Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her] @ Zuzak @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

262

Joined

5 yr. ago

OUN leaders Andriy Melnyk (code name Consul I) and Bandera (code name Consul II) both served as agents of the Nazi Germany military intelligence Abwehr Second Department. Their goal was to run diversion activities after Germany's attack on the Soviet Union. This information is part of the testimony that Abwehr Colonel Erwin Stolze gave on 25 December 1945 and submitted to the Nuremberg trials, with a request to be admitted as evidence.

In the spring of 1941, Bandera held meetings with the heads of Germany's intelligence, regarding the formation of "Nachtigall" and "Roland" Battalions. In the spring of that year, the OUN received 2.5 million marks for subversive activities inside the Soviet Union. Gestapo and Abwehr officials protected Bandera's followers, as both organizations intended to use them for their own purposes.

On June 23, 1941, one day after the German attack on the Soviet Union, Bandera sent a letter to Hitler arguing the case for an independent Ukraine. On 30 June 1941, with the arrival of Nazi troops in Ukraine, Bandera and the OUN-B unilaterally declared an independent Ukrainian state ("Act of Renewal of Ukrainian Statehood"). The proclamation pledged a cooperation of the new Ukrainian state with Nazi Germany under the leadership of Hitler with a closing note "Glory to the heroic German army and its Führer, Adolf Hitler". The declaration was accompanied by violent pogroms.

Is this your hero?

Do y'all just never notice how this never works?

Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood. Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.

The Russian commander of the “Vostok” Battalion fighting in southern Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukraine will not be defeated and suggested that Russia freeze the war along current frontlines.

"Freezing the war along the current frontlines" is victory for Russia?? They already control all the territory they claim. I guess at this point Ukraine is starting to define winning as mere survival.

Putting words in my mouth is not intelligent discourse

Maybe you should have extended me the same courtesy.

I have been polite, but that doesn't mean I'm going to back down when you lob baseless accusations at me. Do better yourself.

I was under the impression that we were only supposed to stay out of threads that had a disclaimer like this:

This is an admin post, intended for blahaj lemmy users. Top level posts from members of other instances will be removed.

I'm not aware of any request not to make or comment on a post like this.

:::spoiler spoiler for off-topic

OP said this:

I've received this feedback a lot and I'm starting to see that cultural backgrounds probably have a very big effect on how "Kremlin propaganda" is understood. I think a major missing piece of the puzzle is a lot of the Kremlin propaganda is generally just presented in Russian, and probably the vast majority of Lemmy users don't speak any Russian. I'll have to think about this topic a bit more.

I interpret that to mean that he agrees that there's a need for clarification about what constitutes Kremlin propaganda. You say,

but then goes on to define what OP considers to be Kremlin propaganda and why it is considered to be rule-breaking

I don't see any such definition. I see that he says bigotry and communist symbolism is rule-breaking in the context of Kremlin propaganda, but I don't see any standard by which I can evaluate whether something will be considered Kremlin propaganda. I'm guessing it would include Russian state-affiliated sources, but I don't know if it would include, for example, a US based communist newsletter that supported the USSR. There is no standard given in what you quoted by which that question can be evaluated.

I am confused, what specific claims is the OP making that you want to validate / invalidate with other sources?

I'm am even more confused. What did I say that made you think I was talking about specific claims made by OP? All I've said is that I like to gather information from a variety of sources. Some people would call some of those sources Russian propaganda. Some people would call others of those sources American propaganda. I'm very confused about what you're talking about.

My accusation of whataboutism comes from skepticism, which I do not think was misplaced.

Of course, whenever a war is going on, a large amount of skepticism is always directed at the people calling for peace. In the words of the Nazi politician Hermann Göring:

Naturally the common people don't want war . . . but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

You might recognize that this "denouncing the pacifists for lack of patriotism" is exactly what I was referencing when I used the example of the post 9/11 skepticism of anyone who pushed back against the lies and Islamophobia pushed by the media at that time. Or I guess you'll dismiss that is "whataboutism" as well, since you evidentially you don't think it's valid to learn anything from historical events.

This sort of unreasonable dismissal of historical lessons, combined with accusations, is something that we're quite used to, and a part of why we are the way we are. On my home instance, I would respond to your unreasonable accusations by becoming equally unreasonable, in an effort to either make you either debate in good faith without such baseless accusations, or leave. You've already decided what you think about me and my motivations based on a knee-jerk reaction based on anti-intellectualism, and there is nothing I could say that would make you see reason.

My impression is that Blahaj accepted the 196 lifeboat without necessarily knowing much about it. Many of us on Hexbear had experiences with it on Reddit because on the surface it seems cool, but it's always had some strong Vaushite tendencies that we really dislike.

