Skuzzo Brings Up A Good One

Rileyrat · Post by **Rileyrat** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:14 am

Peter, even if you were a first generation russo-american your view of the USSR would still be slightly off. You may not be totally screwed as most Americans but you would never really know simply because you never lived it for a long enough period of time. Western propoganda is probably more ingrained in what you say and think more than you realize.

As far as did you hurt his feelings bit, he was more than within bounds than you were, I don't think you hurt his feelings just more or less discredited your own argument.

Skuzzo · Post by **Skuzzo** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:30 am

[quote="peter-griffin";p="541319"]you realize i'm a second-generation russo-american citizen with novgorodian ancestry dating back, verifiably, 400 years, right? you realize i had uncles on either side of my family that were officers in the soviet and american navies, respectively, right? you realize my two grandfathers fought in american and russian armies in both world wars, right? just so we're clear on that one.[/quote]
I agree with Rileyrat...that's all very nice, but it's purely genetics. How much of your 18 years of experience have been spent living in Russia?

Some of the most biased and one-sided views I've seen are from people who have left one country because they hated it and moved to another. Their children and their children tend to be tainted by the views of the home country given to them by their parents. It is just as likely that you are much more anti-Russian because of your heritage....as opposed to what I think you are trying to say - that you can see it from a balanced point of view because of your heritage...or at least that you somehow have a better understanding.

Maybe you do. Quoting family trees, however, means diddly.

peter-griffin · Post by **peter-griffin** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:40 am

^^^^ i meant to point out that i have heard stories from my family about russia for my entire life. i am not entirely oblivious to the russian experience, and though certainly not versed in it like a russian citizen, i am probably more knowledgeable about russia than makh or anyone else thinks that i am. the majority of my family still lives in russia, but they make periodic visits here every two or three years and i am lambasted with stories for the majority of their 3 to 4 week stay.

my view of the USSR is fed to me by people who lived their whole lives there. i don't have a negative view of the country in general, i just like antagonizing an overzealous asshole who tells me where i get my information and labels that source as western propoganda. i find it ironic that someone who was subjected to a state-run media (even if he doesn't believe in any of it) would accuse someone never subjected to a state-run media of being brainwashed and a victim of propoganda.

the partisan elements of the media assure that, if you read on both sides of the material and take everything with a grain of salt, a consistent, propoganda message will be attacked factually, thus diminishing the chance of a blatant lie being considered the norm. i also understand that towards the decent and after the fall of the soviet government, a heavily polarized russian media popped up, with some extremely anti-soviet material blasting the defunct USSR. i know that the russian media has since the very early nineties been free and bipartisan, just like the american media.

if you'd take a look at the history that makh and i have on these forums, you'll notice that it was he who started with the "LOL PETER U R VICTIM OF THE PROPOGANDA." if he's going to play that game, so am i.

As far as did you hurt his feelings bit, he was more than within bounds than you were, I don't think you hurt his feelings just more or less discredited your own argument.

if you couldn't catch the sarcasm seething through my post, then i can't possibly take anything you say seriously.

Makh · Post by **Makh** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:39 am

[quote="peter-griffin";p="541319"]you realize i'm a second-generation russo-american citizen with novgorodian ancestry dating back, verifiably, 400 years, right? you realize i had uncles on either side of my family that were officers in the soviet and american navies, respectively, right? you realize my two grandfathers fought in american and russian armies in both world wars, right? just so we're clear on that one.[/quote]
First, it is impossible for you to find your ancestry dating back to 400 years since no register was used for common people until Peter the Great. In anyway, you could find genealogy from that time only if you have a powerful and well known noble family as ancestors. Otherwise, you can hardly go before 1850.

[quote="peter-griffin";p="541361"]i just like antagonizing an overzealous asshole who tells me where i get my information and labels that source as western propoganda.[/quote]
You seem very angry about that. I suppose it was the first time you heard that propaganda may also exist in USA as well. And Am I overzealous because I deny things that you take as granted? Or because I question things that are thought in schools for decades?

[quote="peter-griffin";p="541361"]i find it ironic that someone who was subjected to a state-run media (even if he doesn't believe in any of it) would accuse someone never subjected to a state-run media of being brainwashed and a victim of propoganda.[/quote]
You are saying that, since I had state-run media in my country, I am not in a position to say that USA was using propaganda? You seem to ignore the strong anti communist propaganda in the 50s and 60s.

[quote="peter-griffin";p="541361"]if you'd take a look at the history that makh and i have on these forums, you'll notice that it was he who started with the "LOL PETER U R VICTIM OF THE PROPOGANDA."[/quote]
Yes and I maintain it now more than ever. My objective, just like I did for Bort, is not to show Russia as a good little bunny but to show you that both countries, during the cold war, were using dirty tactics, lies, manipulation, assassination, plot and of course, propaganda (some of them even nowadays). By refusing to accept this, Peter, you will only prove that you are rejecting a potential alteration of what you consider to be the truth.

And try to keep a minimum of respect for other people. Something in which you lack Peter.

