Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Craig24 said:

In other words you believe that Amnesty International is being bribed in some way to keep their mouth shut about any persecution or genocide?  Is that your claim?  If so, can you prove that?

Try to keep the general abstraction in mind, *any* and all organizations are 'corruptible' (far more than just financial bribes) - is what I said and indicated - because their *name* and pedigree e.g. (just at random, for the hell of it): CDC, UN, NATO, EU, DNC [...] is not any continuing guarantee of their rational purpose and objective worth. Man made entities, not the metaphysical given - OR, 'mystical phenomena' as they are seemingly viewed, even revered, by some.

Humans constructed them and individual humans operate them. A few, not necessarily including the above institutions, will have been morally 'corrupted' majorly beyond repair, many will have a corrupt individual or two tainting the organization's value.

And btw, not a bad example: Amnesty International, as evidenced by its heavily biased opposition to Israel while blind or soft on other trouble spots and persecutions has likely become fatally compromised. By Leftist/Islamist ideologies, intimidation, power and funding at an educated guess.

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Of course. And you could also, very quickly and easily. But first you would have to want the truth.

My question was : "Can you prove your claim that "Zelensky has the goods on the Biden Crime Family" ?

If this is not a copout: yes, I do want the truth. As it was you who made the claim, it is up to you to prove it. I promise to consider your proof with all seriousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

🤣🤣🤣

1. Look Tony, this is not a site where people post their works of fiction. Not in this section, anyway.

I don’t think you got a license from this site’s owners which grants you the extraordinary privilege to be dispensed from the burden of grounding your assertions in FACT !

 

There's a limit. I have to assume that everybody here is perusing and considering anything they can find.

I can't help anyone to simply see what's in front of them, AlexL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I wonder, what would happen if the media propaganda provided by Russia Today combined forces with Putin's extremely authoritarian government? Maybe they would start a war with the Ukraine with exaggerated claims of genocide. 

Oh wait, I don't need to wonder, because this literally happened.

Fair enough. Excepting one thing, an autocratic ruler - within limits - can do whatever he wants, by definition. He doesn't ¬have¬ to have everybody or a majority on board with him. So media propaganda, influencing the population's minds, isn't essential to his aims.

The free-er nation does. Therefore, propagandizing and indoctrination will be more subtle, intensive (and corrosive) there.

A paradox.

A democracy will "propagandize" more and better than an autocracy.

That in fact is what I've observed with the state media in Russia.

RT's 'propaganda' is blunt, "in your face", and very often factual. Not as much do they need "misinformation" and concealment of info to convince you, and more often couldn't care less.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

In so far as Objectivism is concerned. (as this is Objectivism Online) it would be the core of why such a discussion is essential to Objectivism that is eluding me.

Can anyone help me here, or is the "obvious" beyond my capacity to grasp here, giving the "limitations" of language to communicate in this venue?

 

d_w, the best place for this discussion IS because this is an Objectivist forum. This war and its global response demands objectivity, from many more outspoken individuals. Not that it is "essential to Objectivism", but that Objectivism is essential and fundamental to (identifying, explaining, judging, resolving) it. In short: O'ism's applicability. None other, and I've read and heard many erudite intellectuals on this war, has the unified principles and methodology.

(I appreciate that opinions can be freely thrashed out here whereas, in other places one might be deplatformed and the site banned for daring to question the controlled, moral agenda).

"'Tis not unreasonable to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". David Hume

This anti-philosophy is what mankind has absorbed and we are up against.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:
21 hours ago, AlexL said:

🤣🤣🤣

1. Look Tony, this is not a site where people post their works of fiction. Not in this section, anyway. I don’t think you got a license from this site’s owners which grants you the extraordinary privilege to be dispensed from the burden of grounding your assertions in FACT !

There's a limit. I have to assume that everybody here is perusing and considering anything they can find. I can't help anyone to simply see what's in front of them, AlexL.

No, there is no limit for the principle of the onus of proof in a rational debate, even more so on this forum. You cannot ask the reader to fact-check himself the "facts" you generously put in your comments ("perusing and considering anything they can find"). When a reader asks you to, you are required to prove/justify your "facts". (And proof means a direct proof, not some rationalization fallacy like "but  how can you explain this otherwise?" and such.)

Instead, you explicitly reject the principle because it hinders the free-fly of thought:

Quote

The sure-fire way to bog down discussion and block fresh thought-directions, is the demand to validate every piece of data. There are inferences, implications, deductions and value-judgments which need to be integrated 'on the move' during these ongoing, volatile events - in order for one to even attempt to conceptualize the big picture. Your method would have us stuck on the ground floor, "fact-checking" trivia, long after events on the ground have outstripped debate: for better or for worse.

And no, rarely is a fact simply something one only needs to look at because it is "in front of them".

Regarding validation, here is the score:

- you validated NONE of your claims, not even those I asked you to,

- ALL your claims of fact that I did fact-check proved to be false. But you never acknowledge when your facts are clearly and unequivocally DIS-proved. 

