Thread: that reminds me...

The moderator's reminder that 'posts unrelated to russian politics will be deleted' (I paraphrase) got me thinking about censorship.


How do we all feel about the Putin's stifling of election coverage;the sudden absence of independent television stations; etc?

Russia is now 121st out of 139 in Reporters Without Borders' latest press freedom index - less free than such paragons of liberty as Rwanda, Yemen and Uzbekistan.

It makes me happier to be living in Holland, with I believe the shared highest score in the world. Also, Russia is the 63rd most corrupt country in the world (90th place), and Holland the 126th (the 7th place). See http://www.waterindustry.org/corruption.htm

Any disloyal references to Putin, so called 'Russian corruption', 'censorship' etc. will be deleted.

Big Brother is watching you. FSB

lol.

but really, when you think about it, it's not that funny.

It's not censorship if the forum is set up for a specific topic. If some guy gets dragged out of a presidential debate for asking questions about his underwear, it's not because of some all-pervasive Big Brother. It's because there's a time and a place for different conversations. From the index page of MR's forum I quote:

"Politics
Discuss everything about the politics of Russia and other countries of the former USSR."

If you want to say you love Stalinism, go ahead. If you want to talk about how much you hate Azerbaijanis then you can certainly try. If you want to talk about how idiotic it is that Georgia is naming a mountain after Arnold Schwarzenegger be my guest. But the definition of the politics forum here has changed since the summer because too many thin-skinned crybabies threatened to quit when their fabian policy polemics backfired on them. So starting an argument about the general topic of gun ownership is not welcome. Now if you want to talk about gun ownership laws in Russia, knock yourself out.

just hang on a moment while I get this straight in my head.

I can make all the facetious remarks I want about Azerbaijan or Georgia (both being countries which, the last time I checked, were not Russia), but the question of the soviet union's arming/education of tin-pot third-world nations is topica non grata?

честно говоря, не понимаю


I am, however, as a newbie (and, incidentally, a member of the fabian society), interested in the thin-skinned crybabies of the summer.
Do tell. Or would that be going off topic?

Originally Posted by joysof

just hang on a moment while I get this straight in my head.

I can make all the facetious remarks I want about Azerbaijan or Georgia (both being countries which, the last time I checked, were not Russia),

And last time I checked, I said

"Politics
Discuss everything about the politics of Russia and other countries of the former USSR."

I guess you are too busy to bother reading all of a sentence before replying to it.

but the question of the soviet union's arming/education of tin-pot third-world nations is topica non grata?

That wasn't the question I addressed at all. You made some comment about guns not causing problems. THAT is what I told you you could not talk about. I do not want a bunch of NRA idiots crawling out of the woodwork because you can't keep your mouth shut about things unrelated to Russian politics.

I am, however, as a newbie (and, incidentally, a member of the fabian society), interested in the thin-skinned crybabies of the summer.

Great, then perhaps you know "fabian policy" refers to the Roman general Fabius' tactics of annoyance and retreat, not the political movement in GB.

Do tell. Or would that be going off topic?

It would. But don't worry. You seem to have fulfilled most of the qualifications for joining them already.

1. I am (and was) well aware of the "other countries of the former USSR" part to your spiel (I read at an eighth grade level, don't you know? ) I was simply trying to reinforce my point that if Azerbaijan and Georgia *are* fair game for discussion, there is no reason why the consequences of the sub-saharan suzerainty of the soviet union (ain't alliteration grand?) should not be discussed also...

2. ...because at no point did I stray off-topic. my words - to the effect that I do not hold with the opinion that it's the guns that kill people - were, I admit, off the cuff, and possibly a little gnomic for you. I was not, however, making a general point about gun ownership or even arms sales. i was being quite specific...


...in fact, to paraphrase the point: 'soviet arms sales to africa are not responsible for the messes of the past forty years (liberians, sudanese, rwandans, congolese et al. hacking each others' limbs off). if you want to blame this on anyone, blame the british empire, not the soviet version, which (for all its faults) actually did some good down there. contrary to popular opinion, no one has ever made peace for lack of guns. war and hatred find another way. literacy doesn't.'

Surely THAT - in that it constitutes a defence of soviet policy w.r.t. africa - is a suitable topic for the forum?



3. 'NRA idiots': at last, we agree on something But do gun-nuts frequent these messageboards? i'd love to meet them.

4. that was a pun. i did latin at school, and fabius always made me laugh... but, while we're in pedantsville, my august(us caesar!) political movement has members all over the world.

5.don't worry, I'm not really thin-skinned at all. Sniff.

Originally Posted by joysof

1. I am (and was) well aware of the "other countries of the former USSR" part to your spiel (I read at an eighth grade level, don't you know? ) I was simply trying to reinforce my point that if Azerbaijan and Georgia *are* fair game for discussion, there is no reason why the consequences of the sub-saharan suzerainty of the soviet union (ain't alliteration grand?) should not be discussed also...

Because your comments about Afghanistan were NOT what I was telling you to avoid discussing. Don't try to rewrite history. Anyone can go back to the other thread and see you made two very distinct statements (they were even separate paragraphs). One was about Afghanistan. The other was about gun control.

2. ...because at no point did I stray off-topic. my words - to the effect that I do not hold with the opinion that it's the guns that kill people - were, I admit, off the cuff, and possibly a little gnomic for you. I was not, however, making a general point about gun ownership or even arms sales. i was being quite specific...

Intention and indication are two different things. Don't give me this BS. You can't possibly expect anybody to infer from your "quite specific" comment something you irresponsibly neglected to explain.

...in fact, to paraphrase the point: 'soviet arms sales to africa are not responsible for the messes of the past forty years (liberians, sudanese, rwandans, congolese et al. hacking each others' limbs off). if you want to blame this on anyone, blame the british empire, not the soviet version, which (for all its faults) actually did some good down there. contrary to popular opinion, no one has ever made peace for lack of guns. war and hatred find another way. literacy doesn't.'

Oh, of course! What kind of idiot reads "I don't think guns kill people" and doesn't realize you're saying, "soviet arms sales to africa are not responsible for the messes of the past forty years (liberians, sudanese, rwandans, congolese et al. hacking each others' limbs off). if you want to blame this on anyone, blame the british empire, not the soviet version, which (for all its faults) actually did some good down there. contrary to popular opinion, no one has ever made peace for lack of guns. war and hatred find another way. literacy doesn't?"

I mean really! Isn't it so obvious?

Surely THAT - in that it constitutes a defence of soviet policy w.r.t. africa - is a suitable topic for the forum?

Right.

Не по теме. Закрываю топик!