| Photo: Chevalkov Sergey |
There is no censorship in Russia. “DP” tried to figure out whether something that does not exist could exist.
“There has been no censorship as an institution in Russia since 1991, when the State Committee for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press (Glavlit USSR) was abolished, but partly the executive branch is always trying to revive it in some form. Moreover, censorship is prohibited by the Constitution and the Law on Media,” says media analyst Vasily Gatov.
In Novosibirsk, at a rally against censorship, 2.5 thousand people demand Kekhman’s resignation Demonstrations and rallies
In Novosibirsk, at a rally against censorship, 2.5 thousand people demand Kekhman’s resignation
510
During Soviet times, Glavlit was practically omnipresent. “Each editorial office and printing house had a censor - an authorized employee of Glavlit, who first read and approved all the texts being reproduced. Even business cards could not be reproduced unless they were stamped “Permitted for publication. Glavlit USSR". Publications that contained “harmful” ideas, mentions of authors or characters that the CPSU considered undesirable, were erased,” says Vasily Gatov. Discipline was also maintained along party lines: media editors were communists and subordinated to the ideological department (formerly the Department of Agitation and Propaganda) and local party cells. The long existence of censorship as an institution and the deep penetration of the CPSU into the very essence of the work of editorial offices led to the development of a stable reflex of self-censorship - “you can’t write about this.”
A decade and a half later, history began to repeat itself. “The Russian leadership, approximately from the mid-2000s, decided to consider any social processes, except those directly created by the authorities themselves, as a threat to public safety. It all started with Caucasian extremism and gradually expanded to the current state, when, according to Vladimir Putin and his associates in power, the country is overrun with foreign agents, undesirable organizations, dangerous political figures and national traitors, whose presence in the media space should be limited as much as possible,” says Vasily Gatov. Today, in his opinion, we can rather talk not about censorship, but about media manipulation. “It consists of this same self-censorship and, less often, instructions that come from the internal policy department of the Russian Federation Administration or from the deputy head of the Russian Administration Gromov,” says Vasily Gatov. Today, in the minds of journalists, protective effects are activated: to do what they say (it’s safer), to guess the desires of the authorities (they can praise), to look for enemies of the authorities (since they themselves are looking for them) - this is called the “spiral of silence”, or self-censorship, it has today in times greater significance than all other methods of limiting independence.
Recently, there are more and more facts that can be interpreted as a restriction of freedom of speech.
At the end of May, a message appeared on the website of the Ministry of Justice that the Dmitry Zimin Dynasty Foundation (engaged in supporting and searching for talents and projects in the field of natural and social sciences) was included in the register of non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent. As a result, the founder of VimpelCom, who spent hundreds of millions a year on supporting and popularizing Russian science, left the country. At the beginning of June, the Ministry of Justice announced an inspection of the Gorbachev Foundation, which conducts research on social, economic and political problems. Many people remember the problems that the private Dozhd TV channel faced after viewers were asked the question: “Was it necessary to surrender Leningrad in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives?” Then, for various reasons, the channel was turned off by six operators. In the spring of 2014, co-owner of Rambler&Co Alexander Mamut fired Galina Timchenko, editor-in-chief of Lenta.ru, without explanation. The vast majority of journalists and employees left Lenta.ru for Timchenko. As a result, the publication's editorial policy inevitably changed.
The cultural sphere, like the media, is increasingly subject to control. In March, Boris Mezdrich was fired from his post as director of the Novosibirsk Theater because of Timofey Kulyabin's production of the opera Tannhäuser, which outraged some representatives of the Orthodox Church. Vladimir Kekhman was appointed to the position of director, who removed the production from the repertoire. Also in the spring, the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation created a council to evaluate scripts for historical films.
