Gays, Putin, and Skiing! Olympics Megathread: THE POLITICS

[Reploid Productions]

They KNOW THAT Chechen Militants can EASILY get to Sochi and kill everyone there! And there had been car bombings!

You do realize that the security perimeter around the various Olympic venues and the area in general is probably going to be massive, right? Getting in most likely will not be so easy as you think.

[God Kefka]

I think Putin might be in for a Red Wedding type scenario at Sochi with this Olympics setup. He is a bit of a King of the North himself (up in Moscow)... maybe the terrorists have told him ''all is forgiven.''

It would definitely change power dynamics in Russia...

[Tovarish Stalin]

I think Putin might be in for a Red Wedding type scenario at Sochi with this Olympics setup. He is a bit of a King of the North himself (up in Moscow)... maybe the terrorists have told him ''all is forgiven.''

It would definitely change power dynamics in Russia...

If they kill anyone, (Especially putin) there will be CHAOS in Russia. I'm talking massive military involvement on behalf of the Kremlin.

[Shofercia]

If you cannot comprehend that Social Rights assisted massively in the increase in standard of living in Russia, you shouldn't be debating about Russia, or wasting anyone's time for that matter.

Wasting time would be the one who argues that a high birth rate is evidence that human righs and social rights are improving. And that one is you.

I didn't say high birth rate, please learn to read. My argument was that if Social Rights improve, the standard of living improves, and if the standard of living improves, (all else being equal,) in Russia people will have more babies. The birth rate is still quite low.

Oh right, I misread something about an organization that equated Cuba with Prague Spring,

I know it's difficult to read, but: the suppression of the Prague Spring.

It's not difficult for me to read, but perhaps it's difficult for you? I won't judge! Anyways, Prague Spring used in that context is talking about the suppression of the Czechoslovak Government. My issue was that equating the situation in Cuba, (which is fairly mild,) to the military suppression of a democratically elected government, sounds like someone's saying "damn, I'm so butthurt about Cuba, I'll compare that to the brutal suppression of a democratic government!"

Not to mention that an organization ranking a country where almost half of the population, (probably more by now,) has Internet, where "a small number of specific sites are blocked or filtering targets a small number of categories or issues", next to a country like Zimbabwe, it's a bit hard for someone with a sane mentality to take them seriously.

Also using paid progovernment commentators to manipulate online discussions, using takedown requests and forced deletion of content to curb discussion (including being fired from their jobs, barred from universities, or detained if they did not comply), having dramatically expanded its surveillance apparatus (in Russia the hacking into the phone of an opposition activist was deemed to be legal) in addition to the blacklist law.

So the fact that many people are getting online doesn't negate the abuses by the Russian government.

Strawman. I argued that the situation was improving, because more people have more access to the Internet, which is the freest form of speech in Russia. I never argued that it was ideal. Instead of simply accepting that as a fact, you continue with your "hurr durr Russia sucks" tirade. If a situation improves from terrible to semi terrible, that's still an improvement.

That's nice dear, but your opinion doesn't really matter

Of course it does.

Or are you saying that you're mostly spamming now?

In order for an opinion to really matter, you need more than someone replying to you out of sheer boredom, who's shocked by your failure to understand my argument, i.e. things are better now than in 1999 in terms of Human Rights in Russia. Or did you think that the word "really" was used there as an accident?

I was talking about a direct quote from CLD. Hint: it was the one in quotes. You know, these things: "" You failed to grasp that.

So you have no objections to the points presented. Noted.

My objection is that they're irrelevant. Or to put it in terms you would understand: "Objection. Relevance. Sustained." Esta Clado? There are 634 million websites. Over 37 million websites in Russian. Of these, less than one percent is censored. Compare the 37 million different views to what you get on TV. That's a huge improvement, and that's all I was saying.

Nice strawman there Gravlen.

You should stop using words you obviously don't understand.

Considering my argument is that things have been improving, whereas you're the one who's extremely pathetically pretending that things aren't awesome. I never argued that they were. In fact, Russia still has quite a bit to go in terms of Civil Rights; I'm just not an idiot who expects overnight improvements in a country of over one hundred million people that just went though and extremely turbulent period, and has an extremely cautious government trying to handle getting used to a complex medium.

