I am pro-NATO in how they’ve handled the war in Ukraine. I am pro-NATO in the sense that it prevents attacks on its member nations, which Ukraine in my eyes has been very clear evidence of the need for.
This is a bizarre position. If NATO didn’t exist (e.g. if it was disbanded in '93), there would not be a war in Ukraine. If NATO allowed Russia to join back in the '90s, there would not be a war in Ukraine, but of course it didn’t because the purpose of NATO is to make western aggression easier to accomplish. If NATO was transparent about Ukraine not joining, there would not be a war in Ukraine. If Ukraine had the leeway with its western masters to even attempt to follow one of the Minsk accords in good faith, the war might have been averted. If the west didn’t sponsor a Nazi-spearheaded coup in Ukraine that flipped Ukraine’s foreign policy, there would not be a war in Ukraine. If western powers attempted to stop the civil war in Ukraine by means other than extermination, rather than sponsoring Azov, there likely would not be a war in Ukraine.
At every interval, western powers and Azov did not seek to avert the war but simply to cause Russia the most damage, because that is America’s interest in the war. If the west gave a shit about Ukrainians, they would be seeking to negotiate a peaceful end to both the invasion and the civil war that allowed the people of Donbas to self-determine their position. They have strongly opposed any such measure.
As I said before, NATO is an extension of US foreign policy with only minor complications from the “independent will” of its other members, such as that will exists. The foreign policy of the US is one of the most savage violence and precisely-leveraged deprivation. It is beyond the violence of organizations like ISIS, let alone Russia, let alone China (the answer to my earlier question was 30 years of war for the US and zero for China).
You want to talk about fucking censorship? And let’s assume here that you mean censorship of people in general and not you in particular. Unless you are really interested in the proliferation of fascism or of for-profit cults and prosperity gospel asshats, there is substantially less censorship instigated by China than by the US. Even if your image of China – in which neoliberals are put in prison – was true, that would be substantially more lenient in its approach than efforts the US has lead around the world. Here’s an easy example of them organizing and sponsoring the slaughter of dissidents, in case things like the Vietnam War (“domino theory!”) don’t count to you for some inscrutable reason.
“Orientalism” in their context implies that any conversations about another country not from within that country should be taken down.
Source: dude, just trust me
Should non-US articles about the US also be removed? Is anyone not from China allowed to talk about China?
I’ll explain this by analogy. Sometimes here you see galaxy-brained liberals (no, I haven’t seen you say this) saying in the context of China’s domestic situation “Well, you say that the media gives me a false perception of China, but what about the Chinese media giving Chinese people a false perception of their country?”
This is all well and good when one doesn’t think about it for even a second, but if one does that it becomes apparent that one group lives in China and the other does not. It is much easier to lie to Americans about a place that they will never, ever go to, probably will never really talk to a person from there, and which communicates only in languages that are completely inscrutable to them, compared to lying to people who live there and amongst each other and only speak those languages. Americans are the most propagandized fucking people on the planet, and they still in huge proportion have contempt for their government and much of the country, because no amount of propaganda can simply “overwrite” your own experiences (brainwashing is fictional).
This is a board that is overwhelmingly in a US – and more generally a “western” – context. Spreading misinformation about the country they live in, or whose language they speak, is much less effective than for a distant country they have no connection to except in these media representations so even if an article is slanted, it frankly just doesn’t matter (though spreading clear misinformation is bad in any case and should always be treated harshly).
So in brief, your line of interrogation here is based on a crass equivocation rather than a justified analysis.
Can’t really say much more than I disagree with you on the fundamentals. I don’t think I’m going to convince you otherwise and I don’t think you’ll convince me. I don’t think the US or NATO are some perfect entities, but I also think your blaming of NATO for the situation in Ukraine is disingenuous at best. If you really think Russia is operating in good faith and that Putin’s motivation for his invasion of Ukraine out of nowhere is because he felt threatened by NATO then I have a bridge to sell you. I agree that the US has benefitted greatly from NATO and has worked hard politically to bring NATO to where it is, but to act as though NATO members are just puppets being pulled by the US’s strings is to severely misunderstand their positions in the world. This is especially the case for the people of Ukraine. You seem quite ready to dismiss what their people want for their country and to act as though the US is behind it all. You can tow the Russian line about Azov or whatever “Nazi” propaganda they’ve served to justify Russia’s actions, but it’s all a twisting of reality to justify Putin invading another nation, just as you would so readily dump on the US for.
