Should Siberia become independent?

[The South Falls]

Siberian work gang is of proud when Siberia become independent clay. They will not be alone. Chinese work gang will of join them.

[Shofercia]

You were called out on it, and then admitted it.

Meaning that I'm full of shit?

That first post was full of shit. That second post didn't help. However, those were two posts, in a single thread. People make mistakes. Two bad posts doesn't mean that they're full of shit. Posts aren't people.

Never said that it's all you do. It is what you've done in this thread.

Okay, make it more clear?
I'd be fine with you pointing out a mistake if no one else did it before, but instead you make it seem like this lone post means that I am absolutely full of shit, read how you wrote the first one and maybe you'll understand what I mean.

I did. I said that you were making up random numbers, in two posts, in a single thread.

You definitely weren't trying.

I am saying that in that one specific example, you were caught bullshitting. One example. That's it. You're pretending that instead of it being just one example, it's forum-wide. Not cool.

Yeah, because that's how you make it look, intentional or not.

If it was forum-wide, it wouldn't be limited to a single thread now, would it?

Once again, my point was that if you said: "Russia is spending $10 billion on propaganda, and here are the sources" - that would've been one thing. If you said "Russia is spending $10 trillion on propaganda, and he are the sources" then we could've realized that you meant billion. However, we're not mind readers on NSG, so until you actually produce sources, we don't know if you're bullshitting or not.

All of my sources are on Russian, it would be of no real use to post them on NS forums, no one would understand it anyways apart from you and maybe a few other Russian speaking people, but I did post a source and I did correct myself.
Regardless, it doesn't matter.

You do know that Google Translate works, right? I might've quoted a SpetzNaz Report in Russian, which was accepted by NSG. I didn't quote Dozhd TV.

You'd still say "You moron, it clearly says billions not trillions.", and be honest now, this is how you would respond, not in the "Oh well we could've understood you actually meant billions".
People tend to assume to worse, this touches me, you, and every single other human being.

Erm, here's the exchange:

Yeah, get your facts straight mate, Russia does have propoganda, and it wastes trillions on it.

Trillions?

Given Russia's GDP is less than 1.5 trillion I find that claim doubtful.

Sorry, got that confused, billions, my bad.
It's still not a tiny amount, considering it's billions, not just a billion.

Oh, so now it's billions. What number will you randomly make up next? Most here won't deny that Russia spends money on propaganda, just like any other country, but randomly throwing out numbers isn't going to help your case.

You also said "wastes" - and then cited RT as an example. Considering RT's audience, I doubt that said money would be consider a "waste" - or did you also mean something different? Perhaps next you'll tell me that "wastes" and "spends" mean the same thing in Russian.

He's the one responding to me, pretending that my statement of calling out his bullshit in a single thread prevents him from ever admitting he's wrong on NSG.

She*
And yeah that sort of does discourage me to admit I'm wrong, since your reaction discourages such behavior.

You claimed that Russia wastes trillions, but proved that Russia spends billions. That's a mistake. It's doesn't matter whether you admit it, or not.

[United Imperial Systems]

That first post was full of shit. That second post didn't help. However, those were two posts, in a single thread. People make mistakes. Two bad posts doesn't mean that they're full of shit. Posts aren't people.

Posts represent people, the second post was me correcting myself after confusing a number, if that doesn't help, what world do you live in? A world in which every single person that confused a number is full of shit?
And again, the way you wrote your first responce made it seem that I am full of shit and that's about it.
Let's look at it!

Oh, so now it's billions. What number will you randomly make up next? Most here won't deny that Russia spends money on propaganda, just like any other country, but randomly throwing out numbers isn't going to help your case.

If that doesn't scream "You're just a monkey who's full of shit just throwing random numbers around", I don't know what does.

I did. I said that you were making up random numbers, in two posts, in a single thread.

Which is wrong? There is a difference between making up numbers and confusing them, nice to see you're seeing correcting a mistake as "Making up random numbers", without even bothering to figure out why the mistake was made.
Cool.

If it was forum-wide, it wouldn't be limited to a single thread now, would it? .

What? That's not the point, the point is that you make it seem that I am generally full of shit, intentional or not.

You do know that Google Translate works, right? I might've quoted a SpetzNaz Report in Russian, which was accepted by NSG. I didn't quote Dozhd TV. .

Google translate barely works, usually when you mention something that I'd assume is common knowledge you don't go out of your way to start translating sources, it's too time consuming for what was a minor point(For this thread, at the very least).

Erm, here's the exchange:

Yeah, get your facts straight mate, Russia does have propoganda, and it wastes trillions on it.

Trillions?

Given Russia's GDP is less than 1.5 trillion I find that claim doubtful.

Sorry, got that confused, billions, my bad.
It's still not a tiny amount, considering it's billions, not just a billion.

Oh, so now it's billions. What number will you randomly make up next? Most here won't deny that Russia spends money on propaganda, just like any other country, but randomly throwing out numbers isn't going to help your case.

And what does it prove exactly? That you wouldn't respond to me citing sources that state that Russia wastes billions while I said trillions in the way you actually responded? That seems like you're dodging my point.

