A Russian military district court in Yekaterinburg has convicted five members of a Marxist circle in Ufa to draconian sentences of between 16 to 22 years in prison and high-security penal colonies for allegedly plotting to overthrow the Russian government through terrorist means. The case marks a significant intensification of the crackdown on democratic rights in Russia and attempts to vilify Marxism and any left-wing opposition to the Putin regime.
This will fry the brains of tankies.
Don’t worry they come pre-fried
If I am not mistaken I have already read here that the world socialist website is just spreading Chinese Communist Party propaganda and nothing else. They are even warmongering servants of China supporting Beijing aggression against Taiwan and similar actions.
I wanted to see .ml’s in the comments so bad. I feel hollow now…
Strangely silent. Hmmm.
Perhaps they all shot themselves in the back of the head and fell out of a Russian apartment building?
And a true Putin supporter wouldn’t want it any other way.
allegedly plotting to overthrow the Russian government through terrorist means
the crackdown on democratic rights in Russia
Wait, what?
The important part here is “allegedly”. I know that here in France, militants can be accused and condemned for plotting and stuff like that, even when it’s quite doubtful (i remember anarchists being sentenced to prison for playing airsoft and making firecracker).
I have 0 knowledge of this case, have not read the article, i’m just replying to the logical aspect of the comment.
The important part here is “allegedly”.
I mean, its not “alleged” once you’re convicted.
I have 0 knowledge of this case, have not read the article, i’m just replying to the logical aspect of the comment.
There’s an impulse to insist nobody in Russia accused of violence would ever actually have done it, right alongside big excited headlines when a car bomb kills a major Russian politician/general or a sabotage mission takes out major components of Russia’s infrastructure.
Logically, someone is engaged in a guerrilla war from behind Russia’s front lines.
I dont know the exact meaning of alleged, so technically speaking you’re probably right. But because a court says you did something does not mean you did it, we have plethora of examples for this.
And sure it makes perfect sense for Russia to be seeking and finding terrorists and saboteurs rn. It also makes perfect sense for them to punish and imprison anyone that might potentially become a threat, political or terrorist. So it doesn’t really help to convince one way or the other.
(to be clear, i’m not saying those guys are innocent, just that the two statements you picked are not necessarily opposed logically speaking)
But because a court says you did something does not mean you did it
shrug
And maybe Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and Osama Bin Laden were all patsies, sure. Anything’s possible.
It also makes perfect sense for them to punish and imprison anyone that might potentially become a threat, political or terrorist.
The Russian state government doesn’t seem shy about arresting and punishing political prisoners for political crimes. At some point, you just have to take things at face value, until you’ve got evidence to the contrary.
If we want to go pedal to the metal on being contrary, we can insist these people weren’t Marxists, they weren’t even arrested, and the whole article is a hoax. But then why engage with the information at all?
Yeah, anything is possible, that’s the point.
If you’re ok with that, no point talking about it at all.
If you’re not okay with that, and you don’t like things appearing incoherent, dig a bit more to find what its about, don’t just point out to two statements that could be or could bot be self-excluding depending on the context.
Yeah, anything is possible, that’s the point.
But something actually happened. The point is to clarify it, not to fuzzy it by insisting contrary positions are more likely based on vibes.
dig a bit more to find what its about, don’t just point out to two statements that could be or could bot be self-excluding
Part of clarifying a position means validating it, logically. If we’re running into a logical contradiction, it guides where we look for more information and which sources we find credible.
If your point is to clarify anything, don’t just point out the potential contradiction, it doesnt clarify anything.
If your point is to get people to clarify it for you, then either accept the logical approach that could solve the contradiction in theory, either, if you don’t want a “maybe/maybe not” answer, ask for an answer about the actual case, and don’t satisfy yourself with your own guesses.
Or, as you say, go look for more information and credible sources.
To sum up, i just point out that what you feel as a contradiction may not be one in some cases, so lazy people like me may just assume it’s one of those cases.
If you’re unsatisfied with that, and that’s legitimate, you’ll have to switch from what could have happened to what seemed to happened, drop the theoretical side for the practical context of this case.
