Russia’s RT network working directly with Kremlin to spread disinformation, U.S. says
Russia’s RT network working directly with Kremlin to spread disinformation, U.S. says
The United States on September 13 said the Russian news outlet RT is taking orders directly from the Kremlin and working with Russian military intelligence to spread disinformation around the world to undermine democracies.
The United States on September 13 said the Russian news outlet RT is taking orders directly from the Kremlin and working with Russian military intelligence to spread disinformation around the world to undermine democracies.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States has gathered new evidence that exposes cooperation between RT and four other subsidiaries of the Rossia Segodnya media group, and it intends to warn other countries of the threat of the disinformation.
In addition to RT, Rossia Segodnya operates RIA Novosti, TV-Novosti, Ruptly, and Sputnik, but the announcement on September 13 focused largely on RT. The outlet, formerly known as Russia Today, has previously been sanctioned for its work to allegedly spread Kremlin propaganda and disinformation.
You're viewing part of a thread.
You clearly do not understand whataboutism. It's when someone uses someone else doing the same thing as an excuse. If Russia does it it's OK for USA to do it. That's whataboutism.
And yes. Let the criminals kill themselves. That's why USA doesn't really do anything about gang wars.
No, that is not a whataboutism in general, perhaps it's your personal definition to just reverse it like that. This is whataboutism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Note, my example was not an axe murderer murdering another axe murderer. It was murdering the axe murder's family. Not him, his family. Siblings, children, cousins, aunts and uncles, you know. People related to you that aren't actually you.
Your article agrees with me. But it's clear I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.
Are all those involved in gang wars guilty? Probably not but it's still wise of the police not to get involved.
And similarly, yes the axe murderer who just murdered the other guys family and is asking for help. I'm probably gonna ignore him.
That family didn't do anything wrong though. His kids are still just kids, yet you're fine with them dying just for being born to the wrong father?
And no, the whataboutism article is sort of the opposite of your definition. Your definition says its a defense for an action. The article says it's a defense for an accusation. These are not the same thing. The person doing an action, and someone else accusing them of their action, are not the same ones. That's pretty key.
Why do I get the vague impression I'm arguing with a right winger?
It's saying it's deflecting against an accusation. It's clear your not able to understand basic things.
Your idea that someone who disagrees with you is a right winger proves this to me.
Finally you have no idea what the family did. It's why in a court of law we have laws about facilitation or accessory. But I think that will go over your head.
Cute insults aside, his kids are still kids man. We shouldn't be letting kids die to axe murder, most people usually agree on that one.
Yes, but you said
It’s when someone uses someone else doing the same thing as an excuse. If Russia does it it’s OK for USA to do it. That’s whataboutism.
Not the same as saying "Russia is doing it!" "Oh yea? But what about when US did it?" That's real whataboutism, as the article describes in detail. Spot the difference?
When you understand both are whataboutism because it's about the deflection not the action or the accusation, you'll understand whataboutism.
And how do I know he has kids? I'm gonna trust an axe murderer?
Okay, so you not being able to spot the difference does not mean there isn't one. While your "nuh uh's" are kinda funny, you can't just redefine words any time it's convenient for you, not when they're commonly used by others. Not all deflections are whataboutisms, just one single type, specifically, to an accusation. Like the very first line in the article, that says:
the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation
So, it's what we call a hypothetical, where I was proposing two axe murderers that targeted families. It's just a possible thing that we can think about to discuss a finer point. So, if we say he has kids, since he doesn't exist in the first place, then he has hypothetical kids.
edit: Just to save you a little scrolling, since I'm such a nice guy:
The problem with your hypothetical is that it doesn't exist. The information is coming from an axe murderer and your just magically asserting the family is real and what he says is real.
The problem is when your an axe murderer, I no longer trust you. Just as we shouldn't trust the USA because they do all the bad things they say others are doing. It's an accountability issue. Which is if you want to say your a good guy, you kind of have to actually be a good guy.
*Edit. This is why I said innocents get caught up in gang wars but the police can't do anything because the source of information is gangsters
Hypotheticals don't have to exist, that's what makes them useful. Is it possible that an axe murder could have kids? Of course it is, they can have sperm, right? So, it's a workable hypothetical. We can then use it to illustrate how actions that hurt innocents are not necessarily right, just to punish someone related to those innocents.
We don't need to ask the axe murderer anything either, we can check birth records. Like with the US covid propaganda scheme, we don't have to believe the govt, we can check international news sources if we like.
You can conveniently forget about independent information sources, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.