407
YouTube Not Accessible Across Russia.
(www.rferl.org)
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 08 Aug 2024
407 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59298 readers
1680 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can you stop trying to imply that I didn't read the study? What are you trying to achieve with such petty passive aggressive jabs?
Of course it's not a perfect method, but it aligns with other studies (quantitative direct polling and other list experiments, as well as qualitative). It also aligns with long term historical studies around positive attitudes of the russian population towards imperialism (increase in approval of government following invasions, annexations and genocides) over the past ~30 years.
How am I trying to strawman you? Critiquing your reliance on annecdotal experience (that funnily enough mirror my own - although I don't claim my anecdotal experience means anything) is a straw man?
Show evidence for your framing around "let's not jump to conclusions"!
What external factors? What external social influences? Be clear and direct in your claims and back them up with something more than "I feel so"!
Show how these factors are important! Going back to my original post, fully uncensored YouTube has been a click away for every russian with smartphone until recently, is this not the case? Can the same not be said about telegram?
What am I trying to accomplish with my argument?
To show reality and not let well meaning, but completely unverified platitudes (that contradict all research and even history) get in the way explaining the nature of russian imperialism.
You're not convinced that white washing the genuine support for genocidal imperialism among a strong majority of russians is relevant because you don't have to deal with the cruelty and degeneracy of the russians.
Why should we not make russians who support genocidal imperialism (both conceptually and as implemented by their leaders) responsible? Are they children? Of course they should pay for their actions.
And what if the reality is that a strong majority of russians are not interested in implementing any kind of change in their society?
Or that the russia as a society has dug itself into such a hole (supporting putin for 25 years and supporting genocidal imperialism for ~35 years) that there is no easy way out other than violence; something the absolute majority of allegedly "opposition minded" russians are not willing or able to engage in.
By the way, that's totally understandable; but in that case they shouldn't talk about magical fantasies of a democratic russia of the future appearing out of no where.
Let's say for the sake of argument I agree with your take that genocidal imperialism of russia since it's founding is not representative of current russian society.
How and when do you expect any changes to happen?
How - I am not asking for in-depth details, just a general outline that goes beyond "somehow in the future".
When - 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?
Addendum question - while we wait for these changes, what would you like people in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Chechnya and Belarus to do? Please be specific.
How would you sort those who support war from those who don't?
It would depend on the geo-political context, currently there are less viable options.
In a different context, beyond the main mass of hardcore criminal (several million russian) that require strict punishments, you could leverage a legal proof method.
Every russian signs a legal paper outlining and their overall support for genocidal imperialism, putin, knowingly promoting false russian propaganda and so on.
Based on the of level severity of their support for genocidal imperialism, they would have to pay financial compensation and engage in global community service work (de-mining in Syria, junior janitor in an infectious disease hospital in rural Africa).
The legal paper would have a clause stating that if you claim you never supported genocidal imperialism (as certified in the legal paper), but later evidence comes up that you were actually supportive of russian degeneracy, you lose all your assets and will be required to do two decade of global community service (or go to jail). This clause would be valid indefinitely for the life of the person.
Note, I am not saying the above-mentioned approach is viable right now. I am trying to show that there methods to create incentives for russians to be open about their support for genocidal imperialism.
Sorry, I was under the impression that you hadn't read the study because of our vastly different takeaways.
And strawman was probably the incorrect term in that context.
By external factors and social influences, I mean the social consensus that going against the government is unsafe.
That presidential candidates who have any chance of beating Putin are banned from the ballots, jailed, or coincidentally die before they're able to build a large enough following.
That it's safer to just play along than to put a target on your back.
If you were unable to piece together what I meant in the context of this conversation, I'm not convinced this discussion will lead anywhere productive.
Given that the study makes no claim that the statistics accurately represent the true beliefs of the Russian population, I'm suggesting that taking those numbers and concluding otherwise so you can justify calling the overhwelming majority of Russians 'genocidal imperialists' is irresponsible at best.
I've also never stated that Russians who genuinely support genocide should not be held accountable for their actions. Maybe this is a better example of a strawman argument?
Checking the latest released polls from levada, you can see that the majority of polled participants indicated support for what Russia is doing to Ukraine.
