[noemon]

I don't watch staged propaganda shows.

It's clear that you do not watch anything that might take you out of your comfort zone, the question is if you haven't watched this then,

1) how can anyone trust anything that is coming out of your mouth regarding this interview?
2) why do you even have an opinion?
3) and why are you even posting in this thread?

"Wah I'm not watching this, but I know its propaganda, wah" is hardly an argument.

[Rugoz]

It's clear that you do not watch anything that might take you out of your comfort zone, the question is if you haven't watched this then,

1) how can anyone trust anything that is coming out of your mouth regarding this interview?
2) why do you even have an opinion?
3) and why are you even posting in this thread?

"Wah I'm not watching this, but I know its propaganda, wah" is hardly an argument.

The idea that an interview with Putin would take me out of my comfort zone is really quite funny.

No actually, I don't want to support the likes of Tucker Carlson with a single view. Fuck these liars and propagandists posing as journalists.

[noemon]

The idea that an interview with Putin would take me out of my comfort zone is really quite funny.

It's obvious.

No actually, I don't want to support the likes of Tucker Carlson with a single view. Fuck these liars and propagandists posing as journalists.

Not sure who you 're trying to convince here especially after contradicting yourself when you ranted about democracy and tyrrants. Tyranny is all about censoring those you disagree with, those you abuse with names while failing to address their actual arguments.

[late]

It seems to be like running a marathon, will you have the endurance without training? Maybe you should get prepared somehow first.

I'll make a pot of coffee.

[late]

It's obvious.



Not sure who you 're trying to convince here especially after contradicting yourself when you ranted about democracy and tyrrants. Tyranny is all about censoring those you disagree with, those you abuse with names while failing to address their actual arguments.

Tyranny is what governments do. Unless he has declared himself to be a country...

I think it does makes sense to watch, and I plan to. I've only watched the beginning, he quickly jumped back to WW1 and Austrian plans.

That had me rolling my eyes.

[noemon]

Tyranny is what governments do. Unless he has declared himself to be a country...

No. That's false. Anyone trying to censor or beat their opponents with mental, sexual, emotional, verbal, etc, abuse is a tyrrant. The idea that someone has to be a dictator of a government to qualify as a tyrrant is ludicrous as is the idea that someone performing these actions gets the pass of non-tyrrant by virtue of not beind in government.

These semantics are

They sound like "I can be racist to Albanians cause Albanians are white and I'm white so no racism there". Or "one can rape anybody as long as one is not in government".

Of course that should not surprise anybody because replace 'Albanian' with 'Russian' and one can say anything racist without a single eyebrow being raised which says more about the anti-racist hypocricy than whether this is actual racism or not.

[Rugoz]

Not sure who you 're trying to convince here especially after contradicting yourself when you ranted about democracy and tyrrants. Tyranny is all about censoring those you disagree with, those you abuse with names while failing to address their actual arguments.

What hurts free speech more than anything else are the stupid propagandists out there getting millions of views while actual journalists are struggling. Valuing journalistic integrity has nothing to do with censorship, but I'm sure Tucker Carlson wants you to believe they're one and the same .

[Beren]

noemon's confusing censorship with boycott.

[noemon]

What hurts free speech more than anything else are the stupid propagandists out there getting millions of views while actual journalists are struggling. Valuing journalistic integrity has nothing to do with censorship, but I'm sure Tucker Carlson wants you to believe they're one and the same .

What hurts free speech is trolls and tyrrants unable to digest opposing views and trying to beat the rest with outrage, abuse and ad-homs.

Your crocodile tears about unnamed journalists is just chantilly cream.

noemon's confusing censorship with boycott.

Boycotting speech is censorship. And you are not boycotting either because you are not non-participating.

I truly wonder what other bullshit semantics you lot are going to come up with to censor discussion in this thread?

Do you actually believe you have the right to censor me or other users? or "boycott speech" in here?

[Rugoz]

So we're at a stage where people are accused of "censorship" and "inability to digest opposing views" because they don't want to watch a freaking Tucker Carlson video.

Idiocracy is real.

[Beren]

Boycotting speech is censorship. And you are not boycotting either because you are not non-participating.

I truly wonder what other bullshit semantics you lot are going to come up with to censor discussion in this thread?