And you can criticize the west’s coverage of China all you want. I’m glad to hear it. I disagree with you, but I happily welcome opposing viewpoints. The same goes for Russia. I disagree with you and I’ll say it, but disagreement and censorship are two different things. And at the end of the day this entire conversation was triggered because I disagree with mods banning people for unclear rules they’ve arbitrarily decided on the spot. If you think “Orientalism” is a good reason to ban every western article about China without establishing a clear community rule about that, then that’s the only real line between your views and mine that matters to me. If you think censoring viewpoints that aren’t in line with yours in general is okay, then we’re not going to get past that impasse.
I never claimed the US was good on censorship. That’s the difference between your arguments and mine. I am perfectly willing to shit on how terrible the US has been. I only think China and Russia have been worse. I’ve had coworkers from both the USSR and China. I’ve heard their horror stories about being forced to live in Siberia or being unable to get information freely or speak out freely. But even so, I don’t think the US should be the world’s solo superpower. I agree that the US has been the epitome of greed in the past century and has positioned themselves financially and militarily in a way that benefits them first and foremost. I think a world where nations cooperate on an even playing field is a much better world. But I’m not so foolish as to delude myself into thinking that Russia or China aren’t similarly motivated by power. At the end of the day, global politics is a poker game where everybody is cheating. I don’t support any one country, but rather I support ideals. Countries will always fail you, but knowing where you stand on issues like censorship or democracy won’t.
You can tow the Russian line about Azov or whatever “Nazi” propaganda they’ve served
You have provided a very succinct refutation of your own “marketplace of ideas” ideology. Free speech in liberal democracies is an illusion, you are free to speak so long as what you say doesn’t matter, while capitalists are free to buy up mass media and make their messaging the cultural norm. Reality abroad is what they say it is and any cultural memory – even from their own previous reporting – is shunted. It doesn’t matter what tiny voices offer contrary statements so long as people like you remain firm in their faith towards the media establishment even as you offer worthless disavowals of the same.
I don’t have very much “trust” in the Kremlin, regardless of what you think. I view Putin as a cynical mafioso. What I do have trust in is the fact that western media typically does not slander its masters, but instead – when it says anything negative at all – says only as much criticism as or less than it is justified in saying. I was reading about the CIA sponsoring Ukrainian Nazis since long before the war was on your radar, though trying to find these articles now behind the deluge of whitewashing is a little annoying because I’m not good at using the more sophisticated search engine features.
An amusing one that is easy to find is this article from Vice about Azov traveling all the way to Hong Kong to observe the riots. I despise the bulk of the rioters, but I must give them full credit for rejecting the participation of Azov on account of Azov being Nazis. I think, since they were mostly the children of the city’s wealthier segment, it’s perfectly plausible that they just lack the historical perspective to understand the irony of begging for US and British intervention while rejecting Ukrainian fascists.
I remember there is a text method of setting a date range, but now on Google the main way is to click on “Tools” and then “Any Time” and then “Custome Range”. I encourage you to make use of this tool in the future. Some results for my part, just by filtering the date range to “2014 - 2018”:
But if you don’t filter and you don’t know specific phrases to look for, you won’t get shit but whitewashing. I’m only a rank amateur, but this is a case where it isn’t too hard. Amusingly, the biggest remaining impediment is that there is a fair amount of reporting on the decades before this that the CIA spent backing Nazis in the Ukrainian SR.
Oh, and here’s a bonus, just for fun. I don’t believe you’ll really look at any of this, because the “marketplace of ideas” is bullshit, but you’re welcome to prove me wrong in that regard.
I am perfectly willing to shit on how terrible the US has been. I only think China and Russia have been worse.
It’s the classic “I disavow the US, now let me parrot its state department.” I can’t help but notice that you sidestepped what I was actually saying about the US and China. My point was not simply that the US is bad, akshually. Any dipshit European liberal will clamber to tell you that. My point is that the US is a warmonger of world-historic proportions – one that is happy to annihilate political opposition in other countries while proclaiming “democracy” and “free speech” – while China is, if anything, making strides not only in being peaceful with other countries but in brokering peace between other countries for wars it is not involved in, much to America’s chagrin.
You can nebulously call China “worse,” but any concrete comparison of how they influence the world vs how the US influences the world will unconditionally refute that claim. “Oh, but Taiwan!” If China carpet-bombed Taiwan, my statement would still be correct, but China is interested in a peaceful reunification and if you look at the actual Taiwanese constitution and its diplomatic agreements, you would see that Taiwan does not claim independence but maintains that it is also China (just not the PRC). Now, there are powerful factions that lean more on the Taiwanese nationalist (independence) side, including President Tsai, but they are either patient or cowards because they have done very little to actually make the constitution and legislation reflect these views (to say nothing of diplomatic relations with the PRC), and merely spoke about it while gesturing to the legislative body that something might eventually be done to solve the issue. Twats like John Oliver do not accurately represent the policies or ideology of Taiwan.