“Censorship, if we mean state intervention in the creative process, of course, exists. As for already finished films, so far it is mostly of a slightly anecdotal nature - to squeak obscenities, says Stanislav Zelvensky, film critic of Afisha. However, in some cases this can be painful, and given the new laws that are adopted every week, there may be many more of these amendments tomorrow.” According to him, the Ministry of Culture has economic and administrative levers that “completely free its hands.” And filmmakers are forced to play it safe - and this is a form of censorship. “Is it possible to show religious symbols on the screen? What about homosexual relations? How about singing the praises of a parasitic hero? Even if the producer does not take money from the state, a movie is too expensive a story to risk a distribution certificate.” There have already been precedents when a film was simply not released to the audience on the principle: “we decided that you don’t need to watch this,” the most recent being “Number 44.” And this is a foreign film; It’s clear that everything can be solved even easier within the country,” says Stanislav Zelvensky.
Even children's publishing houses complain about tight controls. In March, the children's publishing house Samokat released a video for parents, “Non-children's books: instructions for safe use.” According to Federal Law No. 436 “On the protection of children from information harmful to their health and development,” children's publishing houses must set an age limit of 18+ on books that touch upon pressing social issues. So, for example, boys can read about war only after reaching conscription age, after 18 years old, girls can read books about sexuality also not earlier than 18 years old, “homosexual teenagers cannot understand what is happening to them from authorized literature.” The video suggests that parents read the books themselves first and, if they think the book can be read by their child, pass the book on to him. Thus, the publishing house relieves itself of responsibility for allowing a child to explore a “forbidden” topic, and in return the teenager receives a book on a topic that worries him.
Journalists wearing “No to censorship!” T-shirts were not allowed into the St. Petersburg parliament. Demonstrations and rallies
The Jizn
About the dangers of insults disguised as compliments. Sometimes these kinds of “friends” just want to say: Shut your mouth! Indeed, with good intentions, we only make things worse. This is why sometimes it is better to remain silent than to speak.
I was rarely given such “compliments” (or, more likely, I immediately forgot them), but two were firmly etched in my memory.
The first one was not even advice, but a gift. My best friend gave me a contour pencil for my birthday (at age fourteen). And, handing it over, beaming with friendliness and sincerity! - with a smile, she said: “I think it will suit you very well.” You have small, deep-set eyes, you need to learn how to paint them correctly if you don’t want to be... well, like that.
And she made a gesture with her hand, summarizing me entirely into “well, like that.”
Until I was fourteen, I didn’t think much about my own appearance. I had beautiful parents, a handsome younger brother, beautiful grandparents, and it didn’t even occur to me in my arrogant head that I could stand out from this orderly row of pretty people.
I had no reason not to trust my friend's words. In addition, the friend herself was a beauty: blond, blue-eyed, with dimples on her cheeks, and this, of course, gave additional weight to her words.
This weight crushed me like a concrete slab.
I was so amazed by the discovery of my ugliness that I fell silent for three days. I stopped giving out emotions and information to the world around me. I was busy. I had to thoroughly comprehend my new self in this big world, and I did. What do girls with small, deep-set eyes do anyway? Can they laugh out loud? Are they allowed to talk nonsense? Casually pat your cute classmates on the shoulder? Wear red?
In the evenings, I began to look at myself in front of the mirror and, of course, every time I became convinced that my friend was absolutely right. Small ones. Deeply planted. And the nose is huge. And the cheeks too - there, hanging sadly to the left and right. The mouth is generally slurred, it is not clear how to speak with it. Only the ears could be more or less satisfied, but, unfortunately, they were covered by hair. I immediately pulled my hair into a ponytail so that at least something on my face could rest the gaze of a stranger, exhausted by other deformities. I began to regret that the ears could not be transplanted somewhere closer to the center, so that they would catch the eye, and not everything else.
In just a few days, I went from a self-confident, in love teenager to a hybrid of Gollum and Quasimodo, who had to wander around caves, eat raw fish for the rest of his days and not show his face in the light of day.
