The State of Affairs in Russia

[Gaijin de Moscu]

No, it looks like honesty.

I'm sure you honestly believe it's true, Berkut.

But I really can't argue with the voices in your head. Sorry.

[DGuller]

I am just fascinated at watching how authoritarian propaganda works so effectively in real time, right in front of us.

And not even by those who are completely invested in it, but by those who are not, and are supporting it anyway.

It's long lost the fascination for me.  I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far:  we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting.  Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike.  Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.

What would fascinate me is a solution to this.  I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Meanwhile, as expected, NATO has officially rejected the Russian demands:

https://www.google.ch/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/nato-russia-high-level-talks-ukraine-tensions-simmer-82217096

(Very few articles in English yet, so just taking the first search result).

[Gaijin de Moscu]

It's long lost the fascination for me.  I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far:  we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting.  Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike.  Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.

What would fascinate me is a solution to this.  I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.

This could be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe there could be a solution to this any time soon. The human mind itself is wired to develop biases by millennia of evolution.

It would take a truly advanced society to be resistant to propaganda. In the current realities, where the absolute majority of information sources are ideologically charged, I simply don't see this happening.

I could be wrong.

But this is where my relativistic fatalism comes from.

[The Brain]

I am just fascinated at watching how authoritarian propaganda works so effectively in real time, right in front of us.

And not even by those who are completely invested in it, but by those who are not, and are supporting it anyway.

It's long lost the fascination for me.  I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far:  we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting.  Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike.  Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.

What would fascinate me is a solution to this.  I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people want a good society they have all the necessary tools for it. If they don't... well then they don't.

[DGuller]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people want a good society they have all the necessary tools for it. If they don't... well then they don't.

I don't think it's anywhere near that simple.  We do know that there are malevolent people out there who want to ensure that some societies are not good societies, and they prey on the vulnerabilities of the people living in societies that they want to sabotage.  We also know that people are what they are, the vulnerabilities are part of the package. 

You have to build societies around people as they are, not around the people you wish they were.  It's just bad engineering practice to not account for the realities of your users.

[The Brain]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people want a good society they have all the necessary tools for it. If they don't... well then they don't.

I don't think it's anywhere near that simple.  We do know that there are malevolent people out there who want to ensure that some societies are not good societies, and they prey on the vulnerabilities of the people living in societies that they want to sabotage.  We also know that people are what they are, the vulnerabilities are part of the package. 

You have to build societies around people as they are, not around the people you wish they were.  It's just bad engineering practice to not account for the realities of your users.

I have no desire to build a society that goes against the will of the people.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think it's anywhere near that simple.  We do know that there are malevolent people out there who want to ensure that some societies are not good societies, and they prey on the vulnerabilities of the people living in societies that they want to sabotage.  We also know that people are what they are, the vulnerabilities are part of the package. 

You have to build societies around people as they are, not around the people you wish they were.  It's just bad engineering practice to not account for the realities of your users.

I think the succeess or not of "propaganda" just comes in waves and it's just tied to media/communication innovation. I think it's most successful when it's relatively new and when society at large isn't - to nick a covid phrase - immunised to that media and form of communication.

And I put it as "propaganda" because I think good leaders are also doing this. Whether you think of FDR and Churchill who were among the most succcessful communicators by radio up to that point when it was the new form of mass communication, or JFK and Reagan with TV - or more modern example I remember reading breathlessly excited takes in 2008 on how Obama was innovatively using Facebook and social media data to micro-target voters etc. The same technology can also be used by bad actors and if they're good at it, they'll also do well. And obviously it can also just be used quite well by people who you disagree with but aren't necessarily bad actors. 

I don't think it'a about truth or even a consensus view I think it's about societies becoming used to certain technological innovations: printing press, radio, film, TV, social media. Once we are accustomed to them we spot the tricks and it's more difficult to innovate and get your message across and believed. We become more critical consumers. When it's new, we don't have any immunity.

[DGuller]

I have no desire to build a society that goes against the will of the people.

I don't believe in the supremacy of free will, that seems like a religious dogma that ignores the reality of humans.  By that logic, we shouldn't combat drug or alcohol abuse in society: people who don't want to use drugs won't use them.

[Razgovory]

I am just fascinated at watching how authoritarian propaganda works so effectively in real time, right in front of us.

And not even by those who are completely invested in it, but by those who are not, and are supporting it anyway.

It's long lost the fascination for me.  I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far:  we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting.  Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike.  Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.

What would fascinate me is a solution to this.  I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people want a good society they have all the necessary tools for it. If they don't... well then they don't.

"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her fuck a tree."  My great uncle told me that.  I don't know what it means but I say it every time I get a chance to see if it registers.

