Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
You two need to take a break from one another.

Time for biscuits then? Nice biscuits?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well he is basically a shill for Russia, there's zero point debating with him.

I could say the same about you and several others who have posted in this thread. You are so stuck in your Western viewpoints you fail to see the other side of the argument.

I actually don't remember taking a side in this thread* bar mocking the repeated reliance and love of RT. *and if I did I would be wrong, seeing as pretty much all of us here have no fething clue what's really going on, you included

I also find most western media outlets so biased it's not even funny. "Western opinion" of Iran being a massive example of this.

However you seem to think that by taking the other side and just eating the message wholeheartedly from said other side is perfectly fine because people on western side also do it, instead of realising it's just as bad as those people, and you shouldn't be doing it. You seem blindly patriotic of a country, which is always fething stupid regardless of country. Every single country does absolute gak things. Some more than others, some less than others. People need to stop pretending their "favourite" country's gak smells of roses. This has turned into a more general "You" rather than just you, Iron.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well he is basically a shill for Russia, there's zero point debating with him.

I could say the same about you and several others who have posted in this thread. You are so stuck in your Western viewpoints you fail to see the other side of the argument.

I actually don't remember taking a side in this thread* bar mocking the repeated reliance and love of RT. *and if I did I would be wrong, seeing as pretty much all of us here have no fething clue what's really going on, you included

I also find most western media outlets so biased it's not even funny. "Western opinion" of Iran being a massive example of this.

However you seem to think that by taking the other side and just eating the message wholeheartedly from said other side is perfectly fine because people on western side also do it, instead of realising it's just as bad as those people, and you shouldn't be doing it. You seem blindly patriotic of a country, which is always fething stupid regardless of country. Every single country does absolute gak things. Some more than others, some less than others. Stop pretending one countries gak smells of roses.

Than why do you mock only those who adhere to the Russian viewpoint, and not those who blindly cling to CNN, the BBC or any other Western mouthpiece?
As I have stated many times before, I do not blindly cling or rely on RT, nor do I agree with everything they say (especially stuff regarding Russian politics). I also watch the NOS and BBC, and sometimes I even find myself agreeing with them more than with what RT or ITAR-TASS says.
Also, Russia's gak does not smell of roses, it smells of bear droppings

Mostly because I'm used to those viewpoints being spouted so much I barely even notice them, so in one respect I am used to western media.

I typically automatically ignore them or just end up researching for myself if the issue itself interests me enough. Frankly, seeing your posts is actually starting to make me re-realise just how absurd a lot of it is.

Yeah, Putin is a witch, and Russia has a tendency to be a bully (much like every country with power over its neighbours), but it's still a country. It's not some moustache twirling villain.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Mostly because I'm used to those viewpoints being spouted so much I barely even notice them, so in one respect I am used to western media.

I typically automatically ignore them or just end up researching for myself if the issue itself interests me enough. Frankly, seeing your posts is actually starting to make me re-realise just how absurd a lot of it is.

Yeah, Putin is a witch, and Russia has a tendency to be a bully (much like every country with power over its neighbours), but it's still a country. It's not some moustache twirling villain.

Yeah, being too much used to Western viewpoints is a flaw I have noticed in many Westerners, and this flaw is equally present in Russians btw. I guess the familiarity with both sides is one of the few good things about being a Russian-Western hybrid.
I seem to have been mistake about you though. I thougt you were one of those blatant anti-Russians that has shown up in this thread before. It is easy to get wrong first impressions, especially on the internet. I am sorry.
I agree with your point about Russia. There is nothing that the Russians would want more than see the restoration of Russia to a Great Power like the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, and pushing around smaller neighbours unfortenately seems to be a part of being a Great Power.
I do like Putin though. He is kinda scary at times, and I don't always agree with him, but in the end, I trust him to have Russia's best interests at heart. He is the man who is responsible for rebuilding Russia after the ruination and disaster of the '90s, and he deserves much credit for that. He gave the Russians a new purpose and a new life. That goes a long way to explain his immense popularity among the Russians themselves. (It also helps that he looks like a badass spy and master manipulator )

Re Russia, I refer you all to Peter Hitchens. Hes an extremely well travelled foreign correspondent, and has lived in Russia (Moscow) both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Hes written extensively on how Russia has changed in the previous two and a half decades.

Though he is conservative, so a certain proportion of posters in this thread will no doubt dismiss him out of hand.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/russia/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Mostly because I'm used to those viewpoints being spouted so much I barely even notice them, so in one respect I am used to western media.

I typically automatically ignore them or just end up researching for myself if the issue itself interests me enough. Frankly, seeing your posts is actually starting to make me re-realise just how absurd a lot of it is.

Yeah, Putin is a witch, and Russia has a tendency to be a bully (much like every country with power over its neighbours), but it's still a country. It's not some moustache twirling villain.

Yeah, being too much used to Western viewpoints is a flaw I have noticed in many Westerners, and this flaw is equally present in Russians btw. I guess the familiarity with both sides is one of the few good things about being a Russian-Western hybrid.
I seem to have been mistake about you though. I thougt you were one of those blatant anti-Russians that has shown up in this thread before. It is easy to get wrong first impressions, especially on the internet. I am sorry.
I agree with your point about Russia. There is nothing that the Russians would want more than see the restoration of Russia to a Great Power like the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, and pushing around smaller neighbours unfortenately seems to be a part of being a Great Power.
I do like Putin though. He is kinda scary at times, and I don't always agree with him, but in the end, I trust him to have Russia's best interests at heart. He is the man who is responsible for rebuilding Russia after the ruination and disaster of the '90s, and he deserves much credit for that. He gave the Russians a new purpose and a new life. That goes a long way to explain his immense popularity among the Russians themselves. (It also helps that he looks like a badass spy and master manipulator )

I admire Putin for his ruthless pursuit of Russian national interests. But thats not to say that I like him - the guys a homophobic donkey-cave. Would that my own country's Prime Ministers were so ruthless when it came to defending British national interests against the EU.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Though he is conservative, so a certain proportion of posters in this thread will no doubt dismiss him out of hand.

God forbid we should have a rational political discussion on the Internet.

Unless Hitchens is spouting some pants on head nonsense, he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Stuff like "Homophobia is good", I mean.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Unless Hitchens is spouting some pants on head nonsense, he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Stuff like "Homophobia is good", I mean.

When has he ever said that?

He knows and fully admits that social conservatism has totally lost on the issue and has no interest in fighting over it. His attitude is that the issue of homosexuality is frequently used to discriminate against Christians for their religious views, things like gay marriage are used to rile traditional conservatives up so they can be "jeered and howled at".

And in any case, "Homophobia" is a totally overused term almost completely devoid of meaning nowadays, much like "racism".


Edit:

And please note, I'm atheist not a Christian.

