[Lusipher]

Interesting and quite verbose statements from the girls of Pussy Riot that were sentenced to two years in prison yesterday
http://nplusonemag.c...sing-statements

[Aptorian]

Too long, didn't read but from the opening lines of their statements and considering what they are about it seems clear to me that they got exactly what they wanted. They've become "martyrs" for their cause. It's not like they staged that little display thinking they were going to get away with it. Now the international media has its eye on them and while it will quickly lose interest they've still gotten what they wanted. Good for them.

[worry]

That's a little patronizing. I think their goal was less martyrdom and years of their life spent in a Russian prison, than making the point that in a truly modern and civilized society, political change -- or even simple political protests -- shouldn't actually be acts of "martyrdom". By what logic does what they did insist on a 2-year punishment? The logic of the oligarchy being challenged, pretty much. Don't let the fact that they were right get in the way.

[Aptorian]

They made a very public protest against Putin in one of the most important churches in Russia, basically taking a piss on the Orthodox church and the defacto ruler of Russia. What do you think was going to happen? Russia isn't a democracy. People who openly defy the government disappear, get killed, beaten up, receive death threats and have their property destroyed. That's what Pussyriot is fighting against. If they didn't expect the government to make an example of them they were dumber then they seem. I think they're lucky they haven't accidentally fallen down a flight of stairs while in isolation.

[Kanese S's]

Oh, I doubt that they had any delusions about what would happen. Their point I think was more to draw attention to how little free speech Russia has, and how wrong that is.

[worry]

"Dumber than they seem" is a likewise condescending way to put it, since they don't seem dumb at all, and that's neither what I nor they said. But like you said, you didn't read what they wrote anyway. You're suggesting what they did was essentially playing a game of chicken with the church/government and losing, and furthermore dismissing the direct result as having "gotten what they want" -- as if publicity was the endgame? Well the attention for the cause was certainly something they wanted, but it wasn't the goal. So the "good for them" pat on the head response is missing the point. As is the whole "things are what they are" in Russia attitude. Things are what they are until they change. Nowhere was a democracy until very recently, and now several places are. Because people made that happen. These three have personal concerns, certainly (and necessarily so), but in protest they are thinking beyond their immediate situation. Stopping at cynicism just doesn't cut it.

[Tapper]

worrywort, on 19 August 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

"Dumber than they seem" is a likewise condescending way to put it, since they don't seem dumb at all, and that's neither what I nor they said. But like you said, you didn't read what they wrote anyway. You're suggesting what they did was essentially playing a game of chicken with the church/government and losing, and furthermore dismissing the direct result as having "gotten what they want" -- as if publicity was the endgame? Well the attention for the cause was certainly something they wanted, but it wasn't the goal. So the "good for them" pat on the head response is missing the point. As is the whole "things are what they are" in Russia attitude. Things are what they are until they change. Nowhere was a democracy until very recently, and now several places are. Because people made that happen. These three have personal concerns, certainly (and necessarily so), but in protest they are thinking beyond their immediate situation. Stopping at cynicism just doesn't cut it.

This.

However, there is apparently the fact that a great many Russians thought of Pussy Riot as an overly extremist protest movement before the trial. Now, they are almost a spearhead of it, and that is because of the trial. In that light, Apt's statement of "they got what they wanted" does apply, in a way. I don't think they want to be martyrs - who in their right mind would want to be that? - but the whole proceedings and their closing statements show a lot of guts and a great deal of thought.

I think everyone in Russia realises though that they'll run out of opposition leaders/ protest leaders before the government will run out of punishment camps. I think all they can hope for is that at some point the masses will throw in their support because they've had enough of all the promises made and unfulfilled, but Putin also has successes to his name. I think all in all, people prefer daily bread and an iron hand over uncertain democratic processes: the first time around, privatization benefitted only a very select few, after all.

[Ulrik]

I dont like hystery about Pussy Riots. Are two years too much? IMO yeah, but... They would be standing before judge in every state... Not everybody is happy to have three girls yelling about "Lord´s shit" in their big church. And due to mainstream discourse (propaganda) I dont like being silent about another their "acts" like group sex in public museum or masturbating with chicken head in vagina (cant remember where).

So...they wanted to be provocative and rebelous... Well done. Now face consequences, because you made things that would stir anger in almost every country.

And I dont know for who are they rebelling...about 4% (or 7%?) of Russians said they support them...and 50% is for punishing them. We are horrified...Russians are disgusted by public fucking and desacrating... For me, only controversy is form of punishment...2 years is a lot.

