The New Russophobia 2

More on Putin trolls:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/08/russia-troll-army-red-...

nicky, I knew that was coming.

Actually, many publications are doing away with comments sections because there is simply too much nastiness, not to mention the web troll brigades (which may be Russian, Ukranian, Zionist, hidden advertising or many other things).

I have no opinion on Jessica Valenti, but she is correct about the degree of misogyny in comment sections. I've also seen (and reported) death threats against cyclists.

At the fighting MRA-masculinists thread, I reported on death threats against feminists at University of Toronto on a web thread...

I'm really glad the issue of trolling and online misogyny was raised. Because there are feminists who have adminstered a lesson to Jessica Valenti. Read the damn article.

OffGuardian tells Jessica Valenti why ‘Comment is Free’ matters (because she apparently doesn’t know)

What we're got here is some fucking liberal uncomfortable with debate that differs from her own obstinate and indefensible views.

And it's nice to see other feminists not misled by her shit.

Quote:

Valenti: …It shouldn’t be a surprise that I’m not fond of comments sections. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many female writers who are….

BlackCatte: Ok, two sentences in and I have to interject. Jessica – I’m a female writer, and I am fond of comment sections. Actually, if we can think bigger than our own personal comfort zones for just a moment, I firmly believe comment sections, forums, and all places online where information is freely exchanged are an incredible step forward in the liberation of human thought.

Me: No way! Down with rabble.ca/babble! Because freedom!

Quote:

Valenti:…On most sites – from YouTube to local newspapers – comments are a place where the most noxious thoughts rise to the top and smart conversations are lost in a sea of garbage….

BlackCatte: True. We all get garbage, and trolls, and spam, and idiots hawking insane ideas. But that’s free speech. It includes the freedom to talk garbage. So why not woman-up and take it. And don’t forget we also get insight, thoughtful criticism, challenges to our group-think, facts or points of view we might otherwise never be exposed to. With the advent of the internet for the first time in human history ordinary people can become part of news dissemination. In the comments section they can correct mistakes (or lies), add links to other sources of information, debate the ideas being put across.

It’s a quiet revolution that has entirely broken the mainstream’s monopoly on creating consensus. It’s a small miracle and a huge achievement for human emancipation.

And yet here you are, advocating for closing it down.

Here's a real juicy one...

Quote:

Valenti: …There’s a reason, after all, that the refrain “don’t read the comments” has become ubiquitous among journalists.

BlackCatte: Yes there is – but I don’t think it’s a good reason. I think the institutionalised fear and hostility and avoidance you all feel towards your own readership is quite shocking. Does it not occur to you that you should listen to them, engage with what they say? You come over as baffled, angry and out of touch, like some fading monarchy on the eve of revolution.

Just a beau-tiful drubbing to someone who richly deserves it. Read the rest of it.

BlackCatte wrote:

But wait a moment, Jess…I’m a woman too. Which means I’m also a victim of – well, everything, and also entitled to not be harassed by people whose opinions totally piss me off.

People like you for example. The kind of jargon-wittering, agenda-hyping, bandwagon-jumping “feminist” that none of us need speaking in our name; one of the “me-me” crowd who confuses vacuous narcissism with personal politics, self-appointed victimhood with equality and vindictive gender-rage with challenging the patriarchy. People who are paid to promote fuzzy ideas of personal entitlement that require the dissolution of other people’s freedoms in order to be effective, and to exploit the exploitation of women and minorities for the promotion of Stalinist notions of social control which strip everyone of their basic human rights in the name of protecting them.

There ain't no Stalinist like ... a liberal tilting at Stalinist windmills .... acting like ... a Stalinist!

Here's arguably the best line...

"When they close down free speech on the internet it will be to protect us all from harassment. That way no one will be able to complain. And if they do they can be arrested. For harassment."

oh yeah.  What a richly, richly deserved, etc..

swallow wrote:

I read the article and comments. Again, certainly worth debating. Worth a thread. But again not, in any way, about Russia or "russophobia."

Excuse me. A Guardian "writer" has a significant column about closing comments at the Guardian website. This follows the lurid Guardian stories about Putin-bots and how some opinions are more "equal" than others. There's a direct connection.