Sorry Shadow, I wasn't actually trying to subtly imply he has. I was literally just giving an example of something stupid to say.

Tis a misunderstanding.

Ok.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I said Kharkov, not Lvov. Kharkov and Lvov are a country apart, not only in distance but also in culture, political attitudes and prosperity.

Semantics, you understand full well what I meant.

don't know his blueforcetracker, but it seems to be a site that is primarily about the US military.

From their 'about page':

About

"America doesn't know its military and the United States military doesn't know America” — Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let’s fix that.

In the military there is a tool called “blue force tracking,” which depicts with icons on a satellite image of the battlespace where every U.S. military unit is positioned.

We want to give the American people something similar. Our intent is to help close the growing civilian-military divide by giving our audience an unbiased, unfiltered and realistic account of what the military does and the world in which they operate — from writers who have "boots on the ground' experience.

Our team of journalists include veterans of the military, intelligence agencies, diplomatic corps, as well as other journalists who share in our vision and have unique, real-world experience on the topics and regions about which they report.

The voice of veterans and those who value unbiased journalism is underrepresented in the media. We aim to change that.

This project is a joint venture between two brothers who are both veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was inspired by one of the brothers' return to the Afghanistan War in 2013 as a freelance war correspondent after a career as an Air Force Special Operations pilot. While embedded with frontline U.S. and Afghan combat units, that brother, Nolan Peterson, discovered his military background led him to report on the war differently than his colleagues, highlighting how military veterans, as well as veterans of intelligence agencies and diplomatic corps, have a unique credibility and expertise about the regions and issues with which most Americans are unfamiliar.

It's in no way, shape, or form an 'official' propaganda piece, many of the articles go against the 'party line', and some of those articles would result in a courts-martial were the given contributor an active duty servicemember.

In any case, I would school you on the rest of your post, but its plain that you actually have no idea what it is you're talking about, and also attributing 'bias' to factual statements that you just so happen to disagree with because you're too blind to reality.

As I have stated many times before, I do not blindly cling or rely on RT, nor do I agree with everything they say (especially stuff regarding Russian politics).

Yes you do, you totally do.

I admire Putin for his ruthless pursuit of Russian national interests. But thats not to say that I like him - the guys a homophobic donkey-cave. Would that my own country's Prime Ministers were so ruthless when it came to defending British national interests against the EU.

Agreed. If his domestic policy was more progressive and less authoritarian I would actually have to label him as an idol/role model, the guy is a ruthless bastard in all the best ways.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I said Kharkov, not Lvov. Kharkov and Lvov are a country apart, not only in distance but also in culture, political attitudes and prosperity.

Semantics, you understand full well what I meant.

No I didn't. It is more than semantics. The difference between Lvov and Kharkov is of paramount importance to this whole conflict.

chaos0xomega wrote:

don't know his blueforcetracker, but it seems to be a site that is primarily about the US military.

From their 'about page':

About

"America doesn't know its military and the United States military doesn't know America” — Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let’s fix that.

In the military there is a tool called “blue force tracking,” which depicts with icons on a satellite image of the battlespace where every U.S. military unit is positioned.

We want to give the American people something similar. Our intent is to help close the growing civilian-military divide by giving our audience an unbiased, unfiltered and realistic account of what the military does and the world in which they operate — from writers who have "boots on the ground' experience.

Our team of journalists include veterans of the military, intelligence agencies, diplomatic corps, as well as other journalists who share in our vision and have unique, real-world experience on the topics and regions about which they report.

The voice of veterans and those who value unbiased journalism is underrepresented in the media. We aim to change that.

This project is a joint venture between two brothers who are both veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was inspired by one of the brothers' return to the Afghanistan War in 2013 as a freelance war correspondent after a career as an Air Force Special Operations pilot. While embedded with frontline U.S. and Afghan combat units, that brother, Nolan Peterson, discovered his military background led him to report on the war differently than his colleagues, highlighting how military veterans, as well as veterans of intelligence agencies and diplomatic corps, have a unique credibility and expertise about the regions and issues with which most Americans are unfamiliar.

It's in no way, shape, or form an 'official' propaganda piece, many of the articles go against the 'party line', and some of those articles would result in a courts-martial were the given contributor an active duty servicemember.

I remain unconvinced. Even if it is not 'an official propaganda piece', even if it is critical at times, it still is US military, and I expect little good and much bias from there regarding Russia. I would need to see a completely unbiased article or an article supportive of Russia in order to change my opinion.

chaos0xomega wrote:
In any case, I would school you on the rest of your post, but its plain that you actually have no idea what it is you're talking about, and also attributing 'bias' to factual statements that you just so happen to disagree with because you're too blind to reality.

These are not factual statements: "Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan"
"(including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush)"
And the worst: "I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine."
Furthermore, there can be bias in factual statements as well. For example: "The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering."

You can either respond normally to my arguments or admit that you have lost the discussion. Trying to get out of it using fallacious ad hominem arguments is not going to do you any good.

chaos0xomega wrote:

As I have stated many times before, I do not blindly cling or rely on RT, nor do I agree with everything they say (especially stuff regarding Russian politics).

Yes you do, you totally do.

No, I totally don't. You, on the other hand, seem to cling blindly only to Western sources. No wonder you can't detect the anti-Russian bias in those articles.
Even when I actually highlight it and explain why it is biased, you still can't see it.

No I didn't. It is more than semantics. The difference between Lvov and Kharkov is of paramount importance to this whole conflict.

Nope, semantics. You understood that I was requesting you to provide me with the 'opposition' point of view article which you initially requested I provide, something which I have thus far been unable to find and something which you have thus far failed to produce. Whether or not that opposition viewpoint comes from Lvov or Kharkov is irrelevant, so long as you provide the opposition point of view.

I remain unconvinced. Even if it is not 'an official propaganda piece', even if it is critical at times, it still is US military, and I expect little good and much bias from there regarding Russia. I would need to see a completely unbiased article or an article supportive of Russia in order to change my opinion.

The journalists are military, yes, the source itself is not. AND LOL, an article supportive of Russia? Thats the opposite of 'unbiased', also you will no doubt find something to be biaed against because you dont *want* to believe that anything except Russian news sources could possibly be unbiased.

These are not factual statements: "Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan"

That is factual. Russian news sources, which really are no different than propaganda mouthpieces, have tried to influence opinion on the Maidan. You cannot argue otherwise, as that is pretty much the purpose of all media in this modern day and age (sadly enough).

"(including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush)"

While the part about 'making Goebbels blush' is not factual and the result of artistic license, RT and Russia24 have most certainly been pumping out falsities about the situation (again, just like many western news sources), that is most certainly describable as 'propaganda filth', particularly when those media sources are describing things that contradicts someones first hand experience. Kinda like how you're doing, because you know you're totally in Kyiv and capable of making an assessment of whats going on over there, even though you've been living in The Netherlands for the past how many years now?