You also said "wastes" - and then cited RT as an example. Considering RT's audience, I doubt that said money would be consider a "waste" - or did you also mean something different? Perhaps next you'll tell me that "wastes" and "spends" mean the same thing in Russian. .

That was an opinion, personally I consider funding media to be a waste of money that could be used to, I dunno, improve the living conditions of the people living inside the country, you'd think it would be more important than funding propoganda, but hey, if you consider spending money on propoganda to be something more than a waste, it's up to you.

You claimed that Russia wastes trillions, but proved that Russia spends billions. That's a mistake. It's doesn't matter whether you admit it, or not.

No?
I claimed Russia wasted trillions, and then I corrected it to billions, so you don't even want to understand what happened? You can't even properly explain what I did, are you even trying?

[Shofercia]

That first post was full of shit. That second post didn't help. However, those were two posts, in a single thread. People make mistakes. Two bad posts doesn't mean that they're full of shit. Posts aren't people.

Posts represent people, the second post was me correcting myself after confusing a number, if that doesn't help, what world do you live in? A world in which every single person that confused a number is full of shit?

You were called out. Only after being called out, you corrected yourself. Since your falsehood was already pointed out, whether or not you corrected it, didn't particularly matter. Also, if you think that two posts on an online forum represent a person... well, that tells me all I need to know about you.

And again, the way you wrote your first responce made it seem that I am full of shit and that's about it.
Let's look at it!

My first response was

"trillions?"

and what you're quoting was actually my second response. Not sure why you need to pretend otherwise on such a minor issue.

Oh, so now it's billions. What number will you randomly make up next? Most here won't deny that Russia spends money on propaganda, just like any other country, but randomly throwing out numbers isn't going to help your case.

If that doesn't scream "You're just a monkey who's full of shit just throwing random numbers around", I don't know what does.

It doesn't call you a monkey. Plenty of people in the US Congress, and the Russian Duma, throw random numbers around, and neither one of them is a monkey. Nor did I say that you were full of shit. Again, you're confusing the "post" with the "poster". Everyone makes mistakes. That includes me. Not everyone throws a tamper tantrum over two posts being called out as bullshit.

I did. I said that you were making up random numbers, in two posts, in a single thread.

Which is wrong?

You didn't prove that Russia wasted trillions. You didn't prove that Russia wasted billions. You proved that Russia spent billions. The US spends over $2 trillion on Healthcare, and arguably wastes roughly $1 trillion.

There is a difference between making up numbers and confusing them, nice to see you're seeing correcting a mistake as "Making up random numbers", without even bothering to figure out why the mistake was made.
Cool.

Amazingly enough, it's not my job to read one's mind, and see why a mistake was made. I never claimed to be a mind reader.

If it was forum-wide, it wouldn't be limited to a single thread now, would it? .

What? That's not the point, the point is that you make it seem that I am generally full of shit, intentional or not.

I'm pointing out that two posts in this thread that you made were full of shit. You're interpreting that as something else, and throwing a tamper tantrum. My posts on NSG aren't as high quality as the work that I submit when I'm working to be paid. Two online posts do not represent a person. You thinking otherwise, is exactly what led to your tamper tantrum.

You do know that Google Translate works, right? I might've quoted a SpetzNaz Report in Russian, which was accepted by NSG. I didn't quote Dozhd TV. .

Google translate barely works, usually when you mention something that I'd assume is common knowledge you don't go out of your way to start translating sources, it's too time consuming for what was a minor point(For this thread, at the very least)

Quoting how much money a country spends on propaganda doesn't require much work when it comes to translation. Numbers are numbers.

Erm, here's the exchange:

And what does it prove exactly? That you wouldn't respond to me citing sources that state that Russia wastes billions while I said trillions in the way you actually responded? That seems like you're dodging my point.

The main point is that you think that two posts in a single thread represent a poster. I feel that I've addressed that point quite a bit. The video is hardly relevant to the posts that I made.

You also said "wastes" - and then cited RT as an example. Considering RT's audience, I doubt that said money would be consider a "waste" - or did you also mean something different? Perhaps next you'll tell me that "wastes" and "spends" mean the same thing in Russian.

That was an opinion, personally I consider funding media to be a waste of money that could be used to, I dunno, improve the living conditions of the people living inside the country, you'd think it would be more important than funding propoganda, but hey, if you consider spending money on propoganda to be something more than a waste, it's up to you.

You need propaganda to fight propaganda, which is why every decent Government does it. Otherwise you could become a jobber girl, instead of a Government. For example, Equatorial Guinea is very bad at fighting propaganda, so even though the country used part of its oil wealth to ensure decent capital city, they're still portrayed as power hungry savages. Propaganda is essentially the Government's marketing arm. If you want other countries to deal with you with respect, then you should market yourself.

You claimed that Russia wastes trillions, but proved that Russia spends billions. That's a mistake. It's doesn't matter whether you admit it, or not.

No?
I claimed Russia wasted trillions, and then I corrected it to billions, so you don't even want to understand what happened? You can't even properly explain what I did, are you even trying?

You defining all spending as waste doesn't actually change the facts. You do grasp that, right?

[United Imperial Systems]

You were called out. Only after being called out, you corrected yourself. Since your falsehood was already pointed out, whether or not you corrected it, didn't particularly matter. Also, if you think that two posts on an online forum represent a person... well, that tells me all I need to know about you.

