this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4289 readers
8 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As i explained in another response, i think there are two intentions at play here. One is what Carlson intended, which you are absolutely right about. The other is what Putin intended. After all he wouldn't have given this interview if he didn't think he could get something out of it, and garnering sympathy with the kind of pro-Russia reactionaries that watch Carlson is just not that useful. They have very little if any influence on foreign policy. And while he did give Tucker a few of the reactionary talking points he was looking for those were quite few and far between. This is not the kind of interview that western audiences respond well to, liberals and reactionaries alike. Westerners have a short attention span and little interest in talk of history or any kind of nuanced and lengthy responses. They want sound bites and "dunks", they want much more aggressive and simplistic rhetoric.
Obviously it's gonna be hard to tell what Putin might have intended. While I agree that Americans are stupid, in my experience people generally respond to clear and patient in depth explainers reagrdless. It's just good to listen to. Americans are addicted of bombastic vitriol but avoiding is not necessarily a pivot towards non-western audiences.
If you look at the American frontrunners for presidents, they sound incredibly stupid and incoherent when they are not outright lying. While blue and red magas kiss their dear leaders feet regardless, people somewhat know deep down what they are. In comparison Putin talks like a normal human being while sounding wise and erudite in the face of being called a madman by mainstream western press. My view is that he didn't target non-westerns specifically is all I am saying. This is different from my earlier claim of targeting maga chuds which I am walking back on.
I think that's fair. At the end of the day we can only guess at the intention from the information we have available.