The United States on September 13 said the Russian news outlet RT is taking orders directly from the Kremlin and working with Russian military intelligence to spread disinformation around the world to undermine democracies.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States has gathered new evidence that exposes cooperation between RT and four other subsidiaries of the Rossia Segodnya media group, and it intends to warn other countries of the threat of the disinformation.

In addition to RT, Rossia Segodnya operates RIA Novosti, TV-Novosti, Ruptly, and Sputnik, but the announcement on September 13 focused largely on RT. The outlet, formerly known as Russia Today, has previously been sanctioned for its work to allegedly spread Kremlin propaganda and disinformation.

  • Joncash2
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Your article agrees with me. But it’s clear I’m not going to be able to explain it to you.

    Are all those involved in gang wars guilty? Probably not but it’s still wise of the police not to get involved.

    And similarly, yes the axe murderer who just murdered the other guys family and is asking for help. I’m probably gonna ignore him.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      That family didn’t do anything wrong though. His kids are still just kids, yet you’re fine with them dying just for being born to the wrong father?

      And no, the whataboutism article is sort of the opposite of your definition. Your definition says its a defense for an action. The article says it’s a defense for an accusation. These are not the same thing. The person doing an action, and someone else accusing them of their action, are not the same ones. That’s pretty key.

      Why do I get the vague impression I’m arguing with a right winger?

      • Joncash2
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s saying it’s deflecting against an accusation. It’s clear your not able to understand basic things.

        Your idea that someone who disagrees with you is a right winger proves this to me.

        Finally you have no idea what the family did. It’s why in a court of law we have laws about facilitation or accessory. But I think that will go over your head.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Cute insults aside, his kids are still kids man. We shouldn’t be letting kids die to axe murder, most people usually agree on that one.

          Yes, but you said

          It’s when someone uses someone else doing the same thing as an excuse. If Russia does it it’s OK for USA to do it. That’s whataboutism.

          Not the same as saying “Russia is doing it!” “Oh yea? But what about when US did it?” That’s real whataboutism, as the article describes in detail. Spot the difference?

          • Joncash2
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            When you understand both are whataboutism because it’s about the deflection not the action or the accusation, you’ll understand whataboutism.

            And how do I know he has kids? I’m gonna trust an axe murderer?

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Okay, so you not being able to spot the difference does not mean there isn’t one. While your “nuh uh’s” are kinda funny, you can’t just redefine words any time it’s convenient for you, not when they’re commonly used by others. Not all deflections are whataboutisms, just one single type, specifically, to an accusation. Like the very first line in the article, that says:

              the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation

              So, it’s what we call a hypothetical, where I was proposing two axe murderers that targeted families. It’s just a possible thing that we can think about to discuss a finer point. So, if we say he has kids, since he doesn’t exist in the first place, then he has hypothetical kids.

              edit: Just to save you a little scrolling, since I’m such a nice guy:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

              • Joncash2
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                The problem with your hypothetical is that it doesn’t exist. The information is coming from an axe murderer and your just magically asserting the family is real and what he says is real.

                The problem is when your an axe murderer, I no longer trust you. Just as we shouldn’t trust the USA because they do all the bad things they say others are doing. It’s an accountability issue. Which is if you want to say your a good guy, you kind of have to actually be a good guy.

                *Edit. This is why I said innocents get caught up in gang wars but the police can’t do anything because the source of information is gangsters

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Hypotheticals don’t have to exist, that’s what makes them useful. Is it possible that an axe murder could have kids? Of course it is, they can have sperm, right? So, it’s a workable hypothetical. We can then use it to illustrate how actions that hurt innocents are not necessarily right, just to punish someone related to those innocents.

                  We don’t need to ask the axe murderer anything either, we can check birth records. Like with the US covid propaganda scheme, we don’t have to believe the govt, we can check international news sources if we like.

                  You can conveniently forget about independent information sources, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

                  • Joncash2
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    I think your either avoiding what I’m saying or misunderstanding. This whole conversation is based on USA accusing Russia. Just like your axe murderer accusing another murderer. The whole point is when your a psychotic genocider, your opinions and statements should be rightfully ignored.