So are you saying that what the poster says doesn't represent the poster? I'd say that's a bit silly...
What does represent a poster, what they do not say?
Considering you probably seen me for the first time, it's easy to form a character based on a few posts, meaning that yes, posts do represent the poster(Shocking, right?)

My first response was

"trillions?"

and what you're quoting was actually my second response. Not sure why you need to pretend otherwise on such a minor issue.

Your first response was a simple question that I already answered, to me it doesn't make it much of a response.
Even if I call what I responded to a "Second response", it doesn't change my point.

It doesn't call you a monkey. Plenty of people in the US Congress, and the Russian Duma, throw random numbers around, and neither one of them is a monkey. Nor did I say that you were full of shit. Again, you're confusing the "post" with the "poster". Everyone makes mistakes. That includes me. Not everyone throws a tamper tantrum over two posts being called out as bullshit.

Your wording didn't make it seem like you called the posts for being bullshit, you made it seem like I am full of shit for "Just throwing random numbers", I'm sorry but you cannot avoid that, you didn't call out the fact that I wrongly said trillion instead of billion, you called me out for throwing random numbers like I have no idea about what I'm talking at all, even if you didn't mean to do it, to quote you.

I never claimed to be a mind reader.

You didn't prove that Russia wasted trillions. You didn't prove that Russia wasted billions. You proved that Russia spent billions. The US spends over $2 trillion on Healthcare, and arguably wastes roughly $1 trillion.

Oh quit with the nitpicking, what you consider spending I consider wasting, you cannot argue with that since it's an opinion, Russia wastes more money on the media than any other country(NOT COMBINED), watch the video before asking for sources.
You'll say that it's spending, but this isn't the thread to argue about it.

Amazingly enough, it's not my job to read one's mind, and see why a mistake was made. I never claimed to be a mind reader.

Never said it was, but maybe you can dig a bit deeper into someone's mistake once they correct it rather than saying "What other random numbers will you throw?".

I'm pointing out that two posts in this thread that you made were full of shit. You're interpreting that as something else, and throwing a tamper tantrum. My posts on NSG aren't as high quality as the work that I submit when I'm working to be paid. Two online posts do not represent a person. You thinking otherwise, is exactly what led to your tamper tantrum.

Maybe you can make it a bit more clear then?
I'm pretty sure that asking "What other random numbers will you throw?" doesn't say "Your posts are full of shit" but rather "You are full of shit".

Quoting how much money a country spends on propaganda doesn't require much work when it comes to translation. Numbers are numbers.

Just a number doesn't prove much, considering I speak Russian I didn't see the need to use google translate, which made me confuse numbers that sound very similar to one another.

The main point is that you think that two posts in a single thread represent a poster. I feel that I've addressed that point quite a bit. The video is hardly relevant to the posts that I made.

The video is a source, you said that they are important, no?
And again, the way you wrote your first response made a completely different point, do read it..

You need propaganda to fight propaganda, which is why every decent Government does it. Otherwise you could become a jobber girl, instead of a Government. For example, Equatorial Guinea is very bad at fighting propaganda, so even though the country used part of its oil wealth to ensure decent capital city, they're still portrayed as power hungry savages. Propaganda is essentially the Government's marketing arm. If you want other countries to deal with you with respect, then you should market yourself.

Yeah, but it doesn't justify wasting more money than any other country in the world, and who's propoganda is Russia fighting exactly?
So far living in Russia I've seen only anti-western propoganda and glorification of Russia and it's military technology(From Media funded by the government), living in the west, I've seen independent media(Most of which, isn't funded by the government) spread anti-eastern propoganda, which isn't only Russia, most of it is against China.
And so far I've seen no western propoganda in Russia, so I don't exactly see what are they "Spending" money on.

You defining all spending as waste doesn't actually change the facts. You do grasp that, right?

sigh
You defining all wasting as spending doesn't actually change the facts. You do grasp that, right?
Those word games ain't gonna get neither of us anywhere.

[Shofercia]

You were called out. Only after being called out, you corrected yourself. Since your falsehood was already pointed out, whether or not you corrected it, didn't particularly matter. Also, if you think that two posts on an online forum represent a person... well, that tells me all I need to know about you.

So are you saying that what the poster says doesn't represent the poster? I'd say that's a bit silly...
What does represent a poster, what they do not say?
Considering you probably seen me for the first time, it's easy to form a character based on a few posts, meaning that yes, posts do represent the poster(Shocking, right?)

As an intelligent human being, I can inform you that I do not form my opinion about other posters based on two posts in a single thread.

My first response was



and what you're quoting was actually my second response. Not sure why you need to pretend otherwise on such a minor issue.

Your first response was a simple question that I already answered, to me it doesn't make it much of a response.
Even if I call what I responded to a "Second response", it doesn't change my point.

It was a response. A response is a a reaction to something. My reaction to that post was

trillions?

I'm really not seeing why you continue to debate this part. You were wrong, again. It's ok to admit that.

