About the Politics & Current Affairs category (read before posting)

Politics & Current Affairs
1

Contemporary events and public issues examined beyond headlines and partisan talking points.

NOTE: For ongoing commentary, reactions, news links, and informal political conversation that doesn’t need its own topic, use the dedicated chat channel:

Current Affairs Chat

Analysis, Not Venting

Posts in Current Affairs should aim at analysis, not venting or moral outrage. For example, you may strongly disagree with a public figure or policy, but please criticize them in an intellectually serious manner, with reference to evidence, argument, relevant sources, or historical context. Posts that amount mainly to moral condemnation, armchair psychologizing, or partisan reaction don’t give others much to engage with, and tend to lower the level of discussion.

Members are encouraged to draw on political philosophy, social science, history, or other informed perspectives. The aim of this category is to examine current affairs in a reflective and intellectually serious way, not merely to react to them.

In short: don’t just tell us what you feel about an event. Give us something to think about.

Expectations in This Category

Although topics here concern real-world issues rather than academic theory, the standards of discussion remain the same as elsewhere on TPF. Members are expected to engage thoughtfully, charitably, and with a willingness to consider evidence, arguments, and complexity.

This is not a space for culture-war point-scoring, partisan slogans, or personal attacks. Simplistic ideological assertions, hostility toward other members, and low-effort provocations may be removed, and repeat behaviour may lead to more serious moderation action.

If you are unsure whether a topic fits here, consider whether it invites reasoned discussion rather than immediate polarization.

If these rules seem a bit strict, feel free to dive into the Current Affairs Chat

Putin’s folly in Ukraine
2

Once again I want to remind all participants that this is not the Lounge, and it is not the place for chat. You should be putting as much work into posts here as you would for a post on metaphysics and epistemology.

I edited the rules for this category to make things clearer. Please read them.

Putin’s folly in Ukraine
3

Now I feel too scarred to reply in my own thread. I don’t do a lot of references and links. But rather refer to analysis by experts in the media and working out my own analysis. I will of course seek to put a balanced objective view point at all times.

4

Please don’t feel put off from contributing. We’re not expecting an academic level of referencing. What matters is that posts explain the reasoning behind a view, rather than just stating conclusions or reacting to personalities. Referring to expert analysis in the media is perfectly okay; just try to summarize the point you’re drawing on and explain how it supports your own argument, so others have something clear to respond to. And if possible, make some effort to do some research rather than shooting from the hip.

My reminders are to help people adjust their attitude to such topics, since they used to be posted in the informal Lounge category—and to keep the discussion analytical and prevent it from veering into the kind of political chat you might have down the pub.

5

I think this focus on higher level discussion is good, especially for discussing current world events. But it’s a bit of a learning curve to get right. Where do we draw the line of references within an argument? Like, the answer I gave above is drawing on my own observations of previous intellectual breakdowns of Russia and Putin’s worldviews, combined with other observations that we are all able to see over the years in news, historical information, and literature.

As we discuss current world events, it’s hard to always be able to refer to direct evidence or clearly stated quotes, since much is inferred into educated guesses for understanding of what is going on. Meaning, if we had answers, if anyone had actual answers, the discussion would be over. And much of the writing is the sum of an inferred concept based on an ever changing pool of information, especially when discussing current events.

For instance, we can’t reference a stated goal that’s using marketing methods for the purpose of propaganda rather than telling truth, as support for deducing what some political figure in the world is aiming to do. Here we need to prove that it is propaganda and lies by referencing contradictions in what they say and do, and what experts of that politician has said about their strategies. But in doing so, we have to pick and choose reference points and external expert sources, while being sure that journalistic sources are valued high as sources of truth.

It becomes a method of trying to decode truth from a world that is actively working to obscure actual truth.

So how do we manage this if, say, someone makes an argument that is clearly just aligned with Putin’s propaganda? Referencing what he has said as if being the truth. The obvious answer is that it is just propaganda; referencing previous times he contradicted what he said with what he does. But the other speaker might just reject it as propaganda from the other aisle, making the entire exchange stall.

I’m just trying to figure out how a discussion like this can work in an optimal way, because there will be people who just get onto a thread and trolls it until it breaks, while others are actively trying to keep a higher quality.

Maybe we need som examples of good and bad posts within this context, to show the type of posts that shouldn’t be present and why, and posts that are good examples and why.

6

What to do about members who are posting the standard pro-war talking points and propaganda is indeed a difficult question.

On the one hand it’s an example of Brandolini’s law: the effort required to debunk a lot of that stuff is orders of magnitude greater than what is required to make those claims in the first place.

It follows that mods should be on the lookout for members who post these claims without any argument or evidence. If someone wants to argue in obvious sympathy with the Russian state, that is acceptable in itself—but they are expected to back up their claims.

So my advice is to flag any post that doesn’t support its claims (or is rhetorical, aggressive, rude, etc., of course), rather than responding. But if it does attempt to support its claims, however much you disagree, you should address it calmly or just ignore it.

7

Flagging rude, aggressive posts etc. is pretty easy. I think that’s the easiest to spot. It becomes much harder when you spot something that, based on everything you’ve learned over the years, looks like an apologist agenda using propaganda marketing rhetoric.