In fact, the debate taking place at off Guardian includes plenty THAT HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM THE GUARDIAN WEB PAGE.

"Objective" Western MSM: ‘I think it was Russian!’ – Media Pushing Baseless Claim That ‘Putin is Bombing Civilians’ in Syria

If you shovel enough of this shit, some is bound to stick!

NDPP wrote:

This is meant to distract from questions surrounding Canada's complicity in the destruction of Syria and support for Takfiri terrorism.

The Russian MoD has called the Western (and Saudi) allegations of civilian airstrikes "stove-piping". "The Russian Ministry of Defense has summoned military attaches of NATO countries and Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, asking the officials to clarify their countries' allegations that Russian airstrikes in Syria have hit civilian targets."  it is not just the bought-and-paid-for MSM, but the Western regimes themselves making these outlandish and unsubstantiated claims.

Nothing, of course, about US air strikes on DWB hospitals in Afghanistan, nor Saudi attacks on Yemei infrastructure, wedding parties, etc., etc.. Because freedom.

RT wrote:

"Today we invited military attaches from the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the NATO bloc to ask them to give official validation to their statements, or make a rebuttal," Defense Ministry deputy head Anatoly Antonov said on Tuesday.

The co-ordination of the mass media and the sabre-rattling, bellicose Western regimes themselves is noteworthy. So is their apparent willingness to attribute to others what they themselves seem to do on a regular basis.

Put up or shut up: Moscow demands US-led coalition in Syria 'prove or deny' allegations Russia is 'bombing civilians'

This really is the same crap as the claim about "Putin shot down the airliner over Ukraine", etc., "Put killed my mom", etc., etc. There's no need to back up such incendiary claims. You just quote one of your minions, and then others quote you, and "voila!", it's a story with "multiple" sources. Because freedom.

Incidently, on Syria itself, Julain Assange has recently remarked that the US, and satellite, plan for Syria has been a kind of "strategic depopulation" (sounds like Afghanistan; freedom for opium and the heroin crop, and TNCs planning to gobble up, on the cheap, Afghanistan's natural resources, etc.) , robbing the country of the needed technical, managerial, professional cadre necessary to run a country of that size.

We really are part of the most monstrous Empire in history.

supplemental:

Russian Dep Def Minister Antonov quoted wrote:

The Russian Defense Ministry is "closely monitoring and analyzing these statements," he added. According to him, Russia is bringing Russian and international communities to the notice about the Russian aviation's actions in Syria on a daily basis.

"If our partners have some additional information, we have long called on them to share it with us."

He added that if no evidence on civilian deaths in Russian airstrikes in Syria was provided in a few days, Moscow would come to a conclusion that the claims were part of the information warfare against Russia.

"But if there is no evidence [of civilian casualties in Syria] or official refutal, we will consider that these anti-Russian media hoaxes are part of the information war against Russia."

Yeah, it really is that bad. Not just the MSM, but the Western regimes themselves just make up shit, fling it in Russia's direction,  and hope some will stick. Good on the Russians for calling them on this steaming pile of animal droppings, and challenging them publicly.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151027/1029182572/moscow-summons-nato-envoys-syria.html#ixzz3pnNsx34L

Russia’s Letter to the West: You Look Wonderful in That Iron Curtain Dress (Not Really)

Sergey Armeyskov wrote:

Dear Ms. West!

I wanted to write this letter long ago. I even started writing something several times but the words that I wrote faded like flowers before I could finish my letter. Hopefully, this one will make it.

I’ve always looked up to you. You know it. I wanted to be like you. It doesn’t mean that I wanted to become you but rather be as good as you. Your style, your looks, your manners. Everything was impeccable about you. Was. But then something happened. I don’t remember when exactly it started and when I noticed it.

You remember my ex-husband Boris, right? He had a problem with alcohol. You’ve always made fun of it. Yes, it was funny indeed. Waiting for an ambulance on a New Year’s Eve when your husband had a heart attack.

But it’s not about him or my current husband Vladimir. It’s about us.

…

And then I saw THIS. I saw you on the cover of a magazine wearing my old iron curtain dress which I left near a rubbish dump decades ago. Darling, are you OK?