It doesn't call you a monkey. Plenty of people in the US Congress, and the Russian Duma, throw random numbers around, and neither one of them is a monkey. Nor did I say that you were full of shit. Again, you're confusing the "post" with the "poster". Everyone makes mistakes. That includes me. Not everyone throws a tamper tantrum over two posts being called out as bullshit.

Your wording didn't make it seem like you called the posts for being bullshit, you made it seem like I am full of shit for "Just throwing random numbers", I'm sorry but you cannot avoid that, you didn't call out the fact that I wrongly said trillion instead of billion, you called me out for throwing random numbers like I have no idea about what I'm talking at all, even if you didn't mean to do it, to quote you.

A "trillion" is a number. A "billion" is a number. I called you out for throwing around random numbers. When someone says "trillions" - I don't spend time going "they said trillion, but did they really mean billions" when no other context is provided.

You didn't prove that Russia wasted trillions. You didn't prove that Russia wasted billions. You proved that Russia spent billions. The US spends over $2 trillion on Healthcare, and arguably wastes roughly $1 trillion.

Oh quit with the nitpicking, what you consider spending I consider wasting, you cannot argue with that since it's an opinion, Russia wastes more money on the media than any other country(NOT COMBINED), watch the video before asking for sources.
You'll say that it's spending, but this isn't the thread to argue about it.

Actually, definitions aren't opinions. They're definitions. For instance, the definition of the term "gravity" is not subject to appeal, and it just doesn't end up well those who try to appeal it in practice.

Amazingly enough, it's not my job to read one's mind, and see why a mistake was made. I never claimed to be a mind reader.

Never said it was, but maybe you can dig a bit deeper into someone's mistake once they correct it rather than saying "What other random numbers will you throw?"

But you continue with wild, unproven statements. Like your statement that Russia spends more on the media than any other country, which screams "bullshit!" Maybe if you claimed that it was part of % of GDP, or something, but to claim that Russia, whose nominal GDP is less than California's, somehow spends more than the entire United States, on Propaganda... According to WaPo, a single Election in the United States in 2016 cost $6.5 billion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... s-a-doozy/

The final price tag for the 2016 election is in: $6.5 billion for the presidential and congressional elections combined, according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org. The presidential contest — primaries and all — accounts for $2.4 billion of that total. The other $4 billion or so went to congressional races. The tally includes spending by campaigns, party committees and outside sources. It's actually down, slightly, in inflation-adjusted terms from 2012 and 2008.

That's just a single event, in a single year. RT's millions pale in comparison.

I'm pointing out that two posts in this thread that you made were full of shit. You're interpreting that as something else, and throwing a tamper tantrum. My posts on NSG aren't as high quality as the work that I submit when I'm working to be paid. Two online posts do not represent a person. You thinking otherwise, is exactly what led to your tamper tantrum.

Maybe you can make it a bit more clear then?
I'm pretty sure that asking "What other random numbers will you throw?" doesn't say "Your posts are full of shit" but rather "You are full of shit".

That's just your opinion. Here's the actual quote:

Oh, so now it's billions. What number will you randomly make up next? Most here won't deny that Russia spends money on propaganda, just like any other country, but randomly throwing out numbers isn't going to help your case.

Quoting how much money a country spends on propaganda doesn't require much work when it comes to translation. Numbers are numbers.

Just a number doesn't prove much, considering I speak Russian I didn't see the need to use google translate, which made me confuse numbers that sound very similar to one another.

It's not that complicated to translate a single sentence surrounding a few numbers. That was my point.

The main point is that you think that two posts in a single thread represent a poster. I feel that I've addressed that point quite a bit. The video is hardly relevant to the posts that I made.

The video is a source, you said that they are important, no?
And again, the way you wrote your first response made a completely different point, do read it..

I read it, and yes, sources are important. You didn't quote any sources when you said "trillions, oh shit, well someone called me out on that, so I'll go with billions!"

You need propaganda to fight propaganda, which is why every decent Government does it. Otherwise you could become a jobber girl, instead of a Government. For example, Equatorial Guinea is very bad at fighting propaganda, so even though the country used part of its oil wealth to ensure decent capital city, they're still portrayed as power hungry savages. Propaganda is essentially the Government's marketing arm. If you want other countries to deal with you with respect, then you should market yourself.

Yeah, but it doesn't justify wasting more money than any other country in the world, and who's propoganda is Russia fighting exactly?

That of every other Great Power, or a coalition. Same goes for every Great Power.

So far living in Russia I've seen only anti-western propoganda and glorification of Russia and it's military technology(From Media funded by the government), living in the west, I've seen independent media(Most of which, isn't funded by the government) spread anti-eastern propoganda, which isn't only Russia, most of it is against China. And so far I've seen no western propoganda in Russia, so I don't exactly see what are they "Spending" money on.

I haven't seen Antarctica. That doesn't mean that Antarctica doesn't exist. Just because you haven't seen something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And I've been living in the West long enough to know that spending and wasting aren't the same thing; I've seen plenty of Propaganda on all sides. As far as US Broadcasting in Russia, there's Voice of America, Radio Liberty, as well as the majors, such as CNN's bureau in Moscow.

You defining all spending as waste doesn't actually change the facts. You do grasp that, right?

sigh
Those word games ain't gonna get neither of us anywhere.

