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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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:
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
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
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.
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.
Ah, I think we get to the crux of the matter, you seem not to perceive any innocents being harmed. You perhaps see the US as a single evil entity, and not a collection of disagreeing people living on a chunk of land.
Not if we care about truth vs falsehood, objective fact vs made up things, and an understandable world we can all fairly discuss. Even an axe murderer should be allowed to testify in his own defence. What if he is merely accused of axe murder, and the evidence has been fabricated and planted by corrupt police?
Well unfortunately there are no international courts of law that USA would submit to. The only one, the ICC, they have literally threatened to invade if they did any kind of investigation into the GENOCIDAL CRIMES of the USA. So your argument that a court should prove it is moot since USA would nuke the court. Which is why I also find it hilarious that USA talks about rule of law when they actively threaten to wipe Brussels off the face of the earth.
*Edit: Oh man even Harvard is mocking them for that.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/ksikkink/blog/“invade-hague”-“support-icc”-america’s-shifting-stance-international-criminal-court
Also, I’m not talking about USA as in it’s people, I’m talking about the US government. Sorry I did not make that clear. After all, it’s not Joe Schmo talking about RT spreading propaganda.