[Mason of Death]

worrywort, on 19 August 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

"Dumber than they seem" is a likewise condescending way to put it, since they don't seem dumb at all, and that's neither what I nor they said. But like you said, you didn't read what they wrote anyway. You're suggesting what they did was essentially playing a game of chicken with the church/government and losing, and furthermore dismissing the direct result as having "gotten what they want" -- as if publicity was the endgame? Well the attention for the cause was certainly something they wanted, but it wasn't the goal. So the "good for them" pat on the head response is missing the point. As is the whole "things are what they are" in Russia attitude. Things are what they are until they change. Nowhere was a democracy until very recently, and now several places are. Because people made that happen. These three have personal concerns, certainly (and necessarily so), but in protest they are thinking beyond their immediate situation. Stopping at cynicism just doesn't cut it.

I'm sorry, this just cracked me up, and I couldn't take your post seriously anymore.

That aside, how is publicity not what they want? They want to draw attention to the fact that things aren't very free in Russia, and to do that, they need publicity. They need public awareness to try and get enough people together so that they can demand whatever change they think is necessary. It was the goal of the protest. And frankly, if someone were to piss on the leading religious and political figures of the good ol' US of A, land of freedom and democracy, in a personal attack, they wouldn't get off with just a slap on the wrist either.

This post has been edited by Mason of Death: 20 August 2012 - 03:40 PM

[worry]

I don't mind you cracking up, but I do wonder at you expressing that reaction out loud to others as if it weren't purely embarrassing for yourself.

I said they wanted publicity/attention, I just asserted it wasn't their endgame...I am not going to reword that, because it was simple enough the first time I said it. As far as whether Americans would get away with "attacking" religious and political figures, the term is pretty vague, but people routinely get away with criticizing these people all the time, loudly and publicly. I mean they're not actually "getting away" with anything in the first pace, since it's not illegal, but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about so it's worth saying. Obviously one can't physically attack anyone, but these folks are constantly heckled and the worst that happens is the hecklers are escorted out of a building/property (and even that can raise the hackles of the public). When there's an outlier, even absurd ones like the "don't tase me bro" guy, there's even a national dialogue.

@Ulrik...those events aren't Pussy Riot events, they are Voina (an art collective)-organized events. Not that there isn't co-mingling between the rock group and the larger collective, but neither of those events even remotely (in a reasonable environment) approaches felony. The one was simulated sex right before the Medvedev election, and the other was shoplifting a frozen chicken, not a sex act. I mean, I just read about these right now after your post, but it seems the "shocking" nature of these events is way overhyped. They were goofy protests staged by art school types, big whoop. The whole point of any of these events -- whether they're well thought out or not -- is that freedom of expression trumps the domineering will of the church or the state, otherwise the freedom is a farce anyway. And frankly, that is the correct position, regardless of whether 50% or more of polled Russians agree with it or not. I mean Russia is right now, in the 2010s, in thrall to the very church these women criticized, banning homosexuality in towns and even major cities (St. Petersburg and even Moscow included). A bunch of Russians are suing Madonna because she publicly supported gay rights at her concert. This isn't just a situation of "you do the crime, you do the time" -- this is the kind of backwards, dark ages stuff humanity as a whole -- pretentious art students and outrageous punk bands not excluded -- should be railing against.

[Morgoth]

All the same, their actions in the church could certainly have earned them a fine at the least no matter where in the world it happened. 2 years in prison is pretty obscene (though I have also read they got 2 years of community service rather than prison - though that would also be pretty crazy), but the fact that they were punished is in itself not particularly outlandish.

[Ulrik]

@worrywont I dont want to get lost in "group sex", what I wanted to say is that its higly possible, that they would be punished in UK, France, USA or dunno where else (maybe in Czech Republic, they would go free, we are bunch of militant atheists). Two years is IMO too much, but singing profanities in church... Sorry, no way to see it as rightful and innocent act. From my life experience - dont fuck with things people like or worse, worship. They could in reverse fuck with things I like - like freedom... is kind of worship too.

Is Russian strongly conservative christiandom? Yeah. Is Putin and society inclining to like model of One Strong Man? Yeah. But who the fuck Im I to tell them, that 4% (Im not meaning homosexuals, but number of Pussy Riot supporters) of population should do whatever they want. In perfect, perfect liberal democracy, it would work. I still didint see perfect liberal democracy in history. People should have goverment they want and deserve. Russians got it.

edit - sorry for so many f-bombs, its just...erm...artistic style

This post has been edited by Ulrik: 20 August 2012 - 08:37 AM

[Janacek]

Morgoth, on 20 August 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

All the same, their actions in the church could certainly have earned them a fine at the least no matter where in the world it happened. 2 years in prison is pretty obscene (though I have also read they got 2 years of community service rather than prison - though that would also be pretty crazy), but the fact that they were punished is in itself not particularly outlandish.