I didn't actually say that it has no effect on freedom of expression. I did say that it's potential negative effect, when compared to other positive developments, such as Internet users multiplying twenty fold, is small.

Actually, you didn't say anything of the sort, being to busy to dismiss the quote out of hand.

It's rather hard to take someone who equates a country, where roughly half the population have access to over 37 million different views in their own language, to Zimbabwe, seriously. It means they're either joking, or not very bright.

Additionally, I was curious though, as to which websites were actually blocked. Unlike you, I tried doing actual research, not just taking what someone said for granted,

I forgot - you think that providing sources for an argument is the opposite of backing up your argument - hance your unwillingness to do so.

No, I just think that one shouldn't take Freedom House seriously when talking about Russia. I would also not take Zhirinovsky seriously when he's talking about the US.

and the number of blocked sites was rather small when compared to the overall numbers of websites. Less than one percent. The biggest scandal was blocking of Lurkmore, (which I didn't support, nor did quite a few Russians,) and after instructions on how to make drugs were removed, the website was unblocked.

Doesn't change the fact that the system lacks transparency, proper judicial oversight, and already has a history of being abused.

Whereas in 1999 Russian media was extremely transparent, had superb judicial oversight, and was never, ever, ever abused /sarcasm

I provided a source that the news coverage that 90 percent of Russians had access to in 1999 was tightly controlled, and definitely did not have the 37 million viewpoints available to us today in Russian, and over 430 million overall viewpoints, which are now available to roughly half of the population of Russia.

Let me give you a numbers hypo that you can hopefully understand: if ten percent of society have access to 100 percent of the information, and 90 percent have access to 10 percent of the information, that society is less free than a society where 40 percent have access to 99 percent of the information and 60 percent have access to 10 percent of the information. That's my point.

That's nice dear, but your opinion doesn't really matter

When it comes to Russia, my opinion matters quite a bit more than yours. I know RuNet, I know how to navigate it, and how to influence it on minor issues. As for you, when it comes to Russia, you're about as effective as Hippo. Actually no, Hippo's more effective than you, since he can be entertaining. Hippo, I apologize for comparing you to Gravlen.

You will, of course, repeatedly fail to grasp it, much to my amusement. Do keep up. I can even use the source that you provided in the latter paragraph: 35,498 websites are blocked. The World has 634 million websites. So let's see here, that's what, 0.006 percent? I can source a basic math lesson if you'd like.

And how many were blocked in 2008?

Also less than one percent.

At this point, I'd like to apologize to those in Russia if you read Gravlen's travesty. Oh yeah, this website isn't banned in Russia, because the mods crack down on racism, drug making and child pornography.

And if I should suggest that someone take part in an unauthorized demonstration in Russia, this site would be in violation. Were I to suggest that homosexual relationships are normal, the site runs into trouble if a student accesses it from school.

Here's the thing: prior to Putin taking power, 3.1 million had internet access, meaning that for the extreme majority of the population, access to these websites simply didn't exist. That's also my point. More people have more forums, where they can express their views. That leads to more freedom of speech, even if a state regulates a part of it, and suppresses less than one percent of it.

I've deleted the crap that followed, since the numbers, which were central to my argument, were addressed.

So concerns about human rights abuses = "crap". Hmmm...

Nope, your pathetic strawmen are crap. My point was that more people have more forums, where they can express their views. That leads to more freedom of speech, even if a state regulates a part of it, and suppresses less than one percent of it. You talking about that one percent nonstop is a crappy response to my argument.

Once again Gravlen, I must remind you that my argument was about improvement in Human Rights under Putin, or improvement between 1999/2000 until today, as compared to what was going on between 1881 and 1998/1999. You are more than welcome to pretend that it's something else, and I'll throw you a kibble treat every time you do.

I was responding to the statement that "with the exception of Gay Rights and a couple of other stuff, Human Rights have been improving in Russia under Putin".

And yet you failed to comprehend that "improving under Putin" meant improving from 1999 until today?

Judging by how you're doing your best to ignore the context of my argument, I don't think you understand what context is.

Please explain how I'm ignoring any context.