Do you actually believe you have the right to censor me or other users? or "boycott speech" in here?

Boycott and censorship are simply not the same, I truly wonder what other bullshit semantics you are going to come up with. I actually have the right to boycott or just ignore anyone, while you even have the right to censor me.

[noemon]

So we're at a stage where people are accused of "censorship" and "inability to digest opposing views" because they don't want to watch a freaking Tucker Carlson video.

Nobody is forcing you to watch anything, you are the one trying to beat others to prevent them from discussing it in a forum with insults:

Idiocracy is real.

Idiot.

weak-minded

Weak-minded.

And someone who gives "jerk's views"

No reason to give this jerk views on youtube or anywhere else.

If you don't want to watch it that is fine, noone is forcing you to, but if you insult me or anyone else conducting a dialogue in this forum then it will be the last time I am tolerating such abuse, both for myself and all the other users/viewers you are insulting by proxy.

Boycott and censorship are simply not the same, I truly wonder what other bullshit semantics you are going to come up with. I actually have the right to boycott or just ignore anyone, while you even have the right to censor me.

Boycotting speech is what censorship is. Further, boycotting would be not participating in whatever it is you are boycotting, yet here you are participating actively.

And no, you do not have the right to either insult people or to prevent them from engaging in a topic in this forum that you are supposedly "boycotting".

I do have the right to put a lid on you especially when you are proactively trying to get people to NOT engage with a topic in this forum, but I prefer to engage constructively, this way it becomes a learning experience , until you cross all thresholds of tolerance.

[JohnRawls]

JohnRawls, Beren & Rugoz are having a proper meltdown.

Says more about them than it does for Putin.

It seems those who hate him have nothing substantial to say to address his arguments.

Sample comments in the real world:

God forbid anybody gets a whiff that it is not Putin who is uncompromising and closed to dialogue but the warmongers whose narrative they pedddle.

Now Trump is coming soon too, what are they going to do. They might have to negotiate and reach consensus with Russia.

Even the historical journey that Putin elaborated on is not Russian nationalism either.

Well ok, when I listened to the interview I just heard the exact same stuff that he brings to the local Russian audience. It is historical insanity, dodging the questions and ranting. If you think that basing your whole idea of conquest of Ukraine on some thousand or hundred year old history that explains why you own the place then I am not sure what to say.

a) If such arguments were okay then why is the US even free from Britain or Israel not okay to genocide the palestinians? And Why is Russia not part of Mongolia or something. We can always go back and back in to history to find more "evidence" of somebody owning the place.

b) Not only is the whole argument insane but it is also has insane interpretations or just wrong stuff in it about history like Poland not being cooperative insane with Hitler. Come on..... Or Zelensky father fighting in WW2 (Zelensky father was born in 1947)... And many, many other stuff that I can't be bothered to even discuss because what is the whole point of this if the whole argument itself is nonesense.

c) Such interviews main idea is to flip the linstener so to speak. It is not aimed at Tucker or Putin but at the listener. Obviously the main listener for this is the American audience. Well, I got news for Putin here. Pitching an argument that history somehow justifies the conquest is total anathema to the whole American public because then America wouldn't exist. So in best case, people in America will ignore it. In all other cases, those people will think that he is either batshit or just wrong and even more reason to support Ukraine because of that.

d) Again, this is related to the listener. There is a group of far right or lets MAGAists that will listen to this interview having expectations. As you know, MAGA is translated Make America Great Again. So the people listening to that interview want to hear anti-woke stuff, anti-LGBT stuff, Family values, No abortions etc etc etc. But he didn't give them any of that. Instead he is giving a lecture on history that they can't accept and begging for peace talks. He is looking like a weak chump there. And MAGA kind always thought that he is strong conservative leader. There is a desonance here.

So irrelevant if Russia Today and Russian propaganda bring in bots to spice up the comments and views. It is a total fucking failure of PR and presentation to the audience who is going to listen to this. Even Tucker Carlson was shocked at Putin inaptitude. And it wasn't that hard to do it properly, but he just couldn't since nobody really tells Putin anything real or critisism. He just had to town down the usual inside Russia propaganda, talk more about anti-woke stuff, conservative values, how Russia is strong and how Zelensky is part of the Bidens cabal and so on and so forth. That would have been a hit interview with the Republicans and especially MAGA but not this. Now everyone thinks that he is eithe weak, or incompetent/wrong or just crazy.