Like for instance, M1984FA’s post above. It clearly draws on references and tries to make an argument that is essentially apologism of Putin’s and Russia’s actions from 2014 and forward. Essentially enforcing Russia’s propaganda points from 2014 to justify the invasion by arguing for a logic that is just supporting the world view Russia wants people to have about Ukraine. It enforces the idea of Putin being a “savior” going into a “civil war”, which is clearly not what has happened.

In order to counter-argue this, one must go through everything Putin said, show contradictions, and reference experts in the field, and their analysis. It becomes essentially an impossible task by the sheer amount of work needed to just counter-argue that post, and it can simply be dismissed by M1984FA just enforcing his own “experts” who might be biased towards Russia, like many have observed Oliver Stone has become and been criticized for. Yet, he could just deny it and continue from there.

I think the downfall of threads like this often occurs because the sheer volume of the propaganda machine from Russia (or other origins of world events) makes the effort of having an intellectual discussion almost impossible when people who are victims to that propaganda or active trolls of the propaganda make use of the ambiguity in unresolved world topics to muddy the waters of discourse.

We know that Russia’s methods include spreading conflicting information at scale to confuse the information flow in order to make efforts to discuss any truths almost impossible. So when I see M1984FA’s post, it really looks like that form of apologetic writing that attempts to justify Putin and Russia’s invasion, either influenced by that information war by Russia or actively being part of it.

So it would essentially demand that a thread like this has the initial set definition that the involved participants accept the reality that the invasion of Ukraine was a crime, and a crime against humanity. Because without it, it will end up following the propaganda machine of producing conflicting information for the sake of obscuring truth. Actively nudging things towards an apologetic nature rather than following the most likely path to truth.

If truth is the ideal purpose of these discussions, then should I flag M1984FA’s post? Because on the surface level it looks fine as an argument, but the subtext is clear for anyone who has insight into how Russia operates and the consequences of how they taint the flow of information about themselves online. How do we deal with points that just take the shape of an argument, but doesn’t really do anything but propagandizing apologism?

I’m at a loss at how to counter such an argument. If it should be flagged, ignored (with the risk of it continuing the tainting of the flow of information online) or attempt to counter-argue, with the risk of it spiraling into an endless attempt to counter-argue an adaptable amorphous blob of ever-changing conditions, which only attempts to degrade the quality of others’ arguments by ignoring or miscrediting sources to fit whatever apologist point and agenda that’s being made at the moment.

It’s this form of participant interaction that causes the endless spirals, and I don’t know how other participants should handle that? It’s essentially like trying to argue with an AI that’s been programmed to counter-argue through a certain position with every method possible other than telling truths. As long as the rhetoric dances around saying the quiet part out loud, it looks and talks like a true, well-structured argument, but at its core, it is blatant propaganda and not an honest participation, and everyone with any insight into the topic will see it for what it is, but unable to flag it, so to speak.

Because the spirals is like endless scrolling, like those videos of people trying to say “goodbye” to an AI and the AI keeps having the last word in an endless loop. Because the purpose isn’t to reach an end point, it’s to continue, and continue until there’s just the flood of endless posts.

I don’t know how such things are dealt with?

8

Most of that propaganda is posted without much in the way of supporting argument or evidence, in which case, flag it (when you flag here you can choose a reason or enter a custom reason).

So…

You don’t flag it because you think it’s false. You flag it because the claims merely parrot the propaganda thoughtlessly, without any argument or evidence.

If there really is an argument explicitly set out, address it or ignore the post entirely.

No, that is not the right way.

9

How can we know for certain? In this case I’m pretty sure of it, but there can be cases where one don’t see their own bias and falsely flags something. On top of that, it also puts a demand on mods to be able to discern it without removing something that wasn’t actually propaganda.

But even so, much of political discussions are usually at their core basically two points conflicting ideologies challenging each other, and most of talking points are intrinsically propaganda. So in terms of an unjust war, it might be easy to spot, but in other topics, much harder.

If I flag what I see as such, am I correct in doing it? Or just enforcing my world view through the mods?

I will try my best, but I think it’s worth thinking about, how we avoid propaganda to keep political and world event discussions at their highest level.

The only way forward for people is to stop being puppets for other forces of power, which means examining each owns biases fully before making arguments.

Maybe that’s key, to be more aware of one own’s biases and political alignments while writing, to keep arguments focused on actual facts and not just those that feels good.

To govern oneself’s quality is the least we can do. And ignore all low quality.

10

You’re confusing things very deeply. You want to say that people with certain opinions and ideas are beyond the pale, but that is definitely not what my interventions are about. I’ve stated things very clearly—although that doesn’t mean it’s always clear in practice.

If you think experts have debunked something, it’s no good to just claim that. You have to make the argument. I’ll say it again: if someone is parroting propaganda with no discernible argument or evidence, then flag it and do not respond.

If, on the other hand, it agrees with the propaganda you don’t like, but makes an honest effort to present evidence or make an argument—that’s when you have to either address it calmly, with your own evidence or arguments, or else ignore it.

Putin’s folly in Ukraine
Putin’s folly in Ukraine
12

Ok, thanks for clarifying. That sounds like an improvement, rather than the ping pong that was going on in the lounge.
I will happily lay out my arguments etc, although I’m not optimistic that all posters will engage with the arguments themselves.

13

Thanks. Yeah, I’m not optimistic either, but I’m hopeful.