I agree that the kind of conduct they displayed in a church would have some kind of aftermath within the confines of civil law in most countries. However, the political dimension of this particular case, as well as the harsh punishment, do make it stand out.

It is not in most countries, after all, that the president would not only comment on the proceedings, but actually influence the verdict (remember how the prosecution went from demanding up to seven years of prison to three after Putin recommended a 'mild ' punishment), just because he is perceived as on the defensive and has to feel threatened by every public display of discontent.

I guess you can take the man out of KGB, but you can't take the KGB out of the man.

Also I'm pretty sure 'community service' means labour camp in Russia.

[D'iversify]

Ulrik, on 20 August 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Is Russian strongly conservative christiandom? Yeah. Is Putin and society inclining to like model of One Strong Man? Yeah. But who the fuck Im I to tell them, that 4% (Im not meaning homosexuals, but number of Pussy Riot supporters) of population should do whatever they want. In perfect, perfect liberal democracy, it would work. I still didint see perfect liberal democracy in history. People should have goverment they want and deserve. Russians got it.

Yes, but much of "what the people want" is at least in part the product of what interested parties have influenced them into wanting them to want. The remainder of popular desires and beliefs is usually a hard core of 'traditional values' - religious and social ideals with a mixture of cultural arrogance, popular myth and superstition - that frequently have little to do with modern life and are often utilised by interested parties as fronts. And that's exactly what the Russian Orthodox Church has been of late - a front for Putinism.

And no, I don't think the Russian public are stupid (or, at least, not any more stupid than the public of most developed and developing world countries).But I don't think any government is ever excused for its actions merely because it has popular legitimation.

This post has been edited by D'iversify: 20 August 2012 - 11:07 AM

[Ulrik]

D, on 20 August 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Yes, but much of "what the people want" is at least in part the product of what interested parties have influenced them into wanting them to want. The remainder of popular desires and beliefs is usually a hard core of 'traditional values' - religious and social ideals with a mixture of cultural arrogance, popular myth and superstition - that frequently have little to do with modern life and are often utilised by interested parties as fronts. And that's exactly what the Russian Orthodox Church has been of late - a front for Putinism.

And no, I don't think the Russian public are stupid (or, at least, not any more stupid than the public of most developed and developing world countries).But I don't think any government is ever excused for its actions merely because it has popular legitimation.

" mixture of cultural arrogance, popular myth and superstition" - well said!
But...are we in position to tell them "hey, you want this, but goverment made you! So, we have better solutions, you´ll see". We are influenced by what interested parties want us to think. Feel. We feel our way is right and hell, we need to open eyes to those not so fortunate. I dont know... I really dislike this neo-Putin state...but hey, i disliked even more Soviets, because they made friendly ocuppation of us...because we didnt see bright side of stalinism. And when I spoke about it with few Russians...they like neo-Putin, they cant accept that we betrayed them (so we had to be occupied, yeah?) and they are happy...most of time. So who am I to tear them from their way to happiness under ONE STRONG MAN? For me, making its people happy in present and future is almost most important job goverment has. For Russians it works. For me, Puton way wouldnt work, Im pretty sure that USA would make revolution for it, but... majority of Russians like it. And minorities?Unfortunately, they are too small to be heard...

[D'iversify]

Ulrik, on 20 August 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

D, on 20 August 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Yes, but much of "what the people want" is at least in part the product of what interested parties have influenced them into wanting them to want. The remainder of popular desires and beliefs is usually a hard core of 'traditional values' - religious and social ideals with a mixture of cultural arrogance, popular myth and superstition - that frequently have little to do with modern life and are often utilised by interested parties as fronts. And that's exactly what the Russian Orthodox Church has been of late - a front for Putinism.

And no, I don't think the Russian public are stupid (or, at least, not any more stupid than the public of most developed and developing world countries).But I don't think any government is ever excused for its actions merely because it has popular legitimation.

" mixture of cultural arrogance, popular myth and superstition" - well said!
But...are we in position to tell them "hey, you want this, but goverment made you! So, we have better solutions, you´ll see". We are influenced by what interested parties want us to think. Feel. We feel our way is right and hell, we need to open eyes to those not so fortunate. I dont know... I really dislike this neo-Putin state...but hey, i disliked even more Soviets, because they made friendly ocuppation of us...because we didnt see bright side of stalinism. And when I spoke about it with few Russians...they like neo-Putin, they cant accept that we betrayed them (so we had to be occupied, yeah?) and they are happy...most of time. So who am I to tear them from their way to happiness under ONE STRONG MAN? For me, making its people happy in present and future is almost most important job goverment has. For Russians it works. For me, Puton way wouldnt work, Im pretty sure that USA would make revolution for it, but... majority of Russians like it. And minorities?Unfortunately, they are too small to be heard...