"I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine."

Factual, if you know anything about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Polish state, and the late-period Austro-Hungarian Empire, you would know that they were far less centralized and authoritarian, if not democratic or borderline democratic, than Tsarist (and later Soviet) rule. Just because you're ignorant of historical governances of various now-defunct political entities does not make it any less true.

Furthermore, there can be bias in factual statements as well. For example: "The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering."

Nope, thats actually pretty accurate. The only bias here is that he assumes that RT and Russia24 are the only media sources in Russia, which can be written off as ignorance on his part, whereas alternative media sources in the US are becoming increasingly prevalent, many of which produce more factual and accurate articles than the likes of CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.

You can either respond normally to my arguments or admit that you have lost the discussion. Trying to get out of it using fallacious ad hominem arguments is not going to do you any good.

Bro, do you even know what ad hominem means? Because I haven't made any. Also, check mate.

No, I totally don't. You, on the other hand, seem to cling blindly only to Western sources. No wonder you can't detect the anti-Russian bias in those articles.
Even when I actually highlight it and explain why it is biased, you still can't see it.

No. You totally do. 90% of your posts featuring some source are exclusively Russian media outlets, which you uphold to be factual, more unbiased, and more accurate than any other form of source. If anything you're the one incapable of distinguished between unbiased and pro-Russian sources, and see anti-Russian sentiment even when there isn't any. The article itself isn't even *about* Russia, but rather a first hand account of whats occurring or what occurred there and how the media on both sides of the divide has misrepresented the situation.

BTW, you completely glossed over this bit:

I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective.

(I'll let you draw your own conclusions.)

Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians.

(Uh huh, so he only has a bias against Russians, right?)

Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.

("World News" is specifically Russian?)

Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research).

(Contrast this to Western Media which is more diverse in that it has many 'alternative' outlets which are able to avoid being propaganda mouthpieces, something which Russias primarily state run and centrally controlled media has difficulty avoiding. This one is probably a bit biased, but I'm using this specifically as a dig against you)

The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.

Again, the mainstream Russian media has misrepresented the situation greatly, if there is an independent Russian media source that hasn't, I can't verify, because i don't speak Russian and it seems only the obviously biased sources are available in English, whereas (as an American) I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc.

Did you really just say that Fox and CNN aren't biased?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Did you really just say that Fox and CNN aren't biased?

Did you really not just read what he posted?

Again, the mainstream Russian media has misrepresented the situation greatly, if there is an independent Russian media source that hasn't, I can't verify, because i don't speak Russian and it seems only the obviously biased sources are available in English, whereas (as an American) I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc.

He's not saying that Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc are unbiased. He's saying that he has easy access to multiple sources.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Did you really just say that Fox and CNN aren't biased?

Did you really not just read what he posted?

Again, the mainstream Russian media has misrepresented the situation greatly, if there is an independent Russian media source that hasn't, I can't verify, because i don't speak Russian and it seems only the obviously biased sources are available in English, whereas (as an American) I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc.

He's not saying that Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc are unbiased. He's saying that he has easy access to multiple sources.

Clearly I misread:

"I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc."

as

"I have easy access to sources which aren't [biased] : CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc."

Which totally changes the meaning.


All you needed to do was point out my mistake. Retorting "Did you really not just read what he posted?" was unnecessary.

Children, children, lets not bicker amongst ourselves, people make mistakes... let us remain united amongst our common enemy... Iron_Captain....

Noam Chomsky on Propaganda
"The Big Idea" - a half hour interview between Noam Chomsky and British journalist Andrew Marr, first aired by the BBC in February 1996.

I think they're all liars.

I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to.
Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.

chaos0xomega wrote:

No I didn't. It is more than semantics. The difference between Lvov and Kharkov is of paramount importance to this whole conflict.

Nope, semantics. You understood that I was requesting you to provide me with the 'opposition' point of view article which you initially requested I provide, something which I have thus far been unable to find and something which you have thus far failed to produce. Whether or not that opposition viewpoint comes from Lvov or Kharkov is irrelevant, so long as you provide the opposition point of view.

I did not understand that, and I don't now. I said it would also be nice that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov. That way we get two sides of the conflict which will somewhat negate the bias that is present in both side's articles.

chaos0xomega wrote:

I remain unconvinced. Even if it is not 'an official propaganda piece', even if it is critical at times, it still is US military, and I expect little good and much bias from there regarding Russia. I would need to see a completely unbiased article or an article supportive of Russia in order to change my opinion.

The journalists are military, yes, the source itself is not. AND LOL, an article supportive of Russia? Thats the opposite of 'unbiased', also you will no doubt find something to be biaed against because you dont *want* to believe that anything except Russian news sources could possibly be unbiased.

The journalists are military or ex military, as is the source in this case. If they were to also post an article supportive of Russia, that would show that they are not biased against it. Highlighted in red is a fallacy. Your assumption is also false btw.

chaos0xomega wrote:

These are not factual statements: "Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan"

That is factual. Russian news sources, which really are no different than propaganda mouthpieces, have tried to influence opinion on the Maidan. You cannot argue otherwise, as that is pretty much the purpose of all media in this modern day and age (sadly enough).

Looking it over again, it indeed is a factual statement. That does not change its biased nature however.

chaos0xomega wrote:

"(including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush)"

While the part about 'making Goebbels blush' is not factual and the result of artistic license, RT and Russia24 have most certainly been pumping out falsities about the situation (again, just like many western news sources), that is most certainly describable as 'propaganda filth', particularly when those media sources are describing things that contradicts someones first hand experience. Kinda like how you're doing, because you know you're totally in Kyiv and capable of making an assessment of whats going on over there, even though you've been living in The Netherlands for the past how many years now?

Yay! Keep the fallacies coming! Maybe I should start highlighting them too? The first part of what you write here I can actually agree with. It also shows much less bias than the original article as you mention that it is not only Russian sources doing that. However, after that you descend into a grossly incorrect fallacy. A pity. At no point did I presume to be able to make a full assessment of what is going on, unlike the author of the article, I might add. I only have what I can piece together from different news sources and family and friends in the Ukraine.

chaos0xomega wrote:

"I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine."

Factual, if you know anything about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Polish state, and the late-period Austro-Hungarian Empire, you would know that they were far less centralized and authoritarian, if not democratic or borderline democratic, than Tsarist (and later Soviet) rule. Just because you're ignorant of historical governances of various now-defunct political entities does not make it any less true.