:::spoiler tangent

Imo he plays the controversy game of "Say stuff that makes group A mad at me in order to appeal to group B, who hates group A." That leads to saying problematic and harmful stuff but there's always this layer of plausible deniability, and all criticism, legitimate or not, gets dismissed as coming from the bad outgroup ("tankies"). When our site first started we had a ton of posts criticizing him but then we figured out it's better to just ignore his antics.

I've been worried since the start that federation with 196 was a ticking time bomb, but I've been pleasantly surprised that the users haven't really been posting bait or trying to antagonize us, but unfortunately I can't say the same for this mod. From what you said it sounds like they do similar controversy bait tactics.

Here's a couple sources about it:

Chicago Tribune- Here's an offensive word we should retire right now (2016)

Taking the R-word and adding "lib" to it doesn't make it any less offensive. And what bothers me is that those who combine "liberal" with that word are not insulting their intended targets — they're insulting an entire group of people who have done nothing wrong, all while perpetuating a term that simply needs to go away.

Anchorage Press - Why [word] is Lazy and Offensive (2020)

Combining the R-word with liberal makes it no less offensive.

Cambridge English Dictionary

"An offensive word used by some people on the extreme right of politics to refer to someone who holds left-wing political beliefs"

It's not just us Hexbears who find it offensive. Even if it's used ironically, I think we can all agree that the ironic use of offensive language still has potential to cause harm and should at the very least not be above crticism.

E: I'm pro-federation and I want to soothe things over, and I think the admins of both Blahaj and Hexbear are committed to that, but it seems like this mod is intentionally trying to burn bridges. This all happened underneath a post where they publicly posted a private conversation with one of our mods for the purpose of mockery. I've been trying to get people to tone it down on our side, but none of our people are going to listen to calls for civility in the face of ableism. We support our neurodivergent comrades.

:::spoiler Spoiler for off-topic

Russia is attempting to paint outside groups as subhuman. Are you attempting to be an apologist for those statements?

I don't know which specific statements you're referring to, but no, I don't agree with painting anyone as subhuman.

are there posts/comments that were painted in too broad of a stroke as Kremlin propaganda?

I don't know, because the post is unclear as to what constitutes Kremlin propaganda, which is why I asked for clarification.

Second, I am calling out the whataboutism in your post.

Explaining my motivations for seeking out information from multiple sources is not whataboutism. I believe that it's worthwhile to understand the perspectives and mentalities of groups that I disagree with, and I presented the example of my experiences in a "post 9/11 world" to illustrate the dangers of equating "Seeking to understand the other side's motivations" with "Agreeing with the other side." 20 years ago, we could be having a very similar conversation but I'd be accused of being a terrorist sympathizer instead of a Russian propagandist. Understanding the historical context of the creation of the Taliban and their motivations does not mean that I agree with them just as it does not when I understand the same as Russia. But it's easier to recognize that that's true of past events, because it is no longer in the heat of the moment.

I consider your accusation of whataboutism to be anti-intellectual. The study of history is vital to understanding the present. Writing off all historical comparisons or attempts to learn from the past is dangerous and not valid. How can we possibly avoid repeating the mistakes of the past if we can't compare them to present events?

Oh, I think there is actually an open room at the hotel but it's all the way in the back. Just keep rolling, you'll find it.

Yes, there is currently some disagreement among our users on how much we should change our, let's say, idiosyncratic site culture now that we're federated. Not everyone wanted to federate in the first place, and most of us didn't really know what to expect. For the past three years, we haven't had to play by anyone else's rules, and not everyone is enthused about the prospect. Also, as an explicitly political space, while we have discussions about other things, we don't have any spaces where veering into politics is unexpected or unwelcome.

Personally, I think federation is the most excitement we've had in ages, so I'm in favor of adapting and playing by the rules, because otherwise I think it's inevitable that we'll get cut off eventually. But it's a pretty big change in a pretty short time-frame, so tbh idk what will happen.

I talked with the lemm.ee admin and he did not mind if hexbear users engaged in that post in a way that was not low-effort.

I interpreted that to mean that our admin asked and was specifically told we could do it.

Let's not hijack their meta post with off-topic discussion.

This is trolling to try to get us defederated. "Hope they defed soon" in another comment.

Thanks for that. Fwiw I believe we've been staying clear of discussion threads when requested, the rule clarification helped.

Btw the elites don't want you to know this but those ducks right there are free, you can take them home with you. I have 458 ducks.

:::spoiler emoji

I posted here only after one of our admins said this:

I talked with the lemm.ee admin and he did not mind if hexbear users engaged in that post in a way that was not low-effort. I've removed a couple comments from there that were inappropriate. Basically if the meta community does not have a sidebar rule specifying it is for local users only or the post explicitly asks for only local users to comment then hexbear users are free to defend themselves/hexbear. Abiding by the CoC of course.

Whataboutism.