Yet, further down, it shows more participants indicated support for diplomatic resolution over military action.
I see this as a reasonable indicator that the majority of Russians are not genocidal.
And taking preference falsification and levada's polling methods into account, the numbers could be even more in favour of both diplomatic resolution and disapproval of the war as a whole.
Maybe the overwhelming majority don't want change in their society, or maybe they don't have a choice (I'm talking about rigged elections, in case you were struggling to figure out the context again).
I have no idea when any societal changes within Russia will happen, I don't happen to own a time machine.
I can only guess and assume that there won't be any substantial publicly-expressed change in ideology while Putin is still in charge.
I'll let people in those countries make up their own minds about what they should do, and I would hope the rest of the world will continue to support them with whatever that may be.
I'm not sure why you're asking me these things, they aren't really relevant to any of the points I've been trying to make.
I appreciate you sticking around for this argument, but I think I'm done.
That's not a convincing answer.
Before our exchange you didn't know what a list experiment was or what the term preference falsification meant.
Yet you were aggressively parroting the standard polemic about "innocent russians" and "all polling is wrong because it doesn't align with my message".
And now you're acting all high and mighty with strawn men and "vastly different takeaways".
You claim that the paper shows the mere existence of preference falsification. This is complete bullshit and you know it.
Preference falsification = A - B
Where:
A (~75%) = support for genocidal imperialism via regular polling
B (~65%) = support for genocidal imperialism via list experiments
If you don't believe A or B to be true, then you can't define whether preference falsification exists.
This is basic logic and you've totally failed it.
Diplomatic resolution? What's that?
Russia continues to occupy 20% of Ukraine and then attacks again when they are ready?
Fucking awesome diplomatic resolution!
I am asking you about the hows and whys because you made a claim that we need to support russian "dissidents".
Is it not reasonable to ask what and when we'll see the outcome of this?
Why would you do something if you have no plan for how and when to achieve a given outcome?
You've thankfully never had to actually deal with russians, that's what's driving your petty bullshit and delusions.
Let's hope things stay that way, for your own benefit.
Here's a link to the study I mentioned earlier, which indicates that list experiments are not an accurate way to determine the level of preference falsification.
In it, the real response was often more than double the difference between direct polling and the list experiment results.
You continue to argue against things I've never said. Calling you out for saying I've said or argued for something which I haven't is not acting high and mighty.
And yet, here you are doing it again...
I never said all polling is wrong, just polling that didn't properly account for falsification, which the list method is clearly unable to do.
More of the surveyed Russians said they would prefer to talk with Ukraine over continuing military actions.
That doesn't mean that's what the government/Putin also believes, it means the population would generally prefer diplomacy over war.
By your same line of logic, why should anyone support LGBT people in places where it's illegal if you don't have any plans to change their country's laws?
We need timeline estimates otherwise it's pointless.
It's a terrible defeatist argument which is not worth humoring.
I'm done talking with you now.
You're deliberately ignoring and misinterpreting any points that don't align with your view, and its tiring.
All that said, this has been an interesting bit of insight into the mind of a bigot.
I will need to take a more in-depth look the paper, but reading the introduction and conclusion, I don't see such a clear critique, it sounds like you mostly made it up.
You just learned what a list experiment was just a few days ago and were arguing for a comical anecdotal view, so pardon my scepticism regarding your ability to read papers or act in good faith.
Prefer to talk to Ukraine = continue to occupation of Ukrainian territory, with torture camps and experimentation Ukrainian identity. I.e. genocidal imperialism.
We've seen how the russians acted after 2014, there is no reason trust them to act differently now.
You're a delusion child, that is too cowardly to admit their mistakes and take a sober look at reality.
I'm not going to waste any more time arguing against your assumptions, false claims and flawed reasoning, when it's clear you have no interest in thinking critically about the matter.
Congrats, you win ๐
Nothing to do with "winning" and I never framed it as such. For me "winning" is kicking the Russians out of my country, not some internet discussion (like for you).
Keep on white washing russian crimes and enabling the degeneracy of a strong majority of russian society.
Just watch that it doesn't bite you and your family in the ass one day! Your delusion will not be of much use then!
๐