Fallacies highlighted in red. Trust me, I know plenty about the Austrian Empire and even more about the Commonwealth, and calling them 'borderline democratic' is quite laughable. The Austrian Empire was as autocratic as it gets, while the Commonwealth had a fair level of democracy on the top level (the king was elected, there was a parliament etc.), this was only for the nobility and it was not anywhere near democratic in the modern sense of the word. For the average peasant it really did not matter in which state they lived. There is also the fact that the Commonwealth and the Austrian Empire especially deliberately repressed Ukrainian culture and Orthodox religion in favour of Polish/German culture and Catholicism. Just look up a few articles on Polonisation in the Commonwealth and Germanisation in the Austrian Empire.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Furthermore, there can be bias in factual statements as well. For example: "The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering."

Nope, thats actually pretty accurate. The only bias here is that he assumes that RT and Russia24 are the only media sources in Russia, which can be written off as ignorance on his part, whereas alternative media sources in the US are becoming increasingly prevalent, many of which produce more factual and accurate articles than the likes of CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.

I did not dispute the accuracy of the statement. The bias, apart from what you mention here, is also that it implies that Russian media always has this discrepancy, while Western media only has it sometimes.
Also, there are plenty of alternate, independent media sources in Russia as well.

chaos0xomega wrote:

You can either respond normally to my arguments or admit that you have lost the discussion. Trying to get out of it using fallacious ad hominem arguments is not going to do you any good.

Bro, do you even know what ad hominem means? Because I haven't made any. Also, check mate.

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

I would school you on the rest of your post, but its plain that you actually have no idea what it is you're talking about

This is a classical example of a ad hominem attack. You are evading the actual topic and having to respond to my arguments by saying I don't know anything about it. Lol.
And this only one example, you have made many more of this kind of attacks.

chaos0xomega wrote:

No, I totally don't. You, on the other hand, seem to cling blindly only to Western sources. No wonder you can't detect the anti-Russian bias in those articles.
Even when I actually highlight it and explain why it is biased, you still can't see it.

No. You totally do. 90% of your posts featuring some source are exclusively Russian media outlets, which you uphold to be factual, more unbiased, and more accurate than any other form of source. If anything you're the one incapable of distinguished between unbiased and pro-Russian sources, and see anti-Russian sentiment even when there isn't any. The article itself isn't even *about* Russia, but rather a first hand account of whats occurring or what occurred there and how the media on both sides of the divide has misrepresented the situation.

No, I totally don't. I have explained this before. Just because I sometimes post an RT article in this thread doesn't mean that RT is my only source of news. Please stop being childish and assuming that.
Also, you are now just putting words in my mouth, as I have never claimed RT or any other Russian media outlet to be more factual and unbiased than mainstream Western media outlets.
I am also perfectly capable of detecting pro-Russian bias. Just give me an article that you think has a pro-Russian bias and I will highlight it.
And just because you don't see any anti-Russian bias in an article, doesn't mean it is not there. This anti-Russian bias is so common in the West most Westerners don't even notice it anymore. They are too used to it and see it as normal.
The article is about Russia. Not about Russia as a country or nation, but it is about Russian media. About media misrepresentation, indeed, but it is biased in that it mostly mentions Russian media as being guilty of it, whereas Western and Ukrainian media really isn't any better.

chaos0xomega wrote:
BTW, you completely glossed over this bit:

I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective.

(I'll let you draw your own conclusions.) (He was too objective, but to what side? Was he too pro-Ukrainian? Or too pro-Russian? I don't know, the article doesn't mention it, and that is why I skipped it.) (Edit: I seem to have confused the words objective and subjective here, but I still don't really seen any bias here.

Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians.

(Uh huh, so he only has a bias against Russians, right?) (No, this was actually a good statement that I fully agreed with)

Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.

("World News" is specifically Russian?) (I am not sure I get this one. I thought he referred to world news in general and I skipped over it because I did not see any bias in it. I strongly agree with him though, I have also heard several times already that the whole protest looked worse in the media than that it really was.)

Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research).

(Contrast this to Western Media which is more diverse in that it has many 'alternative' outlets which are able to avoid being propaganda mouthpieces, something which Russias primarily state run and centrally controlled media has difficulty avoiding. This one is probably a bit biased, but I'm using this specifically as a dig against you) (Russia has plenty of alternative and independent media outlets as well. But apart from the Moscow Times, all those I know of are in Russian and thus useless for posting on Dakka. I do read several of them though. The statement itself is not really that biased. But I would like to remark that however formidable the Russian propaganda machine is, the Western one is even better.)

The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.

Again, the mainstream Russian media has misrepresented the situation greatly, if there is an independent Russian media source that hasn't, I can't verify, because i don't speak Russian and it seems only the obviously biased sources are available in English, whereas (as an American) I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc. (Indeed it has. The Western mainstream media however has not been much better. The availibility of independent Russian news sources in English is quite sad indeed. The only Russian media that publishes in English does so for propaganda purposes, so I suppose on one hand you can't really blame people for thinking all Russian media is like that.)

You seem to not know what objective means based on "(He was too objective, but to what side? Was he too pro-Ukrainian? Or too pro-Russian? I don't know, the article doesn't mention it, and that is why I skipped it.)"

It would mean they're neither pro Russian or pro Ukrainian, but are in fact just trying to report the actual facts without trying to colour it favourably for a specific country.

I'll add just in case, if the journalists were objective to Russian interests and reported truthfully, but pro-Ukrainian and reported falsehoods to make them look better, they would not actually be being objective. They would just be being pro-Ukrainian.

When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.

1. How did Blue Force Tracker get involve in this?

I said it would also be nice that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov.

I don't understand the idea that a Russian must be automatically pro-Russia and an American pro-America.

I also don't understand the idea that all Russian news sources are untrustworthy, or that the Western press is full of massive bias that Westerners cannot see.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.

Nah, no way I sound like a commissar.
To prove it I will upload a picture of my reaction when reading Dakka:

As you can see, I am absolutely no commissar.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to.
Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.

You're out of your league, I assure you I am FAR more familiar with logical fallacies than you are. I'd give you a list of all the fallacies which you yourself are subject to, but I'm at work and don't have the time to rewrite the Bible.

I did not understand that, and I don't now. I said it would also be nice that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov. That way we get two sides of the conflict which will somewhat negate the bias that is present in both side's articles.

Right, and I said provide me with the article written by a Russian in Kharkov (Lviv was typed in error) and I will. Once again, semantics. Speaking of fallacies, you realize of course that most of your posts only provide the perspective of Russian news media and don't include a Western media counterpart? A bit hypocritical don't ya think?

The journalists are military or ex military, as is the source in this case. If they were to also post an article supportive of Russia, that would show that they are not biased against it. Highlighted in red is a fallacy. Your assumption is also false btw.

That is neither a logical fallacy, nor is it a false assumption, as others have posted moderate views previously and you still found issue with them. There is seemingly no pleasing you unless someone agrees with you completely. Seemingly every other regular commentator in this thread has said as much already, at this point you're a troll and a nuisance, pretending to be the rider of a high horse and the voice of reason despite the obvious fact that you are guilty of everything you have accused others of, and are (at this point) simply projecting your own behaviors onto others.