They're not word games. They're actual definitions. When someone tells me, a Corporation with a revenue of four billion, is wasting two billion dollars, I don't buy their stock. When someone tells me, a Corporation with a revenue of four billion is spending two billion dollars, I will make an inquiry to see if their stock is worth buying. Huge difference. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

[The Biggles Syndicate]

Did you find any reports of how Siberia feels about independence?

[United Imperial Systems]

It was a response. A response is a a reaction to something.

sigh

Your first response was a simple question that I already answered

Have I said that it's not a response? Can you please read what I'm saying? Please?

I'm really not seeing why you continue to debate this part. You were wrong, again. It's ok to admit that.

Please don't dodge my question, would me saying "Second response" change anything?

A "trillion" is a number. A "billion" is a number. I called you out for throwing around random numbers. When someone says "trillions" - I don't spend time going "they said trillion, but did they really mean billions" when no other context is provided.

I did provide a different context by correcting the number, but instead you go on saying that I'm just going to throw another random number.
What's your point, that you never said that I was just throwing around random numbers? That you actually meant something else?

Actually, definitions aren't opinions. They're definitions. For instance, the definition of the term "gravity" is not subject to appeal, and it just doesn't end up well those who try to appeal it in practice.

Actually, "Spending" and "Wasting" is subjective.
What you think is spending I see as wasting, to me spending money on propoganda is wasting it, to you it's just spending, it's an opinion, it's not the thread to argue about it.
There is no similar word for gravity, so that analogy doesn't work.

But you continue with wild, unproven statements. Like your statement that Russia spends more on the media than any other country, which screams "bullshit!" Maybe if you claimed that it was part of % of GDP, or something, but to claim that Russia, whose nominal GDP is less than California's, somehow spends more than the entire United States, on Propaganda... According to WaPo, a single Election in the United States in 2016 cost $6.5 billion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... s-a-doozy/

Watch the video I fucking send you? Maybe you will actually bother reading what I write and maybe you will finally see my point?
What you sent me was just that, a single event, overall Russia spends more money on propoganda than the U.S, I am talking about every year, not about certain events, I'm sorry if you can't understand this.

That's just your opinion. Here's the actual quote:

Oh, so now it's billions. What number will you randomly make up next? Most here won't deny that Russia spends money on propaganda, just like any other country, but randomly throwing out numbers isn't going to help your case.

If saying "What number will you throw out next" doesn't say "You're full of shit", jesus, what does for you?

It's not that complicated to translate a single sentence surrounding a few numbers. That was my point.

And my point was that it's easy to make a mistake because of that.

I read it, and yes, sources are important. You didn't quote any sources when you said "trillions, oh shit, well someone called me out on that, so I'll go with billions!"

So far your responses show otherwise, that you have indeed not watched the video.

That of every other Great Power, or a coalition. Same goes for every Great Power.

Very informative.
Can you say it being less vague next time? Because I find it hypocritical that a guy who says that sources are so necessary, doesn't go out of their way to, oh, I dunno, provide a source or at least a name?

I haven't seen Antarctica. That doesn't mean that Antarctica doesn't exist. Just because you haven't seen something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And I've been living in the West long enough to know that spending and wasting aren't the same thing; I've seen plenty of Propaganda on all sides. As far as US Broadcasting in Russia, there's Voice of America, Radio Liberty, as well as the majors, such as CNN's bureau in Moscow.

You know Antarctica exist because you can physically go there.
Try finding western propoganda in Russia, no matter how hard you try, you wont find it being widespread because all TV channels are under the Kremlin, and that is if you find it at all.
When you show me American propoganda in Russia that talks about how good the U.S is and how backwards Russia is, then we'll talk.

They're not word games. They're actual definitions. When someone tells me, a Corporation with a revenue of four billion, is wasting two billion dollars, I don't buy their stock. When someone tells me, a Corporation with a revenue of four billion is spending two billion dollars, I will make an inquiry to see if their stock is worth buying. Huge difference. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Two definitions that can be used in a subjective way.
To take you Corporation example, you can see them putting money in something as wasting it, but some one will see it as proper spending, it's subjective, period.
Stop saying that it's objective because the sole fact that I can say that in my opinion it's wasting proves otherwise.

[Hurdergaryp]

Also, China isn't evil. No idea why people think that.

Evil? No, they're just expansionist, aggressive, corrupt, and ambitious.

But you know, so long as they aren't evil!

The USA is technically not as corrupt as the PRC, but countless people would use those very same words as an apt (according to their opinions) description of glorious America.

[Farnhamia]

Evil? No, they're just expansionist, aggressive, corrupt, and ambitious.

But you know, so long as they aren't evil!

The USA is technically not as corrupt as the PRC, but countless people would use those very same words as an apt (according to their opinions) description of glorious America.

It's funny, because the US is among least corrupt countries but something like 75% of Americans think corruption is everywhere. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/maga ... or-it.html

[Hurdergaryp]

The USA is technically not as corrupt as the PRC, but countless people would use those very same words as an apt (according to their opinions) description of glorious America.

It's funny, because the US is among least corrupt countries but something like 75% of Americans think corruption is everywhere. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/maga ... or-it.html

Corporate lobbyism is apparently more efficient than classic corruption.

