Russian Liberal Opposition: Russian people are the cancer of humanity

[cordel]

I must admit I am yet to reach your level of philosophical thought, sir. I simplistically assumed that the metaphor was not hard to grasp. She believes her nation a malignant tumor upon the soft tissue of Europe.

And you assumed right. Her views are well-known - she has been expressing them for last twenty years loudly enough. There is not much doubt about what she and her pals meant.

[gazell]

Nations can't be cancers because cancer is a malignant cellular growth, and nations are composed of people not biological cells. Of course, she might actually mean it literally, in which case she is mistaken for reasons just stated. Surprising error, but surely no reason for moral disapproval. However, in the process of semantic interpretation of speech, at least according to Donald Davidson, one must rely on the principle of charity—one must try to interprete statements aiming to make sense rather than nonsense. In this case, one must assume that it is a metaphor or a simile. Both, however, require context for interpretation; it is here that I lack sufficient data to understand what she means.

Lol. Are you for real?

[Digimon]

I simplistically assumed that the metaphor was not hard to grasp. She believes her nation a malignant tumor upon the soft tissue of Europe.... A Croatian president once said a similar thing about my nation. He then proceeded to ethnically cleanse it from his country.

Thank you. Exactly what I meant--you have just provided the interpretation of the metaphor as a call for cleansing or mass murder. I seriously doubt that that is what she meant, but I am sure that many tend to assume this interpretation or at least pretend to do so. The quotes are provided out of context to enable this kind of "fill the blanks" interpretation. Another famous instance of quoting and interpreting out of context is when in 2005 the Western mass media kept spotlight on Putin’s description of the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century, interpreting this as a sign of his intention to resurrect it. Quoting out of context was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

The reason why quoting out of context is problematic is because interpretation is very open, and if you are already biased you will assume the worst. It is a typical tool of manipulation in political rhetoric.

[Digimon]

Lol. Are you for real?

A little sarcasm... but it makes the point about metaphor and literal meaning.

[Flamming_Python]

Thank you. Exactly what I meant--you have just provided the interpretation of the metaphor as a call for cleansing or mass murder. I seriously doubt that that is what she meant, but I am sure that many tend to assume this interpretation or at least pretend to do so. The quotes are provided out of context to enable this kind of "fill the blanks" interpretation. Another famous instance of quoting and interpreting out of context is when in 2005 the Western mass media kept spotlight on Putin’s description of the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century, interpreting this as a sign of his intention to resurrect it. Quoting out of context was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

The reason why quoting out of context is problematic is because interpretation is very open, and if you are already biased you will assume the worst. It is a typical tool of manipulation in political rhetoric.

Of course she isn't clamouring for the Russian people to be mass-murdered, that would just be a little too much. But I've heard these sort of words from Liberasts and others before, and they always tend to mean the same thing:

People are sheep, they cannot govern themselves
No-one understands but us few
Country is going to die out soon by itself

and sometimes...

It would be better if somebody else came to rule us
We need to join NATO/Europe if we are to survive and/or become civilised

[shoora]

wow...Russians to nuke Russia...

or so it seems

Russians?

[shoora]

They receive money not from Kremlin but from Washington. Quite openly and legally. US allocate dozens of million dollars to "promote democracy" and most of these money went to these oppositioners, so they can live without any occupation and just do their "opposition work"

Are you sure it is total amount?
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/r...harder-breathe

According to the latest available data, there are at least 600,000 registered non-governmental non-commercial organizations operating in Russia. At least as many may be working in the country without official registration. The number of NGOs in Russia has grown rapidly since 1991, and now includes social service providers, educational organizations, policy think-tanks, gender-based groups, and credit unions.

Never heard that russian olygarkhs are so big philantropists and willing to pay salary to over a million, not people - organizations of professional activists.

Baltic does have one good point though, mainly that lack of (legitimate) opposition is never a good thing for the political health of any country. And Russia seems to lack such opposition.

You are wrong. Opposition to Kremlin is very strong in Russia. Opposition work in parliament - 135 of 450 seats.
Only western media likes one particular type of "opposition" – hooligans.