Beyond that, your argument that "they post something supportive of Russia" implies that Russia has done something wholly positive in this situation, which it hasn't by any metric except that of the most ardent supporters and apologists viewpoint, at best Russia has done things which lie within the grey area of moral and legal ambiguity, as even their seemingly positive actions and behaviors all have underlying subtexts and motives behind them.

That does not change its biased nature however.

If its biased, its biased against propaganda, not Russia itself.

Yay! Keep the fallacies coming! Maybe I should start highlighting them too? The first part of what you write here I can actually agree with. It also shows much less bias than the original article as you mention that it is not only Russian sources doing that. However, after that you descend into a grossly incorrect fallacy. A pity. At no point did I presume to be able to make a full assessment of what is going on, unlike the author of the article, I might add. I only have what I can piece together from different news sources and family and friends in the Ukraine.

Once again, there isn't actually a logical fallacy in that statement... What did you learn what those were at school recently and now you consider yourself an expert in them or something? *Ahem*, so what you're saying is that you're arguing from a position of less than complete secondhand information drawn from largely biased sources, and claiming that your information and knowledge is not only more valid than a first hand account, but also more somehow more accurate and more informed? Theres a logical fallacy there...

Fallacies highlighted in red.

I'm starting to think that that word doesn't mean what you think it means...

Trust me, I know plenty about the Austrian Empire and even more about the Commonwealth, and calling them 'borderline democratic' is quite laughable. The Austrian Empire was as autocratic as it gets, while the Commonwealth had a fair level of democracy on the top level (the king was elected, there was a parliament etc.), this was only for the nobility and it was not anywhere near democratic in the modern sense of the word. For the average peasant it really did not matter in which state they lived. There is also the fact that the Commonwealth and the Austrian Empire especially deliberately repressed Ukrainian culture and Orthodox religion in favour of Polish/German culture and Catholicism. Just look up a few articles on Polonisation in the Commonwealth and Germanisation in the Austrian Empire.

What are they teaching kids in school these days? First, Austria-Hungary - Note that I said late period, implying somewhere in the mid-19th century to its dissolution. First this first, two separate semi-autonomous nations which shared a common monarch and several common institutions. Both Austria and Hungary extended varying degrees of autonomy to various regions with various ethnic majorities. Croatia, under Hungarian rule, received a considerable amount of political/governmental autonomy for example (and in fact there was a large element within the Austro-Hungarian government that was pushing for a triple-crown with Croatia). Numerous languages within Austria-Hungary were given official recognition to be used in official capacities in schools, offices, courts, the military, etc. and numerous officials were required to speak German, Hungarian, Czech, and further languages as a result. Serfdom was eliminated following the revolutions of 1848, and with the adoption of the February Patent of 1867 the bicameral Austrian Imperial Council (which applies only the Austrian sphere of influence, aka Cisleithania) provided for a parliament with a lower house elected by male tax-paying citizens. Hungary, on the other hand had the Diet which was also bicameral ala the British (and Austrian) parliamentary system, and also provided for a lower house elected by... well thats a complicated function of land ownership, taxes, profession, etc. but it allowed for civic participation. Beyond that, owing to the decentralized nature of the Austro-Hungarian government, numerous local governing bodies (the name and structure of which varied from town to town, region to region, etc.) allowed for elected officials. That doesn't even go into all the efforts that various elements within said government had gone through to further liberalize the government, had Archduke Franz Ferdinand not been assassinated, the intent was to remodel the Austro-Hungarian government largely after the United States. While perhaps not democratic, there was definitely room for participatory politics within Austria Hungary, at least for a reasonable chunk of the population.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a similar dual crown system, and has long been regarded as one of the forerunners to the modern democracies and constitutional monarchies, and for the time period was extremely liberal and progressive. That alone should say plenty about the nature of their government. I believe official doctrine was something like "A republic under the presidency of the king", and while the bi/tricameral legislative body was appointed by the King (which in turn elected the King), candidates were put forward by local elected legislative bodies, so again, participatory politics. Beyond that, the "Golden Liberty" allowed for a rather considerable amount of freedoms and participation in civic society.

Now lets look at Tsarist Russia. Serfdom was a thing until 1861 (so no real participation whatsoever prior to that point), after which it was officially abolished, but was still functionally intact as a result of socio-economic realities (much like how after the abolition of slavery within the US, a functional equivalent was still in effect). It wasn't until 1906 that the mirs/volosts really held any meaning as a form of participatory politics, and prior to that point civic participation in the lower levels (read: vast majority) of Russian society revolved around communal farming in an attempt to eak out a meager living.

Soviet Russia, at least had universal suffrage and elected bodies, but participation was severely limited by Party politics, favoritism, nepotism, and all the other various 'isms' that put up effective barriers to participation for the general majority of the population, save those who were connected or fortunate enough to find themselves in the right place at the right time under the right circumstances. Beyond that, it was still a one-party system and single-candidate ballots were anything but uncommon.

As for Austria-Hungary and Poland-Lithuanias treatment of Ukrainians specifically, I can't really comment. What I do know is that 200-300 thousand Ukrainians volunteered for service in the Austro-Hungarian army during the First World War, and what I do know is that both Tsarist and Soviet Russia repressed Ukrainians in the extreme, even going so far as to create a man-made famine in an effort to exterminate Ukrainians via genocide. See also: Holodomor.

I did not dispute the accuracy of the statement. The bias, apart from what you mention here, is also that it implies that Russian media always has this discrepancy, while Western media only has it sometimes.

The 'sometimes' is used because the author is familiar with alternative western media sources, whereas the average American, myself included, is not familiar with the alternative Russian media sources.

This is a classical example of a ad hominem attack. You are evading the actual topic and having to respond to my arguments by saying I don't know anything about it. Lol.
And this only one example, you have made many more of this kind of attacks.

Not really, as I did address the actual points (despite disparaging remarks to the contrary) Technicalities my friend, technicalities.

No, I totally don't. I have explained this before. Just because I sometimes post an RT article in this thread doesn't mean that RT is my only source of news. Please stop being childish and assuming that.

Ever hear the phrase 'actions speak louder than words'?

Also, you are now just putting words in my mouth, as I have never claimed RT or any other Russian media outlet to be more factual and unbiased than mainstream Western media outlets.

Again, actions speak louder than words. You are generally, if not automatically, dismissive of any source that isn't Russian or pro-Russian, at least in relation to this specific topic. While you claim to take a moderate and unbiased approach, your behavior very much shows otherwise.

