So when ruzzian TV informs about the ruzzian gore in eastern Ukraine (several 100-thousand ruzzian soldiers killed or wounded) they tell the truth? Do they inform about that bloody tragedy of their soldiers at all?
This isn’t what I said. I associate with truth in such a context as a documentary-Wikipedia style of delivery and already that is quite difficult to do neutral, as sources and claims will diverge, e. g. about losses.
If you really believe that, you should know that it’s VERY obvious Russia is lying all the time. There’s a reason it’s Russia and not Ukraine that censor news channels in Russia and news sources on the Internet. That reason being that Russia needs to do that to keep the truth from the Russians.
At no point I stated Russia’s news are trustworthy. Declaring a propaganda TV interception as if it is just reading out a Wikipedia article is wild to say the least. Ukrainian official statements can’t be taken for granted, at some point in the Kursk incursion the independently verified territorial gains were at about 800 sq. km. vs claimed 1200. Neither is the cultural and media market truly open, as it is wartime and the Russian Orthodox Church is too close to the government to be allowed to operate anymore. Also getting journalistic permits for the Ukrainian frontlines is nowadays more impossible than ever before in this war.
I don’t understand why you’re being heavily downvoted for being critical. Your argumentation is perfectly reasonable. I suspect these downvotes come mostly from bots or people that expected to circle-jerk in this thread.
It is because people think they are on the right side of politics so much, that whatever they say or do, can’t be criticized to the slightest extent. I dislike the declaration of “truth” in wartime quite a lot as it doesn’t seem to be sensible. The black-white thinking is an absolute cancer in this internet society as you can tell by the amount of comments thinking I would side with Russia when criticizing the wording of the article, not even the Ukrainian action itself.
They just assume whatever statement isn’t in full accord with them, means you are in full accord with the extreme opposite end of whatever spectrum. I highly advise to avoid political movements and friend groups with such extreme tendencies which favor shouting down over any discussion as they will circle jerk themselves into pure insanity.
“quite difficult to do neutral” -> “unbiased information. Dear Lord.” Is your reading comprehension alright? We are talking about TV high-jacking showing some historical soviet afghan war footage and pictures of gored russian soldiers. Declaring this as the ultimate “truth about war” is hyperbolic.
You imply I think Wikipedia is per default unbiased and all truthful which it isn’t and I stated clearly otherwise with “quite difficult to be neutral”. So I am not sure where the misunderstanding comes from.
Bad rep for going down the personal route in a discussion.
Bad rep for going down the personal route in a discussion.
You come at my reading comprehension then try to high road the convo. Dude, you’re displaying every characteristic of someone who is chronically online. Take a breath and reflect lol.
So when ruzzian TV informs about the ruzzian gore in eastern Ukraine (several 100-thousand ruzzian soldiers killed or wounded) they tell the truth? Do they inform about that bloody tragedy of their soldiers at all?
Really interested in your insights.
This isn’t what I said. I associate with truth in such a context as a documentary-Wikipedia style of delivery and already that is quite difficult to do neutral, as sources and claims will diverge, e. g. about losses.
Expecting that is silly.
And so is naming this the “truth about war”.
Not at all.
If you really believe that, you should know that it’s VERY obvious Russia is lying all the time. There’s a reason it’s Russia and not Ukraine that censor news channels in Russia and news sources on the Internet. That reason being that Russia needs to do that to keep the truth from the Russians.
At no point I stated Russia’s news are trustworthy. Declaring a propaganda TV interception as if it is just reading out a Wikipedia article is wild to say the least. Ukrainian official statements can’t be taken for granted, at some point in the Kursk incursion the independently verified territorial gains were at about 800 sq. km. vs claimed 1200. Neither is the cultural and media market truly open, as it is wartime and the Russian Orthodox Church is too close to the government to be allowed to operate anymore. Also getting journalistic permits for the Ukrainian frontlines is nowadays more impossible than ever before in this war.
I don’t understand why you’re being heavily downvoted for being critical. Your argumentation is perfectly reasonable. I suspect these downvotes come mostly from bots or people that expected to circle-jerk in this thread.
Ukraines or even the Wests propaganda can’t even come close to the barrage of Russian propaganda.
Russia is almost at the level of North Korea at this point.
I never said the contrary. What’s your point?
I didn’t declare a pissing contest of disinformation which Russia will win by a landslide.
It is because people think they are on the right side of politics so much, that whatever they say or do, can’t be criticized to the slightest extent. I dislike the declaration of “truth” in wartime quite a lot as it doesn’t seem to be sensible. The black-white thinking is an absolute cancer in this internet society as you can tell by the amount of comments thinking I would side with Russia when criticizing the wording of the article, not even the Ukrainian action itself.
They just assume whatever statement isn’t in full accord with them, means you are in full accord with the extreme opposite end of whatever spectrum. I highly advise to avoid political movements and friend groups with such extreme tendencies which favor shouting down over any discussion as they will circle jerk themselves into pure insanity.
So you care about format, not content? And you rely on a crowd sourced wiki for unbiased information. Dear Lord.
“quite difficult to do neutral” -> “unbiased information. Dear Lord.” Is your reading comprehension alright? We are talking about TV high-jacking showing some historical soviet afghan war footage and pictures of gored russian soldiers. Declaring this as the ultimate “truth about war” is hyperbolic.
Unbiased and neutral can easily be used interchangeably here, anyone with common sense could crack that code bud.
Jesus dude, you honestly need to talk to someone. You legit seem to have a narcissism problem.
You imply I think Wikipedia is per default unbiased and all truthful which it isn’t and I stated clearly otherwise with “quite difficult to be neutral”. So I am not sure where the misunderstanding comes from.
Bad rep for going down the personal route in a discussion.
I believe you when you say you’re not sure.
You come at my reading comprehension then try to high road the convo. Dude, you’re displaying every characteristic of someone who is chronically online. Take a breath and reflect lol.
I did that because the answer didn’t make sense as it is an issue I just acknowledged.