PDA

View Full Version : Internet Restriction Bill Flies Through Duma



RichardB
15-07-2012, 00:39
From another thread:


And with the new laws being implemented in this country, I invite you to have a go at them all as this site still exists. :) It might be your last chance. :D

News here (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/internet-restriction-bill-flies-through-duma/462013.html)


What are peoples thoughts in this?

DavidB
15-07-2012, 00:48
What are peoples thoughts in this?

https://www.witopia.net/

http://strongvpn.com/packages_east_europe_en.shtml

RichardB
15-07-2012, 00:50
Nice thought David but that won't help.

If the government pull the plug on outspoken / 'dangerous' websites then no amount of VPN will get you access to it!

DavidB
15-07-2012, 00:57
Nice thought David but that won't help.

If the government pull the plug on outspoken / 'dangerous' websites then no amount of VPN will get you access to it!

Activist websites are already hosted in the near abroad (France, Netherlands, UK, Sweden) because Russian hosts don't want to deal with them.

So using a VPN with an endpoint in a foreign country, you're outside the scope of what Russia can control.

RichardB
15-07-2012, 02:36
If you are outside RU, yes but that will only work for sites hosted outside of RU and then VPN will not be required. For sites hosted within RU then VPN will do nothing.

If you are within RU and the blocked sites are within RU then your stuffed.

DavidB
15-07-2012, 02:53
If you are outside RU, yes but that will only work for sites hosted outside of RU and then VPN will not be required. For sites hosted within RU then VPN will do nothing.

If you are within RU and the blocked sites are within RU then your stuffed.

As I mentioned before, the sites in question are not hosted within Russia. That's the whole reason for the bill which the duma is considering. Taking down sites which are hosted within Russia is not a problem for them.

The duma wants to establish a blacklist for ISPs so that they can block content hosted abroad. In that situation, you will need a VPN, ToR, a foreign proxy or some other kind of routing solution which allows you to access something hosted abroad which your ISP has blocked. UAE, China, Iran and other countries have had similar systems in place for years.

RichardB
15-07-2012, 03:33
the bill now has a more limited blacklist of materials displaying child pornography, soliciting children for porn, encouraging drug use, promoting suicide and distributing content that is illegal under Russian law.

My apologises David, you're right.

RichardB
15-07-2012, 03:35
Welcome to the Great Firewall of Russia.

DavidB
15-07-2012, 03:46
Welcome to the Great Firewall of Russia.

Back to your question about what my thoughts are... I hope they do IP address blocking instead of deep packet inspection, because the countries which do packet inspection tend to make the whole internet very slow. :(

Russians are well educated and they've experienced unrestricted internet for a long time, so it's likely to result in some kind of riot if the Duma breaks their fast internet.

Anecdote: I was once in Abu Dhabi airport and they had blocked a lot of sites which I was trying to access. There was a complaint form on the blocking notification page, so I wrote them an erotic story about Muhammed and his donkey fetish. :D
I thought it might be risky, so I sent it from a clean VMWare image and changed my MAC address to a fake one before connecting. They've got no way to track me down.

Nobbynumbnuts
15-07-2012, 04:35
..........They've got no way to track me down.

Inshallah ;)

DavidB
15-07-2012, 04:42
Inshallah ;)

Their voodoo rubbish is no match for science and engineering. ;) :D

rusmeister
15-07-2012, 04:44
In the conversations and media reports we generally see only one side of the issue - that censorship of anything is bad.

The impression I get from that one-sided view is that there is no such thing as a dangerous idea, that the only people who plug into the internet are responsible adults, and that children need no protection from the massive waves of porngraphy and violence readily available.

Certainly government censorship of reasonable freedom and intelligent opposition is a threat. I just never see the other side of the coin considered.

(Edit) My indirect apologies, David for mentioning those things. But there's a reason why you ended up on my ignore list.

ventura
16-07-2012, 03:20
In the conversations and media reports we generally see only one side of the issue - that censorship of anything is bad.

The impression I get from that one-sided view is that there is no such thing as a dangerous idea, that the only people who plug into the internet are responsible adults, and that children need no protection from the massive waves of porngraphy and violence readily available.

Certainly government censorship of reasonable freedom and intelligent opposition is a threat. I just never see the other side of the coin considered.

There's no such think as "reasonable freedom". There's only common sense. And the "intelligent opposition" is always a threat. The only way to protect our young is the complete prohibition of anything that's bad for them. Isn't that how you raise your own children?

DavidB
16-07-2012, 03:32
There's no such think as "reasonable freedom". There's only common sense. And the "intelligent opposition" is always a threat. The only way to protect our young is the complete prohibition of anything that's bad for them. Isn't that how you raise your own children?

At some point your children will become adults and they'll be exposed to all kids of evil sh!t. Don't you think you should give them some practice before they get to that point?

ventura
16-07-2012, 03:42
At some point your children will become adults and they'll be exposed to all kids of evil sh!t. Don't you think you should give them some practice before they get to that point?
Do you have children of your own or are you simply trying to be funny? I think you are trying to be funny. Well, don't give up your day job, pal.

DavidB
16-07-2012, 03:55
Do you have children of your own or are you simply trying to be funny? I think you are trying to be funny. Well, don't give up your day job, pal.

No, just pointing out that there is such a thing as being over-protective.

rusmeister
16-07-2012, 04:06
There's no such think as "reasonable freedom". There's only common sense. And the "intelligent opposition" is always a threat. The only way to protect our young is the complete prohibition of anything that's bad for them. Isn't that how you raise your own children?

If there were common sense, no one would propose laws. Laws arise when common sense fails precisely because the sense is not common.