Towards the end of the third day, my mother sat next to my bed before going to bed and asked what happened. She looked so serious that I realized that it would be impossible to remain silent. I'll have to deal this blow to my mother: inform her that she has grown up with an ugly child. It’s okay, there is another one available, let him console himself with it.
That's what I reported. I must say that my mother has a wonderful ringing laugh. So when she made an indistinct grunt, I didn’t understand what it meant. The grunting was repeated. It became clear to me that after all, a second child was not enough for consolation; she and her dad would have to give birth to a third and pray that he would not grow up to look like his eldest daughter. Mom folded herself in half, crawled out of the room, still grunting, gurgled something outside, and after a while dad came into the room.
He looked at me very carefully, and then shouted: “I didn’t find any eyes on her!” Apparently they are too small! Or planted too deep! Come and show me where they are.
Mom crawled into the room, holding the door frame. She was red and in tears, she was choking with laughter and could not say anything.
I looked at both of them and started laughing. Laughter washed away all my stupid grief like a stream. A heavy darkness, three days of deep, painful melancholy, when I myself did not understand what was happening to me - everything melted away in one second.
(However, when my friend, who usually went for a walk with our family on weekends to the park, came the following Sunday, my dad, the kindest dad, the cheerful dad who was happy with any of my friends, very firmly said that today we wanted to spend time with our family . I was very angry with him then, because I was sure that my friend did not want to offend me. But dad was adamant: from that day on we spend the weekend without Olya. And he did not change his decision).
And the second incident happened at school. The history teacher, a talkative lady of about forty who kept telling us “I’m your best friend” and winking mysteriously at the same time, called me back after the lesson and said confidentially:
- Honey, this sweater suits you very well. But such wrists still need to be covered.
The sweater had the then fashionable three-quarter sleeves, and I had (and still have) rather skinny wrists. Obviously, combined together, they formed a picture that offended the gaze of our glorious teacher.
I nodded, stunned by the crap my teachers were paying attention to, and from then on I wore sweaters to school with sleeves that reached almost to my fingertips. This habit has remained with me to this day.
But I never learned how to apply makeup with a pencil.
Source
gollum shut your mouth quasimodo complexes compliments better to remain silent silence sign of consent insult teenage complexes girlfriend insults gossip girls ugliness
Journalists wearing “No to censorship!” T-shirts were not allowed into the St. Petersburg parliament.
830
“We can talk about the pressure that is being put on publishers of children's literature. This pressure comes in two forms: from society and from the state. When a book causes a public outcry, this is normal - we see that we have hit some painful point, touched on a topic that is important both for readers and, more broadly, for families or for society as a whole,” says Yulia Zagachin, publisher of “ Pink Giraffe" and "4th Street". This is how discussions arise - at book fairs, in libraries, on Internet forums. But there is also other pressure from the state. The adopted Federal Law “On the Protection of Children from Harmful Information” had a huge impact on the work of children’s literature publishers. The very idea of the law that books can harm a child’s development, as well as the extremely vague wording, significantly complicates our work. When choosing a book for publication, we are forced to think not only about how good this book is: is it interestingly written, is the language rich, do we like the illustrations, how was it received by readers and experts in other countries, whether it received any “The prize is whether we would like our own children to read it, but also about how well it meets the criteria prescribed in this law.” Previously, according to Yulia, when choosing the age address of a book, publishing houses were guided by their common sense and the opinion of experts, child psychologists, librarians, teachers, and now - by Federal Law No. 436. “Is there an incurable disease in the book? This means that this book will have an o on it, although the hero may be 9 years old and it is addressed to readers of this particular age,” notes Yulia.
“As an author, I encountered some prohibitions. Writers are not allowed to promote violence, drugs, homosexuality, pedophilia, or incite racial or religious hatred. Here many questions immediately arise regarding the very wording of the prohibitions. And most importantly: where, at what point does art or story end and propaganda begin? Who will decide whether this is propaganda or not?” - says philologist and writer Andrei Astvatsaturov.