Well, I think we're on roughly the same page in that case. Plus the hypocrisy of how the UK government (i am a resident, though not a national) is simultaneously criticising Russia for clamping down on free speech whilst condemning Wikileaks is pretty vulgar (because even if the rape charges weren't initially political, they're now completely politicised).

[Mason of Death]

I apologize, Worrywort. I had bolded a part of your reply, which you probably didn't see. Maybe I should have done something else. Or maybe you did see it, and chose to react in that manner regardless. I was just looking at my reply and seeing that the part I thought I made distinct was in fact not so.

I would like to ask though: if publicity, making the public aware of these issues, is not their endgame, pray tell, what is? What other purpose do they have? Maybe something personal, just getting their rebellious rocks off, but they seem to be more intelligent than that.
And I agree, many people, especially in first-world countries, heckle and make fun of their leaders and things that other people worship, but even in the US, there's a lot of controversy around it, and a lot of backlash. But Pussy Riot was not making fun. They openly, vulgarly, insulted the 2 leading political figures in the country. This wasn't heckling. This was borderline slander. And it was done with that purpose in mind.

Now in the US or the UK, it'd be controversial, but hardly the sort of thing that would get you a prison sentence. But Russia is quite different. However you want to call it, Putin is king there. Even his opponents sing his praises. To insult him in that manner will not be tolerated. In a authoritarian regime, dissent needs to be cut out, and the more vocal the dissent, the harsher and more public the punishment needs to be.

I just don't see why anyone is surprised, or thinks that it would/should happen differently.

[worry]

Well, you don't have to apologize to me, just argue your case and it's all good. Anyway, that section wasn't bolded before, but now it is. I still don't know what you are trying to convey though. I mean you don't have to take what I said seriously, but I was simply stating a fact...democracies did not exist at an earlier point in time, and now they do...and the level to which you take facts seriously can only reflect on you.

To answer your question, what I am suggesting is that the means and the end are not the same thing. The attention is the means and actual change/progress is the goal. You don't get from point A to point B by standing in place and waiting for B to get to you. And also, you don't teleport to B, it takes time.

As far as "making fun" of political leaders, you're just simply incorrect. We're not talking about Saturday Night Live here. There are several high profile radio and television hosts whose sole purpose is to call the President a liar, a fraud, a foreign-born Manchurian candidate, a traitor, a treasonous Islamist sleeper agent -- and all that's on a slow news day when nothing specific stokes their furnace. These are openly vulgar insults, and nobody is being imprisoned over them, nor should they be, though they should be called on it as a matter of civic duty, and they are. That's the difference between controversy in a free society vs an oppressive one though, isn't it?

And the whole "would/should happen" thing is the entire point! The would and the should aren't part and parcel! Of course this would happen, that was the demonstration. The argument is that it shouldn't happen. You seem to be stuck on the notion of surprise vs. that's the way it is, which is missing the whole conversation. Nobody is surprised that Putin is an authoritarian; how does it follow that the conversation ends there, with an "oh well"??

This post has been edited by worrywort: 20 August 2012 - 04:22 PM

[Mason of Death]

worrywort, on 20 August 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

democracies did not exist at an earlier point in time, and now they do.

Hmmm, maybe you and I learned our history a little differently. How about the Cradle of Democracy, Athens, that existed before Christ? That's an earlier point in time, I'd say.

How does what they did move toward the stated goal of change? Did they supply an alternative? Do they have some kind realistic plan or idea? If not, all of this is simply negative criticism, throwing mud. Sure, enough people may get upset and...what? Attempt to violently overthrow the leadership of the country? Cause Putin's outside the election process. Like I said earlier, he is king. You can't vote him out. So the only way they'd realistically have a chance at getting rid of him would be violent. And any such attempt would be squashed like a bug.

And the rest of the world is not America. I'm reasonably certain that that is the only country where the activities you describe are tolerated. The vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't stand for that, because it undermines the leadership in a big way. Not just for the current guy in charge, but for everyone who comes after him as well. Does that make your society 'free'? If everyone has the right to do anything, say anything, that they want to, is that freedom? No. That's anarchy.

Quote

The argument is that it shouldn't happen.

You're absolutely right, of course it shouldn't happen. Babies shouldn't starve, there shouldn't be any war, and politicians shouldn't have to make deals to get into office. Now, can I do anything to change any of that? No. Given the power to do so, would I? Yes. But until then 'Oh, well' is about the best I can do. I don't like to get angry over things I can't change. Sorry if that bothers you.

This post has been edited by Mason of Death: 21 August 2012 - 03:03 PM

[Illuyankas]

Wasn't Athens more of a republic with several large demographics banned from voting? Women, slaves, etc.