I might be misunderstanding you, but it looks like you are suggesting that my position is complete prohibition of everything. That is not accurate. Some things SHOULD be completely prohibited, though you and I might lack a commonality of sense on what those things are. Some things are deadly dangers to society and civilization, and so should be banned for everyone. Just to prove the point, intelligent people, even in our decadent time, will likely agree that pedophilia should be prohibited, and anarchy banned. Forcing insane adult sexual appetites on children destroys children, and so, devastates the future of society, and anarchy destroys society outright. A denial of that is simple bosh, a lack of thought on the matters.

Just sayin'. For all I know, maybe you agree with me on everything...

ventura
16-07-2012, 04:12
If there were common sense, no one would propose laws. Laws arise when common sense fails precisely because the sense is not common.

I might be misunderstanding you, but it looks like you are suggesting that my position is complete prohibition of everything. That is not accurate. Some things SHOULD be completely prohibited, though you and I might lack a commonality of sense on what those things are. Some things are deadly dangers to society and civilization, and so should be banned for everyone. Just to prove the point, intelligent people, even in our decadent time, will likely agree that pedophilia should be prohibited, and anarchy banned. Forcing insane adult sexual appetites on children destroys children, and so, devastates the future of society, and anarchy destroys society outright. A denial of that is simple bosh, a lack of thought on the matters.

Just sayin'. For all I know, maybe you agree with me on everything...
No, Sir. I agree with your on many points. I'm sorry, my time is up for today, but again, I agree with you. My only beef with your theory is that, well, it's a theory, and I hate theories. If there's a solution right then and there, I'd take it over any theory. And it seems to me, that there's a solution on the table. Still, I respect your opinion.

Benedikt
16-07-2012, 06:11
Anecdote: I was once in Abu Dhabi airport and they had blocked a lot of sites which I was trying to access. There was a complaint form on the blocking notification page, so I wrote them an erotic story about Muhammed and his donkey fetish. :D
I thought it might be risky, so I sent it from a clean VMWare image and changed my MAC address to a fake one before connecting. They've got no way to track me down.[/QUOTE]



if you are so against censorship why then write something and then hide behind some fake address? stand up for your rights and let them know about it! and if you don't want to, well so let it be.
And you think they can't track you? i assume if one wants, one can find everybody and everything on the net. Might take some time though but suppose with a few mails they will not bother.

DavidB
16-07-2012, 08:06
if you are so against censorship why then write something and then hide behind some fake address? stand up for your rights and let them know about it! and if you don't want to, well so let it be.
And you think they can't track you? i assume if one wants, one can find everybody and everything on the net. Might take some time though but suppose with a few mails they will not bother.

Because I had only a few hours in the airport and I wasn't interested in spending a few months in their prison.

Besides, I think it's right to ridicule any fundamentalists who persist with such barbaric rubbish. I notice they have no problems accepting the technology developed in the free/heathen world when it suits them, eg. Oil money, cars, modern medicine, computers, Internet, etc. But when it comes to human rights, they think they can pick and choose.

When their kings come to the developed word wearing tablecloths, they should be greeted by girls in bikinis. That's the kind of respect they deserve. :D

rusmeister
16-07-2012, 09:28
No, Sir. I agree with your on many points. I'm sorry, my time is up for today, but again, I agree with you. My only beef with your theory is that, well, it's a theory, and I hate theories. If there's a solution right then and there, I'd take it over any theory. And it seems to me, that there's a solution on the table. Still, I respect your opinion.

Thanks! (I've even lived long enough to be called "Sir") :)

But it looks like it's a key point that you hate theories.
I'd like to point out that all solutions are either based on a theory or represent action without thought. We base all conscious action on some kind of theory - that the world is real and not a dream, that reason can produce real truth, that murder is evil... These are all, in a sense, theories which we live by, and don't often think about.

When there IS common sense on a thing, it is because everyone, consciously or not, holds the right theories. The man who wants to pretend to think and claim truth is at a total disadvantage if he doesn't know what his own theories are, what his dogmas are based on.

Saying "Give me action, not words is like saying "Give me words, not thoughts". So theories are somewhat necessary, and the person with the wrong and often unconscious theory is probably a person with a wrong solution.

Benedikt
16-07-2012, 10:34
[QUOTE=DavidB;1024963]Because I had only a few hours in the airport and I wasn't interested in spending a few months in their prison.



Tt the national attire not only of the Saudis but of all the Arab world. And if you have been there,working and living, you will find it much more comfortable than jeans and T-Shirt.
Just shows your ignorance. YOU can complain, order around and ridicule but others are not allowed to.
The western world is quite happy to take their oil. Don't do it, go back to wood fired stoves and do without all the deviates and products that are being made from oil. You might be sitting in your wool underpants or sheepskin and freezing or sweltering in the heat.
No one says one has to accept whatever they do, if you don't like it, speak out OPENLY if you have the guts, or sign on a petition, or otherwise keep quite and enjoy the perks that the Arab oil gives you.

DavidB
16-07-2012, 11:27
Tt the national attire not only of the Saudis but of all the Arab world. And if you have been there,working and living, you will find it much more comfortable than jeans and T-Shirt.
Just shows your ignorance. YOU can complain, order around and ridicule but others are not allowed to.
The western world is quite happy to take their oil. Don't do it, go back to wood fired stoves and do without all the deviates and products that are being made from oil. You might be sitting in your wool underpants or sheepskin and freezing or sweltering in the heat.
No one says one has to accept whatever they do, if you don't like it, speak out OPENLY if you have the guts, or sign on a petition, or otherwise keep quite and enjoy the perks that the Arab oil gives you.

Sure, but they don't need to wear it to other countries which don't have hot climates, do they?

Wearing tablecloths isn't just for practical purposes. It's part of their intolerant and barbaric system of beliefs which also take away women's right to do anything meaningful in their lives.