If a book contains words or scenes that qualify as obscene, then the book must be packaged in cellophane and have an 18+ indication on it. “I naively assumed that this dealt exclusively with swear words. Six months ago I finished another novel, “Autumn in Pockets,” and took it to the publishing house. There I didn’t use a single swear word and was very proud of myself. Imagine my surprise when I found out that the book would still be packaged in cellophane and published with an 18+ category. It turned out that the words “fart” and “shit” are also obscene,” says Andrey Astvatsaturov.
But in general, he said, the liberal intelligentsia tends to exaggerate censorship bans. Astvatsaturov is sure that in Europe and the USA there is much less freedom than here. There, all you have to do is use a word, and someone is bound to feel offended. “Political correctness, a toy for the campus of the turbulent 1960s, has long ago turned in America and Europe into a harsh repressive mechanism that kills culture. In addition, there are quite a lot of unspoken prohibitions, which are much heavier than the official ones,” he says. For example, the cautious Danes recently refused to translate the wonderful novel “Bizar” by the Russian writer Andrei Ivanov, arguing that the images of illegal immigrants were not very attractive and would cause offense. Whether there are laws or not is not the point. It is necessary for society to have a sane atmosphere and a respectful attitude towards the artist,” sums up Astvatsaturov.
close
100%
imdb.com
Anna Akhmatova loved to remain silent.
Not in the sense of waiting for poetry, in a moment of tragic poetic silence. And so, out of harm.
A trembling visitor will come to her. He’ll take off his shoes in the hallway, put his scarf on the hanger, hang his Soviet, trivial coat on a hook, straighten his tie, he’ll be taken to the “empress”’s room on Ordynka, and that’s where it all begins. A tragic farce.
Not only is he already sweating all over from excitement, there is a hole in his toe, in front of him is the great Akhmatova, gray-haired, heavyset, in her last brilliant glory, but she will also say a few words about the weather, the Writers' Union, Pasternak, like, absolutely, or he’s worn out by “unrequited passion for me,” talking about this and that—and suddenly he’ll fall silent.
- It’s stupid to somehow remain silent in the presence of the great poetess, but it attacked me like tetanus! - the unfortunate man then complains. “I tell her: “What did you want to say about the glove in your unprecedented poems? And in “Poem without a Hero” how many hidden layers are there? Five or am I confusing something?”, and she will drop some phrase and again nothing.
Silence, beauty, the sun hits the window, the birds chirp outside the window. You can hear comedian Ardov coughing strainedly in the next room after what he did yesterday, and here he is tortured by silence. And there is no end to it.
The respectful literary sufferer has already become all twisted, his piece of paper with poems, like your Count Khvostov, has been crumpled. Meanwhile, Akhmatova sits and does nothing.
“I taught women to speak,” you understand, but she herself remains silent.
She was a malicious woman after all! With a bang.
That's why I try to imitate her. In everything.
...Sometimes, when I’m walking down the street with some new acquaintance, I, too, suddenly remember this Akhmatov trick and think: “Let me try it myself!”
Disposable men
Masha had a husband, Vovan. Unlike the agile Masha, Vovan is a brake. One of those that dig from the fence to...
26 August 15:40
Silence, it has done a lot in great Russian literature. It played its role, so to speak. Remember? Our curly-haired Pushkin, in the story “The Snowstorm,” Marya Gavrilovna also pulled off such a trick.
As soon as Burmin found the delightful Marya Gavrilovna by the pond, under a willow tree, with a French book in her hands and in a white dress, the real heroine of the novel, then immediately after the first questions (look how cunningly! the spitting image of Akhmatova) Marya Gavrilovna deliberately stopped maintaining the conversation, intensifying thus mutual confusion, which, whatever one may say, could only be gotten rid of by a sudden and decisive explanation.
And so it happened.