And just because you don't see any anti-Russian bias in an article, doesn't mean it is not there. This anti-Russian bias is so common in the West most Westerners don't even notice it anymore. They are too used to it and see it as normal.
The article is about Russia. Not about Russia as a country or nation, but it is about Russian media. About media misrepresentation, indeed, but it is biased in that it mostly mentions Russian media as being guilty of it, whereas Western and Ukrainian media really isn't any better.

No, the article is (again) a first hand account of the situation on the ground in the Ukraine and how it is *not* what it has been portrayed as internationally.

(Russia has plenty of alternative and independent media outlets as well. But apart from the Moscow Times, all those I know of are in Russian and thus useless for posting on Dakka. I do read several of them though. The statement itself is not really that biased. But I would like to remark that however formidable the Russian propaganda machine is, the Western one is even better.)

I would disagree, since the general consensus amongst the majority (like easily 90%) of the people I know is that the western media is bogus and not to be trusted for anything other than what Kim Kardashian wore to the Oscars... I *would* disagree, but despite that general consensus, somehow in the grand scheme of things it still manages to drive public opinion regardless.

When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.

Agreed. I keep picturing him sitting there in a Budenovka and a fake Order of the Red Star medal pinned to his chest typing all this stuff while staring lovingly at a portrait of Stalin sitting on the corner of his desk and a copy of Pravda rolled up next to his keyboard.

 Jihadin wrote:
1. How did Blue Force Tracker get involve in this?

I posted a link to a pretty good article by a contributor detailing a first-hand account of what was up, and Iron_Captain took offense.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.

Nah, no way I sound like a commissar.
To prove it I will upload a picture of my reaction when reading Dakka:

As you can see, I am absolutely no commissar.

Wow, thats eerily accurate...

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to.
Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.

You're out of your league, I assure you I am FAR more familiar with logical fallacies than you are. I'd give you a list of all the fallacies which you yourself are subject to, but I'm at work and don't have the time to rewrite the Bible.

You don't need to give me a list, I can find one myself.
There are more fallacies than just logical fallacies and it is strange to assume you are more familiar with something than someone you don't even know is.

chaos0xomega wrote:

I did not understand that, and I don't now. I said it would also be nice that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov. That way we get two sides of the conflict which will somewhat negate the bias that is present in both side's articles.

Right, and I said provide me with the article written by a Russian in Kharkov (Lviv was typed in error) and I will. Once again, semantics. Speaking of fallacies, you realize of course that most of your posts only provide the perspective of Russian news media and don't include a Western media counterpart? A bit hypocritical don't ya think?

Ach so, than it was a simple misunderstanding. I shall look if I can find anything interesting in English.
And you are right, I am hypocrytical. The next time I post something from RT it is your full right to also request an article from 'the other side'. (I would like to note however, that I already have done so on several occasions)

chaos0xomega wrote:

The journalists are military or ex military, as is the source in this case. If they were to also post an article supportive of Russia, that would show that they are not biased against it. Highlighted in red is a fallacy. Your assumption is also false btw.

That is neither a logical fallacy, nor is it a false assumption, as others have posted moderate views previously and you still found issue with them. There is seemingly no pleasing you unless someone agrees with you completely. Seemingly every other regular commentator in this thread has said as much already, at this point you're a troll and a nuisance, pretending to be the rider of a high horse and the voice of reason despite the obvious fact that you are guilty of everything you have accused others of, and are (at this point) simply projecting your own behaviors onto others.

True, it was an informal fallacy, not a fallacy in logic. "Moderate" is a matter of opinion, and there have been many comments and commenters in this thread I have had zero issue with. And even with those I disagree with, I don't really have any issue. Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion, no?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Beyond that, your argument that "they post something supportive of Russia" implies that Russia has done something wholly positive in this situation, which it hasn't by any metric except that of the most ardent supporters and apologists viewpoint, at best Russia has done things which lie within the grey area of moral and legal ambiguity, as even their seemingly positive actions and behaviors all have underlying subtexts and motives behind them.

"Something positive" is again a matter of opinion. To me, the Russian takeover of Crimea was incredibly positive.
But in any case, I was not just talking about the crisis here, but about Russia in general. Writing something positive about Russia's actions should not be thathard, Russia has done plenty of positive stuff in the past.

chaos0xomega wrote:

That does not change its biased nature however.

If its biased, its biased against propaganda, not Russia itself.

It is biased specifically against Russian propaganda.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Yay! Keep the fallacies coming! Maybe I should start highlighting them too? The first part of what you write here I can actually agree with. It also shows much less bias than the original article as you mention that it is not only Russian sources doing that. However, after that you descend into a grossly incorrect fallacy. A pity. At no point did I presume to be able to make a full assessment of what is going on, unlike the author of the article, I might add. I only have what I can piece together from different news sources and family and friends in the Ukraine.

Once again, there isn't actually a logical fallacy in that statement... What did you learn what those were at school recently and now you consider yourself an expert in them or something? *Ahem*, so what you're saying is that you're arguing from a position of less than complete secondhand information drawn from largely biased sources, and claiming that your information and knowledge is not only more valid than a first hand account, but also more somehow more accurate and more informed? Theres a logical fallacy there...

Once again, logical fallacies are not the only kind of fallacy. And yes, I did have them at school not too long ago and it seems you could also use a lesson to refresh your memory here. Also, I do not recall claiming my account to be more accurate and informed. Are you putting words in my mouth again?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Trust me, I know plenty about the Austrian Empire and even more about the Commonwealth, and calling them 'borderline democratic' is quite laughable. The Austrian Empire was as autocratic as it gets, while the Commonwealth had a fair level of democracy on the top level (the king was elected, there was a parliament etc.), this was only for the nobility and it was not anywhere near democratic in the modern sense of the word. For the average peasant it really did not matter in which state they lived. There is also the fact that the Commonwealth and the Austrian Empire especially deliberately repressed Ukrainian culture and Orthodox religion in favour of Polish/German culture and Catholicism. Just look up a few articles on Polonisation in the Commonwealth and Germanisation in the Austrian Empire.