Benedikt
16-07-2012, 17:36
Wearing tablecloths isn't just for practical purposes. It's part of their intolerant and barbaric system of beliefs which also take away women's right to do anything meaningful in their lives.[/QUOTE]


and Google gives some 140 000 variations of table clothes. not to bad.
Have you been or worked in any of the Arabic counties? i think the women would object to your statement that they are not allowed to do anything meaningful.
And for there is more than -Kinder-Küche-Kirche (or in their case Mosque, since they have no -church-)

rusmeister
16-07-2012, 20:20
Wearing tablecloths isn't just for practical purposes. It's part of their intolerant and barbaric system of beliefs which also take away women's right to do anything meaningful in their lives.


and Google gives some 140 000 variations of table clothes. not to bad.
Have you been or worked in any of the Arabic counties? i think the women would object to your statement that they are not allowed to do anything meaningful.
And for there is more than -Kinder-Küche-Kirche (or in their case Mosque, since they have no -church-)

This is a really good point. Speaking from the Christian perspective, all the Orthodox women I know around me laugh at feminist ideas that they are somehow spited in the Church. They are in the Church, they know better than the male feminists outside the Church what it is like to be a woman inside the Church.

It's kind like of having some Asians say how much it sucks to be an American, and that they are sure Americans feel oppressed, and us saying "No, we don't", and then having them not listen to us and continue to repeat their imagined idea. If you even know any Americans from direct experience you will know how silly they will see such a claim to be.

DavidB
16-07-2012, 21:50
and Google gives some 140 000 variations of table clothes. not to bad.
Have you been or worked in any of the Arabic counties? i think the women would object to your statement that they are not allowed to do anything meaningful.
And for there is more than -Kinder-Küche-Kirche (or in their case Mosque, since they have no -church-)

I've met plenty of Arabs in Hong Kong who are more than happy to be out of the various dictatorships from which they arrived.

If their religion is so fantastic, why do they need a bunch of thugs to harass people into following it?
Saudi Woman Defies Religious Police: It Is None of Your Business If I Wear Nail Polish - YouTube


Anyway, we're off-topic. What do you think internet filters? Personally, I think they're a stupid idea if only for the fact that they add another layer which slows down everyone's internet connection. If parents are so worried, they can install their own internet filter.

Arthuro
17-07-2012, 00:14
Oil money, cars, modern medicine, computers, Internet, etc. But when it comes to human rights, they think they can pick and choose.

Just few cents

The western world (US UK others) are very happy tp get their oil and to sell them cars, medicine, computers etc.. and generally do not care about their human rights unless they have problems with the thing above =)

Russian Lad
17-07-2012, 03:45
If they pass this law I will join any street crowd protesting against it, including violent protests. Meanwhile, I keep practicing in the gym. They want trouble - they will get it. I will not stay at home this time.

Benedikt
17-07-2012, 09:06
Just few cents

The western world (US UK others) are very happy tp get their oil and to sell them cars, medicine, computers etc.. and generally do not care about their human rights unless they have problems with the thing above =)


to business like Rothschild, JP Morgan,Exxon Oil,Krupp, Oerlikon and the like. The only thing that counts for them is $$$$. It was like that,is like that and will be like that. (Sorry Lenin i misused your proverb)

Ghostly Presence
17-07-2012, 09:59
Guys,

See the bigger picture. Internet restriction bill is followed by the bill that once again introduces criminal penalties and enormous fines for slander. We are witnessing a fulll-scale assault on whatever remnants of freedom of speech and expression we had left after Putin came to power. Of course, as is always the case, the government would tell us that all the laws they pass are for our protection only, but we have lived here long enough to know better. We know how laws in Russia are twisted in courts and used against us.

The bill introducing penalties for slander will effectively prohibit all criticism of government officials and especially of our "beloved leader" Mr. Pooh.... We are witnessing how a real, Soviet-style dictatorship is encroaching upon us and I don't know if anything could stop it.

Remington
17-07-2012, 11:39
Anyway, we're off-topic. What do you think internet filters? Personally, I think they're a stupid idea if only for the fact that they add another layer which slows down everyone's internet connection. If parents are so worried, they can install their own internet filter.

It has noble intention but it's unworkable. China tried to do the same thing and they're still doing it. People always will find a way around it regardless via VPN or proxy servers. The only way to stop it is to cut the internet access from the rest of the world or UN issue a mandate requiring all countries to comply and UN don't have teeth to enforce it anyway.

Internet is being increasingly regulated and monitored so its a matter of time before it's no longer a "wild west". US and UK are cracking down on torrent users downloading copyrighted materials and government monitoring social sites for raving nuts who is a threat to their country. US has refused some people from entering US because of their improper posts on social sites.

I won't be surprised someday US will require people to have a license or permit to use the internet so their activities can be monitored. Freedom in US is seriously eroded since 9/11 and its going downhill fast. It's not the same country I grew up in.

So back to the topic... can Internet be regulated and filtered? It's a matter of the country's ability to enforce the laws and knowing Russia... good luck with that. If Russia can't crack down on torrent users then Russia won't be able to enforce the filtering laws.

I think the only way to bust people is to catch them in the act surfing on forbidden sites. US does bust pedophiles surfing on child porn sites because they know filtering laws won't work. US authorities does setup child porn site to catch pedophiles too.

It's the parent's responsibility to install filtering software on their children's computer but majority of them don't do it so who's fault is that?

rusmeister
17-07-2012, 18:39
It's the parent's responsibility to install filtering software on their children's computer but majority of them don't do it so who's fault is that?
Hi Remington,
I don't have a problem with most of what you say, though I think the people who fear loss of freedom overstate the dangers.
But on your comment on parents, such a thing can only be said by a person who has not raised children. It is really unfair and shows a lack of experience in dealing with the raising of children. That's why I say what passes for conventional wisdom is foolish - people ought to marry and have kids earlier, not later, in a contextual understanding that they must grow up and become ready to get married and stay married for life to provide a stable home for children and not remain infantilized adults. If the shoe doesn't fit in my following comments, don't wear it, but this one comment is really wrong.

