Just like the banning of Russian TV channels, this is another step towards the same totalitarianism that the West prides itself on being in opposition to. Scary how it happened so fast, and without any public debate.
In Germany they have very strict laws against the use of extremist symbolism, for pretty obvious reasons. Not only the swastika. The black standard of the islamic state or the hammer and sickle are also covered, for example. There are contexts in which they are allowed, obviously (art, education, research...) but this seems to fall in line with the usual cases.
How come I'm able to draw the line at "supporting an unjustified genocidal war, the invasion and killing of my neighbours, and the destruction of their homes"?
How come I'm able to see the difference between "freedom of having and speaking opinions that are contrary to the mainstream's", and "freedom to want to murder innocents"?
That said, it started with Putin gradually eliminating opposition, controlling mainstream media and blocking non-mainstream ones, beating down all organizations that had organized people working together and expressing alternative opinion (religious organizations, trucker unions, heritage funds).
The West is currently about 1-1.5 decades behind. We are silencing fringe voices instead of reasoning with them. We are canceling dissidents instead of tolerating them. We let a handful of people with their own interests decide what is "information" and what is "misinformation". If we let this process continue, it will inevitably follow the Russian curve.
The mechanics here is very simple: once you create a position of power that decides what is right and what is wrong, the person occupying this position will seek more rights and wrongs simply to justify their existence. And others will join that cause for the sake of promotion/influence. Such structures only fall in a larger turmoil (bankruptcy of a company, fall of the government, etc) that inevitably brings a lot of destruction.
Banning “Z” is banning support for a mafioso political system that is not only anti-democracy, but also actively murdering an internationally-recognized democratic nation… again.
Fringe voices need to give their heads a shake and sit this one out.
But no, this time is different. I'm so tired listening to the bad guys, let the good guys shut them up... /s
Don’t support the mafia, you goof.
It is kind of a grey area when it come to the West in general. The West invaded Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, intervened in the Balkans. We in the West had Vietnam and Cuba, we had Algeria and all those little known wars in Africa. All of those were framed in ways not to different from what Russia is trying in Ukraine. Now, taking in refugees is seen as a sign of how great we are. When we refugees from other countries and regions in Europe it was called refugee crisis and ended up with people living in shitty camps and illegal push backs (the guy leading FRONTEX organizing those is still in charge despite indisputable proof). Europe is treating Ukrainian refugees way different from non-Ukrainians fleeing from the same war, not to mention those refugees stuck in Belarus. Western intervention in Ukraine is more than justified, once it is over and we have some time the West should do some much needed soul searching so. Not that I think that's gonna happen.
Probably US will try to use the same strategy with China if this works well against Russia. That's my personal prediction. Once Russia is weaken, US will move immediately on China.
1) on YouTube, there are many talks from American scholars, officials and intelligence talked about Ukraine, and predicted this conflict, even before the invasion, US insists that (although NATO doesn't want Ukraine) Ukraine has right to join NATO. US has trained Ukraine to be the frontline to fight Russia, knowing Russia would take action in response to NATO's plan;
2) US and UK are not worried the war would affect them directly, they are pushing to continue this conflict to bleed Russia economy and military, while other European countries who have a lot to lose want this conflict to end;
3) This war is not really about Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and US. To US's advantage, it is a proxy war where US does not need to participate directly. I believe US is more than happy to have this war than a direct conflict (which would result casualties and push back by voters);
4) Because this is mainly a US-Russia conflict, only US and Russia can stop this. US has shown no interests of deescalating the situation, instead, US has been using this as an opportunity to criticizing China, taking advantages of the situation. So far, US has not called for negotiation at all.
In response to your question, here is what Putin said:"It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory." (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...)
I think Putin's stupid to do this, look at history of war, US's 20 years in Afghanistan, 20 years in Iraq, how can you invade a country? Maybe his plan was to get rid of Zelensky quickly.
I agree the West's hot-cold meddling does not paint a rosy picture, and if we were just discussing covert actions in the Donbas/Crimea, your narrative could make sense. But once we're talking about open war, the relativism drops away and the aggressor becomes very clear - many Russian troops are occupying Ukrainian territory, while no Ukrainian troops are occupying Russian territory.
As far as US deescalation - what exactly do you think there is for the US to give? Ukraine's right of free association is not the US's to give away.
Ukraine is at loss, Russia will be weaker, it is a good strategy for the US, Europe will spend more money (but they are rich). The developing world is going to suffer with the food price and energy prices. Developing world is going to bear the cost of the war and sanctions.
From US the point of view, not deescalation is the best option. You know what US could give? Just tell Ukraine that NATO is not the best option for it, could be behind doors, I am sure US does this all the time. Unfortunately Ukraine was not discouraged, rather encouraged to pursue a dead end.
The Internet is fast.
And if you meant that banning the symbol is ok, it does not immediately follow that discussion about the censorship (it is still censorship, even if it's ok) should be banned.
Anyway, in a huge thread, there appeared a single answer about NATO. So if you want to go tag something, that answer is a good one.
(And if the above made you think I support Russia, or the war, you might be brainwashed).
