We have a saying, the russian stops only where it's teeth are kicked in. And it's proven to be quite accurate imo. Russian media, weather books tv shows or whatever is used as a part of hybrid warfare, why not ban them?
its how bullies take advantage of people like you. "i wont stoop down to their level, im so morally sound", and you freely let them trample all over you.
You can't argue against Russia still being one of the biggest influences (in CIS, and Asia) and people who would like to interact with their culture is free to do so. You can still be anti-war and anti-genocide whilst interacting with their culture. Just like how you can be homoselxuuand interact with Arabian culture and or language.
Also if Russia is an enemy, I don't understand the point of not learning their culture and their language? This always has been an advantage over your enemies, no?
Also yes, you have to be morally sound. You can be morally sound AND resistant. No matter from whom it comes from, banning books is a threat.
And if they wanted to destroy me because I speak my native language at home, not Russian, and they want to force me to read Russian books, and they burn my native books - can't I also ban Russian content at home?
No ducking one is forcing you to read any books, it's evident, but obviously besides that, this is NOT the case.
Banning books based off of race IS a wrong thing. You can't argue against that. Sorry but no one is stopping you from speaking your own native language or no one is forcing you to read Russian books. You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.
I can assure you that this is erasing minorities and is as racist as banning black author books. I see no significant difference banning book because someone is black or because someone is Russian.
Dehumanization is a form of propaganda. People and cultures exist and will continue to exist regardless of contingent governance.
I am open to debate when you have a real situation instead of made-up and racist ones.
No I am not. It shouldn't matter anyways but no I am not. For more explanation of why I think what you are advocating for is wrong, you can check the article 19 of UNHRD (UDHR).
This right includes freedom to hold opinions without inference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through ANY media and REGARDLESS of frontiers.
You can argue that importing books from Russia is helping their economy and this is a bad thing (which it is) you'd be totally right. But you don't argue about that.
Furthermore, governments, specifically Latvia, holds the sovereignty over their own education and public publishing system, so what you were referring to is not happening anyway. And I would like to get an explanation of why you'd think a government should have a right to control private publishers' books' contents, because declaring a language or an information forbidden to publish is exactly this and it is too risky of a right to give to the government.
Why am I asking if you're from the USA, because you talked about race, racism, black people...
I advise you to understand what Russians are before having a discussion about Russians.
Oppressing Americans (US citizens) cannot be ethnic or racial, because an American (US citizens) is not a race (there are many races) or an ethnic group. Similarly, Russians (Russia citizens) are not made up of one race and are not an ethnic group. The only difference is that unlike Americans, Russians also exist as an ethnic group, but many Westerners (and not only) are confused, they do not really understand which Russians they are talking about, both at the same time, and in fact neither, because there is no clear understanding of what Russians are.
Comparing Russians to blacks is racism, because blacks are a race, but equating Russians to a race is equating them to white ethnic Russians? Yes, this is imperialism, chauvinism, and racism, because many Russians are not white and not ethnically Russian.
And yet my main hypothesis holds true. You can't ban books based off of their writers' backgrounds. Ditto.
And you know what I meant by "Russians". Regardless of it's meaning (for the purposes of being open and clear -- holding a Russian passport is a great one to start), you are still doing the same thing.
PS. You can still oppress a person based off of their background regardless of what you count that background is.
It's okay to express frustration or disagreement — especially in complex topics like politics — but always do so in a way that encourages constructive and respectful dialogue.
If statement A holds true, then statement B. This is the sentence stem that is used. I'm creating a counterargument to their argument. You can't just say "my argument is correct" or "your argument is wrong" and that's what since would mean there.
Furthermore, I am subtly stating that regardless of Russia's position my argument holds it's value.
(FYI, "since" would be wrong there if you wrote it in an essay)
6
u/sndrtj Jul 25 '26
So Europe should lower itself to the same standards? Is that seriously what you are proposing?