This is a bizarre position. If NATO didn’t exist (e.g. if it was disbanded in '93), there would not be a war in Ukraine. If NATO allowed Russia to join back in the '90s, there would not be a war in Ukraine, but of course it didn’t because the purpose of NATO is to make western aggression easier to accomplish. If NATO was transparent about Ukraine not joining, there would not be a war in Ukraine. If Ukraine had the leeway with its western masters to even attempt to follow one of the Minsk accords in good faith, the war might have been averted. If the west didn’t sponsor a Nazi-spearheaded coup in Ukraine that flipped Ukraine’s foreign policy, there would not be a war in Ukraine. If western powers attempted to stop the civil war in Ukraine by means other than extermination, rather than sponsoring Azov, there likely would not be a war in Ukraine.
At every interval, western powers and Azov did not seek to avert the war but simply to cause Russia the most damage, because that is America’s interest in the war. If the west gave a shit about Ukrainians, they would be seeking to negotiate a peaceful end to both the invasion and the civil war that allowed the people of Donbas to self-determine their position. They have strongly opposed any such measure.
As I said before, NATO is an extension of US foreign policy with only minor complications from the “independent will” of its other members, such as that will exists. The foreign policy of the US is one of the most savage violence and precisely-leveraged deprivation. It is beyond the violence of organizations like ISIS, let alone Russia, let alone China (the answer to my earlier question was 30 years of war for the US and zero for China).
You want to talk about fucking censorship? And let’s assume here that you mean censorship of people in general and not you in particular. Unless you are really interested in the proliferation of fascism or of for-profit cults and prosperity gospel asshats, there is substantially less censorship instigated by China than by the US. Even if your image of China – in which neoliberals are put in prison – was true, that would be substantially more lenient in its approach than efforts the US has lead around the world. Here’s an easy example of them organizing and sponsoring the slaughter of dissidents, in case things like the Vietnam War (“domino theory!”) don’t count to you for some inscrutable reason.
Source: dude, just trust me
I’ll explain this by analogy. Sometimes here you see galaxy-brained liberals (no, I haven’t seen you say this) saying in the context of China’s domestic situation “Well, you say that the media gives me a false perception of China, but what about the Chinese media giving Chinese people a false perception of their country?”
This is all well and good when one doesn’t think about it for even a second, but if one does that it becomes apparent that one group lives in China and the other does not. It is much easier to lie to Americans about a place that they will never, ever go to, probably will never really talk to a person from there, and which communicates only in languages that are completely inscrutable to them, compared to lying to people who live there and amongst each other and only speak those languages. Americans are the most propagandized fucking people on the planet, and they still in huge proportion have contempt for their government and much of the country, because no amount of propaganda can simply “overwrite” your own experiences (brainwashing is fictional).
This is a board that is overwhelmingly in a US – and more generally a “western” – context. Spreading misinformation about the country they live in, or whose language they speak, is much less effective than for a distant country they have no connection to except in these media representations so even if an article is slanted, it frankly just doesn’t matter (though spreading clear misinformation is bad in any case and should always be treated harshly).
So in brief, your line of interrogation here is based on a crass equivocation rather than a justified analysis.
Can’t really say much more than I disagree with you on the fundamentals. I don’t think I’m going to convince you otherwise and I don’t think you’ll convince me. I don’t think the US or NATO are some perfect entities, but I also think your blaming of NATO for the situation in Ukraine is disingenuous at best. If you really think Russia is operating in good faith and that Putin’s motivation for his invasion of Ukraine out of nowhere is because he felt threatened by NATO then I have a bridge to sell you. I agree that the US has benefitted greatly from NATO and has worked hard politically to bring NATO to where it is, but to act as though NATO members are just puppets being pulled by the US’s strings is to severely misunderstand their positions in the world. This is especially the case for the people of Ukraine. You seem quite ready to dismiss what their people want for their country and to act as though the US is behind it all. You can tow the Russian line about Azov or whatever “Nazi” propaganda they’ve served to justify Russia’s actions, but it’s all a twisting of reality to justify Putin invading another nation, just as you would so readily dump on the US for.
And you can criticize the west’s coverage of China all you want. I’m glad to hear it. I disagree with you, but I happily welcome opposing viewpoints. The same goes for Russia. I disagree with you and I’ll say it, but disagreement and censorship are two different things. And at the end of the day this entire conversation was triggered because I disagree with mods banning people for unclear rules they’ve arbitrarily decided on the spot. If you think “Orientalism” is a good reason to ban every western article about China without establishing a clear community rule about that, then that’s the only real line between your views and mine that matters to me. If you think censoring viewpoints that aren’t in line with yours in general is okay, then we’re not going to get past that impasse.