Yeah, well, you say that but you're here continuously defending them, and you're bringing up weak arguments. Upthread you've also said you "read RT daily", and maybe that has something to do with it.
FWIW, I'm extremely familiar with the Russian side of the argument. Not everyone is because not everyone is interested in digging into geopolitical issues that don't concern them directly beyond reading the news over breakfast cereal or vaguely scrolling a couple of retweets. This doesn't imply they're "brainwashed" or that we "suppress information"; I had no trouble at all finding all of Putin's idiotic arguments since 0224.
Of course, you can play right into his hands and "discuss NATO" or some shit, as if there is ANY justification to the war crimes and atrocities being committed every day. Civilians being explicitly targeted, hospitals and shelters being bombed, chemical weapons being used, and so on.
"Yes but you see, NATO" is justifying the unjustifiable.
I really hope you recognize the problem in what you are implying.
Most people know this. But Ukraine was not even able to join NATO because of disputed territories. So in case of Ukraine argument about NATO threat is pretty naive.
The Russian side doesn't matter. They're invading in a brutal manner a sovereign country for the interests of an authoritarian leader and his clique. It doesn't matter why he thinks this is the best course of action ( it isn't, whatever he hoped to achieve was unachievable from day 1), he's flat out wrong and doing a morally abhorrent thing. All of the excuses Russia has provided for the invasion are very flimsy at best, but usually outrageous ( like that Ukraine isn't a real country and has no national identity).
Russia has multiple NATO neighbours ( Baltics, Poland). Occupying Ukraine will add a few more ( Hungary, Slovakia, Romania). Even if we take Putin's "geopolitical concerns" at face value, and we shouldn't because Russia has done nothing but lie, it doesn't make sense.
But again, it doesn't matter why the crazy old person is bombing maternity hospitals, the important part is that he is, he deserves all the pushback possible and he should be punished for that.
The comparisons to the Nazis are in the playbook only - delusions of grandeur and nationalism, dismissal of other peoples, X isn't a real country, etc.
https://twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1506283895771348994
> State Russian TV show in prime time discusses possible nuclear strike on Europe, Russian invasion of Poland and Lithuania and corridor to Kaliningrad, threatens Germany and Baltic states.
Yeah, tell you what, I'm very ok with banning Russian propaganda. There will be plenty of time to worry about slippery slopes if we're actually alive by the end of this.
And what would I be surprised at exactly? I'm getting a 403 when I load RT because RT banned my country from reading it. I used to read it once in a while FYI, just to get a sense of the types of articles they'd publish.
They might 'discuss' it, as does every news channel. They certainly don't endorse it. It's this kind of spin that passes for reporting.
Do you really not have a problem with your ISP deciding for you that you cannot read rt.com? How is it not 'autocratic'?
For one thing, if it's my ISP deciding, then it has nothing to do with autocracy because it's a private company doing so?
Second, they haven't.
Third, you're lost - this thread is about two Russian TV channels being banned. The RT thread is elsewhere.
I've wondered if I can paint a "Z" on somebody's car and then people will trash it. Maybe it happens only in Ukraine.
There's a lot of precedent for this in Germany. A Berliner went to jail circa 2000 for training his dog to make the Hitler salute. Rumor has it that the Nazis persecuted people for the same thing but the opposite reason.
They banned Putin's personal propaganda channels and a hate symbol used by people supporting an actual totalitarian regime who's currently invading a country and slaughtering civilians, don't get confused on who's wrong here.
And don't forget that the US freedom of speech is an anomaly, not the norm, both in term of application and in term of ideals
Keep in mind that Germany is not the US, and human dignity is actually placed above freedom of speech in the German constitution.
But regardless of current events, this could fit in the paradox of tolerance. Should we tolerate the intolerant, i.e. Russian apologists? History hasn't been very kind with the proponents of absolute freedom of discourse.
Yes. Tolerance is absolute, it must be capable of withstanding anything without compromising. Otherwise it is not tolerance, it is selective intolerance.
A truly tolerant free speech society should be able to tolerate even literal nazi discourse without crumbling. What happens in practice is people get tired of debating, decide they're right and start excluding others.
Contrary to what Americans believe these things aren't written in stone by a Divine hand and are products of a long process
It’s funny how it looks like you are almost sympathizing with nazis. By definition, nazis seek to exclude and maybe exterminate, everyone they don’t agree with, so tolerating them means giving them the right to preach their methods. That’s pretty much the core of Popper’s paradox of tolerance:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
Not really.
> By definition, nazis seek to exclude and maybe exterminate, everyone they don’t agree with, so tolerating them means giving them the right to preach their methods.
If society can't tolerate their preaching and remain democratic, what does it say about society? About humans and their rationality?
You could just look back and see by yourself. We don't need to hypothesise about "what could happen", because it already has. Popper himself based his explanation of the paradox of tolerance in the rise of Nazi Germany.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
Do you know the definition of slippery slope?
Even as a libertarian, it's really hard to take overly simplistic freedom-invoking arguments in good faith when they appear to lack any context.