[Berkut]

It's long lost the fascination for me.  I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far:  we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting.  Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike.  Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.

What would fascinate me is a solution to this.  I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.

This could be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe there could be a solution to this any time soon. The human mind itself is wired to develop biases by millennia of evolution.

That is an excuse, and it is an excuse for yourself. Humans are products of evolution, but that evolution also created a critical brain capable if discernment, self analysis, and objectivity. Some people are better at that then others, and it is a skill that can be trained as well, as long as their is the will to do so.

Evolution did not create humans who can by and large dunk a basketball in a 10 foot hoop, which is why very few humans can do that. That doesn't mean that nobody can, nor does it mean that we cannot use our brains to get better at it, or overcome our biological biases by recognizing them and actively working against them in a conscious, self critical manner.

You as an individual are not doomed to have to just accept Putin's bullshit at face value because you tell yourself that his bullshit is just as "true" as the "mainstream western media's" bullshit.

And I sure as hell am not obligated to pretend that your "truth" has value just because you value it.

It would take a truly advanced society to be resistant to propaganda. In the current realities, where the absolute majority of information sources are ideologically charged, I simply don't see this happening.

It would start with a society valuing actual truth and objective respect for facts, science, and reason.

And this is not binary - it i clear that there are in fact societies that are more resistant to propanganda then others. Again, just because no society is perfectly resistant is not reason to not value being more resistant.

And it is also clear that the societies that are more resistant are those that are more open, more transparent, and less constrained by authoritarians limiting and attacking the credibility of the free press.

I could be wrong.

But this is where my relativistic fatalism comes from.

I don't believe you. I think it comes from the need to see "your team" as reasonable, when objective reason tells you that that is just not so.

All societies are susceptible to disinformation and propaganda. That doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and despair at wondering who to believe, Churchill or Hitler? Stalin or Roosevelt? Mussolini or Daladier? Putin or Obama? Trump or....anyone?

[The Brain]

I have no desire to build a society that goes against the will of the people.

I don't believe in the supremacy of free will, that seems like a religious dogma that ignores the reality of humans.  By that logic, we shouldn't combat drug or alcohol abuse in society: people who don't want to use drugs won't use them.

I don't know how "supremacy of free will" relates to the discussion. And I certainly don't think we should combat alcohol or drug abuse if the people wishes otherwise.

[Berkut]

I don't think it's anywhere near that simple.  We do know that there are malevolent people out there who want to ensure that some societies are not good societies, and they prey on the vulnerabilities of the people living in societies that they want to sabotage.  We also know that people are what they are, the vulnerabilities are part of the package. 

You have to build societies around people as they are, not around the people you wish they were.  It's just bad engineering practice to not account for the realities of your users.

I think the succeess or not of "propaganda" just comes in waves and it's just tied to media/communication innovation. I think it's most successful when it's relatively new and when society at large isn't - to nick a covid phrase - immunised to that media and form of communication.

And I put it as "propaganda" because I think good leaders are also doing this. Whether you think of FDR and Churchill who were among the most succcessful communicators by radio up to that point when it was the new form of mass communication, or JFK and Reagan with TV - or more modern example I remember reading breathlessly excited takes in 2008 on how Obama was innovatively using Facebook and social media data to micro-target voters etc. The same technology can also be used by bad actors and if they're good at it, they'll also do well. And obviously it can also just be used quite well by people who you disagree with but aren't necessarily bad actors.

What I don't understand is why you say this, but then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that there is in fact a difference between how different groups and societies deal with this problem, and agree with the authoritarians that well, everyone has their own "truth" so we might as well accept that one is as good as another.

Both Hitler *and* Churchill and Roosevelt were masters of their mediums of communication. That doesn't mean we have to just accept that each were equally valid in the content of what they communicated. We can recognize that Churchill and Roosevelt were politicians perfectly capable of being dishonest, misleading, or even outright lying at times, while also recognizing that Hitler was operating at an entirely different level with a very different respect for basic truth, and what his goals were as he used the medium to achieve them.

Roosevelt might have been a damn dirty lying politician, but he actually believed things, and acted accordingly. He believed that the best way for a better society was for a free press, as an example. He then went about trying to "win" at the contest of how to use that free press to gain power and control, including at times manipulating it, or even in extremis actually restricting it in wartime.

That is fundamentally different from Hitler recognizing that the best way to get and maintain power and control is through the destruction of the free press, and bending the press to being just another tool of the State. The Nazi's started that project, before he was in power, with a concerted attack on the integrity of the "mainstream media". The Nazis claimed it was all controlled by the Jews, and hence was all biased lies. This was a narrative that sold to even those who would not consider themselves Nazi's, and helped them achieve the actual power where they could then brutally suppress the media in a much more straightforward fashion. You can see the echoes of that same process in Putin's attack on the Russian press that has culminated in what is there today - no free press to speak of at all.

