629
Lemmy since the reddit collapse
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
629 points (80.3% liked)
Memes
45755 readers
1021 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You'll note that they kept the moderate "we should be nuetral between the US and Russia" organizers out and brought the nazis in.
As if to prove my point... I said they're statements made around certain known fact, facts that don't really prove the statement. Like the "coup". Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition. But the fact doesn't shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
I don't have problem understanding that things are biased. It's just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
Talking about who should be in government and those people "coincidentally" being installed is plotting to install a puppet government.
Or were forced to. The point is we know they were successful at installing their people and keeping others out, and "it was just a coincidence" seems improbable given how popular Klitsch was.
The western narrative deserves criticism. And hexbear is very critical of the Russian narrative, just not the things that they say that are supported by evidence.
The thing is Tyahnybok was a nobody politically, they went with the more well known Yats as prime Minister. You'll note that Yats is the leader of the "Fatherland" party
They also say about the defacto leader of the movement Klitsch and the other moderate democrats:
I want to ask the reader something, what is being said here? Does this come off as innocent?
Because to me this reads as plotting to install certain leaders within Ukraines new government.
You're literally proving my point. You've added nothing to factually prove the coup, you're adding assumptions to make the fact fit the narrative. Also Yats is not the leader of the Fatherland party, he used to be there but moved to People's front in 2014.
I dont need to add more stuff. What they said makes it obvious they're talking about a soft or hard coup. You're being shown a red balloon and asking for more proof it's a red balloon.
What would you accept as proof, if not the senior US officials there talking about who should be in government and about moving to make it happen?
Oh, cool, the people's front! Let's learn more about them:
Oh. Cool. A nationalist pseudo populist organization. Where have I seen those before?
Russian politicians were also talking how Russia should nuke Nevada test site, so I guess Russia has nuked America because the only thing required to make it true is someone talking about it.
For fuck sake, at the very least search for the right thing. not this, but this.
Did a nuke go off at the Nevada test site in a way that wasn't connected to US nuclear testing? If so, it would be reasonable to assume the Russians who talked about doing it did it if it furthered their geopolitical objectives.
Oh, sorry. But still, theyre described as a conservative nationalist party and split from the "Fatherland" party. Also the leader of Azov Battalion was on their military council. Hrmm.
Now you're word for word proving what I originally claimed. If something happened and another factual event happened, that may or may not be related, and you believe they're related then it's okay to make the assumption that asserts your belief.
Conservative doesn't mean neonazi and maybe they split to be less radical?
I'm tired of constantly correcting you so I'm just going say wrong
Yes, it is extremely reasonable.
If John Smith talked about killing Jake Jones and was recorded, and then Jake Jones showed up killed as John Smith described he would be, then it would be reasonable to assume that John Smith killed Jake Jones. Jake Jones' head could have just done that spontaneously, but it is unlikely.
Do you have an alternate explanation for them saying "we're going to install the people we want and keep out the people we dont" and then that happening?
Okay but there are neonazis in the Wikipedia article you linked about them
Begin article quote
End article quote
Begin article quote
It's how 4chan and Reddit decided Sunil Tripathi was the Boston marathon bomber. A bombing happened, someone knew Sunil had gone missing, images kinda looked similar, people wanted to find a connection so they made whatever connection they could find. He wasn't the bomber but people still started a witchhunt based on assumptions they thought were reasonable. So no, I don't think blindly taking assumptions as factuals is extremely reasonable.
Without any further information I'd say they're just discussing ideas (in this case who should be in the government) to present to Yatseniuk with the goal of making sure Russia doesn't sabotage the movement. Nothing about it implies planning a coup.
I'm going to need more specifics than an information dump. Outside of the Azov being in the military council (which I admit was my mistake for not noticing, and I'll get to why that's not proof) and Andriy Parubiy (who I wouldn't consider a Nazi because he been a target of that kind of disinformation campaign by pro-russian media) nobody else catches my eye.
As for the addition of Azov in that list. The council is not made up of territorial defense battalions, it's made up of leaders of volunteer battalions. Azov was at that moment a volunteer battalion which is why they were included, along with the other leaders of the volunteer battalions. He wasn't picked because he was neo-nazi, he was picked because he was leading one of the biggest volunteer battalions. The idea that the government is a neo-nazi government because the biggest political party in that government created a special body and that special body has one known neo-nazi is just bewildering. Look at how many hoops you have to jump through just to have some connection between neo-nazis and the 2014 Ukrainian parliament, and then tell me that is reasonable.
Okay, are you saying that this is a case of mistaken identity? I dont get what you're trying to claim.
I treat the assumption as fact within my internal worldview because it is the only explanation I can think of for what happened and it has strong supporting evidence. We have records of them plotting, so they probably carried out their plot as it seems that what happened mirrored what their plot wanted.
Again, I would love an alternative explanation for what they said they wanted and were doing lining up with what happened.
Wait, did you not go over the list and look at the political history of everyone involved? It's much more than one nazi.
Do your research and then take a second attempt at replying.
I'm saying they took two factual things and then reasoned themselves to believe those things are connected. Which is exactly what you're doing here.
You've taken two factual things and then assumed based on your beliefs that they must be connected. There's no evidence of them actually plotting a coup. I even gave you an alternative that very much suits what the leaked discussion was about.
I'm not here to do your work lazyass. You said there are more, find your own proof and be more specific. Wikipedia dumps are not proof.
Okay, yes. And it is reasonable. Do you have any other explanation for what happened?
Edit: lol lmao, this is your explanation
That's just straight up counterfactual to what they actually say lmao
End edit
They're literally talking about who should be in and out of government and moving to make it happen.
You're literally the one being lazy.
I'm done, you're more than entitled to your willfully ignorant, arrogant bullshit.