Haven't read the article yet, but YES - this is exactly the kind of impartial analysis needed. VERY important!
I have been dismayed at the Kontaktschuld (guilt by association) tactics used here in Germany last winter. And they are preemptively priming the public for the coming winter with a number of articles in state media already warning that the catchall Querdenker (contrarian/dissident) movement is planning to exploit the Ukraine situation to undermine the state.
I personally felt psychologically under attack, the force of the media's pivot from demonising covid-measure protesters to demonising Russia was so total - I was genuinely in a state of shock.
I know exactly what you mean, as I've been on the receiving end of labels such as 'Putinversteher' (trans. 'pro-Putin 5th column' or the like), 'Corona-Leugner' ('Covid Denier'), and, of course, 'Querdenker' as you referred to it.
I had to lie once about my injection status (in spring or summer 2021) and that felt quite…uncomfortable. I then switched to development psychology, as in, rolling my eyes, sighing ostensibly, and retorting, 'what do you think?'. That helped, as my interlocutors typically went 'oh, silly me, what a stupid thing to ask' and left in me in piece.
The demonisation of Russia, on the other hand, uses many of the same ways and means of demonisation, even though that doesn't mean it's less incoherent and one-sided.
If you have the time to read the piece (it's a bit more scholarly compared to some of my Substack postings), please let me know your thoughts!
(Other than: 'they' can't define 'a woman', but they beat you relentlessly with the 'feminism' stick, so, what could possibly come out of asking them?)
“The Stalin method of argument, long prevalent in the Soviet Union, can be traced as early as his first articles in 1905. Its particular marks are expressions like “as it is well known” (kak izvestno) used in lieu of proof to give weight to some highly controversial assertion, and “it is not accidental” (ne sluchayno) used to assert a connection between two events when no evidence, and no likelihood, of such a connection exists. Ruses and similar expressions became the staple of Soviet speeches in Stalin’s time and after”.
The Der Standard journalist you quote in the article may not be aware of the long pedigree of the dishonest techniques she employs, though one suspects she probably is.
Well, just to nitpick, but that pedigree dates back to the roman courts 2 000 years ago. It is very effective, much more so than actual factual proof, and that's why it's never gone out of style. Arguing and arguments aren't about empirical truths; they are conflicts and conflicts are to be won.
And if you can't win the conflict, you can ensure that victory for the other side becomes either impossbile or so expensive it destroys them, or failing that and if able that you destroy what you fought over.
The object is to win, and winning means the opponent is no longer able to oppose, avoid or evade you. Also, victory must be shown to the people, so you must take trophies and ideally arrange a triumph, parading the defeated in front of your tribe.
Today, the regime use the police and the courts for that, conducting raids and investigations simply to blacken the names of opponents and make their lives intolerable. At this rate, inside 20 years, they will be bringing back proscription.
Haven't read the article yet, but YES - this is exactly the kind of impartial analysis needed. VERY important!
I have been dismayed at the Kontaktschuld (guilt by association) tactics used here in Germany last winter. And they are preemptively priming the public for the coming winter with a number of articles in state media already warning that the catchall Querdenker (contrarian/dissident) movement is planning to exploit the Ukraine situation to undermine the state.
I personally felt psychologically under attack, the force of the media's pivot from demonising covid-measure protesters to demonising Russia was so total - I was genuinely in a state of shock.
Hi Witzbold,
I know exactly what you mean, as I've been on the receiving end of labels such as 'Putinversteher' (trans. 'pro-Putin 5th column' or the like), 'Corona-Leugner' ('Covid Denier'), and, of course, 'Querdenker' as you referred to it.
I had to lie once about my injection status (in spring or summer 2021) and that felt quite…uncomfortable. I then switched to development psychology, as in, rolling my eyes, sighing ostensibly, and retorting, 'what do you think?'. That helped, as my interlocutors typically went 'oh, silly me, what a stupid thing to ask' and left in me in piece.
The demonisation of Russia, on the other hand, uses many of the same ways and means of demonisation, even though that doesn't mean it's less incoherent and one-sided.
If you have the time to read the piece (it's a bit more scholarly compared to some of my Substack postings), please let me know your thoughts!
The prhases "far-left" and "far-right" are meaningless slogans, Right?
Well, they serve political purposes, so, in that sense, they still have some 'meaning'.
Other than that, well, I guess you're correct.
Ask them to define those phrases, and prove them.....
Oh well, what can I say about this?
(Other than: 'they' can't define 'a woman', but they beat you relentlessly with the 'feminism' stick, so, what could possibly come out of asking them?)
That is why we are losing because we did/do not "cross examine" their claims.
OK, since you don't question or demand evidence for any claim: when are you going to pay $10m you owed me?
That is my magical response to anyone who won't substantiate claims. It is 100% effective; not 95%!
Ha, that's a good thing--I'll try that out!
Robert Conquest in The Great Terror:
“The Stalin method of argument, long prevalent in the Soviet Union, can be traced as early as his first articles in 1905. Its particular marks are expressions like “as it is well known” (kak izvestno) used in lieu of proof to give weight to some highly controversial assertion, and “it is not accidental” (ne sluchayno) used to assert a connection between two events when no evidence, and no likelihood, of such a connection exists. Ruses and similar expressions became the staple of Soviet speeches in Stalin’s time and after”.
The Der Standard journalist you quote in the article may not be aware of the long pedigree of the dishonest techniques she employs, though one suspects she probably is.
Well, just to nitpick, but that pedigree dates back to the roman courts 2 000 years ago. It is very effective, much more so than actual factual proof, and that's why it's never gone out of style. Arguing and arguments aren't about empirical truths; they are conflicts and conflicts are to be won.
And if you can't win the conflict, you can ensure that victory for the other side becomes either impossbile or so expensive it destroys them, or failing that and if able that you destroy what you fought over.
The object is to win, and winning means the opponent is no longer able to oppose, avoid or evade you. Also, victory must be shown to the people, so you must take trophies and ideally arrange a triumph, parading the defeated in front of your tribe.
Today, the regime use the police and the courts for that, conducting raids and investigations simply to blacken the names of opponents and make their lives intolerable. At this rate, inside 20 years, they will be bringing back proscription.