When the children are effectively confined to the home, yes, parents have a great deal of control. But that control is gradually lost as the child enters the world; school, friends, friends with parents who don't think kids need to be protected from anything (and it may take you forever to find out which parents those are), and as nine, ten and eleven year olds go over to friends' houses, or gaze into the super-smart phones of parents who spoil their kids with unnecessary and inappropriate toys, the parent becomes relatively helpless, bit by bit. Oh sure, you can forbid a child to hang out with so-and-so or go over to his or her house for a while, but with each passing year it becomes more and more problematic. On that background, internet filters do almost nothing. The only real solution, if the children are to be protected at all, is to keep i decent material out of the public square and driven back into the private home. It is no loss of "freedom of speech", and speech that should be protected (such as political opposition) is by no means required to display graphic sex and entertaining violence.

Unless we agree that children are harmed by sex and endless exposure to images and ideas of senseless violence, rudeness and so on, then there is no talk. If there is any difference in positions, right is on the side of protecting children, for we were all children, a fact that people who push for the free and open distribution of pornography and violence tend to forget. They have no gratitude to the parents that brought them into this world and raised them, no consciousness of the harm done to children in the name of unlimited "freedom" for things that should never be free (usually confusing the necessary political freedoms with completely unnecessary porn and wickedness) - as if the only people in the world were young adults ages 20-45, as if there was no need for a community of grandparents, grandchildren, extended family free from thhe constant lifting up and praise of violence and sex as entertainment, to satisfy our lusts and pique our passions - things at, unlike freedom, are not essential and are in fact harmful to all.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that a dozen people leap up now and condemn what I say without ever considering whether there be ANY truth in anything that I have said. Such people are not worth debating - they can only think of themselves and what THEY want.

Again, I'm not aiming all of at at you. Maybe you agree with me in some places to an extent. But that is what it seems to me that the dfndrs of unlimited freedom never consider.

Ghostly Presence
18-07-2012, 08:32
I admire you and all, but I really suggest you start recording your thoughts on a medium that I can listen to with my ears. Nobody has time to read anymore. If only I could listen to you, I would. Reading? Not likely. Just a friendly suggestions. And if you think that I'm making fun of you, record this and I'll the be first to download it (and even pay for it). Try me.

You don’t get it – the whole point would be lost. Rus likes to show off as a man of great wisdom through long texts with lofty verbiage. He will tell you otherwise but it shows through his posts.

In his each and every post he tries to be something like a preacher to us all. The only problem - he has neither love nor respect for his “congregation” and quickly loses his temper when people refuse to side with his views. He doesn’t seem to understand that as long as that’s the case, his messages will continue to fall on deaf ears.

Russian Lad
18-07-2012, 13:05
I admire you and all, but I really suggest you start recording your thoughts on a medium that I can listen to with my ears. Nobody has time to read anymore. If only I could listen to you, I would. Reading? Not likely. Just a friendly suggestions. And if you think that I'm making fun of you, record this and I'll the be first to download it (and even pay for it). Try me.
You don’t get it – the whole point would be lost. Rus likes to show off as a man of great wisdom through long texts with lofty verbiage. He will tell you otherwise but it shows through his posts.

In his each and every post he tries to be something like a preacher to us all. The only problem - he has neither love nor respect for his “congregation” and quickly loses his temper when people refuse to side with his views. He doesn’t seem to understand that as long as that’s the case, his messages will continue to fall on deaf ears.

I don't mind reading, actually I adore the process, but this guy is tiresome and not a great read at all - a mixture of the ideas of his three favorite authors (not sure if he has read any other authors, really, besides Kronstadsky, Chesterton and the third guy whose name I don't remember) and the "hoiler than though" preaching which is both boring and disgusting in most cases. He should go back to where he truly belongs - to a church cell. Until then, he is on my ignore list, and I suggest you do the same. He doesn't listen, anyway, just preaches his ancient dogmas ad nauseum. Must be a capital bore in real life.

rusmeister
18-07-2012, 16:46
You don’t get it – the whole point would be lost. Rus likes to show off as a man of great wisdom through long texts with lofty verbiage. He will tell you otherwise but it shows through his posts.

In his each and every post he tries to be something like a preacher to us all. The only problem - he has neither love nor respect for his “congregation” and quickly loses his temper when people refuse to side with his views. He doesn’t seem to understand that as long as that’s the case, his messages will continue to fall on deaf ears.

GP, it may be true that I really don't have sufficient love - although I try to be charitable, I try to practice agape when speaking, to squash uncharitable and insulting thoughts and comments; to try to give the best due I can to others, even when I think their ideas wrong. I am equally in doubt about love and respect from many others here, but I try no to let that bother me.

I think bydand far more right - anything I have to say will fall on deaf ears because people begin by not wanting to hear anything that doesn't already agree with them. As long as THAT'S the case, my messages will continue to fall on deaf ears.

You don't have to love someone (or even feel any particular love from them) to believe them if they tell you that an asteroid or solar flare is approaching the earth, that someone you love has cancer, that everyone is fundamentally selfish, and that it is a struggle to be selfless. You have to ask yourself whether the thing is true or not. The intelligent person will pose that question, not look for feely-goody from the messenger.

I think that, in taking your posts seriously, I've offered you tons of respect. I've given you the most valuable thing I have - time. I think that IS love - agape - that you are intrinsically worth spending time on. In the end, I'll give up. There are a few people who I have offered hours and hours to, only to be jeered and scorned endlessly. That's what the ignore list is for. A really sad last resort. But you are unfair to me, and I am trying hard to be fair to you.

