That communism was not the path to freedom but the way of ideological lies, slaves,
and violence.
Foxy,
Coincidence or what ? Democracy has surpassed Democracy in an eerily similar way ! Violent protests, hangers-on in record numbers.
Economies relying on deceit & con & juvenile criminals don't even get detained. Yes, lovely society alright !
Thank goodness for a handful of sane mentality conservative thinkers still holding it all together despite the Woke tsunami battering our education system.

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

« Is the truth of Ukraine crossing the Russian border subjective? »
.

Yes, Fester, in my view, all truths are subjective. Facts based on reality are objective. The fact of Ukraine crossing the Russian border is objective.

And, as I indicated in my previous post, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed is, for all practical purposes, accepted as “true.”
.

« Just say you had a consultation with a surgeon who lies to you about the risks and benefits of a procedure, persuading you to go ahead with it. Things go wrong and the matter ends up in court. Would you think that a court would tell you there was no case for the surgeon to answer because you agreed to the procedure? »
.

That brief outline is insufficient for me to make an appropriate judgement, Fester.

If the surgeon lied during the consultation about the risks and benefits of the procedure, the patient would have to be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt – which means that it would probably have to be in writing, addressed by the surgeon to the patient and signed by the surgeon in his handwriting.

Also, surgeons usually require their patients to sign a hold harmless clause prior to performing an operation. A lot would depend on how that hold harmless clause was formulated. It would be carefully scrutinised and debated in a court of law.

Here is a case in hand :

http://www.forpeopleforjustice.com/hold-harmless-agreements-may-spread-malpractice-cases/
.

« … you seem to think that Russia's autocracy is legitimate because it has popular support, yet that support is in large part due to state propaganda and outlawing opposing opinion, as was the case with other autocratic regimes like Nazi Germany.

I'm sure you don't believe in the legitimacy of public support of autocracies using propaganda and suppressing dissent, but that is the impression you give when you say that the Russian autocracy has popular support. »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The original meaning of the term “legitimate” in describing a political regime is defined as follows :

« A legitimate dynasty, a dynasty that reigns by virtue of traditional law, as opposed to princes who reign by coups d'état or by national will »

Today, legitimate simply means lawful – so far as political regimes are concerned.

This is what postdoctoral research scholar Seonhee Kim has to say on the legal dimension (legitimacy) of the Russian autocratic political regime :

« In authoritarian political systems, institutions such as parliament, judiciary, and law enforcement are typically viewed as mere instruments of autocratic rule, or at best, a democratic facade. In this conventional image, authoritarian institutions exist only for formal reasons and do not exert meaningful impact independently of the executive branch of government.

Recent scholarship has uncovered unexpected dynamics of the impact of law on Russian politics. Authoritarian influence over diverse legal institutions is not as overwhelming as conventional wisdom has presumed. Scholars are revealing how authoritarian legal and judicial institutions resemble their democratic counterparts. Not only are they responsive to bureaucratic incentives and public opinion, but also to the metrics of performance evaluation as opposed to central directives. »

Here is a video recording she made on the Russian autocratic political regime :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCAn7Mg_12Y

Allow me to add that despite the current reign of severe political repression in Russia, there are no signs of major civil unrest. Boris Yeltsin’s brief democratic reign ended in disaster due to poor health and alcohol and Vladimir Putin succeeded him. Putin’s rise to power was meteoric. His popularity soared as he wiped out the rebels "even in the toilets".

The Russian Federation is a patchwork of 24 Republics, 9 Territories, 48 Regions, 2 federal cities, 1 Autonomous Region, and 4 Autonomous Areas.

Who knows what the people of that patchwork really think ?

Time will tell.

.

Democracy has surpassed Democracy
Dang ! I just realised I made a typo-should of course be surpassed Communism.

Thank you Banjo,

Always an incredible amount of thought in your answers. I can't help but think that the separation of truth and fact is more for the purpose of creating social harmony.

"Allow me to add that despite the current reign of severe political repression in Russia, there are no signs of major civil unrest."

Not as immersive as Nazism, which didn't have much civil unrest either, but there is a strong state narrative, and I remember Putin saying he would annihilate Russia's enemies and flush them down the toilet. I think he might have said that after getting the FSB to bomb a few blocks of flats in Moscow which he then blamed on Chechen terrorists. I was prompted to comment after watching a review of state sponsored pulp fiction in the Russian Federation. It's completely bonkers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCI6es9G0oo

Fester,
I just saw on the ABC News (yeah,yeah I know) that Ukrainians have occupied Russian territory as if that were a good or smart thing. Just wait ! That could be a very disappointing outcome yet ! That's what my gut tells me.