Hacker News Reader

> jumps to the "Kremlin propaganda" with tons of handwaving and no evidence at all

The video is promoted by RT, there is enough evidence for it (like, you know, links to a page on RT website containing the video). Even if it wasn't created as Kremlin propaganda, it is used as such now.

>The video is promoted by RT, there is enough evidence for it

RT is a popular website.

Of course it will link to a viral video. It's no more "Kremlin Propaganda" than anything posted on BBC is automatically "British propaganda".

This badly misstates the relationship between the BBC and the UK government.

Yeah, the BBC has been a cunning voice for British interests since forever.

RT in comparison is amateur hour.

>RT in comparison is amateur hour.

And yet RT a Putin propaganda station are promoting the video in the article, a video made by Krelim supporters..

You can call them amateur , you can't deny what they are trying to do.

Talk about taking for granted what you need to prove...

You pivoted from a poorly-executed reductio ad absurdum to full-on whataboutism in only two posts. Impressive mental gymnastics, but can you stick the landing?

Sorry, but I'm not one who considers putting thing in perspective ("whataboutism") a logical fallacy.

Or that thinks that one state has the right to have their own broadcaster (UK/BBC) and another not (Russia/RT), or that they broadcasting thing based on their own national interests and world views is propaganda whereas for a broadcaster I agree with its "objective journalism".

I'm also not in the whole hysteria for Russia as some Bond villain behind everything, for things all sides do and that it does with 1/100 the resources (from Voice of America to financial support for all kinds of magazines, opposition parties and NGOs in Russia from US State Department sources, diplomatic pressure on their neighbouring countries and so on).

Especially when I can see through the whole top-bottom neo-Cold War strategy of "let's corner them, surround them with NATO client states, throw in some sanctions, get some sympathetic lackey in power, and get their resources for free, plus increased control in their Southern borders".

Of course people whose only source of news is American or European mainstream media will never hear about those things (and if they do, e.g. in someplace like Counterpunch they'll label it "Kremlin propaganda", as they are told).

I guess some people never learn from the previous "successes" against similar enemies-du-jour in bringing democracy and making Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc into the current hell-holes they are.

>RT is a popular website.

Yeah i love their chemtrails stuff....

edit: Lol Fox is as bad as RT coldtea.. your attempt at whataboutism is terrible.

Just because fox is crap doesn't mean RT isn't a Putin owned propaganda network.

Which is neither here nor there concerning the discussion. As if Fox for example doesn't have all kinds of crap in their programming?

It's funny how often "whataboutism" arguments rise in russia-related news.

Lol, I don't care much for "thought-stoppers" like the accusation of "whataboutism".

In fact, I'm ALL for whataboutism -- or, as they used to call it back in the day, putting things in perspective...

You have to really be conditioned to never see the larger picture and to think your shit doesn't stink to even consider "whatabboutism" (that is, that a side accused of something might has a right to point back to the other's side's misdeeds) as bad...

>this is EU financed.

Great, i was getting worried the EU was just going to sit on it's arse. I am glad the EU is finally taking this issue seriously.

Sit on its arse? Of course not. As a collection of many client states, the EU will do whatever the US tells it to do to help stir up the old Cold War climate.

>the EU will do whatever the US tells it to

Lol you've no idea what you're talking about. The EU is not the US, that's why apart from the UK leaving the rest of us won't be eating chlorinated chicken.

>As a collection of many client states, A rather silly view, we have a shared market and our interests.

You're clearly confusing the EU with NATO, i guess from St Petersburg we all look "West" to you.

EU is mainly European Commission and European Parliament. We have not the same experience as US with lobbying. It is well known that european commission is too much complacent with lobbies and with US influence.

>Lol you've no idea what you're talking about. The EU is not the US, that's why apart from the UK leaving the rest of us won't be eating chlorinated chicken.

Lol, I'm a European, so...

The EU might not be the US, but it has seeded its global ambitions (and lots of its sovereignty) to the US after World War II.

>You're clearly confusing the EU with NATO, i guess from St Petersburg we all look "West" to you.

Yeah, because nobody outside St Petersburg can think EU governments are pushovers and lackeys of the US.

It's not like Europe (from the UK, to Germany, Italy, France, and so on) had a strong left that believed exactly that...

> The EU might not be the US, but it has seeded its global ambitions (and lots of its sovereignty) to the US after World War II.

There was no such thing as European global ambition before WWII, not since the era of crusades. Every country had its own ambitions. And I believe there is a difference between being allied and being someone's lackey.

literally how WWI got started.

>There was no such thing as European global ambition before WWII, not since the era of crusades. Every country had its own ambitions.

Thanks captain obvious. I am referring to the British, French, Netherlands, Belgium, and last but not least, German, ambitions, which in most cases were accompanied by actual colonial empires.

European powers (and most importantly, Britain and France), ceded their global role past WWII and the US took over. For lesser European countries it was even directly involved in who will get into government, what their foreign policy should be, and so on.

>And I believe there is a difference between being allied and being someone's lackey.

You can be allied if you are an equal. If you are a bunch of countries and another one is "leading" and has several times the economic, and 10 times the military and diplomatic power, you are not.