Ghostly Presence
18-07-2012, 17:21
GP, it may be true that I really don't have sufficient love - although I try to be charitable, I try to practice agape when speaking, to squash uncharitable and insulting thoughts and comments; to try to give the best due I can to others, even when I think their ideas wrong. I am equally in doubt about love and respect from many others here, but I try no to let that bother me.

I think bydand far more right - anything I have to say will fall on deaf ears because people begin by not wanting to hear anything that doesn't already agree with them. As long as THAT'S the case, my messages will continue to fall on deaf ears.

You don't have to love someone (or even feel any particular love from them) to believe them if they tell you that an asteroid or solar flare is approaching the earth, that someone you love has cancer, that everyone is fundamentally selfish, and that it is a struggle to be selfless. You have to ask yourself whether the thing is true or not. The intelligent person will pose that question, not look for feely-goody from the messenger.

I think that, in taking your posts seriously, I've offered you tons of respect. I've given you the most valuable thing I have - time. I think that IS love - agape - that you are intrinsically worth spending time on. In the end, I'll give up. There are a few people who I have offered hours and hours to, only to be jeered and scorned endlessly. That's what the ignore list is for. A really sad last resort. But you are unfair to me, and I am trying hard to be fair to you.

Rus,

You think that people agrue with you because your ideas contradict what they believe and know. Isn't that a natural reaction though? I think it is only natural to defend one's views.

All too often you begin to preach in your posts forgetting that some of us in this audience are accomplished mature individuals who resent your condescending tone and your claims to holding all the right answers in every discussion thread. Some of us here have lived our fairly long lives and have over the years formed our own sets of beliefs that we refuse to surrender just because you happen to disagree with them and find them unacceptable for whatever reason.

We are not kids and your are not an old wise schoolmaster - it would benefit you to remember this from time to time.

rusmeister
18-07-2012, 18:43
Rus,

You think that people agrue with you because your ideas contradict what they believe and know. Isn't that a natural reaction though? I think it is only natural to defend one's views.

All too often you begin to preach in your posts forgetting that some of us in this audience are accomplished mature individuals who resent your condescending tone and your claims to holding all the right answers in every discussion thread. Some of us here have lived our fairly long lives and have over the years formed our own sets of beliefs that we refuse to surrender just because you happen to disagree with them and find them unacceptable for whatever reason.

We are not kids and your are not an old wise schoolmaster - it would benefit you to remember this from time to time.

GP, I don't get any impression that you are a patriarch of fifty or sixty. You might be, but it sure doesn't come across. Your own tone to ME seems condescending, but I generally let it pass and take it in stride. If I thought I was talking to children, I wouldn't waste my time. When I hit the ignore button, that IS when I finally condescend, and say that talk with that person IS a waste of time. That IS the most insulting thing to do,and so is a last resort.

I am aware that most will refuse to "surrender their beliefs". That is a given. But some might find a FEW things really true, like the text in the OP, that DOESN'T threaten their cherished beliefs on the whole, and really IS a strange and unusual take on something we've always taken for granted, as mds pointed out in a rather unflattering way.

You guys are the ones that start threads attacking MY beliefs all the time. So getting sanctimonious and wounded now isn't going to have me falling into tearful apology. I note that YOU started two of the most recent threads in the Religion subforum attacking my Church. So you're the attacker, and I am very much the defender.

For your benefit, I AM an old schoolmaster. We might disagree on who is wise, and I certainly won't argue the point, but I am a career schoolteacher that is no longer young. So who should remember what and who is forgetting what is very much a matter of debate.

Ghostly Presence
18-07-2012, 19:32
GP, I don't get any impression that you are a patriarch of fifty or sixty. You might be, but it sure doesn't come across. Your own tone to ME seems condescending, but I generally let it pass and take it in stride. If I thought I was talking to children, I wouldn't waste my time. When I hit the ignore button, that IS when I finally condescend, and say that talk with that person IS a waste of time. That IS the most insulting thing to do,and so is a last resort.

I am aware that most will refuse to "surrender their beliefs". That is a given. But some might find a FEW things really true, like the text in the OP, that DOESN'T threaten their cherished beliefs on the whole, and really IS a strange and unusual take on somethingbwe've always taken for granted, as mds pointed out in a rather unflattering way.

You guys are the ones that start threads attacking MY beliefs all the time. So getting sanctimonious and wounded now isn't going to have me falling into tearful apology. I note that YOU started two of the most recent threads in the Religion subforum attacking my Church. So you're the attacker, and I am very much the defender.

For your benefit, I AM an old schoolmaster. We might disagree on who is wise, and I certainly won't argue the point, but I am a career schoolteacher that is no longer young. So who should remember what and who is forgetting what is very much a matter of debate.

How old is old enough to be considered an accomplished and mature individual by your measure? I personally think that age is the last thing that has to do with that.

Anyway, you being a career school teacher explains a lot about the tone of your posts. I don't know if you were a good teacher or a bad one, but generally speaking I have a lot of respect for your profession. You guys hold the keys to the minds of the future generation and thus have a chance to do something truely meaningful in this life. You and the doctors.
A lot of occupations can not claim the same.

Remington
18-07-2012, 19:40
You guys are getting way off topic here.

Ghostly Presence
19-07-2012, 10:04
You guys are getting way off topic here.

You are right of course - got to get back on track. I am all in favor of fighting phaedophilia only I don't think that this is the true aim of this law. Based on what I heard from the technical experts, this law will allow to cut off entire servers that host hundreds of sites rather than just a particular one. Clearly, with this law in place fighting opposition websites becomes easy - just place compromising material on the same server that hosts their webpage and then shut it down legally.

My suspicion is confirmed by the fact that this law has passed through Duma so quickly and is followed by two other repressive laws - the law about slander and the law that brands NGOs receiving foreign funding as "foreign agents". It is easy to add two and two together and see what the real purpose of all this legislature is.

