Thread: Edward Snowden and his stay in Russia

Originally Posted by 14Russian

"I think his deeds in the long run would only practically benefit the extremists of all kinds." - Huh?

Your skepticism is appreciated, however, let's face it, no power runs in isolation and that what is missing in the bright Hollywood sagas about honorable knights bravely fighting evil dragons systems. It's true, the power feeds on the public, but the public is not homogeneous. There are those who 'put their heads in the sand' using your expression (i.e. don't care who rules them as long as they could live their lives); there are those who support the government either way, because it's their government (i.e. the patriots so to speak); there are those who do not support the government in a belief nobody should tell them what to do at their home, bed, company, city, state, and so on; there are those who want the government replaced because they think they know people who would run the country better; and all the shades in between. In addition, there are other powers who fight the government simply because the nature of the power is to eat or be eaten at all kind of levels within the country as well as outside the country. And the mind of all people (I'm serious, no exceptions) interprets all events in a way which would support their previous beliefs. The perception is the reality. Up to this point I think we have a mutual agreement.

As you might know, the Soviet propaganda used to be one of the most powerful and influential in the world. So, they had a very nice cliche they used to apply to whoever critcized the Party: "What mill do you water?" Meaning, by criticizing the Party you are not improving the situation, but merely helping the enemies of the Party.

Those who 'put their heads in the sand' are the best people actually in a sense they are not power greedy and do not participate in that 'ultimate championship', but rather try to be content with what they have (or maybe wish to have a bit more). And those who do fight seriously are extremists. They would not care what is right or what is wrong, but how could they overturn their opponents.

Does what I said make more sense now?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

...And the mind of all people (I'm serious, no exceptions) interprets all events in a way which would support their previous beliefs. The perception is the reality....

Disagree. This is like confirmation bias. It is not universal.
Certainly there are 'world view' and 'buzzword thinking' people. But there are also evidence based people. "I don't know what this data is telling me. Collect more data." "Do we have any verification." In this set belongs the development of active predictive capabilities resulting from distillations of data, evidence etc. And so included is an appreciation of error measurement, "the theory is only as good as its predictive ability." Iterate, more data, refine theory/model or whatever.

Modal thinking or modes of thought. Critical thinking vs fantasy, buzzword thinking, etc. Fix car with critical thinking/evidence based thought.

There isn't any doubt to me that many people do have this "the perception is the reality" kind of mind set. But it doesn't apply to all the activities of everyone's minds.

Originally Posted by Seraph

There isn't any doubt to me that many people do have this "the perception is the reality" kind of mind set. But it doesn't apply to all the activities of everyone's minds.

Ok, I wouldn't insist. I agree, what I said is a confirmation bias and as such it cannot be true by definition.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Your skepticism is appreciated, however, let's face it, no power runs in isolation and that what is missing in the bright Hollywood sagas about honorable knights bravely fighting evil dragons systems. It's true, the power feeds on the public, but the public is not homogeneous. There are those who 'put their heads in the sand' using your expression (i.e. don't care who rules them as long as they could live their lives); there are those who support the government either way, because it's their government (i.e. the patriots so to speak); there are those who do not support the government in a belief nobody should tell them what to do at their home, bed, company, city, state, and so on; there are those who want the government replaced because they think they know people who would run the country better; and all the shades in between. In addition, there are other powers who fight the government simply because the nature of the power is to eat or be eaten at all kind of levels within the country as well as outside the country. And the mind of all people (I'm serious, no exceptions) interprets all events in a way which would support their previous beliefs. The perception is the reality. Up to this point I think we have a mutual agreement.

As you might know, the Soviet propaganda used to be one of the most powerful and influential in the world. So, they had a very nice cliche they used to apply to whoever critcized the Party: "What mill do you water?" Meaning, by criticizing the Party you are not improving the situation, but merely helping the enemies of the Party.

