Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

theprint.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 309 posts

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#201

Post by sangnoir »

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #182
igorkraw wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so what is your take on the issues GP identified? Or is the only conclusion you can arrive at "it's complicated"? GP made the very salient point that some things are clearly bad . Blind clinging to the idea that everything has two sides is just as simplistic as thinking everything can be viewed from a perspective which is just as moral as every other. Except maybe even more so, because at least the moral simpli…

"The west probably could have avoided (or maybe just delayed) this war if they had taken steps X" is some the nuance you could add to your statements. Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO. More complicated example would be if Europe prioritized energy independence from Russia putting in a weaker position. An example that loops in nuclear power debate, one which likely could…

> Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO

What makes you certain that this was going to prevent the invasion? Russia gave a number of pretexts for the invasion, some unrelated to NATO: De-nazification of Ukraine, protecting Russian-speakers within Ukraine, among many others.

> Russian being the bad guy doesn't make conflict inevitable.

Oh, so you prefer the Chamberlain-style "Peace in our time" appeasement. What next, cede Finland or Poland to Russia when Putin demands it?

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#202

Post by ok123456 »

fknorangesite wrote: post #186
unsupp0rted wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't let it get you down. I was recently banned from a subreddit after one (neutral) comment for being a white supremacist. If I'm a white supremacist, I'd hate to find out what actual white supremacists are. I messaged the mods asking which rule I'd broken (because I hadn't broken one). They responded by muting me for 28 days. Forget it Jake, it's Reddit-town.

> I was recently banned from a subreddit after one (neutral) comment for being a white supremacist. I'm curious what you said. There is lots and lots of actual-neo-nazi recruitment material/copypasta out there that is deliberately written to sound "neutral." I can maybe see that if you accidentally drifted to close to that then you could get caught in the crossfire.

But Ukrainian nationalists who use real Nazi symbols get a pass?

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#203

Post by 21amxn21 »

joecot wrote: post #162
20amxn20 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that, yes, there can be a valid counterargument against everything you mention. The only dangerous trend here is pretending that there are undeniable consensus. Especially if they were forged in the last 0.5-0.05% of the lifespan of humanity. Also nobody is critizing Ukraine from defending itself. We're critizing Reddit and redditors in general for being hypocrites. Never in history were "people of color de…

> Never in history were "people of color denied from existing without harassment", etc. I would suggest reading about Jim Crow, Red Lining, the fight against school integration, New York's Stop and Frisk, and a "Black Lives Matter" movement fighting against cops regularly shooting unarmed black men to death. I would suggest those things, if I had any indication your statements were being made in good faith.

No post body was provided.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#204

Post by p1peridine »

hendersoon wrote: post #130
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you see Ukraine vs Russia as black and white, it means you are already manipulated. The conflict didn't start on 24th of February this year. Even if the press pretends it's all clear, there's a long history of events full of nuances going back hundreds of years that can paint the current events in one or other colour.

Can you go into any detail on historical events which a reasonable person might feel justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Understanding Russian Strategic Behavior - Imperial Strategic Culture and Putin’s Operational Code (2022) by Professor Graeme P. Herd.

https://www.routledge.com/Understanding-Russian-Strategic-Be...

This book is useful for understanding (not justifying).

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#205

Post by diimdeep »

viro wrote: post #184
diimdeep wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like U.S. does have a patent or exclusive right to spread and defend freedom and democracy ®. And CIA is helping U.S. to become more powerful firstly, all this freedom[1] and democracy ® BS is just propaganda. [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=molecules+of+freedom&ia=web

You're also leaving out Ukraine asked us for help. Yea, the U.S. does in fact have the RIGHT & moral obligation to help a fellow democracy and ally when they ask for help defeating an invading dictatorship. Edit: Oh of course a Russian would be upset that the U.S. is helping Ukraine repel their invasion.

There is conflict of interests between U.S. and Ukraine[1][2][3], this nullifies right and morality that U.S. is supposedly has. You treat Russian state as an invading dictatorship, then treat U.S. as imperialistic hegemony.

But it's all power play between states and ruling elites, what about citizens? They are dissatisfied in democracy as much in U.S. as in Russia. [4] We better fix our problems from within rather than turn on each other.

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Biden+family+ukraine&ia=web

[2] NATO expansion

[3] (use translate) https://russian.rt.com/business/article/1010248-gaz-rossiya-...

[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/how-people-...