What are they teaching kids in school these days? First, Austria-Hungary - Note that I said late period, implying somewhere in the mid-19th century to its dissolution. First this first, two separate semi-autonomous nations which shared a common monarch and several common institutions. Both Austria and Hungary extended varying degrees of autonomy to various regions with various ethnic majorities. Croatia, under Hungarian rule, received a considerable amount of political/governmental autonomy for example (and in fact there was a large element within the Austro-Hungarian government that was pushing for a triple-crown with Croatia). Numerous languages within Austria-Hungary were given official recognition to be used in official capacities in schools, offices, courts, the military, etc. and numerous officials were required to speak German, Hungarian, Czech, and further languages as a result. Serfdom was eliminated following the revolutions of 1848, and with the adoption of the February Patent of 1867 the bicameral Austrian Imperial Council (which applies only the Austrian sphere of influence, aka Cisleithania) provided for a parliament with a lower house elected by male tax-paying citizens. Hungary, on the other hand had the Diet which was also bicameral ala the British (and Austrian) parliamentary system, and also provided for a lower house elected by... well thats a complicated function of land ownership, taxes, profession, etc. but it allowed for civic participation. Beyond that, owing to the decentralized nature of the Austro-Hungarian government, numerous local governing bodies (the name and structure of which varied from town to town, region to region, etc.) allowed for elected officials. That doesn't even go into all the efforts that various elements within said government had gone through to further liberalize the government, had Archduke Franz Ferdinand not been assassinated, the intent was to remodel the Austro-Hungarian government largely after the United States. While perhaps not democratic, there was definitely room for participatory politics within Austria Hungary, at least for a reasonable chunk of the population.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a similar dual crown system, and has long been regarded as one of the forerunners to the modern democracies and constitutional monarchies, and for the time period was extremely liberal and progressive. That alone should say plenty about the nature of their government. I believe official doctrine was something like "A republic under the presidency of the king", and while the bi/tricameral legislative body was appointed by the King (which in turn elected the King), candidates were put forward by local elected legislative bodies, so again, participatory politics. Beyond that, the "Golden Liberty" allowed for a rather considerable amount of freedoms and participation in civic society.

Now lets look at Tsarist Russia. Serfdom was a thing until 1861 (so no real participation whatsoever prior to that point), after which it was officially abolished, but was still functionally intact as a result of socio-economic realities (much like how after the abolition of slavery within the US, a functional equivalent was still in effect). It wasn't until 1906 that the mirs/volosts really held any meaning as a form of participatory politics, and prior to that point civic participation in the lower levels (read: vast majority) of Russian society revolved around communal farming in an attempt to eak out a meager living.

Soviet Russia, at least had universal suffrage and elected bodies, but participation was severely limited by Party politics, favoritism, nepotism, and all the other various 'isms' that put up effective barriers to participation for the general majority of the population, save those who were connected or fortunate enough to find themselves in the right place at the right time under the right circumstances. Beyond that, it was still a one-party system and single-candidate ballots were anything but uncommon.

As for Austria-Hungary and Poland-Lithuanias treatment of Ukrainians specifically, I can't really comment. What I do know is that 200-300 thousand Ukrainians volunteered for service in the Austro-Hungarian army during the First World War, and what I do know is that both Tsarist and Soviet Russia repressed Ukrainians in the extreme, even going so far as to create a man-made famine in an effort to exterminate Ukrainians via genocide. See also: Holodomor.

Oh, you meant Austria-Hungary. I must have misread it then. Austria-Hungary is indeed quite different from the earlier Austrian Empire. Austria-Hungary was a lot less authoritarian than the earlier Empire even though Ukrainians were still second-class citizens.
I am not really an expert on Austria-Hungary as it is outside of my period of historical interest, so I am going to have to concede here.

The Commonwealth's democracy and Golden Liberty were still only beneficial to the wealthier, privileged (read: Polish) classes. Ukrainians were regarded as second-rate citizens and had little rights unless they converted to catholicism and spoke Polish.

The level of participation of the common man in his local government during the early Soviet Union was something that had never been seen before. Although on a national level the Soviet Union regressed into authorianism again after Lenin's death, on a local level, worker's councils could remain very influential.
In the Russian Empire, ethnic Ukrainians were regarded the same as ethnic Russians and many Ukrainians held high positions in government. In the Soviet Union, that was the same. Stalin's Holodomor was not specifically aimed at ethnic Ukrainians and was thus not a genocide. The same famine hit Russia as well, and many ethnic Russians died too. The Holodomor was aimed at the extermination of independent farmers in order to force people to live on collective farms, not at the extermination of Ukrainians (in that case, Stalin would have finished the job, he did not like half work).

chaos0xomega wrote:

I did not dispute the accuracy of the statement. The bias, apart from what you mention here, is also that it implies that Russian media always has this discrepancy, while Western media only has it sometimes.

The 'sometimes' is used because the author is familiar with alternative western media sources, whereas the average American, myself included, is not familiar with the alternative Russian media sources.

That is just an assumption, the author did not write that down anywhere. He either should have done so, or left out 'sometimes' entirely if he wanted to be unbiased.

chaos0xomega wrote:

This is a classical example of a ad hominem attack. You are evading the actual topic and having to respond to my arguments by saying I don't know anything about it. Lol.
And this only one example, you have made many more of this kind of attacks.

Not really, as I did address the actual points (despite disparaging remarks to the contrary) Technicalities my friend, technicalities.

The actual point was that I claimed the article to be biased, whereas you denied this to be so (while having to resort to insults and other childish behaviour). Therefore I proceeded to highlight the bias, and as of yet, you have not fully adressed the highlighted article.

chaos0xomega wrote:

No, I totally don't. I have explained this before. Just because I sometimes post an RT article in this thread doesn't mean that RT is my only source of news. Please stop being childish and assuming that.

Ever hear the phrase 'actions speak louder than words'?

What actions? We are on an internet forum. There is no action here, just words.
But if you want to see, I have quoted the BBC several times. Also, have you ever heard that you shouldn't judge too quickly?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Also, you are now just putting words in my mouth, as I have never claimed RT or any other Russian media outlet to be more factual and unbiased than mainstream Western media outlets.

Again, actions speak louder than words. You are generally, if not automatically, dismissive of any source that isn't Russian or pro-Russian, at least in relation to this specific topic. While you claim to take a moderate and unbiased approach, your behavior very much shows otherwise.

I am pro-Russian. Of course I am going to be dismissive of sources that are anti-Russian. When such a source is posted here, I will complain about bias. Anyone is free to either ignore that or engage in a discussion about it. Me being the little hypocrite I am, continue to post pro-Russian sources while not always providing an opposing viewpoint (sometimes I do) Anyone is free to call me out on it and highlight bias in any of the articles I post. At least I acknowledge being biased and hypocritical.

chaos0xomega wrote:

And just because you don't see any anti-Russian bias in an article, doesn't mean it is not there. This anti-Russian bias is so common in the West most Westerners don't even notice it anymore. They are too used to it and see it as normal.
The article is about Russia. Not about Russia as a country or nation, but it is about Russian media. About media misrepresentation, indeed, but it is biased in that it mostly mentions Russian media as being guilty of it, whereas Western and Ukrainian media really isn't any better.

No, the article is (again) a first hand account of the situation on the ground in the Ukraine and how it is *not* what it has been portrayed as internationally.

While still being biased.

chaos0xomega wrote:

(Russia has plenty of alternative and independent media outlets as well. But apart from the Moscow Times, all those I know of are in Russian and thus useless for posting on Dakka. I do read several of them though. The statement itself is not really that biased. But I would like to remark that however formidable the Russian propaganda machine is, the Western one is even better.)

