Russian attack aircraft just flew within 30 feet of a U.S. Navy ship

[Keeponrage]

"OK" in what sense? In that situation, those elections were the only choice to form a government that somehow reflects people's will. Were they democratic?

And Crimea referendum was the only choice to ask Crimean populace on their status.

No, democratic elections in a non-democratic country cannot happen pretty much by definition.

Situation in Ukraine didn't confirm with democratic standards as well. To start with, they've brutally violated their own constitution in several ways. Then they've voted a return to constitution of 2004 and immediately violated it by appointing Turchinov as acting president. Also, all these votings were handled under real gunpoint of maidan protesters (including radicals).

Also, Yanukovich has most support in Eastern regions and Crimea. So, people of Crimea and Donbass pretty much felt fucked twice - anti-Russian forces were coming to power and their president was unlawfully ousted. If maidanites could have done their coup, why Crimean (and Donbass) people couldn't?

So, in this bloody circus, an allegedly non-democratic referendum was a paragon of democracy.

Were they legit? Absolutely.

just like in Crimea.

[May90]

Ooh, I would love a thread on that!
On this forum, and many other places, there seems to be the idea that "we = good; everyone else = evil".
Now that's what I call propaganda!

Well, no, "good"/"bad" is subjective. But you just need to look at a few factors: average income, crime rates, freedom rankings, corruption index, etc. - which are, interestingly, strongly correlated, for the most part - to realize that, indeed, some places are way better for living than others. All these things come in one package; usually where you have suppressed freedoms and, hence, propaganda, you also have shitty quality of life, poor healthcare, high crime rates, sky high corruption, etc.

If you think state propaganda can somehow be comparable to propaganda in the conditions of free market full of public companies not affiliated with the government - then you don't know how media works. Simple as that. You can't deliver pro-state propaganda the way it is done in authoritarian countries, when you have dozens large corporations that are free to translate whatever they want.

snip

I just looked at the world map. Interestingly, I didn't find Iraq colored red, just like the US is. Have I missed something?

Stop comparing incomparable. And no, I don't remember saying that elections in Ukraine were democratic either.

[Hound Archon]

Hahaha.... omg, I'm just going to laugh at this... I can't even be arsed to spell it out for you. Wow, just wow. What an understanding of democracy you have. Just brilliant.

Considering that most people's understanding of democracy is "if I don't like it, it is not democratic", my understanding is as good as any.

[Keeponrage]

I just looked at the world map. Interestingly, I didn't find Iraq colored red, just like the US is. Have I missed something?

Yes, they've fucked whole country over, washed their hands and now ISIS feasts on weakened prey. Mission accomplished. Thank you very much.

Stop comparing incomparable. And no, I don't remember saying that elections in Ukraine were democratic either.

well, then, non-democratic Crimean voting in non-democratic Ukraine is just as fine as fine as non-democratic Iraq voting in non-democratic Iraq.

[caervek]

Yes, when those guards are from the UN perhaps. Not if they're the guards of one of the parties in the election...

And what if it's armed police officers standing outside? They work for the government.

[May90]

Yes, they've fucked whole country over, washed their hands and now ISIS feasts on weakened prey. Mission accomplished. Thank you very much.

well, then, non-democratic Crimean voting in non-democratic Ukraine is just as fine as fine as non-democratic Iraq voting in non-democratic Iraq.

Once again, Iraq is not a part of the US; Crimea is a part of Russia. These things are not comparable. And two non-democratic elections doesn't mean two equal elections.

What do those factors have to do with morality?
Of course it's subjective, that's the point: People here are acting as if it isn't.
You're one of those people, you were acting like people in Russia only approve of their government because they are brainwashed.
It's just impossible to imagine that many people might actually prefer it there?

Let's take some western examples:
The US has a system where your vote only matters if you vote tactically. Many people claim they are the best democracy ever.
In the EU there are many laws to restrict hatespeech, etc, and we still boast about our freedom of speech.
Now are you telling me that it's impossible for people in Russia to favour their political system or see no issue with the freedom?

Corruption is an interesting point.
Because according to many people the amount of lobbying in Congress is nothing more than corruption. Somehow it's legal though and a corruption-index seems to ignore it.

And no.
State propaganda is not comparable to propaganda in this society.
Our propaganda is better and more subtle.
You just give people the tools to spread their own propaganda, it's why people with "left wing" ideas immediately get called communists.

No, I've never said they approved of it ONLY because of it. I know for a fact that people do not prefer it there; I have lived there, after all, and talked to people plenty. They rationalize their live there through patriotism and such, so it might look like they are fine with staying; but, I bet all my income, if you offer an average Russian family a place on the West - they will be gone from the country next week.