Rileyrat · Post by **Rileyrat** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:21 am

[quote="peter-griffin";p="541361"]

As far as did you hurt his feelings bit, he was more than within bounds than you were, I don't think you hurt his feelings just more or less discredited your own argument.

if you couldn't catch the sarcasm seething through my post, then i can't possibly take anything you say seriously.[/quote]

Sorry dude, but if you read your own post from a clearly impartial stance there is no sarcasm. Just because you imagined it in your mind as sarcastic doesn't make it so. It was a one-liner remark with nothing following it to designate it as so. I can't hear the voices in your head thearfore I can't use that as a referance the same as you can. The next time you try sarcasm you might want to put something with the remark that makes it seem as so. Stop trying to cop out on a remark that obviously intended to only raise the short hairs on his neck...

As for your idea that the American media is one a fairly unreliable resource for information gathering, to say that he was subjected to more propaganda than we were is a bit far fetched. Go back and look at renderings of Japanese during WW2. Read cold war era information on Russia and how deplorable the living conditions were. They carefully phrased it to make it seem as if everyone, other than the people that were part of the "big commie machine", lived in some decrepid horrid situation. Post cold war they tried really hard to press the initial decay of former soviet states.

peter-griffin · Post by **peter-griffin** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:26 am

First, it is impossible for you to find your ancestry dating back to 400 years since no register was used for common people until Peter the Great. In anyway, you could find genealogy from that time only if you have a powerful and well known noble family as ancestors. Otherwise, you can hardly go before 1850.

there are actually fairly decent documents that date back to the boyars. as for well known, go see if the name kovitzke is in any documentation.

russia, the place from which i draw my heritage, ancestry and drink of choice,

did you want sarcasm tags instead?

As for your idea that the American media is one a fairly unreliable resource for information gathering, to say that he was subjected to more propaganda than we were is a bit far fetched. Go back and look at renderings of Japanese during WW2.

as i said, the media is bipartisan.

You seem very angry about that. I suppose it was the first time you heard that propaganda may also exist in USA as well.

if you had a clue about the climate in the american media, you'd know your seemingly arbitrary conjecture was incorrect. both sides of the media point fingers at the other for spreading "propoganda." whether they are right or wrong is regardless; americans have been propoganda-weary for quite some time.

And Am I overzealous because I deny things that you take as granted? Or because I question things that are thought in schools for decades?

you're overzealous because you "assume" and "suppose" your opponent in debate is automatically a victim of propoganda, even when the same tactic is not used against you. again, if you'd look back, i did not fire the propoganda gun before you did.

You are saying that, since I had state-run media in my country, I am not in a position to say that USA was using propaganda?

actually, i said i found it ironic.

You seem to ignore the strong anti communist propaganda in the 50s and 60s

how old are you?

Yes and I maintain it now more than ever. My objective, just like I did for Bort, is not to show Russia as a good little bunny but to show you that both countries, during the cold war, were using dirty tactics, lies, manipulation, assassination, plot and of course, propaganda (some of them even nowadays). By refusing to accept this, Peter, you will only prove that you are rejecting a potential alteration of what you consider to be the truth.

i'll gladly admit that the US did some fucked up shit that was on par with the USSR, and that while both countries are wrong, you certainly can't demonize one without demonizing the other. do you remember how this arguement started? you said that it was the US looking for trouble with the USSR. i think that certainly implies that the soviet union was being a good bunny and getting barked at from across the yard by the US while it peacefully tucked its head under its paws. both countries progressively responded to the other's buildup in arms. neither was wrong in this aspect.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:40 am

I just skimmed this thread, and I'll ignore all the russian stuff because I'm not of an openion on that.

however on the first subject of the thread:
Iraq is not vietnam. the only resemblance is the fact the army has to deal with guerrilla warfare.
I think right now Iraq is not as bad as vietnam, but give the iraqies a couple of years, a civil war (which is bound to happen) and america would wish iraq was vietnam...

second Rileyrat claimed that american english is an international language, something that made me laugh quite a bit...
ENGLISH is an international language because of all the colonies the british bestowed on the world, by the way in some places (like most of north/central africa) FRENCH is considered the traiding language because of the colonies the french were kind to erect...
and the only reason there's US english/UK english in computers is that the keyboard is diffrent. the ',' and the '.' are used a bit diffrently and therefore the location is sometimes switched, and the dollar has to be replaced with a pound... THAT is what really made ms come up with US and UK english...

Makh · Post by **Makh** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:58 pm

[quote="peter-griffin";p="542177"]there are actually fairly decent documents that date back to the boyars. as for well known, go see if the name kovitzke is in any documentation.[/quote]
Kovitzke?? Hmm it sounds Polish in my ears, not Russian. That explain all the complaint about Russia.

Just joking. The Boyars are a medieval class Peter, the only way you have to find an ansestor in the Boyars, with exactitude, is if you have a noble family in your genealogy.