I never claimed the US was good on censorship. That’s the difference between your arguments and mine. I am perfectly willing to shit on how terrible the US has been. I only think China and Russia have been worse. I’ve had coworkers from both the USSR and China. I’ve heard their horror stories about being forced to live in Siberia or being unable to get information freely or speak out freely. But even so, I don’t think the US should be the world’s solo superpower. I agree that the US has been the epitome of greed in the past century and has positioned themselves financially and militarily in a way that benefits them first and foremost. I think a world where nations cooperate on an even playing field is a much better world. But I’m not so foolish as to delude myself into thinking that Russia or China aren’t similarly motivated by power. At the end of the day, global politics is a poker game where everybody is cheating. I don’t support any one country, but rather I support ideals. Countries will always fail you, but knowing where you stand on issues like censorship or democracy won’t.
You have provided a very succinct refutation of your own “marketplace of ideas” ideology. Free speech in liberal democracies is an illusion, you are free to speak so long as what you say doesn’t matter, while capitalists are free to buy up mass media and make their messaging the cultural norm. Reality abroad is what they say it is and any cultural memory – even from their own previous reporting – is shunted. It doesn’t matter what tiny voices offer contrary statements so long as people like you remain firm in their faith towards the media establishment even as you offer worthless disavowals of the same.
I don’t have very much “trust” in the Kremlin, regardless of what you think. I view Putin as a cynical mafioso. What I do have trust in is the fact that western media typically does not slander its masters, but instead – when it says anything negative at all – says only as much criticism as or less than it is justified in saying. I was reading about the CIA sponsoring Ukrainian Nazis since long before the war was on your radar, though trying to find these articles now behind the deluge of whitewashing is a little annoying because I’m not good at using the more sophisticated search engine features.
An amusing one that is easy to find is this article from Vice about Azov traveling all the way to Hong Kong to observe the riots. I despise the bulk of the rioters, but I must give them full credit for rejecting the participation of Azov on account of Azov being Nazis. I think, since they were mostly the children of the city’s wealthier segment, it’s perfectly plausible that they just lack the historical perspective to understand the irony of begging for US and British intervention while rejecting Ukrainian fascists.
I remember there is a text method of setting a date range, but now on Google the main way is to click on “Tools” and then “Any Time” and then “Custome Range”. I encourage you to make use of this tool in the future. Some results for my part, just by filtering the date range to “2014 - 2018”:
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/us-lifts-ban-on-funding-neo-nazi-ukrainian-militia-441884
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955
https://jp.reuters.com/article/idUS60927080220150505
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/
But if you don’t filter and you don’t know specific phrases to look for, you won’t get shit but whitewashing. I’m only a rank amateur, but this is a case where it isn’t too hard. Amusingly, the biggest remaining impediment is that there is a fair amount of reporting on the decades before this that the CIA spent backing Nazis in the Ukrainian SR.
Oh, and here’s a bonus, just for fun. I don’t believe you’ll really look at any of this, because the “marketplace of ideas” is bullshit, but you’re welcome to prove me wrong in that regard.
It’s the classic “I disavow the US, now let me parrot its state department.” I can’t help but notice that you sidestepped what I was actually saying about the US and China. My point was not simply that the US is bad, akshually. Any dipshit European liberal will clamber to tell you that. My point is that the US is a warmonger of world-historic proportions – one that is happy to annihilate political opposition in other countries while proclaiming “democracy” and “free speech” – while China is, if anything, making strides not only in being peaceful with other countries but in brokering peace between other countries for wars it is not involved in, much to America’s chagrin.
You can nebulously call China “worse,” but any concrete comparison of how they influence the world vs how the US influences the world will unconditionally refute that claim. “Oh, but Taiwan!” If China carpet-bombed Taiwan, my statement would still be correct, but China is interested in a peaceful reunification and if you look at the actual Taiwanese constitution and its diplomatic agreements, you would see that Taiwan does not claim independence but maintains that it is also China (just not the PRC). Now, there are powerful factions that lean more on the Taiwanese nationalist (independence) side, including President Tsai, but they are either patient or cowards because they have done very little to actually make the constitution and legislation reflect these views (to say nothing of diplomatic relations with the PRC), and merely spoke about it while gesturing to the legislative body that something might eventually be done to solve the issue. Twats like John Oliver do not accurately represent the policies or ideology of Taiwan.
And again, if China just fucking carpet-bombed Taiwan (which to be extra clear, I would completely oppose), that would still leave them light years ahead of the US, which incidentally does not seem that interested in Taiwanese independence as-such anyway.