[The South Falls]

We don't need Chinese Gulags. We had Russian ones.

[Auze]

Tuva might be able, but I don't know about others.

[MERIZoC]

It should be annexed into the new pan-Mongolian state.

[MERIZoC]

The USA is technically not as corrupt as the PRC, but countless people would use those very same words as an apt (according to their opinions) description of glorious America.

It's funny, because the US is among least corrupt countries but something like 75% of Americans think corruption is everywhere. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/maga ... or-it.html

lol

corruption doesnt have to be illegal for it to be corruption

Another home run from the "everything is good, actually" crowd.

[Wabexer]

It should be annexed into the new pan-Mongolian state.

The Mongol Empire shall rise again

[Shofercia]

It was a response. A response is a a reaction to something.

sigh

You sighing doesn't make it any less of a response.

Your first response was a simple question that I already answered

You claimed that it wasn't a response. Here's your very own quote:

And again, the way you wrote your first responce made it seem that I am full of shit and that's about it.

So now you're claiming that it was a response, but not a first response, or a second response. Was it a zeroth response? Or did the mere question, "trillions?" made it seem that you are full of shit? Is the term "first response" also a subjective definition for you?

Have I said that it's not a response?

Yes, you did.

Can you please read what I'm saying? Please?

I read it. I recommend you read it. It'd be good for you.

I'm really not seeing why you continue to debate this part. You were wrong, again. It's ok to admit that.

Please don't dodge my question, would me saying "Second response" change anything?

It would. Then your quote would have more facts and less fiction. I like facts more than fiction. Unless it's Leo Tolstoy, Alexander Dumas, Jack London...

A "trillion" is a number. A "billion" is a number. I called you out for throwing around random numbers. When someone says "trillions" - I don't spend time going "they said trillion, but did they really mean billions" when no other context is provided.

I did provide a different context by correcting the number, but instead you go on saying that I'm just going to throw another random number.

The context was not provided in the original post. Your later actions are not germaine to my point.

What's your point, that you never said that I was just throwing around random numbers? That you actually meant something else?

I said that you were throwing random numbers around, but I never said that you were full of shit. Sometimes posters on here throw around random numbers for the lulz; or do you actually think that NSG has ISIS supporters?

Actually, definitions aren't opinions. They're definitions. For instance, the definition of the term "gravity" is not subject to appeal, and it just doesn't end up well those who try to appeal it in practice.

Actually, "Spending" and "Wasting" is subjective.

Their definitions are not subjective. Again, in the quote when you first mentioned it, no other context was provided.

What you think is spending I see as wasting, to me spending money on propoganda is wasting it, to you it's just spending, it's an opinion, it's not the thread to argue about it.
There is no similar word for gravity, so that analogy doesn't work.

Once again, definitions are not subjective and the way that you used it, made it seem that you were going for the objective definition.

But you continue with wild, unproven statements. Like your statement that Russia spends more on the media than any other country, which screams "bullshit!" Maybe if you claimed that it was part of % of GDP, or something, but to claim that Russia, whose nominal GDP is less than California's, somehow spends more than the entire United States, on Propaganda... According to WaPo, a single Election in the United States in 2016 cost $6.5 billion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... s-a-doozy/

Watch the video I fucking send you? Maybe you will actually bother reading what I write and maybe you will finally see my point?
What you sent me was just that, a single event, overall Russia spends more money on propoganda than the U.S, I am talking about every year, not about certain events, I'm sorry if you can't understand this.

If what you were saying was even remotely true, you'd have a lot more sources on it, than a youtube video. And I'm not sure if you're aware, but in the US we have elections every two years. It's not a one time event.

That's just your opinion. Here's the actual quote:

If saying "What number will you throw out next" doesn't say "You're full of shit", jesus, what does for you?

Claiming that Russia, with a GDP of $1.6 trillion, spends more on propaganda than the US, with a GDP of $19.4 trillion, and screaming about how a single youtube video will totally prove that to be true.

It's not that complicated to translate a single sentence surrounding a few numbers. That was my point.

And my point was that it's easy to make a mistake because of that.

Really? That was your point? Here's your entire quote on the issue:

Google translate barely works, usually when you mention something that I'd assume is common knowledge you don't go out of your way to start translating sources, it's too time consuming for what was a minor point(For this thread, at the very least).

Would you be so kind as to where, in said quote, you actually made that point? Implied that point? Hinted at that point? Made any relevant mention, whatsoever, for that point?

I read it, and yes, sources are important. You didn't quote any sources when you said "trillions, oh shit, well someone called me out on that, so I'll go with billions!"

So far your responses show otherwise, that you have indeed not watched the video.

The word "reading" has a different definition than the word "watching" - and those are, once again, objective definitions. Would you be so kind as to show me where I claimed to have watched the video?

That of every other Great Power, or a coalition. Same goes for every Great Power.

Very informative.
Can you say it being less vague next time? Because I find it hypocritical that a guy who says that sources are so necessary, doesn't go out of their way to, oh, I dunno, provide a source or at least a name?

Provide a source for what? That all Great Powers use Propaganda? That needs to be sourced to you? Really?