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#206

Post by viridian »

tut-urut-utut wrote: post #141
poizan42 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right wing "ultranationalist" party Svoboda (In electoral alliance with National Corps, Right Sector, Ukrainian Volunteer Army (Azov), Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists) managed to get 2.15% of the votes at the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election. It's pretty difficult for me to see how Ukraine can be "overrun with explicitly neo nazi groups" with that amount of supp…

> Unless of course you live in Russia's fantasy world where a Jewish president can be a neo-nazi Without arguing about the rest of the comment, Russian narrative sees Nazis as a group that want to exterminate Russians, based on what actual Nazis in WW2 did when they attacked. And this "Jewish president" who banned Russian language, banned almost all political parties and organizations of russian-speaking people and s…

It's interesting because if you watch one of the interviews with Azov members, this is how they see themselves, as well. They adopt the Nazi aesthetic and ideology not because a hatred of Jews, but a hatred of Russians, and rejection of Russian culture. They look at the battle of Stalingrad and say 1 million wasn't nearly enough, and call modern Russia a communist state. It's really wild to hear.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#207

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

yucky wrote: post #194
joecot wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans have been so indoctrinated to the idea that every issue must have two sides who should be equally considered, that when we have issues where one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong, they don't know how to comprehend it. Our media has made everything a debate game because it gets viewers, and it's rotting people's ability to actually figure out what the right side of an issue is. There is n…

>we have issues where one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong, they don't know how to comprehend it. The fact that so many believe this to be 100% the case, actually makes the point of the OP. We should be able to condemn Russia and still point out that we're lying when we pretend the US didn't get this ball rolling when we funded and fomented a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and installed our puppets.[1][…

Ah now, if the US had formented a coup in 2014 then why didn't the pro Russian people of Ukraine reelect the original people in later elections?

It seems to me at least that the Maida revolution was driven more by anger against corruption and a desire to join the EU than the US involvement (which there definitely was, along with Russian involvement).

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#208

Post by viridian »

Xeoncross wrote: post #51

Recently, I've realized I'm talking with a more bots here on HN. I'll read a weird reply to someones comment shaming them and praising China/Russia/etc..., look at the poster, and realize their account was just created and often gets flagged and taken down. HN is an ideal place to hit the minds of very influential people. Reddit is the place to hit very influenceable people.

> HN is an ideal place to hit the minds of very influential people

This level of self importance seems unwarranted, IMO. The readership almost certainly wields a teeny, tiny fraction of influence of say, the Economist or the WSJ.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#209

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

sangnoir wrote: post #201
throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The west probably could have avoided (or maybe just delayed) this war if they had taken steps X" is some the nuance you could add to your statements. Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO. More complicated example would be if Europe prioritized energy independence from Russia putting in a weaker position. An example that loops in nuclear power debate, one which likely could…

> Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO What makes you certain that this was going to prevent the invasion? Russia gave a number of pretexts for the invasion, some unrelated to NATO: De-nazification of Ukraine, protecting Russian-speakers within Ukraine, among many others. > Russian being the bad guy doesn't make conflict inevitable. Oh, so you prefer the Chamberlain-style "P…

I mean the real question here is why all the central European states wanted to join NATO. Given how peace loving the Russians have been, it seems to be a mystery.

And let's be clear, the Russian Ukraine war started in 2014, not in 2022. I personally would be looking for allies if another country had already invaded part of my territory.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#210

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

sangnoir wrote: post #201
throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The west probably could have avoided (or maybe just delayed) this war if they had taken steps X" is some the nuance you could add to your statements. Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO. More complicated example would be if Europe prioritized energy independence from Russia putting in a weaker position. An example that loops in nuclear power debate, one which likely could…

> Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO What makes you certain that this was going to prevent the invasion? Russia gave a number of pretexts for the invasion, some unrelated to NATO: De-nazification of Ukraine, protecting Russian-speakers within Ukraine, among many others. > Russian being the bad guy doesn't make conflict inevitable. Oh, so you prefer the Chamberlain-style "P…

> What makes you certain that this was going to prevent the invasion?

It's not certain but assuming the worst is just an extension of the same moral pure-good and pure-evil that this thread is about. My point is that if your view of the world is that Russia is an pure-evil actor that will keep invading more and more countries no matter what the west does then it'll eventually lead to nuclear war. In which case none of this discussion matters. The reason Finland (or any country) is joining NATO is because it makes that point explicit.

Post reply on HN