Russia is teh democratcy!1!

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Can you guys speak English? I'm interested and can't speak your language.

Sorry, but I can't translate Russian slang properly.

[Serb]

Originally posted by VJ
What is it about Russia what makes so many polytubbies believe hearsay and rumours as facts with nothing but face value?

It's not about Russia, it's about human ignorance, brainwashing and mind control.
OMG!!! Russians are coming!!!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Serb
Yeah, I forgot that Americans are well-known for their geography skills.


I'm totally pwned.

those of us who play games like civ, and who post on international forums, in fact are pretty good with our geography skills.

[lord of the mark]

as to the group, I was gonna go back and look for evidence on the site, but the link doesnt work anymore.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Serb


It's not about Russia, it's about human ignorance, brainwashing and mind control.
OMG!!! Russians are coming!!!

Third Empire: Russia as it should be.

Nice map there.

[Harovan]

Does nobody want to conquer India?

Poor aneeshm...

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Serb


����� ����� - ��������.


(�� �� �������� ��������)

Horrible spelling in the first sentence.

I suspect it was intentional, though I feel left out of the joke.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


If memory serves right, Estonia was that crappy ferry that sunk a couple of years ago. As to where, I believe it's still at the bottom of the Baltic sea, if nobody scrapped the wreck yet.

That was the Estonia, not Estonia.

[The Vagabond]

Saras, you've got to change the flag. Otherwise the impression is that the Estonian nazis already occupied your homeland...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Serb


Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, France goddamnit.

So how many cars did the protestors torch?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Wrong. Freedom of speech is that last right they need to take away when everyone believes their lies. They don't have to worry because they can just put their spin on whatever you say or simply say its a matter or national security, they have a duty to protect us, blah blah blah.

Excellent thought, actually.

If I understood it correctly, of course.

Well, I understand it as follows:

Once people in a country had been deeply and firmly brainwashed in a certain way (we may call it "upbringing") and while things go more or less OK in the country, the freedom of speech is of no special threat to the authorities. On the contrary, it provides a useful vent for people's feeling, an illusion that people actually have some say, which would be very unwise to abolish.

Is that correct?

[Pekka]

Kid is talking about the illusion of freedom, no more, no less. And a big part of that is to reshape the meaning of the concept, so when you need to for example slow down some heat, you'll just invent freedom of speech again. Kind of like torture vs. intensive interrogation, they both mean exactly the same thing, but the other one we can support more easily if we don't think about it.

So, to put pressure on discussions, you would call it unpatriotic, not standing behind your own people etc. Please do understand, that I'm not talking about Bush here. This is a common dystopia and it happens all over the world when the time is right. That is, true power is when the people themselves take care of each other in a way that they start the oppression themselves. They 'normalize' the situation.

Foucault woudl talk about the art of governmentality. That is the knowledge/power to lead and to control by the way of being able to create a discourse. When you create the discourse, other people have to live in that discourse, thus you control it all. When you control it all, there will be dissidents, but it will only normalize the situation, as they will stick out and will be taken cared of by other people. Other people, who changed their own behaviour and view to suit the dicourse you created, thus the art of govermentality.

So, for example Bush does not have the power to decide discourse in the US. This is why independent media is kind of like important and ****.

Another type of dystopia (this would go down here in Finland) is the sosialist one. The cradle to grave model basically means, that when you disagree with the rulers, you are attacking... the welfare of all people. Thus the people will set you straight. A political disagreement is a direct attack against all people. Thus the rulers do not have to actually fight for their position.

One of the most common ways to create discourse for a people is to whip them into nationalist frenzy. THis happens often in countries that are in bad shape. Economy is down, people are not well off. So instead of fixing the problem inside, you can distract them from the real issues by pointing out problems in others. You can invent enemies or you can just pick the one that suits your needs the best. They should be then made evil and the source of your problems. It is their fault. They are to blame. We don't like them, in fact we hate those people, even though we don't know them. A discourse is created and you don't have to stay in the line of fire and take responsibility over the problems that are within. Political spins would include "they are communists" "they are fascists" "they are terrorists". Pick one. Any sort of reason then flies out of the window, as the average intelligence of a person is below the one of a smart pig.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Pekka
Foucault woudl talk about the art of governmentality. That is the knowledge/power to lead and to control by the way of being able to create a discourse. When you create the discourse, other people have to live in that discourse, thus you control it all. When you control it all, there will be dissidents, but it will only normalize the situation, as they will stick out and will be taken cared of by other people. Other people, who changed their own behaviour and view to suit the dicourse you created, thus the art of govermentality.