There is no comparison of these things you pointed out, to how it is in Russia. Corruption in Congress... Come on, don't make me laugh. It is not even remotely comparable to what takes place in the State Duma. I'm not saying that the US or EU systems are flawless; far from it, they are pretty terrible, in my eyes. But you don't get to say that a sloth is not extremely slow, just because turtle is slow too - the latter still outruns the former by a factor of 1,000.

No, state propaganda is fundamentally different from private corporation propaganda. It does promote certain ideas, but those ideas have nothing to do with the government's desire to expand its influence and control. If anything, one of the biggest successes a media corporation can achieve is find something that compromises the current government - it means the journalists can collectively retire and not have to worry about working any more.

[Keeponrage]

Once again, Iraq is not a part of the US; Crimea is a part of Russia. These things are not comparable. And two non-democratic elections doesn't mean two equal elections.

There are no two totally equal situations in whole human history. Nevertheless, comparative studies are widespread in historical research.

It these two particular cases we compare two votings that were held with armed troops on a ground. Both in a situation of political turmoil.

In Iraq case, pro-Saddam Sunnites were pretty much removed from power, which was in compliance with US's national interest.
In Crimean case, pro-Russian option prevailed, which was in compliance with Russia's national interests.

Why one voting is being frown upon because of troops on the ground, and another is not? Because of the result?

[May90]

There are no two totally equal situations in whole human history. Nevertheless, comparative studies are widespread in historical research.

It these two particular cases we compare two votings that were held with armed troops on a ground. Both in a situation of political turmoil.

In Iraq case, pro-Saddam Sunnites were pretty much removed from power, which was in compliance with US's national interest.
In Crimean case, pro-Russian option prevailed, which was in compliance with Russia's national interests.

Why one voting is being frown upon because of troops on the ground, and another is not? Because of the result?

You can't compare arbitrary things like that. I can say, "Mosquitoes are living beings, and humans are living beings; I killed a mosquito yesterday and no one complained - why do people complain about ISIS killing humans?". Things should have circumstances that are somewhat similar - they were not. Annexation is not comparable to invasion, demotion of the government and withdrawal. Weren't even equal kinds of voting in two cases; in Crimea it was referendum, while in Iraq - elections. In Iraq the government was chosen, in Crimea the allegiance was chosen. In Iraq, the election results were accepted by the UN; in Crimea, the results were accepted, I think, by 4 different countries, all of them in the tail of freedom rankings.

There is no comparison here. You would have better luck comparing Crimea to, say, post-war South Korea and elections in it - now that, I'd say, would be a fair comparison. Only in this case no one even tries to hide that South Korea was just an outpost and there was nothing unbiased about it; I wish Putin had the guts to admit publicly the same about Crimea.

[May90]

Like I said: We = good; they = evil.

Honestly, when you aren't even trying to read what I say and put words in my mouth exactly opposite to what I said, I don't think there is any point to continue this.

You looked like an honest smart person in other threads I've seen you talk. I really expected better of you.

[Shalcker]

You can't compare arbitrary things like that. I can say, "Mosquitoes are living beings, and humans are living beings; I killed a mosquito yesterday and no one complained - why do people complain about ISIS killing humans?". Things should have circumstances that are somewhat similar - they were not. Annexation is not comparable to invasion, demotion of the government and withdrawal. Weren't even equal kinds of voting in two cases; in Crimea it was referendum, while in Iraq - elections. In Iraq the government was chosen, in Crimea the allegiance was chosen. In Iraq, the election results were accepted by the UN; in Crimea, the results were accepted, I think, by 4 different countries, all of them in the tail of freedom rankings.

Can you explain why you select those particular qualities that are different between those events and ignore qualities that are same?

I mean, they don't seem to be part of any definition of whatever it is you're arguing here (as has been pointed out when you linked Wikipedia before).

[May90]

Can you explain why you select those particular qualities that are different between those events and ignore qualities that are same?

I mean, they don't seem to be part of any definition of whatever it is you're arguing here (as has been pointed out when you linked Wikipedia before).

They aren't? I don't see much in common between a referendum for joining another country, and elections of a new government. Other things I mentioned only increase this difference.

[Keeponrage]

You can't compare arbitrary things like that. I can say, "Mosquitoes are living beings, and humans are living beings; I killed a mosquito yesterday and no one complained - why do people complain about ISIS killing humans?".