We don't have to sit here are nod sagely and say "Yeah, well, those Nazis! They had their truth, and Churchill had his! And the non-Nazi germans (many millions of whom would pay with their lives for Nazi ideology), why, they had their own "truth" and who can say which is really true?".

That is horseshit. And pretending that Putin and Russia Times today are somehow just another "truth" in a competing see of bullshit is playing right back into that same old, proven strategy on how to empower authoritarianism.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

It's long lost the fascination for me.  I think it starts with a good thing that like all good things can go too far:  we're taught that intelligent people see shades of gray rather than black and white, and that intelligent people are skeptical rather than trusting.  Everyone wants to feel intelligent, very smart and very stupid alike.  Therefore, any propaganda campaign that aids people in feeling like they're intelligent and discerning is going to be very effective.

What would fascinate me is a solution to this.  I'm kind of getting burnt out emotionally watching this happen to people around me (and probably to myself, though I can't observe that), and feeling like I'm watching an unstoppable plague take over.

This could be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe there could be a solution to this any time soon. The human mind itself is wired to develop biases by millennia of evolution.

That is an excuse, and it is an excuse for yourself. Humans are products of evolution, but that evolution also created a critical brain capable if discernment, self analysis, and objectivity. Some people are better at that then others, and it is a skill that can be trained as well, as long as their is the will to do so.

Evolution did not create humans who can by and large dunk a basketball in a 10 foot hoop, which is why very few humans can do that. That doesn't mean that nobody can, nor does it mean that we cannot use our brains to get better at it, or overcome our biological biases by recognizing them and actively working against them in a conscious, self critical manner.

You as an individual are not doomed to have to just accept Putin's bullshit at face value because you tell yourself that his bullshit is just as "true" as the "mainstream western media's" bullshit.

And I sure as hell am not obligated to pretend that your "truth" has value just because you value it.

It would take a truly advanced society to be resistant to propaganda. In the current realities, where the absolute majority of information sources are ideologically charged, I simply don't see this happening.

It would start with a society valuing actual truth and objective respect for facts, science, and reason.

And this is not binary - it i clear that there are in fact societies that are more resistant to propanganda then others. Again, just because no society is perfectly resistant is not reason to not value being more resistant.

And it is also clear that the societies that are more resistant are those that are more open, more transparent, and less constrained by authoritarians limiting and attacking the credibility of the free press.

I could be wrong.

But this is where my relativistic fatalism comes from.

I don't believe you. I think it comes from the need to see "your team" as reasonable, when objective reason tells you that that is just not so.

All societies are susceptible to disinformation and propaganda. That doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and despair at wondering who to believe, Churchill or Hitler? Stalin or Roosevelt? Mussolini or Daladier? Putin or Obama? Trump or....anyone?

Look. If we take the case of Ukraine, then:

- I have family in both countries
- My mom is Russian, my dad Ukrainian; since my childhood I've been to many places both in Russia and Ukraine
- I visited both countries multiple times just before the events started unfolding in 2013
- I can easily read materials in Russian, Ukrainian, English, French, Spanish, and I've read and watched gigabytes of material on this conflict from all sides
- I talked to dozens of people from both sides of the conflict

As you can see, this particular conflict is very close to me. It has cut through my very family. I couldn't even talk about it for many years as it has drained me of all emotion.

And yet, I'm extremely cautious concluding what actually went on. If fact, my assumptions have changed several times over the last 8 years, sometimes dramatically. I still don't fully understand what happened to the two countries I love.

And we have you, with all respect, who seems to be perfectly clear on which side to put the blame. At least, this is what I assume from what your comments.

[Jacob]

As a rough sketch I think it's: 1) about institutions; 2) about public sentiment; and 3) self-reinforcing.

You need to build and maintain institutions (media, education, political processes on national and local levels, and so on) to believe that good governance and fair processes are desirable, possible, and necessary and to hold constituent parts accountable. It springs from all components, and it's necessary to continually do the work to keep the project viable.

I believe fatalism and cynicism past a certain point is actively corrosive to freedom and good governance as it saps the ability to keep the projects viable.

But it is possible, as seen at various times in various places. And it's also possible to completely undermine and destroy it, as seen elsewhere.

I think the key elements are 1) some levels of media standards (both mass media and social media) - this is of course delicate, because the other side is corrosive media control; 2) controlling capital's influence on and access to politics; and 3) broad public education that includes strong civics.

On an indivdual level, I believe the best contributions we can make (other than those who are committed to be activists, of course), is to insist on good standards, support constructive practices, and reject cynicism where possible. This is exhausting and on the level of individual ants moving grains of sand.