Russian government never does anything for the benefit of the people, but always tries to do the best it can to protect the most powerful clan in Russia - the bureaucracy. That is why I am against all these three laws.

RichardB
19-07-2012, 12:30
You are right of course - got to get back on track. I am all in favor of fighting phaedophilia only I don't think that this is the true aim of this law. Based on what I heard from the technical experts, this law will allow to cut off entire servers that host hundreds of sites rather than just a particular one. Clearly, with this law in place fighting opposition websites becomes easy - just place compromising material on the same server that hosts their webpage and then shut it down legally.

My suspicion is confirmed by the fact that this law has passed through Duma so quickly and is followed by two other repressive laws - the law about slander and the law that brands NGOs receiving foreign funding as "foreign agents". It is easy to add two and two together and see what the real purpose of all this legislature is.

Russian government never does anything for the benefit of the people, but always tries to do the best it can to protect the most powerful clan in Russia - the bureaucracy. That is why I am against all these three laws.

Is it just me or can anyone else hear the Iron Curtain being drawn back up again?

FatAndy
19-07-2012, 15:34
Is it just me or can anyone else hear the Iron Curtain being drawn back up again?
I think cowards and alarmists produce too much noise... as a flight of flies ;)

http://roem.ru/2012/07/19/ashmanov51481/ - Igor Ashmanov, in Russian.

rusmeister
19-07-2012, 17:28
You are right of course - got to get back on track. I am all in favor of fighting phaedophilia only I don't think that this is the true aim of this law. Based on what I heard from the technical experts, this law will allow to cut off entire servers that host hundreds of sites rather than just a particular one. Clearly, with this law in place fighting opposition websites becomes easy - just place compromising material on the same server that hosts their webpage and then shut it down legally.

My suspicion is confirmed by the fact that this law has passed through Duma so quickly and is followed by two other repressive laws - the law about slander and the law that brands NGOs receiving foreign funding as "foreign agents". It is easy to add two and two together and see what the real purpose of all this legislature is.

Russian government never does anything for the benefit of the people, but always tries to do the best it can to protect the most powerful clan in Russia - the bureaucracy. That is why I am against all these three laws.

GP, what you say may be true,
But what manner of quashing not only pedophilia, but access by children to all of the wicked, selfish, and animalistic ideas and images would you approve of in a law? Parents cannot fight the external influences on their own. It is imperative that society act to protect children, not only from direct pedophilia, but from exposure to pornography, graphic and gratuitous violence and so on. What law would you approve?

rusmeister
19-07-2012, 17:33
I think cowards and alarmists produce too much noise... as a flight of flies ;)

http://roem.ru/2012/07/19/ashmanov51481/ - Igor Ashmanov, in Russian.

I think the charge of cowardice is unfair. But alarmism is a reasonable charge. I'd like to know how people propose to protect children who may not be confined to the parental home forever, that must, at some point, at 8, 9 or 11 years old, be allowed to go places and do things where they are not always under immediate parental control. Many parents, especially poor ones, are forced to work at McDonald's or Ikea, and don't have the "luxury" of being able to be present, even at home, let alone out in public, with their children. As long as they say, "That's the parents' problem", I say they are ignorant of what it means to raise children.

mds45
19-07-2012, 18:13
Unless we agree that children are harmed by sex and endless exposure to images and ideas of senseless violence, rudeness and so on, then there is no talk. If there is any difference in positions, right is on the side of protecting children, for we were all children, a fact that people who push for the free and open distribution of pornography and violence tend to forget. They have no gratitude to the parents that brought them into this world and raised them, no consciousness of the harm done to children in the name of unlimited "freedom" for things that should never be free (usually confusing the necessary political freedoms with completely unnecessary porn and wickedness) - as if the only people in the world were young adults ages 20-45, as if there was no need for a community of grandparents, grandchildren, extended family free from thhe constant lifting up and praise of violence and sex as entertainment, to satisfy our lusts and pique our passions - things at, unlike freedom, are not essential and are in fact harmful to all.

Rus wrote the above text in a previous text - I think he is 100% correct

FatAndy
19-07-2012, 19:06
I think the charge of cowardice is unfair.
I mean people who afraid that their illegal or immoral activity in Internet will be restricted.

rusmeister
19-07-2012, 20:34
I mean people who afraid that their illegal or immoral activity in Internet will be restricted.

Now THAT I can agree with.

Ghostly Presence
19-07-2012, 23:58
GP, what you say may be true,
But what manner of quashing not only pedophilia, but access by children to all of the wicked, selfish, and animalistic ideas and images would you approve of in a law? Parents cannot fight the external influences on their own. It is imperative that society act to protect children, not only from direct pedophilia, but from exposure to pornography, graphic and gratuitous violence and so on. What law would you approve?

Rus,

You are asking a difficult question.

Every evening I walk by an apartment building mostly populated by the representatives of the working class and I see how children play on a playgound while their parents (ages between 30 and 40) sit on the bench near-by drinking bear and vodka, smoking and using profane language right in front of their kids. This is what these kids have to grow up with. What good is any law against violence and porn if they have such parents? I am sure many of these children see in their families what they will never get to see on TV even in the worst programming.

Recently I heard through an open window how some so called "Dad" was slapping and cursing his obviously very small child. I am against violence and porn on TV, but I believe that no TV violence can harm these kids as much as what they get to see in their families. That's the real tragedy, in my humble opinion. How can we change that?

As for how to protect kids from "the wicked, selfish, and animalistic ideas and images" - might as well shut down all the TV channels except of "Kultura" (of which I am personally a big fan) and a couple of Nature and Travel channels. But this would not be realistic, of course.