[quote="peter-griffin";p="542177"]you're overzealous because you "assume" and "suppose" your opponent in debate is automatically a victim of propoganda, even when the same tactic is not used against you. again, if you'd look back, i did not fire the propoganda gun before you did.[/quote]
When I heard something that is clearly over exaggerated like your opinion on Stalin's paranoia, then yes, I must say you have been influenced by propaganda. You know, propaganda is not 100% a lie, of course not, it is an alteration of reality that you take as an advantage to modify your own publik opinion or to disrupt the enemy intelligence.

You seem to ignore the strong anti communist propaganda in the 50s and 60s
how old are you?

My age is not an obstacle to be aware of the propaganda in USA in the 50s and 60s. Just watch a simple black and white American movie of that time to see how it was. Just take a look on the communist hunt in the 50s.

[quote="peter-griffin";p="542177"]do you remember how this arguement started? you said that it was the US looking for trouble with the USSR. i think that certainly implies that the soviet union was being a good bunny and getting barked at from across the yard by the US while it peacefully tucked its head under its paws.[/quote]
Although my statement was provoking, I did not say it with blind eyes. It was not Soviet Union who broke the Detente, it was Reagan with his Star War system and arms race (here an example of propaganda that worked). By declaring that Soviet Union was the Empire of Evil and by starting an arms race, Reagan showed that his intentions were aggressive against Soviet Union. He broke the pacific coexistence of the 1970s. That is what I meant by "looking for trouble".

Rileyrat · Post by **Rileyrat** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:56 am

Well last time I checked calling someone a communist was a derogatory comment here in the US. Just because what happens to us is more subtle doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yes our media is more bipartisan than most but that doesn't stop the overall effect of propaganda. For the most part we like to think that propaganda is some extreme distortion of the truth used in some poor far off land, the truth is that it happens in every form of media at different levels in every country. It doesn't take much to get a racially biased country like the US to mot like a specific group.
CyberEd, Skuzzo already clarified that for me but thanks for the added input. I was misinterpeting alot of the info I came across. The main difference betweeen US and UK english is in casual conversation, mostly concerning slang and the slight spelling differences. Like the whole 'berg thing and crap like that. To be honest with you, I don't know why US trade figures are so against learning other languages in full if they are going to be doing business with them on a regular basis. We tend to be the least forgiving when it comes to accents and other such things. The majority of the people I know get all bent when dealing with someone who has even the slightest Spanish accent, forget it if they come from a country with a stronger, more lingering one.

peter-griffin · Post by **peter-griffin** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:15 pm

Just joking. The Boyars are a medieval class Peter, the only way you have to find an ansestor in the Boyars, with exactitude, is if you have a noble family in your genealogy.

my grandfather-by-whatever-extension was, at least in title, a novgorodian duke-of-sorts.

When I heard something that is clearly over exaggerated like your opinion on Stalin's paranoia, then yes, I must say you have been influenced by propaganda. You know, propaganda is not 100% a lie, of course not, it is an alteration of reality that you take as an advantage to modify your own publik opinion or to disrupt the enemy intelligence.

when you put together the fact that stalin had close friends and supporters assassinated, plus thousands of army officers sent to the Gulag, you can draw the conclusion that he had a deep paranoia.

My age is not an obstacle to be aware of the propaganda in USA in the 50s and 60s. Just watch a simple black and white American movie of that time to see how it was. Just take a look on the communist hunt in the 50s.

i didn't know if you were talking about the anti-communist rings that existed around vladivostok that had a very small but noticeable voice in the 60s. at any rate, the anti-communist agenda is heavily criticized in american schools, to the point of error, in fact, like blaming the actions of a house committee on senator mccarthy even though he was, you know, a senator.

Although my statement was provoking, I did not say it with blind eyes. It was not Soviet Union who broke the Detente, it was Reagan with his Star War system and arms race (here an example of propaganda that worked). By declaring that Soviet Union was the Empire of Evil and by starting an arms race, Reagan showed that his intentions were aggressive against Soviet Union. He broke the pacific coexistence of the 1970s. That is what I meant by "looking for trouble".

yes clearly the soviet union displayed no aggression against soveriegn nations in the early eighties.

It doesn't take much to get a racially biased country like the US to mot like a specific group.

lololol

Rileyrat · Post by **Rileyrat** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:11 am

LOL all you want, as far as western nations go, the US is one of the more racially, socially, and ethnicly biased countries out there.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:33 am

On what, exactly, do you base that sweeping allegation?

Rileyrat · Post by **Rileyrat** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:39 am

Appearing to be 100% white, living in every time zone, having several forgien western friends, and getting to hear what everyone has to say about wet-backs, niggers, kikes, chink, or anyother derragatory comment you can think of. Really puts a new perspective on things when they aren't aware of who is really around.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:51 am

Rileyrat, I think you'd find alot countries WAY worst than the US...

try... say... uganda, chechnia... some in some places people don't restrict hate to hate words...

Makh · Post by **Makh** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:28 am

I do not think Rileyrat was comparing USA with third world countries Ed.

[quote="peter-griffin";p="542843"]yes clearly the soviet union displayed no aggression against soveriegn nations in the early eighties.[/quote]
Ah! Now that is interesting. I think you will have to explain yourself my friend.

Real Life Forums

Skuzzo Brings Up A Good One

Who is online