Honey, you can say that I’m bitter. You can say that I’m a jealous loser bitch. You can say that I’m tripping. Unfortunately, you are the only one who’s (ego) tripping here. It’s been awhile so I don’t know whether rehab helped you. It looks like you’re back on that nose candy again. I also heard rumours that you became a leader of a sect and you preach that you will bring “peace and democracy everywhere”. I don’t believe paparazzi and yellow press. I hope it’s all lies and just the “haters gonna hate” thing.

Treat this letter as a reality check. Wake up! It’s never late to take your iron curtain blinders shades off and throw this ugly rusty iron curtain dress away. Trust me, it won’t bring you happiness.

I’m sorry if I offended you. I know you are a proud woman. I wanted to write this letter in a calm tone but then I decided to speak my mind. I know you’ll call it ‘whataboutism‘ (your favorite word!) anyway. Take care.

Sincerely yours,

Mother Russia.

Not everyone buys that anti-Putin agenda: 

http://theslot.jezebel.com/trump-on-putin-killing-journalists-hes-a-lead...

Quote:

“Well, I mean, it’s also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries,” Joe Scarborough countered. “Obviously that would be a concern. Would it not?”

“He’s running his country and he’s a leader,” Trump said. “Unlike what we have in this country.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-2015-12

Of course, being the hard-hitting investigative journalists they are, perhaps RT has hit on the real reason for this mutual admiration society:

Quote:

“I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS,” Trump said in October. “I’ll tell you why. Putin has to get rid of ISIS ’cause Putin does not want ISIS coming into Russia,” he added.

https://www.rt.com/news/326378-trump-putin-comment-honor/

The Russian President is a bit of a vulgar guy. His annual 3 hour press conference in which he answers all questions for hours and hours (I'd like to see our own Canadian politicians try that! lol. They'd be beaten to a pulp on foreign policy if there were any proper light bulbs and not the dim-wits that staff the MSM in this country.) took place recently, and there were some pretty amusing, if vulgar remarks.

Check it out.

Putin wraps up 2015: Three hours of questions, 1,400 journalists & one star of the show

Quote:

The 2015 installment of Vladimir Putin's now-traditional end-of-year Q&A lacked some of the sparkle of previous years. However, the Russian President captivated his audience for over three hours and addressed a host of serious issues....

The idea of Josef Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev or Tsar Nicholas II explaining their actions in Town Hall meetings or later utilizing live TV is completely laughable. Even in the 90’s, advisors to Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first democratic President, never countenanced anything like it. The potential fall-out from Yeltsin, a bottle of vodka and millions of TV viewers is too appalling to countenance.Hence, while West European countries are used to intense debates where leaders are grilled mercilessly, Russians are not....

Western media often likes to criticize Putin's Q&A as a "stage-managed publicity stunt." If it were so tightly controlled as they allege, why would questions be allowed about his family and alleged corruption among relatives of the Moscow elite? Also, does anybody seriously believe that Barack Obama, to name one Western leader, would survive three hours of unscripted questions without a teleprompter? Whatever you might think of him, there is no doubt that Putin's grasp of his brief is quite remarkable.

Putin's Q&A has elements of a carnival and pure showbiz. Over 1,400 media professionals from all over Russia and the world straining to get the President’s attention....

As usual, Putin seemed to revel in foreign policy questions, apparently trolling the West at times. When questioned about relations with Turkey following Ankara’s shooting down of a Russian jet, he countered that perhaps the Turks “wanted to lick the Americans in one place.” ...

Vulgar. But amusing.

Quote:

He then seemed to dare Turkey to try it again, now that Russia has sophisticated air defense systems in place. “Turkey used to violate Syrian airspace all the time,” Putin said. “Let them try and fly there now,” he implored, noting that Russia’s S-400 can hit any target in Syria.

In a post-conference huddle, he praised Donald Trump, the US businessman turned Presidential candidate, “There is no doubt that he is a very bright and talented man,” he claimed. “It is not our business to assess his merits; that is up to the US voters. But he is an absolute leader of the presidential race.”...

When Mikhail Saakashvili, a long time Putin bête noire who led Georgia into a disastrous 2008 war with Russia, was mentioned, Putin couldn’t resist poring scorn. Referring to the bizarre re-emergence of Saakashvili in Ukraine - he’s a wanted criminal in his homeland - Putin said bluntly: “The US didn't give Saakashvili a working visa, so they sent him to Ukraine. It's a spit in the face of the Ukrainian people.” Putin then suggested that Moscow may remove visa restrictions for Georgian nationals.

