Lexicus
Deity
Also to take this to the realm of policy, I'm in full agreement with the US stance that weapons it delivers to Ukraine must not be used to attack civilian targets in Russia.
This is pure propaganda talk, and it's an unnerving experience hearing (or reading) it raw.
To paint the enemy as irredeemable, remorseless, unthinking scum, to portray them as both dangerous and paradoxically clumsy and ineffective is a popular tactic among governments to push support for military action. We recoil in horror when we see instances of this in fascist and communist propaganda, but when the Free World does it is not only kosher but also a moral obligation. I look forward to reading people wantonly calling Iraqis monsters and Iranians otherworldly freaks next time the US wants to do a spot of democracy-restoring in that part of the world. I can't wait to see the Chinese portrayed as hordes of pigtailed dwarves when tensions over Taiwan eventually boil over.
You are right. To win a war, to bring it to a brutal conclusion you must hate, hate, hate the enemy so no one has the rational clarity to bring up problematic criticisms; a hyper stirring up of emotions is clearly the right way to combat any misgivings that Our War is not a fight of pure good pitted against pure evil.
1) Russia being a country where one can be jailed for holding a piece of white paper is in no way mutually exclusive with its public supporting (or at least trying hard to ignore) the war."Russia is a dictator-like / dictator-actual police state where people are thrown in prison for saying the wrong thing", and by the same people, "look at these opinion polls from Russia supporting the war, these are obviously trustworthy and evidence that Russians are Bad People™".
Like, how do you even square that? But square that some folks do. Regularly. Repeatedly.
To me, your posts - eg comparing anti-Rashism and anti-Semitism - demonstrate that you are struggling with separating facts from fiction. I was speculating that this is so due to your unfamiliarity with the facts. It could be reasonable reaction from someone with prior knowledge of anti-Semitism but less so of Russia.Just what the blazes has all that to do with my statement?
Do you think invasions for conquest are less bad than calling invaders evil?This is pure propaganda talk, and it's an unnerving experience hearing (or reading) it raw.
To paint the enemy as irredeemable, remorseless, unthinking scum, to portray them as both dangerous and paradoxically clumsy and ineffective is a popular tactic among governments to push support for military action. We recoil in horror when we see instances of this in fascist and communist propaganda, but when the Free World does it is not only kosher but also a moral obligation. I look forward to reading people wantonly calling Iraqis monsters and Iranians otherworldly freaks next time the US wants to do a spot of democracy-restoring in that part of the world. I can't wait to see the Chinese portrayed as hordes of pigtailed dwarves when tensions over Taiwan eventually boil over.
You are right. To win a war, to bring it to a brutal conclusion you must hate, hate, hate the enemy so no one has the rational clarity to bring up problematic criticisms; a hyper stirring up of emotions is clearly the right way to combat any misgivings that Our War is not a fight of pure good pitted against pure evil.
1) Russia being a country where one can be jailed for holding a piece of white paper is in no way mutually exclusive with its public supporting (or at least trying hard to ignore) the war.
2) Opinion polls from Russia are indeed worthless as evidence (although if they are government-held they can give some insight based on what questions are asked (or not)). However, observing how Russians behave (both in Russia and abroad) is evidence enough.
3) Like with most things, 80/20 rule applies towards "Russians" as well. Should go without saying, really.
Would you like some straw to stuff that mannequin with?Do you think invasions for conquest are less bad than calling invaders evil?
Why aren't you arguing against the nonsense that is hallucination that calling a spade a spade leads to all these other things that aren't calling a spade a spade?
- I never said it was.
- I'm glad we agree that opinion polls are worthless as evidence. Any observations, however, are ultimately anecdotal without statistical evidence to back it up.
- The problem with statistics is anybody can twist pretty much anything to serve their own purposes. I'd like to know exactly how you're applying the Pareto principle here, though, because you've left it pretty open-ended.
Would you like some straw to stuff that mannequin with?
People noting the existing of racism are not saying "this is worse than the invasion". If you'd actually read the posts in question, you'd know this was already answered. Hint: they literally described it as "violent imperialism" (on Russia's behalf).
Calling any human being an orc is, fundamentally, NOT calling a spade a spade.
It's dehumanization.
May have borrowed the sentiment from Thomas Hardy"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace."
I think in his translation of Beowulf Heaney translated it as 'demon-corpses', though Heaney also made some contentious translations decisions to try and keep Anglo-Saxon poetic meter and alliteration*.he did not create it, but borrowed and modernized it from old English, where it was used, though what exactly it described no one knows for sure
NoDo you think invasions for conquest are less bad than calling invaders evil?
This, however, always makes it easier to dehumanize.Dehumanizing the enemy is vile whatever feeble excuses one summons for it, and it paves a highway directly into crimes against humanity, no matter how righteous your cause start out as.