Burmin, feeling the difficulty of his position, announced that he had been looking for a long time for an opportunity to open his heart to her, and demanded a moment of attention. Marya Gavrilovna closed the book and lowered her eyes as a sign of agreement.
Yes!
It’s not that I expected any such stormy explanation or anything from my friends. No. God forbid! My destiny is evening kefir and fitful old man’s sleep. It’s just always nice to see how a person gets sick. That’s why I, too, sometimes fall silent in the middle of a pleasant conversation in some quiet alley, but since I’m not Akhmatova (alas!), I still have to count to myself. “One, two, three, four, five... sixteen... fifty-seven.” And so on up to a hundred.
At one time, one imaginary great actress of England (Julia Lambert) already did this on the pages of Somerset Maugham’s immortal novel. You probably remember this scene too! When she suddenly decided to thank her long-term platonic admirer Lord Charles, she put on a new dress like a fool, washed her hair and went to give up.
“Where should seduction take place?” - she thought, listening to about some picturesque garbage in a medallion, which the subtle connoisseur Lord Charles recently bought at auction and which he wanted to show off to his adored Lady of the Heart.
-Where does it hang? - Julia asked. “In the bedroom,” replied Lord Charles.
“Oh, by the way, that’s not a bad idea!” - Julia thought. Then something terrible happened.
When they got up and Julia had had enough of the ugly face of some woman in an antique frame, whose dress seemed old-fashioned to her, and she herself looked fat, Lord Charles again hung the medallion on the wall, turned to Julia and turned to stone.
Julia stood by the bed, her hat off, her hair down, and her hands outstretched towards him. She gave up.
From the shocked, immediately withered face of Lord Charles, Julia realized that he had never expected such a turn.
“Vile liar! - flashed through her head. - It was all a bluff! He never wanted me!”
But since her hands were already unconditionally raised and extended, and it was still necessary to get out of this position somehow, then, in order not to rush, Julia began to count to herself (one, two, three, four, five...), raised her hands even higher above her head, as if performing some kind of scene known only to her (“You vile liar! You vile liar! You’ve been fooling me like this all these years!”), she clasped them at the back of her head, then just as slowly unraveled them, shook her head and said in an extremely simple and natural voice: “It’s so good that you and I have always been only friends!”
After which she said: “It’s too late!”, put on her hat and drove home.
Now let's take off the hat again.
I have always admired one protective quality in people’s psyche.
No matter what terrible or outrageous happens, always when the main information flow subsides, calm ironic voices will be heard.
“You should only tell such things to your psychiatrist. Or write it down in a secret notebook in a box! - they will tell us. - We don’t need this! They don’t talk about such things!”
The right to say no
There is such an anecdote: “The cats in the next yard are so impudent,” says the cat, “yesterday she was walking...
26 August 15:36
I (personally) have the social temperament of a mole. I'm rummaging around in the ground for something, squinting blindly, making supplies. I don't even need Thumbelina. Firstly, he will eat a lot, and secondly, he will definitely run away with some swallow. Lesbian!
But even for me, a completely non-social animal, my fur stands on end when I read what verdicts people who are pleasant in all respects make after sensational topics or flash mobs.
Whatever this sensational topic is about. About gays, about raped women, about autistic children.
And who cares that, ultimately, it is precisely because of this uncomfortable “pronunciation” that the corner where the flashlight beam is directed ceases to be dark. It never ceases to be scary (horror and rottenness may be hidden there), but dark - yes. The eagle does not fly away, the snake does not crawl away, the corpse tied to the beam does not disappear, but we see them, and this is much better than our mole myopia.
This is obvious to me.
But not for purists of the Facebook race.
And that's right. Keep quiet. Count to yourself. So as not to rush. One two Three.
All will pass. There is no need to dump all your traumas and humiliations on people. We are nervous, weak, we have no time for you. And if it’s completely unbearable and it torments you at night, go to the doctor. You'll tell him.
Better yet, write it all down in a secret notebook and read it yourself.