Putin is still a conservative, it's true, but in terms of foreign policy (the part that should be of most importance to Canadians) he's light years ahead of the cabal of neo conservative zealots that populate Candian foreign policy discussion of whatever party in Parliament: Conservative, Liberal, or NDP.

Oh, look! It's the Angry Putin game!

"Go Hard Like Vladimir Putin!"

or ... Klyuvka Never Dies

ikosmos wrote:

“Any colour you want, as long as Putin is the bad guy”.

Owen Jones and The Guardian's useful idiocy

A lot of people aren't willing to wade through a whole website to try to find out your position on Putin. I'm certainly not going to and so I respectfully ask that you write a few words on the issue along with the link you post in order to know where you stand. Thanks.

fwiw, you'll understand my position from my previous post. I invite your comments.

I'm now at the point at which I don't give a      what they think of Putin. He's a very popular leader in his country and he is not going to doublecross his people by caving to the US/Nato aggression throughout the world. And we all know that's the only reason why they hate him. 

And I'm going to hang onto the idea that Trudeau and his people have sent positive messages to Putin on his stand against the US aggression. Anybody who thinks our P.M. could speak out publicly in defiance of the US/Nato have to be bloody fools or have climbed up their own ideological assholes in their rush to condemn Trudeau.

ikosmos wrote:

monty1 wrote:

A lot of people aren't willing to wade through a whole website to try to find out your position on Putin.

If I was Russian then I wouldn't vote for him. There are plenty of left candidates, as well as a large Communist Party [which is still legal], that are worth supporting. The same politics of austerity are supported domstically by Putin that is supported by conservatives and neo-cons here in North America. Russia has a different history in which the citizenry can remember much better social programs, or maybe those programs haven't been cut with the same enthusiastic barbarity as they have here in Canada and the USA, and in some cases there have been public statements by representatives of the Putin government that they "cannot afford" the past generosity of social programs. But I digress.

However, I'm no Russian. My interest in Russian politics is firstly THEIR FOREIGN POLICY AND HOW IT AFFECTS CANADA AND THE WORLD. In that regard, Putin is quite brilliant, advocates a pluralistic or multi-polar world, which I completely agree with, has no ambition for global hegemony, which is also a good thing, and, generally, seems to subscribe to a set of foreign policies that reminds me of the best of the old Soviet regime. This is more than a broken clock being right twice a day.

Of course, I don't share the views of the "State Department left" [that is so well represented here on babble] in which the only good Russian is a dead one, that nothing good ever came out of the former Soviet Union, that Putin's views can be "explained" by his past career in the intelligence agency (KGB), etc., etc., but you probably already knew that.

 

You wisely point out many of putin's positive attributes but you say you wouldn't vote for him. [b]Why?[/b]

And I'll point out the most important one and the one you shouldn't missed. He's a strong leader who is going to stand for his country, come hell or highwater. A lesser man would have liekly crumbled under the US/Nato dirty tricks and pressure put on Russia to hurt it's people and drive the people away from Putin. They won't, and he stands as one of the most popular leaders in the world.

Why wouldn't you vote for him? I'm interested in finding out your reasons.

Jones also writes for the New Statesman and perusing his posts there, he doesn't look like another born-again imperialist shill like Nick Cohen: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/owen_jones

He's also proudly gay, which might colour his dislike of Putin.

monty1 wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

If I was Russian then I wouldn't vote for him. 

You wisely point out many of putin's positive attributes but you say you wouldn't vote for him. [b]Why?[/b]

Clearly ikosmos is a russophobe! 

‘eternally totalitarian, imperialistic, and murderous Russia.’

Quote:

On January 21st  the Wall Street Journal’s editors allowed on its editorial pages an opinion piece with one of the most glaring distortions of post-Soviet Russian history and politics ever produced by contemporary American ‘rusology.’ David Satter issued forth yet another of his caricatures of analysis in an exegesis from which he hoped readers would take away: ‘eternally totalitarian, imperialistic, and murderous Russia.’