I would disagree, since the general consensus amongst the majority (like easily 90%) of the people I know is that the western media is bogus and not to be trusted for anything other than what Kim Kardashian wore to the Oscars... I *would* disagree, but despite that general consensus, somehow in the grand scheme of things it still manages to drive public opinion regardless.

Than the people you know must all be incredibly smart. Most people I know here in the Netherlands take everything NOS or RTL says for absolute truth and digest it like sweet cake. And as this is pretty much the same in Russia or Britain, I thought it to be the case everywhere. (that is a fallacy, I know)

chaos0xomega wrote:

When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.

Agreed. I keep picturing him sitting there in a Budenovka and a fake Order of the Red Star medal pinned to his chest typing all this stuff while staring lovingly at a portrait of Stalin sitting on the corner of his desk and a copy of Pravda rolled up next to his keyboard.

I wish I had a Budenovka. I do have an Ushanka, does that count? I also have no fake medals (My uncle has a real one though). My father does keep a portrait of Stalin, though it is sitting in a box on the attic. And though I do read Pravda sometimes, it is not next to my keyboard.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
1. How did Blue Force Tracker get involve in this?

I posted a link to a pretty good article by a contributor detailing a first-hand account of what was up, and Iron_Captain took offense.

I did not take offence to the posting of the article itself, but I did not like the slight but constant bias. It was not even this article per se, but it was this prejudiced tone, that is so prevalent in almost all Western publications on Russia or things that have to do with Russia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to.
Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.

You're out of your league, I assure you I am FAR more familiar with logical fallacies than you are. I'd give you a list of all the fallacies which you yourself are subject to, but I'm at work and don't have the time to rewrite the Bible.

You don't need to give me a list, I can find one myself.
There are more fallacies than just logical fallacies and it is strange to assume you are more familiar with something than someone you don't even know is.

Considering I had to spend the better part of a semester preparing a term paper and hour long presentation on logical fallacies, forgive me if I feel like I'm a little more knowledgeable about the subject than you, particularly as you are like... 12? I mean, age isn't an indicator of anything, but I doubt you've studied logical fallacies to that level of depth at this point in your young life.

And you are right, I am hypocrytical. The next time I post something from RT it is your full right to also request an article from 'the other side'. (I would like to note however, that I already have done so on several occasions)

TBH, I can't remember, I took a break from this thread when it got to page 40 and didn't come back until like 6 pages ago lol

"Something positive" is again a matter of opinion. To me, the Russian takeover of Crimea was incredibly positive.

The net result might be a positive outcome, but they perpetrated several negative acts in the process. The ends dont necessarily justify the means.

But in any case, I was not just talking about the crisis here, but about Russia in general. Writing something positive about Russia's actions should not be thathard, Russia has done plenty of positive stuff in the past.

The site in general doesn't discuss Russia all that much, searching for 'Russia' comes up with two other stories, neither of which feature any sort of opinion whatsoever.

It is biased specifically against Russian propaganda.

Propaganda is bad no matter whos propaganda it is, is it not?

Once again, logical fallacies are not the only kind of fallacy. And yes, I did have them at school not too long ago and it seems you could also use a lesson to refresh your memory here. Also, I do not recall claiming my account to be more accurate and informed. Are you putting words in my mouth again?

Probably... more so simply stating the perception of your behavior.

Stalin's Holodomor was not specifically aimed at ethnic Ukrainians and was thus not a genocide. The same famine hit Russia as well, and many ethnic Russians died too. The Holodomor was aimed at the extermination of independent farmers in order to force people to live on collective farms, not at the extermination of Ukrainians (in that case, Stalin would have finished the job, he did not like half work).

I'm going to ignore the rest of your points, because I generally agree with you... but this one, this one is going to cause a lot of problems with a lot of people... The Holodomor largely and primarily affected the Ukrainian SSR, and very little beyond that, and this is telling in that the Ukrainian population dropped almost 10% while the Russian and Belarussian populations INCREASED by almost 15%. The overwhelming majority of the Holodomor's victims were Ukrainian, to the point that its difficult to argue that it was anything other than targeted at Ukrainians. The purpose might have been, as you say, to force collectivization, but Stalin achieved that end elsewhere *without* starving 5 million or so people to death via a manmade famine.

The actual point was that I claimed the article to be biased, whereas you denied this to be so (while having to resort to insults and other childish behaviour). Therefore I proceeded to highlight the bias, and as of yet, you have not fully adressed the highlighted article.

Haven't I?

What actions? We are on an internet forum. There is no action here, just words.
But if you want to see, I have quoted the BBC several times. Also, have you ever heard that you shouldn't judge too quickly?

Actions and behavior are the same.

I am pro-Russian. Of course I am going to be dismissive of sources that are anti-Russian. When such a source is posted here, I will complain about bias. Anyone is free to either ignore that or engage in a discussion about it. Me being the little hypocrite I am, continue to post pro-Russian sources while not always providing an opposing viewpoint (sometimes I do) Anyone is free to call me out on it and highlight bias in any of the articles I post. At least I acknowledge being biased and hypocritical.

You realize that I am *not* anti-Russian, right? I'm actually very much neutral on the whole affair, I'm one of those psycho's that sees a resurgent Russia as beneficial to American geopolitical interests and domestic policy.

While still being biased.

Is it really 'biased' when someone says, "Hey, so, I'm here, and seeing this with my own two eyes, and experiencing this with my own life, and what you're saying is happening, is NOT what is actually happening"?

Than the people you know must all be incredibly smart. Most people I know here in the Netherlands take everything NOS or RTL says for absolute truth and digest it like sweet cake. And as this is pretty much the same in Russia or Britain, I thought it to be the case everywhere. (that is a fallacy, I know)

Hmm I find that hard to believe, but perhaps Americans are (at this point) generally more cynical and jaded than the Dutch or English are?

I wish I had a Budenovka. I do have an Ushanka, does that count? I also have no fake medals (My uncle has a real one though). My father does keep a portrait of Stalin, though it is sitting in a box on the attic. And though I do read Pravda sometimes, it is not next to my keyboard.

Ushanka is acceptable.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Hmm I find that hard to believe, but perhaps Americans are (at this point) generally more cynical and jaded than the Dutch or English are?

Impossible. If there's a more cynical pessimistic race than ours, I've yet to meet it.

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Hmm I find that hard to believe, but perhaps Americans are (at this point) generally more cynical and jaded than the Dutch or English are?

Impossible. If there's a more cynical pessimistic race than ours, I've yet to meet it.

Thats true.

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Hmm I find that hard to believe, but perhaps Americans are (at this point) generally more cynical and jaded than the Dutch or English are?

Impossible. If there's a more cynical pessimistic race than ours, I've yet to meet it.

Let me introduce you to the Russians.
A more cynical people would disrupt the space-time continuum