They are not arbitrary. Both votings (in this thread I call them votings, not elections) were carried out with troops on the ground. By this parameter, Mr. Slant claims that Crimean votings were not democratic and, hence, non-legit. I present an example of Iraq, with troops on the ground, but still it was accepted as legit.

So, by this parameter alone you can't derive a classification rule about legality of voting (cause with the same input there are two opposite outputs).

You come up with one more parameter - non-democratic situation in a country. I provide some examples that show that situation in Ukraine was non-democratic as well. So we now have two equal two-dimensional input vectors:

[presence of troops on the ground (true) , non-democratic situation in a country (true)]

But the outputs in both cases are still opposite!

So, your two-dimensional input is also not enough to derive a classification rule.

So you come up with third dimension. I actually have a hard time to define this third dimension. But in one case you assign a value of "annexation" and in the other case you assign a value of "invasion, demotion of the government and withdrawal". I would even correct your values and put it in more correct way "peaceful and bloodless annexation" and "bloody invasion that lead to up to hundreds of thousand people died and ISIS ravaging a weak prey as a consequence".

So, finally, we have this third component that really differs in both cases! And since this component is the only one that differs it becomes the only one that can be used to build up a classification rule:

"Voting that lead to bloodless and peaceful annexation" - non-legit
"Voting performed after invasion that lead to hundreds of thousand people died and ISIS ravaging a weak prey as a consequence" - legit.

In Iraq the government was chosen, in Crimea the allegiance was chosen.

In Crimea people have chosen their government as well - the one of Russia.

In Iraq, the election results were accepted by the UN; in Crimea, the results were accepted, I think, by 4 different countries, all of them in the tail of freedom rankings.

that is actually not a input component. That is an output. And a classification rule that lead to this result is an exactly what is in question in our discussion.

[May90]

I feel like you are arguing against something I've never said. I think I've said clearly that I don't consider Iraqi elections democratic, so what is the talk here about? "Legit" - now that is a more tricky question, since legitimacy is a very fluid concept. Iraqi elections were accepted by the UN, so according to the international law, yes, they were legal; according to the same law, Crimean referendum was not legit.

Everything else really is outside the scope of what Slant was talking about.

[Shalcker]

They aren't? I don't see much in common between a referendum for joining another country, and elections of a new government. Other things I mentioned only increase this difference.

Well, let's see:
- both elections and referendum are supposed to be used to either gauge or maintain legitimacy of respective processes (elected representatives or enforcement of whatever it is decided by referendum)
- both are ideally supposed to be best performed without outside interference (which existed in both cases), and with equal access for parties representing different viewpoints, including "restoring/maintaining status quo" (which wasn't really provided in both cases)
- in either case forces of previous government were suppressed by force (threat of force in case of Crimea)

There are many cases where US accepted things that weren't accepted by UN at large (like Honduran coup of 2009 - currently used against Clinton - quote "Though all international organizations called the Honduran coup illegitimate, and refused to recognize the leader chosen by its junta, the Obama Administration, after more than a month of indecision on this matter, finally came out for Honduras’s fascists." (those junta members/powerful families of Honduras made contributions to Clinton fund before coup, which is seen as reason for her support of them) ).

Unilateral actions like this are not really uncommon. Not every action needs world approval.

Both situations were imperfect and "dirty". One outcome was accepted, one wasn't yet de jure (but is pretty much accepted de facto).

[May90]

Well, let's see:
- both elections and referendum are supposed to be used to either gauge or maintain legitimacy of respective processes (elected representatives or enforcement of whatever it is decided by referendum)
- both are ideally supposed to be best performed without outside interference (which existed in both cases), and with equal access for parties representing different viewpoints, including "restoring/maintaining status quo" (which wasn't really provided in both cases)
- in either case forces of previous government were suppressed by force (threat of force in case of Crimea)

There are many cases where US accepted things that weren't accepted by UN at large (like Honduran coup of 2009 - currently used against Clinton - quote "Though all international organizations called the Honduran coup illegitimate, and refused to recognize the leader chosen by its junta, the Obama Administration, after more than a month of indecision on this matter, finally came out for Honduras’s fascists." (those junta members/powerful families of Honduras made contributions to Clinton fund before coup, which is seen as reason for her support of them) ).

Unilateral actions like this are not really uncommon. Not every action needs world approval.

Both situations were imperfect and "dirty". One outcome was accepted, one wasn't yet de jure (but is pretty much accepted de facto).

