cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/46204638
Russia introduced a new Explanatory Dictionary of the State Language of the Russian Federation, compiled at St. Petersburg State University and immediately added to the official list of normative dictionaries.
Some examples:
authoritarianism … considered the most effective form of governance in difficult times for a country …
marriage … family union between a man and a woman … same-sex marriage (a homosexual intimate union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church and not supported by the Russian state) …
enemy … One whom the sovereign authority has deemed hostile to the people, the government, or the state. An ideological enemy. A sworn enemy …
humanism … traditional Russian spiritual and moral value: a worldview based on the principles of the value of the human person, human dignity, respect for others, concern for their well-being, the right to freedom, equality …
life … traditional Russian spiritual and moral value: the period of a person’s existence from conception …
unity … unity of the system of public authority. The historical unity of Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians. The unity of the peoples of Russia (a traditional Russian spiritual and moral value) …
ideal … Moral ideals (a traditional Russian spiritual and moral value: high moral principles and convictions that inspire and guide a person toward goodness, justice, honesty, compassion, and other virtues, with strict rejection of destructive ideologies that allow immoral conduct, actions causing suffering, corruption, and other unlawful deeds) …
limitrophe … in 21st-century Europe: a state used as a buffer between Western Europe and Russia, which is politically, economically, and culturally incapable of being independent …
regime … set of political, economic, and social measures used by state authorities to govern society … the Kyiv regime (in Ukraine since 2014: the established form of political rule, which poses a threat to the fundamental rights and interests of the Russian-speaking population) …
This is precisely where the Republicans want us to go.
Wtf at the “Unity”
EDIT: I have to keep reminding myself that Soviet Union was not an Union, but mass occupation. They really love to call whatever they attack and occupy “united with Russia”
It’s very effective… At suppressing people, taking away liberties and rights… I mean, they’re not wrong
It’s also highly effective at waging senseless ears that destroy the future of the entire fucking country, and then adding a touch of genocide on top of that
What an hole
They may have a point. Not just any form of government has the kind of moral and practical strength it takes to ban the word for ass.
To be fair, an effective goverment does not mean that it is great for the people. It is however, effective in what it is doing, which is in Russia’s case suppressing people.
Which word “ass”?
“Ass” as in “butt,” not “donkey.”
‘Putin’
I chuckled at that headline.
I wonder if the Orwell tactics work in practice, then
Like doublespeak or just saying the complete opposite and people accepting it? Shit man, no first world country would do that at least. Eyes the US
Hey, don’t go accusing us of being a developed country.
Newspeak via three dictionary
authoritarianism … considered the most effective form of governance in difficult times for a country …
That is the case though. Talking to people takes time, the less people the faster you can respond to difficulty. An autocrat can just take any radical action necessary to deal with a crisis on a whim, theoretically.
I understand the problem with Russia saying this, and I don’t see why it should be in a dictionary. But it’s absolutely not false.
It’s absolutely not true either. Just because an authoritarian has the power to act “quickly”, you think that they will always act in the right way to handle a crisis? An authoritarian will act in any way they themselves see fit to “handle” a crisis, without any or much need for approval.
Do you think that the Roman empire always acted in the correct way to handle the problems it faced, even when the imperator had full control over the senate? This is only true if you define “effective” as “authoritarian”, like Russia seems to do here.
Just because an authoritarian has the power to act “quickly”, you think that they will always act in the right way to handle a crisis?
Where did I say that? I never made that claim. I even included the “theoretically” to acknowledge that they don’t actually do that.
Of course most of them are evil, and even those that aren’t, don’t have the best ideas. But this is about what the system enables, not how it is actually used.
To be fair Roman Republic actually had special elected emergency office that had full power even over consuls. It usually lasted for half a year(so half of the usual office) but could be re-elected. It was called Dictator and was perfectly legal.
