597
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

The United States on Friday released a U.S. intelligence assessment sent to more than 100 countries that found Moscow is using spies, social media and Russian state-run media to erode public faith in the integrity of democratic elections worldwide.

"This is a global phenomenon," said the assessment. "Our information indicates that senior Russian government officials, including the Kremlin, see value in this type of influence operation and perceive it to be effective."

A senior State Department official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said that Russia was encouraged to intensify its election influence operations by its success in amplifying disinformation about the 2020 U.S. election and the COVID-19 pandemic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Jackolantern@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago

When are the countries doing something about this meddling of Russia

[-] Rocha@lm.put.tf 16 points 1 year ago

Probably when they also do something about US meddling... which is never.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 90 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This isn’t the place for whataboutism.

The US has done countless shitty things over the years, and more than its fair share during the Cold War, but it is not (currently) an authoritarian country that is making a broad and global propaganda and covert services push towards populist authoritarians and away from democratic norms in as many countries as possible. Russia is doing that now, and has been doing that since they got their feet back under themselves a bit in the late 90s.

[-] wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Crying whataboutism is just a lame attempt to deflect attention from hypocrisy and bullshit.

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

I'd rather live in the US if I were forced go choose. But the US is essentially a police state. Also, you may want to rethink what the us gov and their shadow entities actually do:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

Lol if you think the US is a true police state, then you have no clue what an actual police state is. In a real police state, you are disappeared almost immediately for critical statements about your government. While that can and does happen in the US on occasion, try that shit in North Korea or Myanmar or China. Be thankful you are allowed to have a dissenting opinion of the government, because there are actual police states in the world that will scoop you up if there's even a hint of dissent.

[-] queue 6 points 1 year ago

We don't have secret police, we call them undercover agents.

Please tell the Black Lives Matters protestors who were routinely beaten to the curb and tear gassed for expressing a first amendment "right" that they aren't under surveillance.

Please tell the Portland protestors who were kidnapped by Trump-led federal agents they are living in a normal country.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/04/bob-casey/sen-bob-casey-said-federal-agents-kidnapped-protes/

I'm sure Snowden is thankful he's able to live freely after exposing that an international spying agreement was gone, and didn't have to go into hiding. Same for Chelsea Manning who 100% wasn't put into solitary confinement and forbidden to talk to the public.

If revealing the truth that your government is committing crimes is punished, you are being ruled by criminals.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

Dude I'm not denying any of those are fucked up and outside of what our constitution provides for under freedom of speech, assembly, and press (many reporters were also arrested and had their footage destroyed). My point is that, despite these absolute abominations by the ruling class, the average person does not live under a constant state of surveillance and oppression in the same way that those in N Korea, Myanmar, Russia, China, etc do. Sure all of our online activity, communications, and movements are monitored, at least passively in a database, but unless we are actively causing major amounts of trouble we likely won't have the good squad breaking down our doors and hauling us off for saying "fuck the government" online. It could be so, so much worse (and quite possibly could get there in our lifetimes, if we keep being apathetic about the state of our country).

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

If revealing the truth that your government is committing crimes is punished, you are being ruled by criminals.

My guy what are you doing in your comment exactly? You're pointing out illegal acts by the government. Do you expect punishment to come soon? Consider how often you've criticized the US, and how often you've been arrested or fined or disappeared for that criticism.

The examples you mentioned aren't the norm -- and that's precisely why we discuss them. If it were the norm we wouldn't pay any attention to them. They're only newsworthy because government suppression of our speech is news. It isn't a common occurrence.

To compare authoritarianism in the US to the rest of the world is absolute peanuts. People constantly complain about the government and make fun of officials. We could insult Trump to our heart's content in 2016-2020, but are you aware of a single Chinese person who joked about Xi being Winnie the Pooh in that time period?

Let's put it this way, if you can complain about how bad your government is without worries of reprisal, your country isn't as bad as you may think.

[-] figaro@lemdro.id 5 points 1 year ago

I just want to say that you are laying out the facts perfectly. Like yeah of course the US has problems, but I can publicly walk around Washington DC saying "Fuck Joe Biden, He looks like an old emaciated Piglet" and have no fear of political retribution.

Freedom of speech is something we still generally have.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks! I appreciate it

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Rocha@lm.put.tf 12 points 1 year ago

I'm not doing a whataboutism, I'm just saying that when a state big enough wants to exert it's influence all over the world, it's hard to curb that.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Uh, yes it fucking iswhataboutism because this thread is about Russian political intervention against democracy worldwide whereas the US would subvert governments to prop up democracies that would benefit them

Big difference

when a state big enough wants to exert its influence all over the world, it’s hard to curb that

(Btw you used “it’s” which is “it is”, not “it’s” as in indicating ownership)

This is simply MORE whataboutism, again we’re talking about Russian disinformation campaigns eroding public trust in democratic institutions and you’re over here telling people that it’s hard to change a big countries mind???