And you know what, he is actually all that: weak, incompetent/wrong and crazy.

[litwin]

Did he say something interesting? I mean Putin.

The outrageous claims by Putin that Carlson let slip by: Poland started WWII, Moscow- Mongol ulus 'owns EU-Ukraine' and its a satellite for the US and CIA blew up Nord Stream​

[noemon]

Well ok, when I listened to the interview I just heard the exact same stuff that he brings to the local Russian audience. It is historical insanity, dodging the questions and ranting. If you think that basing your whole idea of conquest of Ukraine on some thousand or hundred year old history that explains why you own the place then I am not sure what to say.

a) If such arguments were okay then why is the US even free from Britain or Israel not okay to genocide the palestinians? And Why is Russia not part of Mongolia or something. We can always go back and back in to history to find more "evidence" of somebody owning the place.

He makes no such historical-justification argument. You probably did not hear what he said and just invented the strawman. He talks about Mongolia conquering most of Russia too, during those times. Even his historical overview was not "pro-Russian nationalism" in any sense of the word.

b) Not only is the whole argument insane but it is also has insane interpretations or just wrong stuff in it about history like Poland not being cooperative insane with Hitler. Come on..... Or Zelensky father fighting in WW2 (Zelensky father was born in 1947)... And many, many other stuff that I can't be bothered to even discuss because what is the whole point of this if the whole argument itself is nonesense.

Father or grandfather, it's irrelevant. You should try harder for something that has actual substance rather a typo.

c) Such interviews main idea is to flip the linstener so to speak. It is not aimed at Tucker or Putin but at the listener. Obviously the main listener for this is the American audience. Well, I got news for Putin here. Pitching an argument that history somehow justifies the conquest is total anathema to the whole American public because then America wouldn't exist. So in best case, people in America will ignore it. In all other cases, those people will think that he is either batshit or just wrong and even more reason to support Ukraine because of that.

You 're reaching again, see point 1.

d) Again, this is related to the listener. There is a group of far right or lets MAGAists that will listen to this interview having expectations. As you know, MAGA is translated Make America Great Again. So the people listening to that interview want to hear anti-woke stuff, anti-LGBT stuff, Family values, No abortions etc etc etc. But he didn't give them any of that. Instead he is giving a lecture on history that they can't accept and begging for peace talks. He is looking like a weak chump there. And MAGA kind always thought that he is strong conservative leader. There is a desonance here.

So irrelevant if Russia Today and Russian propaganda bring in bots to spice up the comments and views. It is a total fucking failure of PR and presentation to the audience who is going to listen to this. Even Tucker Carlson was shocked at Putin inaptitude. And it wasn't that hard to do it properly, but he just couldn't since nobody really tells Putin anything real or critisism. He just had to town down the usual inside Russia propaganda, talk more about anti-woke stuff, conservative values, how Russia is strong and how Zelensky is part of the Bidens cabal and so on and so forth. That would have been a hit interview with the Republicans and especially MAGA but not this. Now everyone thinks that he is eithe weak, or incompetent/wrong or just crazy.

Putin told the world: "I am here ready to cooperate, discuss and find consensus. I tried several times but the US deep state wants us to be enemies probably because all these cold-war warriors probably have nothing else better to do".

You can call this names to avoid the obvious, but it is not the "uncompromising crazy dictator" you have been selling the natives.

[JohnRawls]

He makes no such historical-justification argument. You probably did not hear what he said and just invented the strawman. He talks about Mongolia conquering most of Russia too, during those times. Even his historical overview was not "pro-Russian nationalism" in any sense of the word.



Father or grandfather, it's irrelevant. You should try harder for something that has actual substance rather a typo.



You 're reaching again, see point 1.



Putin told the world: "I am here ready to cooperate, discuss and find consensus. I tried several times but the US deep state wants us to be enemies probably because all these cold-war warriors probably have nothing else better to do".

You can call this names to avoid the obvious, but it is not the "uncompromising crazy dictator" you have been selling the natives.

And here come our subjective opinions. What I wrote to you is what I got from the interview. You can interpret it differently if you wish but it would be a hard sell in my opinion if 30 starting minutes of the interview is history to justify all this. At least a hard sell to me, don't know about others.

[noemon]

It is a hard sell for you indeed to claim that Putin is trying to justify Ukraine as Russian through history, when he openly says that Mongolia conquered most of Russia and Ukraine, that the west of Ukraine has been historically Polish and that other parts used to be Czech and Romanian, won by the USSR and lost by these countries for siding with Nazi Germany in WW2.

It's just actually real history and does not justify anyone claiming territories.

He comes to the present and he cites the shelling of Donbass by Ukraine, the western militarisation of Ukraine, the de-neutralisation of Ukraine, the spitting of Minsk, the abuse of Russian human rights, the withdrawal from the Istanbul agreement & the Ukranian state worship of actual Nazis.

That is what he uses to justify his actions in response to this type of aggression and pressure against Russia.

[JohnRawls]

It is a hard sell for you indeed to claim that Putin is trying to justify Ukraine as Russian through history, when he openly says that Mongolia conquered most of Russia and Ukraine, that the west of Ukraine has been historically Polish and that other parts used to be Czech and Romanian, won by the USSR and lost by these countries for siding with Nazi Germany in WW2.

It's just actually real history and does not justify anyone claiming territories.

He comes to the present and he cites the shelling of Donbass, the western militarisation of Ukraine, the spitting of Minsk, the abuse of Russian rights, the withdrawal from the Istanbul agreement and the state worship of actual Nazis.

That is what he uses to justify his actions in response to this type of aggression and pressure against Russia.

Once again, I don't care about Russian interpretation of history or what Putin thinks of historical facts and ideas because the whole argument that you will use thousand or a hundred years of history to justify your conquestion is not a valid explanation in my book. And before you are going to say that he didn't say it like that then let me more or less quote:

Tucker: Why did you invade?

Putin: I need to give you a quick 30 seconds - 1 minute lesson of history.... Talks for 30 minutes about history.

[noemon]

Once again, I don't care about Russian interpretation of history or what Putin thinks of historical facts and ideas because the whole argument that you will use thousand or a hundred years of history to justify your conquestion is not a valid explanation in my book. And before you are going to say that he didn't say it like that then let me more or less quote:

Tucker: Why did you invade?

Putin: I need to give you a quick 30 seconds - 1 minute lesson of history.... Talks for 30 minutes about history.

You 're confused, indeed nobody should care about nonsense strawmen as not even you can defend these strawmen with any type of logic.

Putin did not use medieval history to justify something. He gave a historical overview from the foundation of Russia to the present day. By your logic Putin justified the reclaiming of Russia by Mongolia, and the reclaiming of parts of Ukraine by Poland, Lithuania, Romania and Czech Republic.

Hint: He didn't.

If I were you, I would try and focus on the substantive arguments he made to justify his response:

He comes to the present and he cites the shelling of Donbass by Ukraine, the western militarisation of Ukraine, the de-neutralisation of Ukraine, the spitting of Minsk, the abuse of Russian human rights, the withdrawal from the Istanbul agreement & the Ukranian state worship of actual Nazis.

That is what he uses to justify his actions in response to this type of aggression and pressure against Russia.

[Potemkin]

Once again, I don't care about Russian interpretation of history or what Putin thinks of historical facts and ideas because the whole argument that you will use thousand or a hundred years of history to justify your conquestion is not a valid explanation in my book. And before you are going to say that he didn't say it like that then let me more or less quote:

Tucker: Why did you invade?

Putin: I need to give you a quick 30 seconds - 1 minute lesson of history.... Talks for 30 minutes about history.

Why will Germany never get its lost national territory back? Because of history. Why is Mexico only half the size it was back in the 1820s? Because of history. Russia isn’t the only nation which justifies its land grabs using history. The USA isn’t going to give the land it stole from it back to Mexico, and Russia isn’t going to let Ukraine leave its sphere of influence without a fight. Because history is a thing, and it’s not going away any time soon, despite what Fukuyama tried to claim back when the Cold War - and history itself - supposedly ended. Lol.