Posts from Forum Auto-translated

By the way, Heroist is writing from a Moscow IP address (ISP "SU29-TELECOM"). And the city of Dneprodzerzhinsk is a city council center and does not have any villages under its jurisdiction.

By the way, Heroist is writing from a Moscow IP address (ISP "SU29-TELECOM"). And the city of Dneprodzerzhinsk is a city council center and does not have any villages under its jurisdiction.

:smile52: 10 characters.

You're asking the wrong person. Ask your parents. Thank you. I'm leaving this discussion. I'm fed up. It's pointless.

So, were you seriously hoping to convince anyone with your "arguments"? Look at how Vic is trying: he posts various links from LiveJournal, writes works about Cherenok and Yeremu, conducts an internet discussion skillfully (he doesn't answer uninteresting/uncomfortable questions, he just continues to push his agenda, sometimes resorting to personal attacks), and yet there are still zero convinced people. But he's having fun, that's for sure.

Darkello, Vika, and Cobra’s posts are great. Write more! :smile12:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn7mZQcxDjg
a little humor

and still, there are zero convinced people

You simply don't understand how such discussions work. It's clear that no one will admit they are wrong, even if presented with compelling arguments. And for some issues, such arguments simply don't exist. However, the process continues, and it is accompanied by the following phenomena: 1) Articulating one's point of view aloud, verbalizing it, and searching for arguments for and against engages a useful organ – the brain. That is, an opinion transforms from a "voice of the heart" into a "voice of reason," which is useful in itself, even if the point of view does not change in the process. 2) Supporters of similar points of view exchange arguments, supplementing, clarifying, or emphasizing their own thoughts. This is useful for both general development and for future discussions. For example, I have repeatedly seen people retelling my posts, or even directly quoting them, even though I wasn't even acquainted with them. 3) An undecided or wavering part of the audience has the opportunity to listen to the points of view of both sides and draw their own conclusions. This is the most significant point, as active participation in debates is usually limited to a smaller part of the group, while most people simply read, without expressing their opinion or participating in the discussion. Not everyone is independently interested in politics and economics, but most are quite willing to listen to discussions on these topics. That is, public discussions are often aimed not so much at convincing opponents as at recruiting supporters. 4) Constructively minded opponents can adjust their point of view in the process of analyzing the arguments. And even if they don't fully accept it, they at least make a note to themselves that there is another point of view, and it is reasonable in its own way. In general, two intelligent people can agree with each other much more easily than two unintelligent people. Because truth and objectivity are ultimately one, and if two people are looking for them, even from different sides, they will eventually find themselves quite close to each other. 5) Non-constructively minded opponents can see how their position aligns with the opinion of the group. And if it doesn't align, they will express it less often in order to avoid being ostracized. Of course, there are some extremely stubborn individuals (there are 2 of them in this discussion) for whom none of the previous points apply, but they are also useful – their presence reduces the reputation of the point of view they defend. For some reason, in most cases, these individuals end up on the side that is losing the discussion, which is also an indicator. Something like that...

Only a Machiavellian approach to communication fails to elicit a positive response.

Of course, there are some extremely stubborn individuals (there are 2 of them in this discussion) for whom none of the previous points have any effect, but they are also useful – their presence lowers the reputation of the point of view they are defending. For some reason, in most cases, these individuals end up on the side that is losing the discussion, which is also an indicator.

Are you referring to yourself and Cobra?

This isn't my opinion, but the opinion of those in power, whether it's the USA, Europe, Russia, or Ukraine. The question is whether it's worth it... And the scale needs to be considered...

We were talking about whether people lived well in 1937. Do you agree with those in power that you are not a person, but meat that has no rights? And do you think everyone should accept being treated like meat?

go study history, then you can start teaching others about life.

)))))))))))))))

The killings are on the conscience of the authorities because they have been clinging to their positions with all their might for two months now, because they have become so attached to the trough that they can no longer do without it. A normal government would resign after such events. But our thugs will never do that, so people are resorting to more radical actions.
And regarding your first paragraph, I simply have no words; it even made me feel disgusted.

Doesn't watching TV disgust you now? All the news is the same: energetic activists are smashing windows, breaking into local town halls, and constantly repeating three types of sounds: 1 "Shame," 2 "Down with the gang," 3 "Glory to the heroes." Personally, I am annoyed by such mindless behavior. It's like a herd.
I am one-quarter Ukrainian, and this part of my ancestry doesn't make me feel any better.

As for your first paragraph, the thugs understand everything, but there is no reverse gear because if they back down, other thugs will come and shove the first ones where the sun doesn't shine. And this again raises the question that you seem to have not answered: do you really believe that the new old thugs will create something good for you and others? And you won't answer because you simply don't have an answer to the question of "what will happen tomorrow, after the Maidan." And this short-sightedness of the Ukrainian people is very sad.