The context of my argument is that between 1999 and 2013, Human Rights, as a whole, improved. You're citing an organization that says that in 2009, or whenever, Russia was placed on the "under surveillance", along with Italy or Australia, one of them. And some other states. However, in order to actually address my argument, you have to take Russia in 1999 and compare that to Russia in 2013, and show how Russia did not improve between those two dates. Russia might have dipped between 2007 and 2010. That doesn't negate the fact that Russia improved between 1999 and 2013, and that's all I'm arguing. You're using this to pimp your sources, such as reporters without borders and freedom house, while allegedly whoring for attention. None of that actually addresses my argument that more people have more forums, where they can express their views. That leads to more freedom of speech, even if a state regulates a part of it, and suppresses less than one percent of it.

2 and 5 are different numbers. If the rate of deaths drops from 5 to 2, that's a 60 percent drop! We're supposed to be comparing that to 1993-1999. Context, remember? Of course you don't, you're Gravlen, so you only go for context when it's convenient for you. Prior to Putin, between 1993 and 1999, the average was 5. During Putin, judging by the numbers you're using, the average is 2. You do comprehend that 2 is less than 5, right, Gravlen? Please tell me that you at least get that!

So the average under Putin is 2, and last year 2 journalists were murdered. That's not a decline.

Prior to Putin's reforms, and average of 5 journalists were killed a year. After Putin's reforms, an average of 2 journalists were killed a year. Sane people refer to this as a decline.

Safer from being killed, yeah, I can.

Sure, you can move the goalposts.

I claimed that journalists were safer, and provided a source showing that journalists were safer from being killed. And yet you failed to grasp that, and claimed that repeating my argument stating that journalists were safer from being killed, would be moving the goalposts.

You can repeat the quote all you want, but I'm comparing Putin's Russia to Yeltsin's Russia, a contextual point that you're keen on omitting.

One that was not warranted by the original post by Oneracon.

That could be because I was responding to a follow up question by Gallup. When people respond to follow ups, they might *gasp* expand their answer. I know it's hard to understand, but please, do try!

So unless you actually present some numbers on Yeltsin's Russia, your sources are irrelevant to my argument, which was:



Since you're failing to grasp even this basic point, Gravlen, improved means are better under Putin, than they were under Yeltsin. For instance, if prior to Putin's coming to power, 5 journalists were killed a year, on average, and after, 2 were killed a year, on average, that, while tragic, is still an improvement.

Alright, so we're back to "Yay Putin is not as bad as Stalin".

Actually it's more of a "yay, Putin is not as bad as any of the Russian leaders who preceded him, since Csar Alexander the Liberator". That's been one of my points all along. You do realize that more people than Stalin led Imperial Russia and the USSR...

For the very reason that I explained above.

Which is pretty much wortless since we should be examining the situation under Putin. I.e. the last 13 years.

The only thing that's worthless in this thread, IMHO, are your posts, which is why you're going back on my ignore list after this reply, as I really don't want to pander to your source pimping program. If you want to examine Putin's improvements, it's important to examine Russia in the state that it was when Putin became the president. When I call someone to improve my house, I look at the house before his improvements, and after his improvements.

Leader who maintained an average of over 60% approval rating wants to lead. Oh my, how very cynical of him.

The cynical part is when he manipulates the elections.

I'd say something, but you'd just use this as an opportunity to pimp your sources in a manner that's unrelated to my response to Gallup.

So, in case you're paying attention in Russia:

leader with 8 percent approval rating wins election: Free and Fair!
leader with 60 percent approval rating wins election against the same guy: Rigged, electoral fraud, or, to quote the "great" Human Rights expert, Gravlen, "cynical decision to run!"

You are aware that both Yeltsin and Putin could manipulate the elections, right? The one doesn't rule out the other.

Of course. I just find it more likely, much more likely, that there was less of election manipulation with the guy with 60 percent approval wins, than when a guy with 8 percent approval rating wins, considering that their opponent was the same guy, Zyuganov, which is why I find it rather laughable when certain Western Media, similar to the ones you're pimping, calls the eight percent election a democracy, and the 60 percent election an exit for democracy.

So 1999, free media is 0.7 percent. Today, roughly half of the population of Russia have access to 99 percent of the internet. Only in Gravlen's mind is this not an improvement.

The deterioration we've seen in recent years is not improvement. If you want to look back to the 90's, well, there's more internet cencorship and regulation in Russia today than in 1999. Much more.

You do comprehend that having access to regulated media where you can express yourself is actually better than not having access to any media, where you can express yourself, right? As your post shows, clearly, you don't comprehend that.

Oh, this is getting buttery! Keep going, I love this stuff.

I don't know where you see this going. We might go round after round but I don't think we'll make any progress - especially since any sources provided apparently will be ignored.

I paid attention to the sources that had numbers. But sources that peddle the hurr durr Russia sucks mantra, been there, heard that, yeah, I know that Russia sucks in terms of Civil Rights, I really don't need a source that repeats that ad nauseum.

Anyways, after wasting my time on that failure of your post, I realized that your posts are simply unworthy of my time, and that I was 100 percent right to place you on my ignore list. And now you're going back there.

[Shofercia]

So Russia had decided Sochi for the winter games, and such that like You probably know this because Putin announced this in 2009 (I think) and yeah... So, my question is...

WHY Would Russia out of all places choose Sochi for the Olympics?!

Is Putin TRYING To kill us all?! Do they know how DANGEROUS it is over there?! It's RIGHT NEAR Chechnya and the warzones! They KNOW THAT Chechen Militants can EASILY get to Sochi and kill everyone there! And there had been car bombings!

Seriously, why not host it in Far East Russia? Siberia? It's FAR MORE Safer there. China and Mongolia are friends with Russia... =_=

Only thing I'm really worried about, is the price of hockey tickets

Sochi is a good place, give Putin a chance.

I think that Putin the Olympics in Sochi is a great idea! Sochi is in Krasnodar Krai, which borders Abkhazia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Rostov Oblast, and Stavropol Krai. All of those places can be placed on high alert. Chechnya is on the other side of the Caucasian Region.

I think Putin might be in for a Red Wedding type scenario at Sochi with this Olympics setup. He is a bit of a King of the North himself (up in Moscow)... maybe the terrorists have told him ''all is forgiven.''

It would definitely change power dynamics in Russia...

I highly doubt that Putin would trust terrorists. And I doubt that they'll do anything to Sochi. They'll probably blow up a few things in Moscow, in the worse case scenario, and that'd be it. They've been unable to hit anything except soft targets in recent months.

[Gallup]

So Russia had decided Sochi for the winter games, and such that like You probably know this because Putin announced this in 2009 (I think) and yeah... So, my question is...

WHY Would Russia out of all places choose Sochi for the Olympics?!

Is Putin TRYING To kill us all?! Do they know how DANGEROUS it is over there?! It's RIGHT NEAR Chechnya and the warzones! They KNOW THAT Chechen Militants can EASILY get to Sochi and kill everyone there! And there had been car bombings!

Seriously, why not host it in Far East Russia? Siberia? It's FAR MORE Safer there. China and Mongolia are friends with Russia... =_=

Only thing I'm really worried about, is the price of hockey tickets

Sochi is a good place, give Putin a chance.

I think that Putin the Olympics in Sochi is a great idea! Sochi is in Krasnodar Krai, which borders Abkhazia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Rostov Oblast, and Stavropol Krai. All of those places can be placed on high alert. Chechnya is on the other side of the Caucasian Region.

I think Putin might be in for a Red Wedding type scenario at Sochi with this Olympics setup. He is a bit of a King of the North himself (up in Moscow)... maybe the terrorists have told him ''all is forgiven.''

It would definitely change power dynamics in Russia...

I highly doubt that Putin would trust terrorists. And I doubt that they'll do anything to Sochi. They'll probably blow up a few things in Moscow, in the worse case scenario, and that'd be it. They've been unable to hit anything except soft targets in recent months.

The Checens or Abkhazia nationalists might be a problem, but the security will probably negate that.

[Shofercia]

Only thing I'm really worried about, is the price of hockey tickets




I think that Putin the Olympics in Sochi is a great idea! Sochi is in Krasnodar Krai, which borders Abkhazia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Rostov Oblast, and Stavropol Krai. All of those places can be placed on high alert. Chechnya is on the other side of the Caucasian Region.




I highly doubt that Putin would trust terrorists. And I doubt that they'll do anything to Sochi. They'll probably blow up a few things in Moscow, in the worse case scenario, and that'd be it. They've been unable to hit anything except soft targets in recent months.

The Checens or Abkhazia nationalists might be a problem, but the security will probably negate that.

The Abkhaz are allied to Russia out of necessity. The odds of them striking are minimal. The Chechens are sick and tired of warfare, and you would be too! Try fighting from 1988 until 2009, after your family enjoyed decades of peace. You'd be tired of warfare too! Not to mention that between 1959 and 1989, the Chechen population almost tripled, and they have not enjoyed such a success during any other time period, so the younger generation, for the most part, are sick and tired of warfare, and the older generation fondly remembers the peaceful USSR. When Chechnya initially seceded, they even let Ingushetia go, since they didn't really want warfare. If there will be any terrorist attacks, it'll be probably done by radical Wahhabi imports, their cohorts, or those whom they influenced.

Factual note: Khrushchev returned the Chechens in 1957 or 1958 to their homeland, and they lived in peace until 1988, when Gorbafool's ethnic cleansing of Armenians inflamed the Caucasian Region.

[Calimera II]

A saw a very good dutch documentary about the human right violations in Russia... I was shocked and seriously wanted to puke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bno2o3Do4fw

[Gallup]

A saw a very good dutch documentary about the human right violations in Russia... I was shocked and seriously wanted to puke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bno2o3Do4fw

What's it called? I can't get YouTube at school.

[Meowfoundland]

A saw a very good dutch documentary about the human right violations in Russia... I was shocked and seriously wanted to puke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bno2o3Do4fw

I'm completely disgusted.

What's it called? I can't get YouTube at school.

It's called 3Onderzoekt: Homorechten in Rusland. It's all in Dutch with no subtitles, but it's pretty easy to understand what's going on.

[Gallup]

A saw a very good dutch documentary about the human right violations in Russia... I was shocked and seriously wanted to puke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bno2o3Do4fw

I'm completely disgusted.

What's it called? I can't get YouTube at school.

It's called 3Onderzoekt: Homorechten in Rusland. It's all in Dutch with no subtitles, but it's pretty easy to understand what's going on.

No subtitles? It better be good.

[Gallup]

Oh, and if anyone has an idea for a poll, please tell me.

[Shofercia]

Oh, and if anyone has an idea for a poll, please tell me.

Which Olympic Event is your favorite?

Ice Hockey
Curing
Speed Skating/Short Track
Figure Skating
Sledding (Luge/Skeleton/Bobsleigh)
Alpine Skiing
Cross Country Skiing/Biathlon
Ski Jumping/Nordic Combined
Freestyle Skiing/Snowboarding
Make Bandy an Official Winter Olympic Sport you bastards! And leave Kenny alone!

That is, of course, you want this thread to at least partially be about the Olympics, and not "hurr durr Russia ebul, oh ya, Olympics mebbe" type of thread.

[Gallup]

Oh, and if anyone has an idea for a poll, please tell me.

Which Olympic Event is your favorite?

Ice Hockey
Curing
Speed Skating/Short Track
Figure Skating
Sledding (Luge/Skeleton/Bobsleigh)
Alpine Skiing
Cross Country Skiing/Biathlon
Ski Jumping/Nordic Combined
Freestyle Skiing/Snowboarding
Make Bandy an Official Winter Olympic Sport you bastards! And leave Kenny alone!

That is, of course, you want this thread to at least partially be about the Olympics, and not "hurr durr Russia ebul, oh ya, Olympics mebbe" type of thread.

Added it. Tell me what you think of the new last one.

[Shofercia]

Which Olympic Event is your favorite?

Ice Hockey
Curing
Speed Skating/Short Track
Figure Skating
Sledding (Luge/Skeleton/Bobsleigh)
Alpine Skiing
Cross Country Skiing/Biathlon
Ski Jumping/Nordic Combined
Freestyle Skiing/Snowboarding
Make Bandy an Official Winter Olympic Sport you bastards! And leave Kenny alone!

That is, of course, you want this thread to at least partially be about the Olympics, and not "hurr durr Russia ebul, oh ya, Olympics mebbe" type of thread.

Added it. Tell me what you think of the new last one.