All right. Actually, a discourse in the sense your mention and the upbringing in the sense I mentioned act in a similar way. Just perhaps the "discourse" works on a more current and tactical level, whereas the "upbringing" concerns something more deep-seeded and fundamental.

So, for example Bush does not have the power to decide discourse in the US. This is why independent media is kind of like important and ****.

Why? He actually has. And such a discourse would rest on a solid foundation of upbringing.

Another type of dystopia (this would go down here in Finland) is the sosialist one. The cradle to grave model basically means, that when you disagree with the rulers, you are attacking... the welfare of all people. Thus the people will set you straight. A political disagreement is a direct attack against all people. Thus the rulers do not have to actually fight for their position.

In America, it's democracy and freedom.

One of the most common ways to create discourse for a people is to whip them into nationalist frenzy. THis happens often in countries that are in bad shape. Economy is down, people are not well off. So instead of fixing the problem inside, you can distract them from the real issues by pointing out problems in others. You can invent enemies or you can just pick the one that suits your needs the best. They should be then made evil and the source of your problems. It is their fault. They are to blame. We don't like them, in fact we hate those people, even though we don't know them. A discourse is created and you don't have to stay in the line of fire and take responsibility over the problems that are within. Political spins would include "they are communists" "they are fascists" "they are terrorists". Pick one. Any sort of reason then flies out of the window, as the average intelligence of a person is below the one of a smart pig.

Yes, but this (as you mention) concerns countries in a bad shape, which lost their orientation, etc. It's a completely different story.

I would be more interested to discuss the role of a deeply seeded brainwashing in the functioning of the countires that are stable and virtually do well.

[Pekka]

Sure, an upbringing would be similar, but a different thing.

About brainwashing, it's a bit different. Brainwashing is something more forced and unnatural. THat is, a person has their own beliefs and what they know. You need to have data in the brain first if you want to talk about brainwashing. The idea is to basically change some of these views, perhaps into complete opposite, and against that person's original will. This doesn't mean physical violence and whatnot. THis is basically programming someone's head. This is definitely not what an upbringing would be. See for example scientologists.

If you want to do cognitive tweaking on a person, it's not really that easy unless the person is willing to ... kind of do it. There are mayn situations where it is easier if you can control the environment. FOr example, POWs have been brainwashed earlier, so how did they do it if it's difficult to do to a normal person? Many of these things have to do with trauma. A person caught by the enemy is a very stressful thing, maybe even traumatic. So, when there is trauma, things can be done. Establishing trust, all kinds of stuff. In trauma, a person is trying to survive. For an example, when children have traumas, they have consequences that lasts long. If a ... 4 year old child is raped, there is a chance that the child will develop split personality more easily. Basically the child is trying to disassociate themselves from that horrible situation. They can't quite grasp it, but it's horrible, so they are on a defense to try to survive mentally. So split personality would be sometimes what will happen. So in any case, if a soldier gets caught and is severily traumatized, he might also just try to survive. Brainwashing becomes pretty easy at that point.

What an upbringing would be is, I think we should call it indoctrination. OK? It's not really brainwashing. But it is affecting the views of a person and the values of a person anyway, so it's still powerful. People get a lot of stuff from their parents. THe authority of the parent is accepted, and "Because I say so" is the modus operandi in parenting. So at some point things become true. Of course the environment shapes that person, the culture, the value system and everything plays a part. But I wouldn't call it brainwashing, I'd just call it indoctrination.

If you want to talk about counries that are doing well and the 'brainwashing' it does, or indoctrination, depends. What kind of a state is it, how is it formed etc.

I am a Libertarian, so no, I don't recognize the power of anyone over myself or other people when it comes to ... pushing values or other stuff. I believe in a government that is as small as possible, that does not give us ideas of any kind what to talk about, that only serves to protect our rights, protect the nation and few other running errands.

So no, I don't personally think we should have any kind of virtual authorities telling people how to live or what to think. The way I see it, it's stay out of my business, I'll stay out of your business, let's respect everyone and just keep doing our own things and try to find happiness and try to do what we want to do if possible.

[ZEE]

i was thinking to myself... "self, why is this thread so damn popular?!?"

so i finally clicked on it and got my answer. Pekka is posting here! it all makes perfect sense now...

:beer: and piece