9 ms·

RT reported about ukrainian army crucifying a child in Donbas in 2014 which literally caused some people in Russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border

RT reported about ukrainian army crucifying a child in Donbas in 2014 which literally caused some people in Russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border with intention to kill ukrainians. No, RT should be banned and every person working for it should be jailed for life. Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Edit: here, educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy

shabier 5y ago
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Zelensky lied about a Russian shell hitting a nuclear plant and called for retaliation, which is exactly inciting violence. There's a lot of misinformation spread by both sides (Russia and the West) but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  > but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair. unfair to whom exactly? Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the massacre of its citizen is certainly a bigger injustice.
  - shabier 5y ago
- keymone 5y ago
  Zelensky was talking about an attack that happened within hours of his message, can't blame him for fog of war. And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community, which frankly he has every right to do when fascist invaders are taking over major nuclear power plants in your country, don't you think? You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response and getting separatists to start fighting?
  - shabier 5y ago
    > can't blame him for fog of war That's exactly what you should, though. Especially if you're in his position, where the smallest wimp is taken as fact. > And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community What exactly would you think the "response" would be if the nuclear plant was actually bombed? You don't have to be a geopolitical expert to know it is violence. > You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response Have you been following the news? Western media is doing exactly that with recent events like the snake island "heroes"?
    - keymone 5y ago
      - shabier 5y ago
        > And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community > I would very much like international community to get involved and vaporize putin and entire russian army with entire government and elites. You're a living contradiction, man.
        keymone 5y ago
        shabier 5y ago
  - caeril 5y ago
    > fascist invaders Given Putin's ties with Israel and the enormous Nazi problem in Ukraine, it seems that describing the invasion as "fascist" is really skirting the line of absurdity.
pydry 5y ago
Would you also apply this rule consistently with all of the Iraq war cheerleaders who also promoted fake news (like yellowcake)? Im reminded of Chomsky's quote here (it's surprising how often it is relevant): >Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.
- keymone 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - lamp987 5y ago
    pointing out logical inconsistency is literally not whataboutism most people here are not supportive of banning cnn etc
    - keymone 5y ago
      "think RT is bad? well what about CNN?" how is that not whataboutism exactly?
      - pydry 5y ago
        Coz it was an honest question. I was curious about whether you would genuinely like to see every CNN employee jailed for life. You answered clearly and in the affirmative. I dont agree with your answer and I dont find it to be consistent with a belief in free speech but it is consistent with what you previously said.
        keymone 5y ago
        If CNN participated in a blatant propaganda - i would want to hold them accountable. I don't believe they did during Iraq war, primarily because CNN is not government owned media and they don't know what is true or not. You can blame them for not verifying stories (and there should be responsibility for that as well), but RT absolutely knows what things they report are propaganda lies and what aren't.
coffeeblack 5y ago
Every conflict party in every conflict does that. Remember the story about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait? Told by a “nurse” in from of the UN, so that the US would get permission to invade Iraq? People need to be able to see these stories to learn to recognize them as the bullshit they are. Hiding them will do more harm that good in the long to.
- keymone 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
    Second of all, meta-whataboutism. If you are arguing for censorship, you are wrong.
    - keymone 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy i will argue for censoring that shit during war. i understand your position, but i disagree.
      - CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
        I did read that in our original post. And I agree that there's always things that really ought not to be said. (And giving alternate examples is not always whataboutism.) But the problem with censorship, and specifically the underlying power in implement it, always comes back to "who watches the watchmen" - I don't trust RT to tell me the truth, but I really don't trust big tech and the US/EU gov to be the gatekeepers.
  - mariusor 5y ago
    > without allowing enemy propaganda to poison gullible part of population uncontested With all due respect but this paternalistic approach to what people should and shouldn't be allowed in knowing is a despicable point of view. Why do you think that you personally, or anyone can be sufficiently impartial to decide what's allowed?
tonfreed 5y ago
And a number of mainstream western outlets are trying to convince us to join the war by reporting on Russia's use of thermobaric weapons as if it was a warcrime. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2310098-what-are-thermobaric-weapons-and-is-russia-using-them-in-ukraine/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2310098-what-are-thermo... https://au.news.yahoo.com/what-is-a-thermobaric-bomb-and-why-is-it-so-deadly-120341716.html https://au.news.yahoo.com/what-is-a-thermobaric-bomb-and-why... The worst offenders don't even mention the US' extensive use of them, such as the CBU-72 in Vietnam. There's a huge amount of propaganda going on right now, I don't trust any outlets to be telling me the truth.
disambiguation 5y ago
This is an instance of bad actors taking advantage of vulnerable / dumb people. Banning RT comes across as whack-a-mole because it will just sprout up elsewhere. This is unfortunately something that can't be simply banned out of existence.

shabier 5y ago

> Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Zelensky lied about a Russian shell hitting a nuclear plant and called for retaliation, which is exactly inciting violence. There's a lot of misinformation spread by both sides (Russia and the West) but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair.

throw_m239339 5y ago
> but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair. unfair to whom exactly? Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the massacre of its citizen is certainly a bigger injustice.
- shabier 5y ago
keymone 5y ago
Zelensky was talking about an attack that happened within hours of his message, can't blame him for fog of war. And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community, which frankly he has every right to do when fascist invaders are taking over major nuclear power plants in your country, don't you think? You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response and getting separatists to start fighting?
- shabier 5y ago
  > can't blame him for fog of war That's exactly what you should, though. Especially if you're in his position, where the smallest wimp is taken as fact. > And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community What exactly would you think the "response" would be if the nuclear plant was actually bombed? You don't have to be a geopolitical expert to know it is violence. > You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response Have you been following the news? Western media is doing exactly that with recent events like the snake island "heroes"?
  - keymone 5y ago
    - shabier 5y ago
      > And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community > I would very much like international community to get involved and vaporize putin and entire russian army with entire government and elites. You're a living contradiction, man.
      - keymone 5y ago
        shabier 5y ago
- caeril 5y ago
  > fascist invaders Given Putin's ties with Israel and the enormous Nazi problem in Ukraine, it seems that describing the invasion as "fascist" is really skirting the line of absurdity.

pydry 5y ago

Would you also apply this rule consistently with all of the Iraq war cheerleaders who also promoted fake news (like yellowcake)? Im reminded of Chomsky's quote here (it's surprising how often it is relevant): >Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.

keymone 5y ago
[flagged]
- lamp987 5y ago
  pointing out logical inconsistency is literally not whataboutism most people here are not supportive of banning cnn etc
  - keymone 5y ago
    "think RT is bad? well what about CNN?" how is that not whataboutism exactly?
    - pydry 5y ago
      Coz it was an honest question. I was curious about whether you would genuinely like to see every CNN employee jailed for life. You answered clearly and in the affirmative. I dont agree with your answer and I dont find it to be consistent with a belief in free speech but it is consistent with what you previously said.
      - keymone 5y ago
        If CNN participated in a blatant propaganda - i would want to hold them accountable. I don't believe they did during Iraq war, primarily because CNN is not government owned media and they don't know what is true or not. You can blame them for not verifying stories (and there should be responsibility for that as well), but RT absolutely knows what things they report are propaganda lies and what aren't.

coffeeblack 5y ago

Every conflict party in every conflict does that. Remember the story about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait? Told by a “nurse” in from of the UN, so that the US would get permission to invade Iraq? People need to be able to see these stories to learn to recognize them as the bullshit they are. Hiding them will do more harm that good in the long to.

keymone 5y ago
[flagged]
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
  Second of all, meta-whataboutism. If you are arguing for censorship, you are wrong.
  - keymone 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy i will argue for censoring that shit during war. i understand your position, but i disagree.
    - CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
      I did read that in our original post. And I agree that there's always things that really ought not to be said. (And giving alternate examples is not always whataboutism.) But the problem with censorship, and specifically the underlying power in implement it, always comes back to "who watches the watchmen" - I don't trust RT to tell me the truth, but I really don't trust big tech and the US/EU gov to be the gatekeepers.
- mariusor 5y ago
  > without allowing enemy propaganda to poison gullible part of population uncontested With all due respect but this paternalistic approach to what people should and shouldn't be allowed in knowing is a despicable point of view. Why do you think that you personally, or anyone can be sufficiently impartial to decide what's allowed?

tonfreed 5y ago

And a number of mainstream western outlets are trying to convince us to join the war by reporting on Russia's use of thermobaric weapons as if it was a warcrime. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2310098-what-are-thermobaric-weapons-and-is-russia-using-them-in-ukraine/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2310098-what-are-thermo... https://au.news.yahoo.com/what-is-a-thermobaric-bomb-and-why-is-it-so-deadly-120341716.html https://au.news.yahoo.com/what-is-a-thermobaric-bomb-and-why... The worst offenders don't even mention the US' extensive use of them, such as the CBU-72 in Vietnam. There's a huge amount of propaganda going on right now, I don't trust any outlets to be telling me the truth.

disambiguation 5y ago

This is an instance of bad actors taking advantage of vulnerable / dumb people. Banning RT comes across as whack-a-mole because it will just sprout up elsewhere. This is unfortunately something that can't be simply banned out of existence.