Are_Euclidding_Me

What's your definition of propaganda? I'd like to invite you to spend some time in this thread thinking through why this article is, in your mind, so clearly propaganda that it's not worth engaging with.

Of course, I can't (and wouldn't want to) force you to spend any time or mental effort thinking about this. But if you'd like someone to (kindly and calmly) ask you questions that could help you come to a deeper understanding of your thoughts about propaganda.

Because this piece seems, to me, interesting and worth reading and thinking about. I also don't think that the two categories "news" and "propaganda" are totally disjoint, instead I think there's a huge overlap, with most "news" being delivered as "propaganda".

I tutor kids in math. The other day one of them was like "hey, what's 58 + 9 again?", and I, like the rube I am, answered the question

I can't tell if I hate six seven or if it's the funniest meme to have ever existed

I don't think so. I think that's been fixed, unfortunately

That's the one I noticed too! I spent way too long wracking my brain trying to find a single similarity between The Matrix and any of those books, and literally all I can think of is that in Brave New World people are born in test tubes and also in The Matrix people are born in little pod things.

But like, that's the only similarity I could find, at all! I feel like I must be missing something, because surely there's at least one other passing similarity somewhere, these stories are all dystopian fiction, after all. Like, statistically there must be other similarities, but I sure can't think of any!

Oh this is some good slop! I love that the Wikipedia nerds are in there doing what they do best (being pedantic rules lawyers), with a good proportion of them arguing against good ol' Jimbo, in their infuriating, pedantic way.

Very good stuff, thanks for sharing!

Which you haven't linked.

If I go to wikipedia and search "Russian military" will I find an article with those numbers?

Why can't you quote the relevant sections, then link to what you're quoting from? That's how sources in an argument are supposed to work.

Well I did read the F-22 page, as I said before. You're right that I didn't read the rest of them because at that point in the conversation I was extremely confused as to why you'd linked them in the first place.

I see that the US built a total of 195 F-22's. That number isn't any of the ones you listed in your one comment that had some numbers.

To be charitable to you, I might be able to find the 1000 warplanes and 70 nuclear sub numbers somewhere in the wikipedia pages you linked. I'm not going to read them, I'm really not into military hardware, but if you tell me that's where you got the numbers, I'll go ahead and believe you. It would be better practice, though, to quote a passage that includes the relevant figures, then link to the place you're quoting from.

Now what about the numbers for Russian warplanes and Russian nuclear subs? What are your sources for those figures? They surely aren't found in a wikipedia article about the american military

Now we're finally getting to a real argument! Now you're arguing that the US is better prepared for war than Russia is, not just that the US spends more money on war than Russia does.

I do notice, however, that you have linked not a single article or source for the claims in these comments. Where are your numbers coming from?

You might be right that the US is more prepared for war than Russia is. I'm not convinced, and also I think m532 has a good point that nukes (which both the us and Russia have) change everything, but you could still be right.

I'm actually not that interested in whether the claim "america would easily beat Russia if they actually tried" is true. My entire reason for engaging was simply to point out that "the US spends more on war and hence is necessarily better prepared for war" is not a good argument; the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

If you want to convince people on the internet, you should practice making better arguments, and sourcing them properly. Your argumentation in this thread has been abysmal and I wanted to help you see that and make improvements

in this case spending 10x more than everyone else is resulting in a bigger and more advanced army

This is the part I think you haven't shown, even a little bit. First you linked a wikipedia page which was a list of countries with the highest military expenditures, then you linked wikipedia pages for a bunch of american military hardware. At no point did you try to compare american military hardware with Russian military hardware, either in quantity or quality. The only comparison you've made is in terms of expense.

You want me to answer the question that is your last paragraph?

I have no idea! I don't live in Russia, I'm not well-versed in modern warfare and military technology, I haven't studied diplomacy, I have no idea how Russia would respond if nato suddenly brings to bear every piece of military hardware it can muster.

Literally all I'm saying is that more expensive doesn't always mean better quality. That's literally it

So all these Wikipedia articles are evidence for the claim "NATO would trounce Russia if they were actually trying"? And the evidence I'm supposed to be getting from these articles is "look at all these extremely expensive war planes, clearly they're better than their Russian counterparts, they're more expensive".

Is that a fair characterization of your point?

I still don't understand what evidence you're finding on these Wikipedia pages. Like, ok, I read the Wikipedia page for the F-22. What am I supposed to get out of my reading? What should I have learned from that page?

Can you please actually draw the connection you're making, explicitly? Because I legitimately do not understand what you're trying to say