I do love that they all claim to hate Putin and the Russian state but only accept sources that paint it in a good light. The AP is apparently biased to them but substacks and Sputnik News are all legit.
It’s about understanding the bias; if a US news source admits to something that reflects negatively on the US, we can assume it’s at least that bad. Same with a Russian source about Russia.
When an American source runs a story that makes Russia look bad, it’s not very credible. Same with Russian sources on America.
In both cases, the actual narrative the article uses its facts to paint should typically be disregarded; the atomic unit of propaganda being emphasis and all.
Most communists aren’t going to be too critical of Russia in a discussion with western liberals about Russia’s issues because those liberals only understand those criticisms as “russia bad, therefore imperialism good”. Same with discussing LGBT+ rights in Palestine or Iran without a bunch of context.
Generalize much? No, most of the liberal leaning folk in the discussions did not view imperialism as good and were happy just as happy to be critical of US and EU imperialism as much as they were of Russia’s and China’s.
I should get around to reading it one of these days. What did you find objectionable? Just skimming it seems like he’s mostly going though historical documents and people that contributed to Stalin’s reputation in the west.
It’s hard to pin down; I think it was a kind of overarching effort at both-sidesism. To be fair, I didn’t finish it, so maybe he tied it all together in the end.
I do love that they all claim to hate Putin and the Russian state but only accept sources that paint it in a good light. The AP is apparently biased to them but substacks and Sputnik News are all legit.
It’s about understanding the bias; if a US news source admits to something that reflects negatively on the US, we can assume it’s at least that bad. Same with a Russian source about Russia.
When an American source runs a story that makes Russia look bad, it’s not very credible. Same with Russian sources on America.
In both cases, the actual narrative the article uses its facts to paint should typically be disregarded; the atomic unit of propaganda being emphasis and all.
Except that does not happen. Russian sources that make Russia look good and Ukraine look bad are accepted while the opposite is never the case.
Could it be a sampling bias?
Most communists aren’t going to be too critical of Russia in a discussion with western liberals about Russia’s issues because those liberals only understand those criticisms as “russia bad, therefore imperialism good”. Same with discussing LGBT+ rights in Palestine or Iran without a bunch of context.
Generalize much? No, most of the liberal leaning folk in the discussions did not view imperialism as good and were happy just as happy to be critical of US and EU imperialism as much as they were of Russia’s and China’s.
So here we’re using different definitions of liberalism.
Here’s a book on what liberalism has meant over the last 300 years. It’s only 344 pages and one of my favorites.
Oh yeah, the Stalin-apologist communist is definitely an impartial source.
Oh you read his Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend?
I should get around to reading it one of these days. What did you find objectionable? Just skimming it seems like he’s mostly going though historical documents and people that contributed to Stalin’s reputation in the west.
If you want a more nuanced view, Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia is pretty good. I’d hardly call it Stalin apologia.
It’s hard to pin down; I think it was a kind of overarching effort at both-sidesism. To be fair, I didn’t finish it, so maybe he tied it all together in the end.
Good for you. People on hexbear label anything outside of Marxism or Maoism liberal…unless it deals with Russia or China.
That’s not true, they call marxists and maoists liberals like all the time.