Whataboutism or whataboutery denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation.

Come on bud, you can do better than this

[-] burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“That would benefit them”

Haiti has entered the chat.

Name a country in central and South America that the United States has not installed a dictator lol

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 9 points 1 year ago

The Cold War called and wants its foreign policy back!

The US hasn't been actively involved in subverting Latin American democracies for nearly 40 years.

You will say that's nothing to be proud of, which is true, but if we can't give credit where it's due, there's no incentive to change.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The United States subverts governments to prop up whatever would net the people in charge the most money in the long run and it usually ends up being a dictator.

It's not whataboutism when you compared the accused and the one accusing. It's farcical and hypocritical to see the US pointing the finger when it has done worse and is still actively doing it.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The article itself is “whataboutism.” The article fails to address the fact that America interferes in foreign elections. Article— what about Russia?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Where is the place for whataboutism then? Never? When a narrative is being pushed in the media that is hypocritical, should we just accept it? People seem to think anyone critical of America is defending Russia/China or another country. I think it’s downright UN-American and negligent to never try to make the country you reside in live up to the standards it puts forth.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This isn’t the place for whataboutism.

Where is the place for whataboutism then? Never?

Well, you could start your own Lemmy post speaking specifically about the United States, instead of derailing this post talking about Russia.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

I can do both, and do.

Do you understand the concept of derailing a conversation?

They probably do, as evidenced by the fact that they’re attempting to do so.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Russia interfered. What’s the conversation to be derailed? No one is saying it didn’t happen. They are just pointing out the hypocrisy because America does it too. Claiming “whataboutism” suppresses dissent and promotes the state department narrative.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

They are just pointing out the hypocrisy

They can point out that hypocrisy in their own post, instead of derailing this one.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Fine. Carry on with the foreign hate, while ignoring America’s problems. Can you at least acknowledge that the US has interfered in foreign elections? Lol

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Fine. Carry on with the foreign hate, while ignoring America’s problems.

I have no problem discussing that, at all. Create a topic I'll be glad to add my opinion to it.

The only point I'm making is that you shouldn't be discussing two distinct points simultaneously, take them one at a time.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] BEDE@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nah, this is just how a conversation works IRL. Points, counterpoints.

All parties just agreeing with each other staying on the same point is not a conversation.

Making a counterpoint can hardly be considered derailing the conversation .

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Making a counterpoint can hardly be considered derailing the conversion.

Whataboutism is not a counterpoint. A counterpoint would be disagreeing with the original point being made, not bringing up a new point.

One point at a time is what's being advocated.

conversion

Might want to edit your comments to use the correct word.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

The place is indeed "never". Every action should be addressed in the vacuum of its own context. Whatabousims detract from the argument at hand and prevent a Socratic exchange from narrowing its scope sufficiently enough to reach a consensus of understanding.

It's not about deflecting hypocrisy, it's about being able to have sane arguments in good faith.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe have a Big Think?

Protective mechanism

Gina Schad sees the characterization of counterarguments as "whataboutism" as a lack of communicative competence, insofar as discussions are cut off by this accusation. The accusation of others of whataboutism is also used as an ideological protective mechanism that leads to "closures and echo chambers".[98] The reference to "whataboutism" is also perceived as a "discussion stopper" "to secure a certain hegemony of discourse and interpretation." Source

[-] BEDE@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Thank you. This is far more coherent than what i wrote. I'm tired of seeing conversations shutdown or railroaded by people crying whataboutism.

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 13 points 1 year ago

Yes, never is the correct answer. It's cheap, obvious and condescending as fuck as well as being a total waste of time. The correct thing to do with whataboutism is to call it out and then ignore. Like what I am doing with you right now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Whataboutism is like false choice and straw man combined. Not only is the suggestion that one needs to choose between being critical of Russia or US, that it's either/or, but you're also then implying that the person you're replying to is making an argument in support of one of the things. That they can't possibly believe both things to be bad.

They are only talking about one BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.

It's fallacious, so yes, its time is never.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Is the whataboutism in the room with us now?

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Lol, caring about being rational is lame

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If this were rational you wouldn’t be giving it so much energy. The whataboutism would have been dismissed and people would have moved on and focused on the article. The fact that the whataboutism worked shows just how irrational this is. It proves that the whataboutism is a valid point.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

How did it work. Do you think typing this comment takes a lot of energy? I'm not really invested in this at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] anarchy79@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It is called a false dichotomy:

False Dichotomy is a formal fallacy based on an “either-or” type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true - or one is acceptable and the other is not. Often, there are other alternatives which haven’t been considered, or both choices might be false or true

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

The US is absolutely making global propaganda. What do you think CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are? The fake news media is actively trying to kill democracy, 8n service of their oligarch owners.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 26 points 1 year ago

Who in their right mind is watching CNN, Fox or MSNBC outside of Americans?

Nobody, that is who.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Username02@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Why would they? They welcome it with open arms.

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
597 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38870 readers
1729 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS