maybe this should go in the hopeworld thread. this is a great humanitarian initiative, it's the top suggested video for me on youtube
-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
The Russian invasion of Ukraine (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter rettucs
- Start date
- Replies 2K
- Views 96K
- Watchers 6
OOH AAH UKRAINIA! OOH AAH UKRAINIA!
with lyrics like these, i'm suprised someone hasn't rewritten is as 'i am ukranium'
You shout it out
But I can't hear a word you say
I'm talking loud, not saying much
I'm criticized, but all your bullets ricochet
Shoot me down, but I get up
I'm bulletproof, nothing to lose
Fire away, fire away
Ricochet, you take your aim
Fire away, fire away
You shoot me down, but I won't fall
I am titanium
You shoot me down, but I won't fall
I am titanium
You shout it out
But I can't hear a word you say
I'm talking loud, not saying much
I'm criticized, but all your bullets ricochet
Shoot me down, but I get up
I'm bulletproof, nothing to lose
Fire away, fire away
Ricochet, you take your aim
Fire away, fire away
You shoot me down, but I won't fall
I am titanium
You shoot me down, but I won't fall
I am titanium
to that point (kinda) - first section here
Institute for the Study of War
Russian forces are escalating the use of psychological and information operations to damage the morale of Ukrainian soldiers. The Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported on June 8 that Russian forces are sending threatening messages to the
It's not binary like that though. It's not a) they rigged an election or b) they didn't.
I guess the way I think about it is all of social media is an extension of the advertising / PR industry.
That industry works, even though you can think it doesn't. Eg, I saw an advert for a Jaguar car, but I'm not going to buy a Jaguar car now, or ever. But the advert has still worked, even if you don't realise it has. It's put Jaguar into your mind, reminded you that they are still flogging fancy cars. If you saw someone driving up the road to meet you in a Jaaaaag, you'd have a different opinion of them compared to if they didn't. You could say I never even watch TV, I don't see Jag adverts. But then you might watch a Formula1 race, which is another long form advert. Or see the F1 results on the news.
Advertising budgets are vast because they work, they sway people's opinion on things. They don't have to work 100% of the time for 100% of the people, they might need only to pick away at a tiny fraction and move the needle slightly. People can be convinced of almost anything: Vaccines are bad, Donald Trump has your interests at heart, the earth is flat, climate change isn't happening, homeopathy might work a little bit.
Instead of thinking about Russia rigging elections, just think of it as can a large well funded group purchase enough PR/advertising to influence people's decisions about something they have a vested interest in. Sometimes it's large groups of people, like us or the American public. Sometimes the group you need to influence is a small set of people, eg US Senators / members of congress.
If you have money, it's easy. You can pay things like Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Saatchi and Saatchi, Fox News, RT, lobbyists in DC, etc etc, and change people's minds on things. And if you do the job well, the people making those decisions don't even realize they've been influenced.
I agree with most of what you say here, this is just a related thing that I think is interesting ...
And that made me think about other advertising. Do large companies spend ad money because it actually works, or because their competitors are doing it, and they're afraid not to? Probably a bit of both I guess
I've read some stuff recently about online advertising, and how it can seem like it's working WAY more effectively than it is. When you're running an ad campaign you can see how many clicks you've gotten, and how that's translated into sales etc, so if you're getting a bunch of clicks leading to a bunch of sales then it looks great ... what it can't tell you, by definition, is how many sales you would have had without the ads. Saw an article from some company where they gradually reduced their google ad spend to zero, and it made almost no difference. The author compared it to paying someone to hand out flyers for your shop to people who were already on their way to your shop ... people are showing up with flyers so it seems like the flyers are working, but actually they're just costing you
And that made me think about other advertising. Do large companies spend ad money because it actually works, or because their competitors are doing it, and they're afraid not to? Probably a bit of both I guess
RT was actually good at calling out the USA, NATO and EU on their hypocrisy BUT when it came to Russian agenda stuff it could get into 1984 territory.
Russian domestic stuff got very, very little airtime.
often major Russian news stories weren't mentioned
The only time I ever heard anyone criticise Putin was when the American security guy (Mark ?)
said that Russian planes should have bombed Syria/ISIS a bit more.
RT offering confusing alternative theories, making judgements difficult, were a standard tactic.
European politicians wanting better relations with Russia were often interviewed - the problem was the vast majority were from far right parties e.g. Front National, Lega Nord, Austrian Freedom Party etc.
a few examples of 1984 style stuff that was breathtakingly blatant:
After a Russian fighter jet from Syria was shot down in Turkish airspace, RT took every opportunity to dis the Erdogan regime including often accusing ISIS of selling oil to Turkey. Erdogan was the RT hate figure for a while. Then after he fell out badly with the EU and had a high profile meeting with Putin, literally in a few days RT backflipped to praising Erdogan regularly.
About three weeks before the 2017 French presidental election. Marine Le Pen visited Putin in Moscow.
This was given plenty of publicity in the western media but was the main story on RT. Until the election RT then gave Le Pen a huge amount very biased positive coverage in every bulletin.
this one made no sense IMO:
- Le Pen had no chance of winning and if anything being buddies with Putin damaged her permanently.
- It made it incredibly obvious what a propaganda machine RT could be.
All the 24 hour news channels have agendas but when it came to changing their stance rapidly, RT led the way for hypocrisy.
This kind of stuff annoys me no end and is a major part of why I am not following the Ukraine war closely. I cannot understand how someone could be party to kind of sham journalism (RT or anyone else).
Does this work? Rarely with me IMO but the confusing 'look at at the shit the west has done' could.
But IMO the 1984 style reporting only makes them look appalling though.
Russian domestic stuff got very, very little airtime.
often major Russian news stories weren't mentioned
The only time I ever heard anyone criticise Putin was when the American security guy (Mark ?)
said that Russian planes should have bombed Syria/ISIS a bit more.
RT offering confusing alternative theories, making judgements difficult, were a standard tactic.
European politicians wanting better relations with Russia were often interviewed - the problem was the vast majority were from far right parties e.g. Front National, Lega Nord, Austrian Freedom Party etc.
a few examples of 1984 style stuff that was breathtakingly blatant:
After a Russian fighter jet from Syria was shot down in Turkish airspace, RT took every opportunity to dis the Erdogan regime including often accusing ISIS of selling oil to Turkey. Erdogan was the RT hate figure for a while. Then after he fell out badly with the EU and had a high profile meeting with Putin, literally in a few days RT backflipped to praising Erdogan regularly.
About three weeks before the 2017 French presidental election. Marine Le Pen visited Putin in Moscow.
This was given plenty of publicity in the western media but was the main story on RT. Until the election RT then gave Le Pen a huge amount very biased positive coverage in every bulletin.
this one made no sense IMO:
- Le Pen had no chance of winning and if anything being buddies with Putin damaged her permanently.
- It made it incredibly obvious what a propaganda machine RT could be.
All the 24 hour news channels have agendas but when it came to changing their stance rapidly, RT led the way for hypocrisy.
This kind of stuff annoys me no end and is a major part of why I am not following the Ukraine war closely. I cannot understand how someone could be party to kind of sham journalism (RT or anyone else).
Does this work? Rarely with me IMO but the confusing 'look at at the shit the west has done' could.
But IMO the 1984 style reporting only makes them look appalling though.
and then there's the shit that happened (happens?) at the other end of the scale, with ads directed at small groups, people who work in a certain area, or even specific individuals, using Facebook profile information to do so. And nobody else will ever see those ads.
Super-useful for promoting a tiny gig!
Yes it is, it's a)
It's defo worked for me
Hilary Clinton lost to Trump because she had a terrible campaign which had a huge sense of entitlement.
Sanders would have beaten Trump.
Sanders would have beaten Trump.
oh, right. They definitely had a vested interest in the result going a specific way, and lots of money to pay PR people to influence US voters.Yes it is, it's a)
But, like... I guess I was thinking "rigged" meant they somehow actually changed the result to not be what the election said. Sorry, "rigged election" to me means the outcome of the election doesn't match up to the votes (from actual people). They didn't rig the election, the ran a good PR campaign that help convince Americans that Trump was their guy.
Having said that, loads of rich Americans did too.
the phrase in DC I heard was: The Republicans have managed to find the only candidate that could conceivably lose to Hillary. And the Dems found the only candidate that could conceivably lose to Trump.
It's miserable voting in the US. I had to vote for Biden, and I had to hope the prick won. Grim.
i've a friend living in america who utterly hates biden like he's the worst president ever. but he's not the worst ever, surely? just the latest in a long line of 'could we not do better than this?' i would have thought.
American opinion has to be polarising - it’s the best ever or it’s the worst ever. The middle ground is socialism.
Cormcolash
Well-Known Member
That sounds like Commie speak to me!
a guess: there will soon be a russian breakthrough in donbass, followed by possibly some kind of coup against zelensky or similar upheaval, followed by a new phase of who-the-fuck-knows-what
Let’s see - think the next few weeks will could be critical/pivotal. Not sure how likely a breakthrough (in terms of quickly seizing huge amounts of territory/Ukrainians collapsing is), but definitely the Russians are fighting on their terms at the moment it seems
I think I met one person that openly admitted to liking Hillary and thinking she was a good candidate. I don't think I met any that thought Biden was good.
But you had to vote for the pricks, otherwise the wrong lizard would win.
Trump on the other hand did seem to have a lot of actual fans, similar to Obama.
But yeah, in Dem land what I saw was groaning, staring into the middle distance, what the fuck option do we have here, kind of looks. In Trump land they were still driving around with massive flags, posters in shops and on lawns, idolizing the cunt months after he lost.
Ah for fuck's sake. Why did I write this in the Ukraine thread? I'm sorry Ukraine. Cornu told me to do it.
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
21 Day Calendar
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowLatest threads
-
-
Carpark Sci-fi, Fierce Shook, Hubert Selby Junior Infants live in Tullamore 20th April- Started by sleepy
- Replies: 0
-
-