Lost in moscow
20-07-2012, 00:21
Lmfao, since when has the government taken over the roll of a parent? I thought that it was the parents responsibility about what site their child visits.

Who says I should not be allowed to visit a website that is dedicated to terrorism or racial hatred? Hell im curious, aren't you? I want to know what they are planning so I can make sure to be far as hell away from it when it all goes down. Who are you to tell me I'm a threat to society because I want to visit such sites.

To be fairly honest, up until now, I've never even had a second thought about visiting either of the sites, but now that they are telling me I am not allowed to, just made me want to.

rusmeister
20-07-2012, 07:54
Rus,

You are asking a difficult question.

Every evening I walk by an apartment building mostly populated by the representatives of the working class and I see how children play on a playgound while their parents (ages between 30 and 40) sit on the bench near-by drinking bear and vodka, smoking and using profane language right in front of their kids. This is what these kids have to grow up with. What good is any law against violence and porn if they have such parents? I am sure many of these children see in their families what they will never get to see on TV even in the worst programming.

Recently I heard through an open window how some so called "Dad" was slapping and cursing his obviously very small child. I am against violence and porn on TV, but I believe that no TV violence can harm these kids as much as what they get to see in their families. That's the real tragedy, in my humble opinion. How can we change that?

As for how to protect kids from "the wicked, selfish, and animalistic ideas and images" - might as well shut down all the TV channels except of "Kultura" (of which I am personally a big fan) and a couple of Nature and Travel channels. But this would not be realistic, of course.

I don't accept the fuzzy idea of what "realistic" is meant to say. It means, " What you think you can get everybody to do". It says nothing about what we ought to do. It offers no ideal, no course to set.

Does it not occur to you that ADULTS should not be watching these things they so desperately want the freedom to watch, and that what is acceptable on TV becomes what is acceptable in society? The adults watch and copy these "glamorous" behaviors, and then they enact them on the kids, swearing, cursing, beating, looking for a glamorous adulterous fling and leaving their families and on and on. So what we allow in the media as normal winds up gradually becoming normal in society. We are shocked at unimaginably wicked acts, andvthen copycat violence, and then we cry for a right to display it constantly in our fantasies. Actions generally proceed from thoughts. When we deliberately and constantly fill our heads with bad ones in the name of "freedom", we get... What we now have. So restoring that general morality that our very recent ancestors held - without demanding a restoration of their religious beliefs - and saying, "We really shouldn't be depicting graphic rape, murder, sex (which is SUPPOSED to be intimate, and not a thing for public display - why do Russians call sex shops "intimnye magaziny"?) out in the public square, on public airwaves, and really, anywhere at all. It is silly to a) know that it is bad for kids and yet b) think it can possibly be good for us.

Ghostly Presence
20-07-2012, 09:57
I don't accept the fuzzy idea of what "realistic" is meant to say. It means, " What you think you can get everybody to do". It says nothing about what we ought to do. It offers no ideal, no course to set.



So, what is it that we ought to do? Shut down television? You don't think that this might result in a social explosion? I do.

For many people in this country TV is about the only kind of entertainment they can afford. Besides, do you really expect that some guy in some God-forsaken Russian provicial town, who used to vegetate in front of TV for hours, would get up and go read a book or plant trees once he finds that all his favorite TV programming is gone? I believe that a more likly scenario is that he would go buy a bottle of vodka, get drunk and crack someone's skull.

That is why I don't believe in repressive measures. Instead I would place a lot more emphasis on education and promotion of high quality programming.

Chasing after ideals in the imperfect world is dangerous as it leads to situations that gave rise to the popular saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

rusmeister
20-07-2012, 16:50
So, what is it that we ought to do? Shut down television? You don't think that this might result in a social explosion? I do.

For many people in this country TV is about the only kind of entertainment they can afford. Besides, do you really expect that some guy in some God-forsaken Russian provicial town, who used to vegetate in front of TV for hours, would get up and go read a book or plant trees once he finds that all his favorite TV programming is gone? I believe that a more likly scenario is that he would go buy a bottle of vodka, get drunk and crack someone's skull.

That is why I don't believe in repressive measures. Instead I would place a lot more emphasis on education and promotion of high quality programming.

Chasing after ideals in the imperfect world is dangerous as it leads to situations that gave rise to the popular saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

I think your good intention in not chasing after an ideal is pavement on the road to hell. I said the ideal is the course, the best situation, the place we are not at now but should be aiming for. You must not have heard me. If you have no ideal, you can offer no course, no solution, for all solutions presuppose some kind of direction.

I never said "Shut down TV". You went from my reasonable "We need to control the content of the media" to "we must shut down the media" which I never said. Controlling the content so that it IS of high quality is what I am talking about.

Of course, that means replacing all of the current crap that passes for entertainment with more decent things. Modern lewdity out, decent programming in. Dom-2 out, "Little House on the Prairie" in. Anfisa Chekhova out, Peter Funt's "Candid Camera" in. Rapes and slitting throats out, more "Umniki and umnitsy" in. And so on.

Of course the 20-45 crowd with no kids will want brainless excitement that incites their lusts, terror, etc, and the h%#! with what's good for us, let alone for kids. But whatever course we set, some people will not be happy. I say that the needs of kids and society outweigh our prurient desires.

antfidel
24-07-2012, 11:49
Of course the 20-45 crowd with no kids will want brainless excitement that incites their lusts, terror, etc, and the h%#! with what's good for us, let alone for kids. But whatever course we set, some people will not be happy. I say that the needs of kids and society outweigh our prurient desires.

I have a hard time believing vulgarity is a byproduct of media content. Sure most of the content on TV is low brow and intelligently bankrupt, but so is most of the populace. Vulgarity is just part of the human condition and this is explicitly mirrored in popular media. If the content on tv offends your bougie sensibilities than go outside for a walk and count how many profanities you hear. And guess what? You can't use profanities on Russian tv.

