When you have only these two mental boxes for claims you can’t distinct between 60% probable alleged claims and 10% probable alleged claims. Or maybe even 1% probable alleged claims, you are citing RT, after all.
Who said that I have only two mental boxes? I responded to a statement about what “alleged claims” happen to be. I wouldn’t have brought this up if we wouldn’t have talked about what claims are alleged.
While I’m referring to RT, my process was “friend makes a claim, that’s sourced independently of RT and not to any Russian media outlet but to people on the ground” → search additional sources to see whether that’s actually what the Russian position is.
I didn’t cite any Russian media in my main post. In the comments, I once referred to https://khpg.org/ for a translation but not for other factual claims because it might be a too Russian-leaning source.
I only referred to Russian media when discussing what claims are alleged.
Here you are talking about separating claims in these two mental categories.
I’m able to separate out claims made where I know they are alleged from other claims where I have a strong belief that they are true.
Also you acted as if at the moment you were indeed using only two of them.
You brought up Ukrainians war crimes in the post, crediting respectful sources as Amnesty International. Than throwaway62654 replied that even if it was true it is tiny compared to credible Russian crimes like destroying Mariupol. Till this moment the mental box “alledged Ukrainian crimes” include only those who came from reasonable sources which are somewhat correlated with the truth. You reply with
Leveling Mariupol to the ground is a war crime that’s allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine.
Thus putting a very improbable crime into the mental box. What used to be “alleged crimes according to Amnesty International” is now “alleged crimes according to Amnesty International and Russian state media”, which isn’t a helpful category anymore, but exactly the kind of mental category Russian propaganda machine wants people to have.
I don’t think of the crimes that are well-documented by Amnesty International as alleged crimes but as well-documented crimes. That’s the mental category in which they are for me. As Viliam explained in detail, those are claims by a source with left-wing London values and not one with pro-Russian values.
It feels very strange to see the set as alleged crimes, as only those alleged by Western sources and not count allegations by non-Western sources.
The problem seems to be that this wasn’t clear from your original comment. I admit that after reading it I was under the impression that you were giving at least some credence to the claim that the Ukrainians turned Mariupol into Grozny 2.0. Though rereading it now, I see that my impression was coloured by your other comments—I interpreted it as “no one can tell what really went down, seeing as both sides are blaming each other” rather than “it’s worth knowing what both sides of an argument are saying if you want to come to a compromise”.
This is a pity, since while I don’t agree with you on (my understanding of) your stance on the war and how to best end it, you raise important points which should definitely be considered.
The problem seems to be that this wasn’t clear from your original comment.
I’m not sure what you think “allegedly perpetrated” is supposed to mean when it’s not about who alleges things when I respond to a comment that’s about what’s alleged.
“no one can tell what really went down, seeing as both sides are blaming each other”
I do think that it’s pretty hard to know anything about what happens on the ground in a warzone in real time. I do believe that it’s useful to be generally skeptical of one’s knowledge. People are generally biased to be overconfident when thinking about politics and that’s especially true in times of war.
I don’t think claims from either side should make one confident of what happened. Independent claims like those from Amnesty or the UN human rights council are better. Currently, Amnesty seems to give Russia the blame for bombing a theatre with a lot of civilians in it but doesn’t make claims about the responsibility for leveling a lot of civilian buildings to the ground.
Who said that I have only two mental boxes? I responded to a statement about what “alleged claims” happen to be. I wouldn’t have brought this up if we wouldn’t have talked about what claims are alleged.
While I’m referring to RT, my process was “friend makes a claim, that’s sourced independently of RT and not to any Russian media outlet but to people on the ground” → search additional sources to see whether that’s actually what the Russian position is.
I didn’t cite any Russian media in my main post. In the comments, I once referred to https://khpg.org/ for a translation but not for other factual claims because it might be a too Russian-leaning source.
I only referred to Russian media when discussing what claims are alleged.
Here you are talking about separating claims in these two mental categories.
Also you acted as if at the moment you were indeed using only two of them.
You brought up Ukrainians war crimes in the post, crediting respectful sources as Amnesty International. Than throwaway62654 replied that even if it was true it is tiny compared to credible Russian crimes like destroying Mariupol. Till this moment the mental box “alledged Ukrainian crimes” include only those who came from reasonable sources which are somewhat correlated with the truth. You reply with
Thus putting a very improbable crime into the mental box. What used to be “alleged crimes according to Amnesty International” is now “alleged crimes according to Amnesty International and Russian state media”, which isn’t a helpful category anymore, but exactly the kind of mental category Russian propaganda machine wants people to have.
I don’t think of the crimes that are well-documented by Amnesty International as alleged crimes but as well-documented crimes. That’s the mental category in which they are for me. As Viliam explained in detail, those are claims by a source with left-wing London values and not one with pro-Russian values.
It feels very strange to see the set as alleged crimes, as only those alleged by Western sources and not count allegations by non-Western sources.
The problem seems to be that this wasn’t clear from your original comment. I admit that after reading it I was under the impression that you were giving at least some credence to the claim that the Ukrainians turned Mariupol into Grozny 2.0. Though rereading it now, I see that my impression was coloured by your other comments—I interpreted it as “no one can tell what really went down, seeing as both sides are blaming each other” rather than “it’s worth knowing what both sides of an argument are saying if you want to come to a compromise”.
This is a pity, since while I don’t agree with you on (my understanding of) your stance on the war and how to best end it, you raise important points which should definitely be considered.
I’m not sure what you think “allegedly perpetrated” is supposed to mean when it’s not about who alleges things when I respond to a comment that’s about what’s alleged.
I do think that it’s pretty hard to know anything about what happens on the ground in a warzone in real time. I do believe that it’s useful to be generally skeptical of one’s knowledge. People are generally biased to be overconfident when thinking about politics and that’s especially true in times of war.
I don’t think claims from either side should make one confident of what happened. Independent claims like those from Amnesty or the UN human rights council are better. Currently, Amnesty seems to give Russia the blame for bombing a theatre with a lot of civilians in it but doesn’t make claims about the responsibility for leveling a lot of civilian buildings to the ground.