These things don't have any relation to the Slant's notion that bred this discussion. But to your overall point: yes, I am not going to play a fool, and there, of course, is bias towards supporting friendly governments against unfriendly ones. These are not double standards, these are simple caring for national interests above anything else.

It is irrelevant to the comparison of Iraqi and Crimea votings though. The former was recognized by pretty much everyone, the latter - by almost no one. If it is all about the US and the Western approval, then why did all other countries align with them? No, there is something bigger here than this, there are core differences (which I mentioned above) that are almost unanimously accepted in the modern world.

[May90]

I did read what you were saying.
The moment I dared to mention corruption in US-politics you went 'Lol, can't compare that!' and you immediately focussed on the Duma.
Almost as if you cannot handle criticism on your own country.

My point was that the US has flaws in its political system, yet many people believe it's the best system in the world.
So if you tell me that 80% of the Russians support Putin I won't be surprised.

We are talking about comparison of two systems. You don't need to tell me about corruption in US politics, it is not like it is any secret for anyone. But we are comparing things of different orders here.

I don't know whether the US system is the best. For starters, "best" depends on the system of values within which such a judgement is made. Many people prefer systems in Nordic countries. I personally like the Australian system better than any other, but the US system is quite good as well. Is it flawed? Absolutely. Is there a lot to improve? You bet, there is so much to improve that it is sometimes nauseating to think how much we are missing. But are these problems comparable to Russian ones? No, not even close.

I look at the candidates we have to choose this year, and I'm becoming a stronger and stronger supporter of parliamentary republic... This is a disgrace. Then I compare these candidates to Putin, Zhirinovsky, Zyuganov - and they suddenly start looking like angels. Well, all of them except for Trump; that guy is irredeemable.

[Deleted]

Well, all of them except for Trump; that guy is irredeemable.

He will still win regardless.

[May90]

He will still win regardless.

That's what scares me the most...

[May90]

Dude.. It's a terrible system.
It's created to keep the same two groups in power and there is nothing you can do about it, I'd call it a "bictatorship".
But that is not the point. Fact is that many people claim it's the best ever! Woohoo!

So if US citizens can believe they are the best country ever than I am not surprised if Russian citizens are quite happy with their country/government.
I don't call that brainwashing, I call that a different culture. Different people being happy with different things.
Claiming Russians are all brainwashed is just plain-out insulting.

I don't understand what your point is. Is the US system severely flawed? Yes, it is. The system is not created to be a two-party system, but it ended up being one, and that is a sad state of affairs. Yes, the US system is not necessarily the best in the world - it really depends on one's views. Some say it is strongly inferior to European systems, for example, because of the way it treats the poor.

Only Russia is a different beast entirely. Look at the corruption index, crime rate, freedom ranking, average income, healthcare quality, etc. Go to Google Maps and look at how small tows away from Moscow and Petersburg look. Read a bit about the political system itself, about the parties. About how they vote for law projects; it is quite a read and a sight. Again, Russia is far from the worst countries to live in - but comparing it to the US? It is silly. Compare the flows of people moving from Russia to the US and of people moving from the US to Russia - it will demonstrate you what people's preferences are. Not everyone wants to live in a country with all aspects bordering on typical for the Third World.

I've never said that Russians are all brainwashed, or that brainwashing entirely explains their beliefs; this is something you made up. But propaganda there is strong, and you would know it well, if you were able to understand Russian language and watch a few of the programs they show on TV nowadays. It is not even close to the Soviet level, but by modern standards, it is outrageous. If you seriously compare it to what we have on the West, then you don't know much about mass media internal mechanisms. You can't get away here with that; nor would you even want to, because media of that level no one is going to care about; they are worse than Moore's "documentaries", full of conspiracy theories and crazy assumptions.

I don't know why we are even talking about it. It has nothing to do with the topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Why exactly?

Why which part?

[May90]

You claimed propaganda is why they are happy, which is extremely insulting. As if they cannot be happy because they are happy, but because they are brainwashed.

Which is why I said that being happy with your country/leader isn't such a big brainwash if you can convince people their their dictatorial system is "the best democracy ever".

I don't remember saying anything of the kind. Also, point me out an American (not a politician, but a common person) who believes that the US is the best democracy ever; self-criticism here is a national sport, you can hardly get anyone to admit that the system is any good at all.

It is like you are talking about some fictional US that only you alone know of. There is enough points to criticize the US for, no need to come up with fictional nonsense about "best democracy ever".

Not that it is even relevant. We are talking about Russia; why do you keep bringing up a side country over and over?

Propaganda here is stronger and better.
They won't get away with it here because they aren't subtle enough.

No, it really is not.