Jas
24-07-2012, 12:33
The easiest way around this is to regsiter with peacefire and get a circumventor link sent to your e.mail. It's a proxy and it works just great.

rusmeister
24-07-2012, 17:35
I have a hard time believing vulgarity is a byproduct of media content. Sure most of the content on TV is low brow and intelligently bankrupt, but so is most of the populace. Vulgarity is just part of the human condition and this is explicitly mirrored in popular media. If the content on tv offends your bougie sensibilities than go outside for a walk and count how many profanities you hear. And guess what? You can't use profanities on Russian tv.

We can thank God for that last. Although I am not sure of the extent to which it is true. But I'll assume that it is completely true for now, though it seems to me that I HAVE heard obscenities, both in Russian and in English, on TV. On videos, it is completely gloves off, as far as I have seen.

But it is not simply a dynamic where (only) the media influences the people or (only) the people influence the media. It is both. So while, yes, public vulgarity IS mirrored in the media, the media's mirroring - which is distorted and depicts narrow and exceptional views wildly out of proportion to their actual occurence among the general public - encourage ideas like "pushing envelopes" and copy-cat behavior, so they certainly DO influence public behavior. They do this for commercial reasons - the sensational sells - but it is nevertheless ultimately destructive for society. The rise of rudeness and loss of civility in public over my lifetime is remarkable, and I'd have to ignore anyone who denied what I have seen myself, and I see a direct correlation to the rise of the influence of mass media.

Lost in moscow
24-07-2012, 18:51
I love how it has become common practice to seek blame from third parties for the actions of ill cared for kids rather than the parents themselves.

I find this whole censorship thing one big ass joke. When my mom wanted to make sure I didn't watch tv or played on my computer, but wasn't home to be able to monitor me, she put a fat lock in the TV plug(the american plug) and took away the keyboard. Bam, now I could either do my chores Or go outside and play. It wasn't the government, or some religion, or the school that tried to raise me, it was my mom.


The government is NOT a parent, it shouldn't act like one.

antfidel
24-07-2012, 19:47
We can thank God for that last. Although I am not sure of the extent to which it is true. But I'll assume that it is completely true for now, though it seems to me that I HAVE heard obscenities, both in Russian and in English, on TV. On videos, it is completely gloves off, as far as I have seen.

But it is not simply a dynamic where (only) the media influences the people or (only) the people influence the media. It is both. So while, yes, public vulgarity IS mirrored in the media, the media's mirroring - which is distorted and depicts narrow and exceptional views wildly out of proportion to their actual occurence among the general public - encourage ideas like "pushing envelopes" and copy-cat behavior, so they certainly DO influence public behavior. They do this for commercial reasons - the sensational sells - but it is nevertheless ultimately destructive for society. The rise of rudeness and loss of civility in public over my lifetime is remarkable, and I'd have to ignore anyone who denied what I have seen myself, and I see a direct correlation to the rise of the influence of mass media.

I'm not going to argue that media doesn't have an observable influence on our psych and perception of morality. We'd all be better off watching Leave it to Beaver and consuming media filtered through an idealistic lens, gently guiding us towards a WASP guideline of morality. But not really. I'd argue that things were just as sensational back then and had a much bigger detrimental influence on society, if only because it was a lot harder to confirm if what you heard on the media was true and people were more likely to take it at face value. Shit you could make the case that neoconservatism is a direction byproduct of the sort of black and white morality that was so evident in the mid-20th century media. What better way to pander your brand of patriotism than painting a picture of good vs. evil and marrying it with religious extremism, then run around playing cop and robber, except the twist at the end is that you were the robber the whole time and was just dressed as a cop.

Censorship and playing moral police is stupid and the populace are much too jaded in these late capitalistic times to actually give a shit about what's happening on dom 2 or whatever, at this point its just an escape vehicle from their pedestrian lives.

rusmeister
24-07-2012, 22:23
I'm not going to argue that media doesn't have an observable influence on our psych and perception of morality. We'd all be better off watching Leave it to Beaver and consuming media filtered through an idealistic lens, gently guiding us towards a WASP guideline of morality. But not really. I'd argue that things were just as sensational back then and had a much bigger detrimental influence on society, if only because it was a lot harder to confirm if what you heard on the media was true and people were more likely to take it at face value. Shit you could make the case that neoconservatism is a direction byproduct of the sort of black and white morality that was so evident in the mid-20th century media. What better way to pander your brand of patriotism than painting a picture of good vs. evil and marrying it with religious extremism, then run around playing cop and robber, except the twist at the end is that you were the robber the whole time and was just dressed as a cop.

Censorship and playing moral police is stupid and the populace are much too jaded in these late capitalistic times to actually give a shit about what's happening on dom 2 or whatever, at this point its just an escape vehicle from their pedestrian lives.

Well, that is a point of view. But I'm not interested in making cases but at arriving at actual truth.

I think media ownership was more widely disseminated and so there was good reason why people had a greater trust in it.

I think the final argument is that anarchy is fatal for any society, more than any system of morality - the lack of a system means the end of everything that we are doing. I think we are now living on the remnants of that "WASP" morality - which is not exclusive to whites, anglo-saxons or protestants at all - that have not YET been abandoned like so much of it already has (especially sexual morality - the attack on the sanctity of the family I see as the most deadly and anarchical).

So as I see it, you have put the cart before the horse. I wouldn't support "neo-conservatism" as such at all - but I think that objective good and evil exist and are eminently provable, and that people proceed to "paint pictures" based on what they perceive to be true. What interests me, though, is not propaganda of people seeking control (and therefore think "their own ideas" false), but the ideas of people who think they are true.

PS - taking a vacation now; might not be able to respond further. Please don't take it as ignoring you...