31–40 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I've never heard what's the actual problem with whatabaoutism. If you do bad things and get away with those, quit preaching at least.
That's what's wrong with whataboutism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I've never heard what's the actual problem with whatabaoutism. If you do bad things and get away with those, quit preaching at least.
- it’s pointless to insist on zero hypocrisy before entertaining the ideas of another because there’s no such thing in any human and never has been. You’re a hypocrite. So am i. Get over it.
- “what about x?” distracts from the issue being discussed and usually has absolutely nothing to do with it anyway
For example, imagine something like this:
Pro-Invasion guy: “Putin is right, the US pushed them into this, they’re acting in self defense!”
Not-Bullshit guy: “Oh come on, it’s not like the US or NATO launched an attack from a base of operations within Ukraine.“
PIG: “What about the US invasion of Iraq under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war?”
The two are entirely unrelated for a myriad of reasons. It’s a purely emotional reaction meant to vindicate your fragile little ego, and nothing more. Worst of all, it wastes time and effort that’s better spent working the real problem. We could have been finding ways to help the Russian people circumvent Putin’s news censorship instead of this just now, which would have done a hell of a lot more to promote the cause of human liberty than this discussion, and possibly could have indirectly saved lives in the long run.
But here we are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very small minority wanted to return to Russian rule on the eve of the invasion according to polling of Ukrainian people. And even if they did want to return to Russian rule (which they didn't), the just thing would've been to hold a referendum. They are a democracy after all.
>A very small minority >hold a referendum. They are a democracy These don't match. Democracy is rule of the majority. The minority is powerless and can be abused as much as the majority wishes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never heard what's the actual problem with whatabaoutism. If you do bad things and get away with those, quit preaching at least.
It's a thought-extinguishing tactic. It attempts to redirect or scatter attention away from the topic at hand. This could be in a misguided sincere attempt to draw analogies, or could be more nefarious. Whataboutism seems to commonly occur when some agent of power is being criticized.
Analogy: Definition, a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Anytime anyone brings-up Western aggression, people cry whataboutism and so the topic cannot be discussed anymore.
It's fine for people to say that two wrongs don't make a right or that even if the Iraq invasion was based on lies about weapons of mass destruction that doesn't make Putin's invasion of Ukraine any less evil or harmful or destructive. But most people don't even bother and just cry whataboutism.
Whataboutism makes sense, victims of abuse are not allowed to abuse others just because they were abused themselves. But it's not whataboutism to critically analyse and compare what is the justification of the Iraq War and Ukraine invasion. President Biden probably wouldn't just cry whataboutism, he would state clear and convincing reasons why the Ukraine invasion isn't justified and why the Iraq invasion was. It's not whataboutism to analyze, compare, collect evidence and come to a judgment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I've never heard what's the actual problem with whatabaoutism. If you do bad things and get away with those, quit preaching at least.
Normal people in all countries are like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
probably an SDR? :)
Do you have any suggestions for I'm guessing like a USB receiver? I just ordered a baofeng half out of late night panic, half out of interest in radio/learning about Ham licensing. I know it has a USB so can program it so would be legal without a license to broadcast. But I think can still listen without modifications.
With an amateur license you can use pretty much whatever equipment you want, including homemade. But then the obligation to obey the legal limits is borne by you, not the manufacturer. And Baofeng radios have a reputation for emitting lots of nasty harmonics and noise outside the desired transmission bands.
Of course, none of this should deter you from using whatever is available in an emergency. The FCC regulations include a clause allowing you to bend the rules if it is immediately necessary to do so to prevent imminent danger to life or property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition Whataboutism never tries to deliver an argument in favour of your position, only arguments against other positions.
It is usually invoked in the fashion: - We have this and that reason to do {thing}. - These reasons are laughable and you still don't have excuse to do {thing}. - What about when you did {thing} with ever worse reasons stated? In this case I would say whataboutism is justified, or at least, no constructive dialogue is possible.
You are right with the last sentence. Unfortunately few people are interested to find out what's true in our world nowadays — for them it is more important to feel justified with their position regardless if its true or false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition Whataboutism never tries to deliver an argument in favour of your position, only arguments against other positions.
It is usually invoked in the fashion: - We have this and that reason to do {thing}. - These reasons are laughable and you still don't have excuse to do {thing}. - What about when you did {thing} with ever worse reasons stated? In this case I would say whataboutism is justified, or at least, no constructive dialogue is possible.
When talking to anyone else, "you" means one individual, like Putin, plus one can be sure an American won't remember a single thing he did more than a year ago and that can be dismissed as a digression in any case.
Many counties around the world still use shortwave for various reasons - unofficial propaganda being one of them. The BBC World Service itself is and has been funded by the British government to promote its interests abroad.[1] The content is usually cultural in context.
Sadly, many countries are also reducing or completely closing SW broadcasts entirely. What I find interesting, from a geopolitical point of view, is that the Chinese are everywhere on shortwave. Very strong signals from China Radio International [2] on many frequencies in every broadcast band that I listen to. CRI broadcast very professional sounding, western style, news and opinion programs to a global audience directly.
Jamming of signals to try and prevent broadcasts being heard is probably also as old as AM radio itself once the powers that be recognised its value. The US also has the Voice of America [3] but, not being its target audience, the transmissions received by me tend to be weaker - I just may not be on the right band at the right time though.
There is a reason number stations exist! [4] Its my opinion why even liberal, democratic countries seem paranoid about giving free access to the natural physical phenomenon of ionospheric radio propagation.
The ability for citizens to have relatively unfettered broadcast access to a global audience outside of any control gives rise to IMHO undemocratic punishments of large fines or even prison.
Most of the UK radio regulation is driven by commercial interests and the government control of radio spectrum for monitory gain. For context look back to the time of the North Sea radio pirates - anyone would think the pirate radio stations were terrorist organisations! [5]
As a licensed ham radio operator I have the narrow privilege to talk to fellow operators, but if I step outside of those my license is in danger of being revoked. Ukraine banned its radio ham population from transmitting as soon as the invasion happened. I think this is standard practice by most governments.
I fully agree with spectrum regulation though in the sense of band planning to keep mutual interference down, and fully understand the havoc a poorly spec'd transmitter can cause - but this is easy to solve technically.
I do think there is a need for citizen broadcast bands to be established where there is a form of radio podcasts available to those who wish to meet the technical requirements - not hard as these are met by current, off the shelve transmitters - and put content literally "on the air".
Anyway, who put governments in control of this natural resource? Sorry, I drifted off topic but I am fascinated by the politics of radio.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2021/world-service-funding
[4] https://www.numbers-stations.com
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_the_United_Kin...
What measures does the Russian government take to prevent access to foreign media?
Russian authorities block access to internet sites they don't like. I imagine that on a technical level it's not hard to bypass those blocks, but the vast majority of the population is neither motivated nor technically savvy enough to do that. I don't know about foreign media specifically, but in the last couple of days they shut down some of the few remaining independent media outlets (TV Rain and Echo of Moscow) an…