It's known as baiting. And very lame baiting too. Oh, and it's also not an Olympic sport, although I'm sure that Reagan would win every Olympics if it was. I mean Iran-Contra, Star Wars, etc.

Oh, and I guess that me saying that the anti-LGBT Law is absolutely atrocious = being an apologist. There's nothing quite like the power of propaganda, is there, Gallup?

[Gallup]

Added it. Tell me what you think of the new last one.

It's known as baiting. And very lame baiting too. Oh, and it's also not an Olympic sport, although I'm sure that Reagan would win every Olympics if it was. I mean Iran-Contra, Star Wars, etc.

Oh, and I guess that me saying that the anti-LGBT Law is absolutely atrocious = being an apologist. There's nothing quite like the power of propaganda, is there, Gallup?

Cool it. It's a joke to make fun of both sides. Plus, that Kenny one was stupid.

[Shofercia]

It's known as baiting. And very lame baiting too. Oh, and it's also not an Olympic sport, although I'm sure that Reagan would win every Olympics if it was. I mean Iran-Contra, Star Wars, etc.

Oh, and I guess that me saying that the anti-LGBT Law is absolutely atrocious = being an apologist. There's nothing quite like the power of propaganda, is there, Gallup?

Cool it. It's a joke to make fun of both sides. Plus, that Kenny one was stupid.

No, it's a shot at me, hidden in a poll, where I cannot respond to it. That's baiting. How was it a joke about both sides? If you think that Kenny one was stupid, just split Cross country skiing and biathlon, or add the bandy part without Kenny.

[Gallup]

Cool it. It's a joke to make fun of both sides. Plus, that Kenny one was stupid.

No, it's a shot at me, hidden in a poll, where I cannot respond to it. That's baiting. How was it a joke about both sides? If you think that Kenny one was stupid, just split Cross country skiing and biathlon, or add the bandy part without Kenny.

You and Gravlen. Come one, it would be unfair to make fun of one but not the other.

[Shofercia]

No, it's a shot at me, hidden in a poll, where I cannot respond to it. That's baiting. How was it a joke about both sides? If you think that Kenny one was stupid, just split Cross country skiing and biathlon, or add the bandy part without Kenny.

You and Gravlen. Come one, it would be unfair to make fun of one but not the other.

Even if that's true, (which I highly doubt,) you still shouldn't use polls for that purpose.

[Gallup]

You and Gravlen. Come one, it would be unfair to make fun of one but not the other.

Even if that's true, (which I highly doubt,) you still shouldn't use polls for that purpose.

All of my polls have one funny option. Just look back.

[Shofercia]

Even if that's true, (which I highly doubt,) you still shouldn't use polls for that purpose.

All of my polls have one funny option. Just look back.

You're allowed to be funny in your polls about the posts. You aren't allowed to use polls to make fun of the posters, as that gives the pollster an unfair advantage, i.e. I cannot make a thread with a poll about you. If you were, we'd have a million polls starting with "FST is... X, Y, Z, etc"

[Gallup]

All of my polls have one funny option. Just look back.

You're allowed to be funny in your polls about the posts. You aren't allowed to use polls to make fun of the posters, as that gives the pollster an unfair advantage, i.e. I cannot make a thread with a poll about you. If you were, we'd have a million polls starting with "FST is... X, Y, Z, etc"

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU SPECIFICALLY!

[Chinese Regions]

So its wrong for Russia to harbor a whistleblower but okay for Ecuador?

[Shofercia]

You're allowed to be funny in your polls about the posts. You aren't allowed to use polls to make fun of the posters, as that gives the pollster an unfair advantage, i.e. I cannot make a thread with a poll about you. If you were, we'd have a million polls starting with "FST is... X, Y, Z, etc"

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU SPECIFICALLY!

Except it is, specifically, about me and some other guy. As you said earlier:

You and Gravlen. Come one, it would be unfair to make fun of one but not the other.

[Gallup]

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU SPECIFICALLY!

Except it is, specifically, about me and some other guy. As you said earlier:

You and Gravlen. Come one, it would be unfair to make fun of one but not the other.

You guys were the most fervent debates, so, yeah, it's based off you two, I guess. But it's more about the debaters in general.