Even if that’s the case, in what way exactly would this invalidate what the documentary shows? They went to Donbass to get testimonies and images directly from the peoples living here. Are you arguing that all the shelled demolished infrastructure and the artillery fire noises we hear thorough are just a setting and that all the peoples recounting the atrocities they saw and lived through are all paid actors? If so, do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove it? If not, what does Russia’s funding change exactly?
Fallacy is immediately implying anything created by Russia is propaganda meanwhile the U.S is boosting Radio Free Asia and multiple other outlets to coup and influence politics in third world countries.
So what? Can you actually point out any flaws or why they’re wrong? Or are we doing the same shit conservatives like to do?
it sounded like cfgaussian was saying this documentary was truthful just because the USA funds untruthful propaganda, I never said anything about the truthfulness of any specific piece of media
I can’t speak for the intended point by cfgaussian. However, in context, I think an underlying point here is that, at least for westerners, most of their distrust of Russia comes from US imperialist lies, so it is an important contrast to bring up the lies of the US empire. In other words, if it were the case that most things the west has said about Russia are false, what is there left as far as automatically distrusting their word goes? There are undoubtedly fair and reasonable ideological disagreements with modern day Russia from a communist standpoint, considering they are a far cry from USSR days now (thus “critical support” for them insofar as they are anti-imperialist). But in terms of speaking truthfully, I’ve not come across major reasons to think they have a habit of spinning elaborate lies. This isn’t to say they aren’t biased (all sources are to an extent) but there’s a distinction between that and going to great lengths to fabricate entire narratives in great detail. So whether they are de facto trustworthy is sort of beside the point. The point is that (again, at least for westerners, can’t speak for elsewhere) it would seem most of the reason to assume dishonesty from them comes from western imperialist lies about them. Westerners would not tend to make the same assumptions about, for example, a French documentary, in spite of its colonial history and part in imperialism.
I didn’t imply they were. But the least someone can do is listen to both sides. Especially when we’ve been hearing the West’s narrative on repeat from every single mainstream media outlet for the last ten years, and always it turns out that it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
The documentary notorious for being funded by Russia? Are you serious?
Even if that’s the case, in what way exactly would this invalidate what the documentary shows? They went to Donbass to get testimonies and images directly from the peoples living here. Are you arguing that all the shelled demolished infrastructure and the artillery fire noises we hear thorough are just a setting and that all the peoples recounting the atrocities they saw and lived through are all paid actors? If so, do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove it? If not, what does Russia’s funding change exactly?
I don’t need to hear more US-funded, Britain-backed, or Pro-Maidan voices. You can go to your BBC, CBCs, NBC if you want.
Even the BBC did a short documentary about how the Midan movement was a boost for the rise of neo-nazis in Ukraine.
As opposed to the totally trustworthy documentaries funded by the Nazi regime in Kiev and the CIA cutouts NED/USAID?
This is a fallacy, just because one group is untrustworthy, doesn’t mean another is trustworthy (regardless of the trustworthiness of this doc)
Fallacy is immediately implying anything created by Russia is propaganda meanwhile the U.S is boosting Radio Free Asia and multiple other outlets to coup and influence politics in third world countries.
So what? Can you actually point out any flaws or why they’re wrong? Or are we doing the same shit conservatives like to do?
it sounded like cfgaussian was saying this documentary was truthful just because the USA funds untruthful propaganda, I never said anything about the truthfulness of any specific piece of media
I can’t speak for the intended point by cfgaussian. However, in context, I think an underlying point here is that, at least for westerners, most of their distrust of Russia comes from US imperialist lies, so it is an important contrast to bring up the lies of the US empire. In other words, if it were the case that most things the west has said about Russia are false, what is there left as far as automatically distrusting their word goes? There are undoubtedly fair and reasonable ideological disagreements with modern day Russia from a communist standpoint, considering they are a far cry from USSR days now (thus “critical support” for them insofar as they are anti-imperialist). But in terms of speaking truthfully, I’ve not come across major reasons to think they have a habit of spinning elaborate lies. This isn’t to say they aren’t biased (all sources are to an extent) but there’s a distinction between that and going to great lengths to fabricate entire narratives in great detail. So whether they are de facto trustworthy is sort of beside the point. The point is that (again, at least for westerners, can’t speak for elsewhere) it would seem most of the reason to assume dishonesty from them comes from western imperialist lies about them. Westerners would not tend to make the same assumptions about, for example, a French documentary, in spite of its colonial history and part in imperialism.
I didn’t imply they were. But the least someone can do is listen to both sides. Especially when we’ve been hearing the West’s narrative on repeat from every single mainstream media outlet for the last ten years, and always it turns out that it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Ok? Can you point to any falsehoods or are y’all still on ad hominem as the first and only recourse to avoid engaging with the evidence?
Someone mentioned Oliver Stone movie. Is that not Western enough?
I mean its well known that the Ukrainians were not exactly nice to the Russian population of the donbass