I haven't seen Antarctica. That doesn't mean that Antarctica doesn't exist. Just because you haven't seen something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And I've been living in the West long enough to know that spending and wasting aren't the same thing; I've seen plenty of Propaganda on all sides. As far as US Broadcasting in Russia, there's Voice of America, Radio Liberty, as well as the majors, such as CNN's bureau in Moscow.

You know Antarctica exist because you can physically go there.
Try finding western propoganda in Russia, no matter how hard you try, you wont find it being widespread because all TV channels are under the Kremlin, and that is if you find it at all.
When you show me American propoganda in Russia that talks about how good the U.S is and how backwards Russia is, then we'll talk.

All TV channels are under the Kremlin? Like Dozhd TV? As for American Propaganda that talks about how bad everything is in Russia, I already mentioned those channels. Go back and reread it. Also, over half of Russians have access to the Internet, meaning that Russians are not bound to watch TV and do nothing else. The US Propaganda in Russia shot itself in the foot in 2008, and hasn't recovered; that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

They're not word games. They're actual definitions. When someone tells me, a Corporation with a revenue of four billion, is wasting two billion dollars, I don't buy their stock. When someone tells me, a Corporation with a revenue of four billion is spending two billion dollars, I will make an inquiry to see if their stock is worth buying. Huge difference. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Two definitions that can be used in a subjective way.

When someone says "x is wasting money" - the term, in that phrase, "wasting" refers to the objective definition of "wasting" - not its subjective use.

To take you Corporation example, you can see them putting money in something as wasting it, but some one will see it as proper spending, it's subjective, period.

In my corporation example, the terms are being used objectively, not subjectively. When the OECD publishes a report on US Healthcare, the definition used for "waste" is objective, not subjective.

Stop saying that it's objective because the sole fact that I can say that in my opinion it's wasting proves otherwise.

Your opinion is subjective. But unless you're saying "in my opinion, this is waste" or providing similar context, it's implied that you're using the objective definition of waste.

[Shofercia]

The USA is technically not as corrupt as the PRC, but countless people would use those very same words as an apt (according to their opinions) description of glorious America.

It's funny, because the US is among least corrupt countries but something like 75% of Americans think corruption is everywhere. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/maga ... or-it.html

Domestically, the US is less corrupt than most other nations. I agree with that. But if one was to look at America's international ventures, like Iraq, the corruption there is at catastrophic levels. When people in other countries rally behind the US banner, they want the US to treat them like the US treats its own states, or like Obama treated Puerto Rico. Instead, they get treated like the US treated Iraq, or like Trump treats Puerto Rico. Ironically, Trump's ignorance about PR is similar to Obama's ignorance about the Arab Spring.

[Dagnia]

Not a good idea, but possibly could because it’s ethnically more complex than the European side..
>Nenets
>Tuvans
>Buryats
>Evenkis
>Amurians
>Chukotkans
>Sakhalians
>Turkic-Siberians
>Kamchatkans
>Nyanagans
>Russian-Mongols
>Mongolians
>Krasnoyarski
>Kurilian Tribes
>Jewish in the Autonomous Republic

This is the reason it shouldn't. Many of these peoples are culturally and linguistically worlds away from each other even if they are geographically only a few hundred kilometers apart. You have distant cousins of the Turks, Finns and Hungarians, Mongols, Manchus, totally unique isolates, and others in addition to the religions they'd be fighting over. It would be the same situation as post-colonial Africa or post-communist Yugoslavia. Without some kind of hegemonic culture like Russians or strongman dictator like Putin, diversity is always a weakness.

[New Wrepland]

Yes they do.

The principle you express here seems to be different from the one you express in regard to the issue of North Kosovo and several other places.

Yea he got punished by becoming the speaker of the Kemerovo Duma, right? That sounds harsh. Promoting FDI in your region should be rewarded but in that case it clearly was a geopolitical issue as well.

I was talking about the people living in North Kosovo, including those who aren't Serbs, like the Gorani. If a region wants to leave, it should be allowed to, and I disagree with Russia's Government's stance saying otherwise. However, what you're proposing is to draw lines based on ethnicity - what's the point? What's next, lines based on familial ties? No Montesquieu approaching Capulet domain? Also, FDI can involve geopolitical issues, and wasn't it you who claimed that he got a slap on the wrist?

Pretty obvious I was using that language because the point was to demonstrate how Russia is an empire. Of course, an empire also most often is made up of people who are unwilling participants in the project, but the larger point is that it is made up of conquered people. Some institutions and individuals (like Shoigu and Lavrov) within the societies of these conquered people support and bolster the imperialist status quo, and are promoted to create a veneer of legitimacy whereas the rest are pacified or suppressed. This is why Russia, with its powerful state, does not have situations like North Kosovo, even though the populations it encompasses are not all passive.

Julius Nyerere described an identical situation as thus:

It reminded me of the social history of Great Britain before the advent of the welfare state. The extremes of individual or family poverty within that country were dealt with through the philanthropy of rich persons to whom such human misery was unbearable. But their charity was given only to those they regarded as the 'deserving poor'. This, in practice, meant that it was given only to those people regarded by the philanthropist as having demonstrated an acceptance of the social and economic status quo - and for as long as they did so.

I think that comes to rival your Montesquieu and Capulet comparison.