Well, I won't get into a pointless argument, but I will respond to the main expert on everything™.

That's precisely the main flaw of democracy: you think about your own interests, but at the same time, you want to make decisions for the collective, whose interests may differ from yours.

What I wrote about – honesty – can only conflict with the interests of those in power, but not with the interests of the collective, i.e., ordinary citizens – and they are the majority.

Therefore, within the framework of the state, democracy in its original idea is completely inapplicable – 99% of the population does not realize the needs and capabilities of the state, and is also busy solving their petty problems.

I didn't write a word about democracy, where did you get that idea? Let it be totalitarianism, but have the courage to appear on television and say, "Comrades, we don't have a democracy here, there will be no more elections, we will adopt a new constitution ourselves, and we are not interested in your opinion." In this case, I will find it difficult to object to anything, because everything will be honest and open.

The task of the media in all states at all times has been and will be not to inform, but to engage in PR and propaganda – to form a point of view in the masses that is beneficial to the leadership.

As a qualified journalist, I must tell you that this has not been the case at all times and everywhere. You don't have to go too far for examples; you can look at television during the late perestroika period. That is, again, I understand that for a more or less far-sighted leadership of the country, this is unacceptable, but I have a professional bias, and I look at the problem from the perspective of the professional community.

In my understanding, opposition is good and necessary, especially if it is constructive. On this topic, Snoopy and Peterius are an example of constructive opposition; you can and should talk to them, while Ikhtiandr and Roger are an example of unconstructive opposition; they should either be ignored or ridiculed.

But in our country, no opposition is accepted. Its constructiveness does not matter. In Yekaterinburg, there was a figure named Leonid Volkov, who fought desperately by legal means, but even when one court satisfied his claim regarding his admission to the elections, and he was admitted, other circumstances immediately arose, and a higher court still did not allow him. 2011 or 2012.

And foreign sponsors should be dealt with harshly, regardless of what they say. Their interests are a priori at odds with the interests of the state, so in the event of any wrongdoing, the conversation will be short – pack your bags, go to the station, Washington.

Again, I'm approaching this from the point of view of a journalist who would like to remain honest. It doesn't matter whether they are Western sponsors or not – it's absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they don't interfere with doing my job honestly and efficiently. Well, the situation is such that without Western sponsors, this is almost impossible, as I wrote above. That is, I put myself in the place of some journalist from Novaya Gazeta (for example) and understand that I would write about abuses of power even without huge fees, as long as they don't interfere. Moreover, the motivation is purely patriotic: corrupt officials and thieves must be removed from positions of power; the country will be better off. Of course, you will say that others will come who will steal even more... Well, those too must be removed. And so on. Until honest people come.

And a few more personal observations. I work as a press analyst, and I read a lot of information in the media. There are quite a few negative reports about representatives of the authorities. But if it's a minor official, then he will even be punished in some way, a fine will be issued, but if it's someone more important, then some insignificant fine and a suspended sentence, and the abuses are considerable; the higher the official, the more.

The most revealing case for me was in November. One Mikhail Bunakov, an assistant to the deputy minister of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, a major, appeared in a video where he was using cocaine and having sex with men. In my opinion, both are not fatal and in any case better than stealing. But I'm not the authorities, and the authorities should be guided by the law, but there are no investigations. And there is a possibility that there were underage boys there (it is reported that these are cadets of the St. Petersburg Fire Institute, where Bunakov held some position), and it is not a fact that everything was voluntary. And no one has legalized drugs. Not to mention the fact that for law enforcement officers, homosexuality is a complete disgrace, but still, the major is "one of ours," so no... The system doesn't betray its own.

I understand that you will say that this is logical, and I will even agree, yes, it is logical, connections in Russia matter. It is logical, but it is wrong. I just want things to be right; that is my main complaint about the authorities.

I don't know if there was a link to this video here:
Euromaidan in 8 minutes

And in the meantime...
Moscow Oblast Ministry of Agriculture commented on the "chupacabra" outrage

The Moscow Oblast Ministry of Agriculture's website published a statement saying that stray dogs are most likely attacking domestic animals, or someone is deliberately setting their dogs on sheep...
No mythical creatures live in the Lukhovitsy district of the Moscow region, according to Moscow officials.

ahaha, the last video is really something :D
the guys clearly went too far; even an audience with pro-Russian sentiments would perceive such a video as blatant propaganda.

The guys clearly went too far; even people with pro-Russian sentiments would perceive such a video as blatant propaganda...

No, not at all.

an interesting article http://putnik1.livejournal.com/2649770.html
if the author is objective in his judgments and the information is accurate, then it seems that the "Maidan meat" (and possibly not only "Maidan meat") will be sacrificed not to local rulers, but to much larger deities.