Those who 'put their heads in the sand' are the best people actually in a sense they are not power greedy and do not participate in that 'ultimate championship', but rather try to be content with what they have (or maybe wish to have a bit more). And those who do fight seriously are extremists. They would not care what is right or what is wrong, but how could they overturn their opponents.

Does what I said make more sense now?

Nope.
Those who 'put their heads in the sand' are the best people actually in a sense they are not power greedy and do not participate in that 'ultimate championship' - no, this is not true.

There's tons of greedy people out there.

"And those who do fight seriously are extremists. They would not care what is right or what is wrong, but how could they overturn their opponents."
On the contrary, most folk don't care what the Government does if it's right or wrong or they would not be clueless zombies - that is, they would stop voting for them. So, you are wrong again. Furthermore, you seem to insinuating that if you oppose the Government, you're an 'extremist.' So, you've taken your cue from the 'Government textbooks?' Who says, that everyone who opposes the Government supports violence? Also, it is the Government who tries to portray such a theme or idea. They often spin any opposition as someone who is violent and in the wrong instead of the other way around.

If Power corrupts or someone is unethical in a position of power and authority, one should be allowed to stand up and make a statement about it. One of the most common ways to censor and silence such a person is to label them a 'right-wing extremist.' So, no, you don't make sense because your entire argument is based on something false and dangerous.

If someone fights the government simply because they want that power, that is mutually exclusive. That's a different story. But, if one allows the Government to label them one and the same, that is not only totally unethical but very dangerous.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

As you might know, the Soviet propaganda used to be one of the most powerful and influential in the world.

This statement defeats itself! You yourself are living proof that it didn't work! Not to mention the other people who literally destroyed and sold out everything that the USSR stood for; good and bad. People who used glasnost and perestroika as an opportunity to vent the fact that they were sick and tired of socialism and didn't believe in the Soviet ideals. This propaganda didn't work millions of people who left the country between the revolution and the end of the USSR, and it wasn't enough to keep the country alive. I'd say this propaganda wasn't efficient at all.

Seems to me it worked only on kids, a few optimists who choose to see the good sides, or visitors and others who only experienced the good sides but not the bad.

Or maybe it worked up to a certain point in time, when people got fixated with comparing their lifestyle to that of people in US soaps or Hollywood productions.

Efficient propaganda is propaganda that the majority believe in! The Nazis were really good at propaganda particularly if you consider the outrageousness of the things they made the majority of the people go along with. It might not work today, but in the 1940s it was genius. Lots of people in Scandinavia more or less believed it, despite not even living in Germany.
Most Germans didn't vote for the Nazis when they first came to power, but after only a few years in power the Nazis had most of the population behind them and got away with creating a one party state.

The USA manages to convince the majority that it's right to go to war on foreign continents again and again and again even though plenty are struggling or living in poverty... Think about how wrong this is, on a number of levels. Yet they have the majority of the population behind them, That's efficient propaganda. Not to mention whipping up hatred against anyone with an ideology or belief that contradicts theirs. If you mention the word Communism to an American, most would react with strong dislike or content despite in most cases not even knowing what it actually is.

Right now it seems they have done a pretty good job convincing many decent people that Snowden is a bad guy while downplaying the importance of his actual revelations which are absolutely earth shattering but ignored in mainstream media. I'd say this is extremely efficient propaganda.Right now it seems they have done a pretty good job convincing many decent people that Snowden is a bad guy while downplaying the importance of his actual revelations which are absolutely earth shattering but ignored in mainstream media. I'd say this is extremely efficient propaganda.

Some Islamic fundamentalists are really good at propaganda too: Israel is the root of all evil, closely followed by it's puppet, the USA. Millions upon millions genuinely believe that Israel is masterminding just about every misfortunte that befalls other countries despite its tiny size and small population compared for example with the moslems themselves.

I think all the examples I mentioned beats Soviet propaganda. Soviet propaganda probably had some good moments, like during the war and at times when the USSR made impressive achievements. But in the end, the propaganda didn't hold up!