[Shofercia]

I was talking about the people living in North Kosovo, including those who aren't Serbs, like the Gorani. If a region wants to leave, it should be allowed to, and I disagree with Russia's Government's stance saying otherwise. However, what you're proposing is to draw lines based on ethnicity - what's the point? What's next, lines based on familial ties? No Montesquieu approaching Capulet domain? Also, FDI can involve geopolitical issues, and wasn't it you who claimed that he got a slap on the wrist?

Pretty obvious I was using that language because the point was to demonstrate how Russia is an empire. Of course, an empire also most often is made up of people who are unwilling participants in the project, but the larger point is that it is made up of conquered people. Some institutions and individuals (like Shoigu and Lavrov) within the societies of these conquered people support and bolster the imperialist status quo, and are promoted to create a veneer of legitimacy whereas the rest are pacified or suppressed. This is why Russia, with its powerful state, does not have situations like North Kosovo, even though the populations it encompasses are not all passive.

Julius Nyerere described an identical situation as thus:

It reminded me of the social history of Great Britain before the advent of the welfare state. The extremes of individual or family poverty within that country were dealt with through the philanthropy of rich persons to whom such human misery was unbearable. But their charity was given only to those they regarded as the 'deserving poor'. This, in practice, meant that it was given only to those people regarded by the philanthropist as having demonstrated an acceptance of the social and economic status quo - and for as long as they did so.

I think that comes to rival your Montesquieu and Capulet comparison.

So obvious that you have to dedicate a post to explaining it? You speak about empires being made up of conquered people - so why not let the Crimeans hold a Referendum, on condition that everyone UN member state, including Russia, recognizes the result? I think we all know the reason that you'd oppose that Human Rights move - because it would benefit Russia. And when Human Rights help Russia, you throw them out the window.

You continuously speak of Russia as some evil empire, full on conquered people, but the reality is that Russia's hardly imperialistic in the classical sense. Putin's been involved in three border conflicts, and intervened in Syria, in the past two decades. His approval rating is broad among the political spectrum, and the majority of minorities in Russia, probably support Putin. They don't view themselves as "conquered people" or any other label that you'd care to attach.

That said, during the Yeltsin Administration, there was a case similar to North Kosovo in Russia, in the Sakhalin Islands. When he inherited the situation, Putin showed a willingness to negotiate, (unlike Yeltsin,) but the Japanese wanted it all; they got nothing instead. As far as salaries and pensions in Russia:



That's an average pension, and an average income. So much for the "deserving poor" eh, Wrepland?

[Sovaal]

No.

[Soviet-mongol]

Siberia to Russians was the same as the Americas to the Europeans. The Russian Columbus is called Yermak Timofeyevich. Just like Columbus he led exploration missions to Siberia and later on colonised it. Of course this resulted in the genocide of the native Siberian tatars. Yermak was an evil and racist man.

[Harmonian Hegemony]

Pretty obvious I was using that language because the point was to demonstrate how Russia is an empire. Of course, an empire also most often is made up of people who are unwilling participants in the project, but the larger point is that it is made up of conquered people. Some institutions and individuals (like Shoigu and Lavrov) within the societies of these conquered people support and bolster the imperialist status quo, and are promoted to create a veneer of legitimacy whereas the rest are pacified or suppressed. This is why Russia, with its powerful state, does not have situations like North Kosovo, even though the populations it encompasses are not all passive.

Julius Nyerere described an identical situation as thus:

It reminded me of the social history of Great Britain before the advent of the welfare state. The extremes of individual or family poverty within that country were dealt with through the philanthropy of rich persons to whom such human misery was unbearable. But their charity was given only to those they regarded as the 'deserving poor'. This, in practice, meant that it was given only to those people regarded by the philanthropist as having demonstrated an acceptance of the social and economic status quo - and for as long as they did so.

I think that comes to rival your Montesquieu and Capulet comparison.

So obvious that you have to dedicate a post to explaining it? You speak about empires being made up of conquered people - so why not let the Crimeans hold a Referendum, on condition that everyone UN member state, including Russia, recognizes the result? I think we all know the reason that you'd oppose that Human Rights move - because it would benefit Russia. And when Human Rights help Russia, you throw them out the window.

You continuously speak of Russia as some evil empire, full on conquered people, but the reality is that Russia's hardly imperialistic in the classical sense. Putin's been involved in three border conflicts, and intervened in Syria, in the past two decades. His approval rating is broad among the political spectrum, and the majority of minorities in Russia, probably support Putin. They don't view themselves as "conquered people" or any other label that you'd care to attach.

That said, during the Yeltsin Administration, there was a case similar to North Kosovo in Russia, in the Sakhalin Islands. When he inherited the situation, Putin showed a willingness to negotiate, (unlike Yeltsin,) but the Japanese wanted it all; they got nothing instead. As far as salaries and pensions in Russia:



That's an average pension, and an average income. So much for the "deserving poor" eh, Wrepland?

Only source for that meme is Russian Insider, a blog site. Try again.

[Razarija]

Me and my fellow rice people will certainly stay away from siberia (you could already tell with tibet) unless it's for a job or something

China's overpopulation issue is about good land not amount of land anyway if the west was flat and vegetated we'd kill all the tibetans and turks any time and move in