PS: I note that you dodged again the problem with approvingly quoting governmental sources of warring parties, although it is an important question of principle.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

So media propaganda, influencing the population's minds, isn't essential to his aims.

Not really, because authoritarian governments actively suppress a lot of information while simultaneously presenting information that would justify their authority as something good and desirable - and thereby making people even easier to hold under their thumb. 

Would you show me the RT article that demonstrates your claim? Also, I would like some articles by Xinhua. After all, if authoritarians have the least need to manipulate the truth, their news sources should be the most accurate and truthful.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:
12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

@Jon Letendre has joined in with several others denouncing Tony.

No, I have never denounced Tony. Where do you get this? 

My apologies. You have rejoined the conversation, while several others have been taking Tony to task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Can someone enlighten me as to: Why is this discussion essential?

For one, I ask myself: "What is essential about what is going on between Russia and Ukraine?" In the responses so far, I'm not grasping what, in particular, is the essential significance.

That what is going on between Russia and Ukraine is that an independent and sovereign country was military attacked and an attempt is made to suppress dissolve it or at least continue to dismember it and incorporate the pieces. Crimea was already swallowed (in 2014), and parts of Donbas were already detached from Ukraine. With the second stage of the war, which started 5 months ago, the process continues with a much higher intensity.

It is unique in that it takes place in the 21 century, in Europe, in violation of a dozen of treaties regarding the independency and territorial integrity of post-soviet countries.

It is a textbook case of naked, cynical, perfidious aggression, similar to Nazi Germany (and Russia’s) aggression of Poland in 1939, which started WWII. For an Objectivism forum it is important as an opportunity to discuss the responses of USA and Europe to this war , from the point of view of Ethics and Political Philosophy

PS: About

Quote

The evaluations Tony makes continue to provide ongoing weight as someone engaged with various sources providing conflicting sources. What intrigues me is the number of individuals that suggest Tony is missing the point here.

In fact,

- the problem is that Tony is NOT providing conflicting sources, he mainly and consistently provides information, and supports his claims, from governmental sources of one of the warring parties;

- he is also not simply “missing the point”, he supplies “facts” he cannot (and is not willing) to validate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, AlexL said:

In fact,

- the problem is that Tony is NOT providing conflicting sources, he mainly and consistently provides information, and supports his claims, from governmental sources of one of the warring parties;

- he is also not simply “missing the point”, he supplies “facts” he cannot (and is not willing) to validate.

Those conflicting sources are rife. In almost all the mainstream media you get to see, I can be certain. Is it too difficult to entertain other conflicting sources?

Something you don't admit to, that there exists, and has for a long while, an indoctrinating and largely Leftist, western reportage - which is for its adherents, generally accepted as Gospel. Sure, no one likes to acknowledge that their minds have been easily influenced.

You don't approve of (Russian) government sources - despite many international broadcasters being Gvt. owned - fine and good;

it should be simple for you to counter and contrast an (e.g.) Russia Today's report with some from western media.

Why haven't you?

Instead of negatively hiding behind "prove it" - be proactive, offer some contrary accounts (and definite opinions). I welcome any.

I have seen nothing from you showing and linking to ¬msm¬ reports - perhaps too - critically questioning their factual evidence and clear bias.  

The belief that one side in this conflict alone is evidently, factually honest and the other side deceives all the time, aligns with the a priori belief that moral purity exists on one side - with only evil on the other. Both run against reality and reason, premised upon 'revealed' knowledge - faith.

In all, I have simply been the messenger, indicating that there are other facts (or 'non-facts') and other viewpoints available "out there", ones suppressed in the West, not heard of. These ought to be welcomed by rigorous thinkers.

Discussions and speeches I put up have not attracted any analysis or debate here. E.g. What merit are Mearsheimer's opinions of NATO and the Russian objections? Not a reply.   

In closing, I am under no obligation to "prove" anything that comes from media sources. Because - I was not there on the spot, to personally witness events. As nobody here is, therefore we have to painstakingly draw deductions from ¬all¬ we hear.

But I take the view that Objectivists are independent thinkers who aren't timid about uncovering reality without fear or favor.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

You don't approve of (Russian) government sources - despite many international broadcasters being Gvt. owned - fine and good;

Do you acknowledge that Russia literally censors any and all news that contradicts the pro Russian narrative on the conflict?  Why do they do that?  Do you approve of that?  How can that not cast at least a reasonable doubt on the veracity of what is reported?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a follow up to my last post here's a NY Times article on Russian censorship since the beginning of the conflict.

From the article:

Quote

 

Russia clamped down harder Friday on news and free speech than at any time in President Vladimir V. Putin’s 22 years in power, blocking access to Facebook and major foreign news outlets, and enacting a law to punish anyone spreading “false information” about its Ukraine invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

The crackdown comes as the Kremlin scrambles to contain discontent over the war and to control the narrative as Russia faces its most severe economic crisis in decades as a result of this week’s crushing Western sanctions. Fearing prosecution, more independent Russian news outlets shut down on Friday, and the BBC said it had suspended all of its operations in Russia.