I would appreciate a NSFW warning on that youtube link. I 'noped' out as soon as I saw "upskirting" in the title.

I think the reason why a lot of this stuff is being called "Kremlin Propaganda" is that real Kremlin propaganda isn't really propaganda anymore. It's not necessarily coming from an evil troll factory in an imposing Petersburg tower. It's a lot more subtle and indirect – more of a cultural practice than a directed media effort – and it might not always be intentional, but people still need a way to link it to the power that benefits from it.

That said, there's a lot of this stuff being produced in western countries, including the EU. It just so happens that the plague of neoconservatism + political division has become state policy in Russia, so it makes sense for EU institutions (whose objective is political unity and inclusive welfare-oriented policy) would link it to the Russian state.

Yeah no. You (intentionally?) forget to mention that she is a huge Putin supporter. And that this video is made in the wake of legalisation of domestic violence in Russia specifically to undermine feminist movement.

>Yeah no. You (intentionally?) forget to mention that she is a huge Putin supporter

I guess a Kanye video is also "Whitehouse propaganda" because he is a Trump supporter...

>And that this video is made in the wake of legalisation of domestic violence in Russia specifically to undermine feminist movement

"In the wake" as meaning "almost two years later"?

>And that's illegal because?

It's not illegal it's just showing who her paymasters are. but keep up the misdirection..

I rephrased the "and that's illegal how?" because I was certain people will not get it. And they didn't.

How does it "show who her paymasters are"?

What I meant by the "illegal" line was, being a Putin supporter describes like 50% of Russians, it's not some fringe activity. Even being a vocal Putin supporter in Russia (as opposed to mere voter) is not much different than someone like Kanye being pro Trump, or the tons of Hollywood/music people being vocal Hillary supporters.

So, that doesn't "show who her paymasters are" at all...

Where did I say anything about legality? Obviously it is legal to be a Putin supporter in Russia, just like it's legal to beat your wife. Both things are pretty bad though.

EDIT: nice job completely rewriting your post so that the replies no longer make any sense

>Where did I say anything about legality? Obviously it is legal to be a Putin supporter in Russia, just like it's legal to beat your wife. Both things are pretty bad though.

I asked that question because your response implied that "Putin supporter = proof she did the video for Kremlin", whereas half of Russians are Putin supporters.

Being a Putin supporter is perfectly common. It's not any kind of proof like having found she was in some illegal gang or such, the guy is the elected official of the country. Of course he has supporters, and of course some will make viral videos. That doesn't mean anybody that (a) is a Putin supporter (that's like 50+ million people there) (b) makes viral videos, makes them for Kremlin purposes.

"Both things are pretty bad though" - maybe a sovereign country can have its own leadership, and replace them when they feel like it, without some holier-than-thou foreigners telling them that's "pretty bad" and equating voting for their leader with "beating your wife"?

>EDIT: nice job completely rewriting your post so that the replies no longer make any sense

Conspiracy theorist much? I rewrote my post because I though it will be misinterpreted (as it was), and I wanted to put it in another way. I did so in the span of like 5 minutes after posting it. I only saw that somebody had already replied to the first version much later (now) that I got back in.

It wasn't just a viral video. It was a professionally produced video with paid actors. Consider that the Russian government needs to pay people to simply post positive comments about it. To think that someone made a video with multiple paid actors that just so happened to demonize a specific political group opposed to the government out of goodness of their heart is laughable.

>without some holier-than-thou foreigners

Why did you assume I'm a foreigner?

>It wasn't just a viral video. It was a professionally produced video with paid actors.

Lots of viral videos are professionally produced. You put money to further your audience/career. She had already done a similar video, and I've seen more impressive stuff from 20-something vloggers. Was her earlier video (agaisnt upskirt pictures) propaganda too? Or how about she is just an attention seeking activist that follow various BS trendy topics, to build her career?

Of course we have to believe that the Kremlin is both like some bond villain that produced a viral video (and a rather insignificant one) to further its causes (rigorous handwaving about what those are and how they possible relate to the video, from fueling cultural conflict in the West, to justifying a law that passed 2 years ago), but also that they're bad at it, and can't even get their actors to not admit it was real to the first journalist that asks them. Or perhaps they wanted to be found out - if one adds that as a premise, there's no need for any further rational examination).

>Consider that the Russian government needs to pay people to simply post positive comments about it.

Does it "need to"? So, if you're local in Russia, you don't know tons of people who really like the Russian government? Or, who did very much liked them when they did a complete U-turn on the economy and unemployment from disaster to almost-good in their first terms?

Or does it merely pay some, which is different than "needs to"? How about any modern government just does the same, and has people promoting its opinions on the web and in social media? Perhaps this is much older, and as old as print media themselves (mockingbird anyone?)

>Why did you assume I'm a foreigner?

Because being on HN it was the statistically safer guess?

Why did 3 different people in this thread assume I'm Russian, if not a Kremlin troll (because, of course, who would ever have the gall to have a differing opinion on such matters -- it's not like western countries ever had a Left that was anti-imperialist and anti-globalist and not the current Whole-foods liberals that pass for one, is it?)