, with the intention that we have fewer people getting shot in the long run. Many countries have the death penalty that authorizes them to kill citizens, with the intention that we have fewer citizens killing each other.

And sometimes we censor specific types of speech when the goal is to protect free speech in general.

This is related to Paradox of tolerance^WP and Popper discussed implications for freedom of speech. Skeptics may have heard of him.

 

[Oystein]

I mean, it's not egregious. One thing of note is that it's almost completely quiet with regards to the attacks on Kyiv and other major cities, except when the Russian government wants information released. Kind of like talking about the cold numbers of the Blitz while failing to mention all the Jews that are being rounded up.

Yup.
And that's something you can find (or rather not find) in pretty much all news organizations: The things the choose not to report...
We do not get much news about what's going on in Donezk and Luhanks, right?
Part of the reason is that little (or less) information trickles out from there for various reasons. Another part of the reason maybe is that it isn't pretty.

 

[trustbutverify]

I remember a while ago when Skeptic Ginger said that, in her experience and perception, RT is often doing pretty good journalism, often going with actual journalists where many others don't, and presenting views from all sides rather neutrally. Not sure if a caveat was offered like "as long as Russian interests not much at stake". SG said that RT is often better than most other news providers.

I took a look at current RT reporting earlier this evening just to check whether their homepage is still available here (it is) and found they actually do some rather fair reporting e.g. on today's UN General Assembly vote. Another article reflected criticism of Russia so clearly that I considered whether maybe I am not seeing the real RT, but a hacked version with Western positions!

(I have no doubt that RT will subtly or maybe not so subtly manipulate their news coverage to suit Putin's needs whenever required - they are surely much refined in this compared to Pravda of old, which was so consistently and bluntly lying that you could almost consider it reliable: Take the opposite of what they say, and that's close enough to the truth. RT is smarter than that - they will lure some consumers with good news reporting, so they will also read, and believe, the manipulations)

This is the answer. This is why RT is Putin's masterpiece... it's a sophisticated con. The rest of his suite of propaganda organs are progressively more blunt. Scientology operates in much the same way.

 

[Michel H]

KFC is still Kentucky Fried Chicken and RT is still Russia Today. I don't care what either of those organizations do to try and fool the gullible. And I've probably read and viewed more Russia Today over the years than you have.

And what was your impression, in that case?

Did you also have an impression of objectivity and professionalism?

Did you read some of the articles by the excellent Scott Ritter, published by RT.com ?

 

[trustbutverify]

RT follows the government's playbook, which is to give the appearance of objectivity by introducing scripted and approved opposition opinions where they do not draw from core messaging.

To the point where they used to hire actors to be 'critics' of Putin back when he had press room meetings. He'd humiliate them, showing how the opposition were morons with dumb criticisms. The exchange was all written in advance.

It was interesting from a philosophy point of view, because it reminded me of Socratic dialogues where Socrates gets to write a 'debate' where he walks all over the fictional stupid opponent, and get in a great last word. By posing it as a dialogue, he gives the impression that he has genuinely and fairly considered but ultimately rejected opposing views.

Same with RT. Sprinkle in a bit of concurrence with western outlets, and they can draw somebody into the vortex.

Exactly.

 

[acbytesla]

A) Silly. Not a category.

B) Everybody who claims that "we" (meaning any Western country opposing the Russian invasion) are actually "at war" - where "war" is a word with objective meaning and not just tough talk. Where that meaning implies legal consequences which in effect limit civil liberties and expand government's power. Are those posters really thinking that their civil liberties are, in principle, in question - now?

You're talking legal while people are being killed? Is it legal to shell towns and homes? Russia is not acting legally.

 

[Arcade22]

There's no way to know for sure, but my personal model of what's happening is that Putin has ceased to be rational. I'm thinking something happened medically, like a stroke. That it's impacted his executive function, but not enough to be flagged in the superficial conversations he has with nonmedical subordinates.

It's not like this invasion is just something out of the blue. It's not a sudden outburst by a brain damaged fool. Russia first invaded Ukraine back in 2014 and has been at war with Ukraine ever since.

The fact that Putin chose to escalate things to full blown invasion is not a sign of mental illness but rather his frustration and fear that all his efforts are going to be in vain since things were going nowhere. The Ukrainians shut down the pro-Russian puppet party and arrested its oligarch leader as they were apparently planning a potential coup.

Putin is not insane or brain damaged. His historic grand view of the world and his place in it is severely tainted by vainglorious hubris, but it is internally consistent. The fact that he is willing to sacrifice his country's economy and the lives of its soldiers on some misguided quest to reestablish his nations perceived greatness is rational based on his beliefs because he values that over all things. He's not going launch nuclear weapons just because he feels a little flustered at how poorly this invasion is going.

Hitler was not insane yet he started WW2 with the same kind of disregard for his soldiers lives and the German economy.

 

[Oystein]

I'm sure we could dig up lists, if somebody bothers compiling them.

Here's Canada's 1989 Lobbying Act: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-12.4/

There have been convictions from time to time; obviously most claim ignorance. "I didn't know that if I was lobbying or publishing in Canada, on behalf of a foreign government, I needed to disclose that fact to the RCMP."

I am at a loss to find in this law the provision that says "though shalt not do propaganda nor lie for a foreign nation".

It seems to be preoccupied with the registration and the circumstances of lobbyists in general, whether domestic or foreign. And not with the content of their lobbying work.
But then again I am not familiar with reading the texts of laws in common law jurisdictions.

 

[Oystein]

...
And sometimes we censor specific types of speech when the goal is to protect free speech in general.
...

Oh definitely, we have the same in Germany: There are laws prohibiting certain kinds and intensities of hate speech; agitation with the purpose of removing the constitutional order is bannable (this goes under the broader rule, explicitly enshrined in our constitution, that those who abuse the protections of the constitution to work towards an abolishing the same constitution, are liable to lose said protections for themselves; but the legal bars for convictions on that ground are exceptionally high). Famously Holocaust denial is outlawed here - and many US Americans consider such as "attacks on free speech" and very un-American. And indeed, a point can be made that, in general, lying should not be made illegal as such.