Mr. Putin signed a law that effectively criminalizes any public opposition to or independent news reporting about the war against Ukraine. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craig24 said:

Do you acknowledge that Russia literally censors any and all news that contradicts the pro Russian narrative on the conflict?  Why do they do that?  Do you approve of that?  How can that not cast at least a reasonable doubt on the veracity of what is reported?

I acknowledge what I have endlessly repeated. ALL the media is guilty of the same thing. Pro-Ukraine, or Pro-Russian propaganda and censorship. I disapprove of each. One difference, RT and Sputnik have been largely banned in the West. Therefore, as intended, the ¬quantity¬ of propagandized material populaces are subject to, has to be 90+% favorable to Ukraine. Reasonable doubt and skepticism to all sources, is what I have constantly recommended.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

<...>

<...>

<...>

Fallacies, missing the point, failing to address the issue in question.

Quote

I am under no obligation to "prove" anything that comes from media sources. Because - I was not there on the spot, to personally witness events.

Correct, you are under no obligation to prove every bit that comes from media sources, but you have a strong obligation to prove, when asked to, the allegations contained in the pieces you approvingly quote.

Because you were not there on the spot and wish to understand what really happened, you have to rely on sources. You thus have to check their reliability. This is a long term task - years - and requires a strict discipline.

Governmental sources of the warring parties are a priori the least reliable of all - one never knows what is true and what is not. And precisely these are the sources you approvingly cite ! And you refuse to admit that they are a priory problematic and refuse to justify them when asked to.

As I noted before, regarding validation, the score is you validated NONE of your claims, not even those I asked you to, and ALL your claims of fact that I did fact-check proved to be false. But you never acknowledge when your facts are clearly and unequivocally DIS-proved. 

My judgment is that, in the debate about the war of Russia against Ukraine, your performance was awful.

It is up to the moderators to grant you or not the privilege to dispense you from the rule of the onus of proof.

Edited by AlexL
Some addition and rewording
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I acknowledge what I have endlessly repeated. ALL the media is guilty of the same thing. Pro-Ukraine, or Pro-Russian propaganda and censorship. I disapprove of each. One difference, RT and Sputnik have been largely banned in the West.

I'm calling BS on this claim.  Which western governments have censored RT and Sputnik?  If you are able to link to RT as a source it's obviously not banned where you live and it certainly isn't banned here in the US.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What source or sources would you consider to give the 'straight poop'? MSM in the US ? Pentagon spokespeople ? The US State Dept ?

At least two major 'news' providers CNN and MSNBC have intel officials as commentators/paid 'experts'.

The US is funding and giving aid/intel to one of the belligerents in the conflict , the EU too.

So who/what are 'a prior' sources to trust ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I acknowledge what I have endlessly repeated. ALL the media is guilty of the same thing.

RT is more guilty than the rest. 

You literally said that authoritarian governments have less interest in propaganda than democratic governments, and that democratic propaganda is more corrosive. Here you make a post that says RT is a bad source, and other sources are bad sources, but then you will later on clearly say that RT is the most preferable and the most truthful. You want us to be properly skeptical about news articles, but when we do this about the RT articles you link, you accuse us of demanding too much, don't bother responding to the parts we object to specifically, don't bother to give us follow-up information or secondary sources where we want to know more about your claims. You ask us to peruse everything we can find, but quite literally, you refuse to show us anything else you find besides RT articles. The very few non-RT articles you have linked, you either misunderstand the article or refuse to engage in discussion about the meaning of the article. 

It seems more likely you have a job at RT and get paid for clicks for articles you link. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

RT is more guilty than the rest. 

 

Missed the most salient point.

Once again:

Russia Today's propaganda output/audience is infinitesimally less the size of global MSM's propaganda outlet, by sheer volume.

Especially - since nobody (conveniently) is allowed to see it. i.e., it's banned, otherwise known as "censored", in Europe, at least.

Maybe you can deduce from this, that many times more people are brainwashed into a single narrative?

And how did you come by "more guilty" if you haven't been closely following RT?

You see a few stories, and that's that?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

How reliable is Monthly Review?

They identify as "socialist" - how does this affect their understanding?

They call the present system "capitalist" - how much do they understand about different systems and about what is at stake?

 

Right, about as socialist as they come. Which means do not read - ever!

You might never recover.

Something I've tried to get across, the cover doesn't represent the contents.

I advise, read and consider a range of journalists' broader knowledge and deeper understanding in isolation from where you find it, and "who" they are. Within the context of this war and about the actors involved, as these do, at minimum: they are not espousing "socialism" here, but offer a contrarian view based on facts and evidence.

Facts and evidence which one can learn from (and triple-check).

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is 'at stake?'

Eastern European territorial wars or the very concepts of in-dependency and sovereignty ? Democracy ?

Socialists have no footing to look at two corrupt regimes and see other parties picking 'sides' to further their own interests and call spades spades ?

Is it still cool to have a Ukrainian flag on your social media banner thing , are Ukrainian flag masks a thing ?

Link to comment
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.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...