One two Three. One two Three. Once.
...Anna Andreevna wrapped herself in a pseudo-classical shawl and fell silent for a long time.
Burmin found the lonely, frightened Marya Gavrilovna by the pond, under a willow tree, with a brand new French book in her hands and opened his cloak.
Somewhere underground, a literate, blind-sighted mole was quietly digging his own grave, once again shocked by the bizarre human logic.
Rodion Chepel, reporter for Dozhd TV channel:
I worked for NTV and encountered censorship. It seems to me that this has a direct bearing on a person’s personal qualities. Do you take into account considerations of political correctness, the importance of the historical moment, or, even worse, act in the interests of the next Michal Ivanovich. Your freedom is not to do this - or to go and engage in political technology, PR, politics - anything, but not journalism. Journalism must be dispassionate. If this is not so, it ceases to be journalism as a profession. Therefore, the fight against censorship is exclusively the work of educating oneself and others around honesty and responsibility. On television, no one dictates what and how to film. The authorities simply select sensitive materials and do not broadcast them. And the editors begin to feel what not to do. A system of mutual understanding is built very quickly. Television has never been impartial, but it has never been subordinated to the interests of one group of people, as it is today.
When to be silent
“Contraindications” for sincerity are such obviously known reactions from the other side as reproaches, moralizing, complaints, unnecessary and impracticable advice. Let's take the same example with irregular working hours. Instead of sympathy and suggestions for help, you receive a set of maxims from your mother-in-law who “adores” you: “You need to work less and there is no need to pretend to be a careerist!” It's time to think about family! Such a careless mother’s child will soon turn into a street child, and her husband will leave him because you are a useless housewife.”
Do not share other people's secrets, even when you are bored or want to support someone through someone else's example. Good intentions can easily turn against you. As a last resort, make your story abstract by replacing the names of the participants in the events.
You can say whatever you want about yourself if there is such a need. But other people's lives are taboo if you don't want to ruin your relationships with people and become a source of gossip.
You should also not say something thoughtlessly and “cut the truth” when your words can offend, offend or upset a person who cannot change anything in this situation. For example, someone got a bad haircut and doesn’t look so great. What's the use if you tell him about it? And who needs such truth?
Remember: you are absolutely under no obligation to tell anyone about yourself anything you don’t want to.
“Washing the bones” of other people or pouring from empty to empty is also a reason to stop talking and remain silent. Don’t waste time on empty chatter: it gives nothing to your mind or heart, but only steals time.
Don’t burden another person with unnecessary news, and especially your problems, so much so that you give him a headache, both literally and figuratively. From such communication, at best, he will begin to avoid you. Also remain silent when the desire to talk will be perceived as intrusiveness, and your frankness will later turn into unnecessary speculation and gossip. This often happens in work teams, shared companies, and in communication with neighbors.
It is worth remembering that excessive frankness often gives rise to gossip. Therefore, if you don’t want people whispering behind your back at your place of work, try not to “wash your family’s dirty linen” and don’t talk about the ups and downs of your personal life.
Do not talk about what bothers you even if the story itself is difficult and unpleasant for you. This happens if you spend a lot of mental strength to cope with a traumatic situation and adapt to new life circumstances.
And if you begin to talk about what is happening to you and talk about your feelings about it, then you again begin to plunge into negativity and again experience acute pain. This forces you to spend more and more energy, which depletes your last resources (psychological and even physical). Therefore, the spiritual wound must be allowed to heal, and not “pick it apart” with your own revelations. The best way out in these circumstances is to avoid a direct answer and change the subject. Also keep quiet if you “float” in the topic under discussion and do not want to look like an incompetent and narrow-minded person in the eyes of others.
Silence accompanied by some activity (for example, contemplating the beauty of nature or handicraft) promotes calm and tranquility. Therefore, periodically listen to silence, avoiding chatter and unnecessary sounds.
Do not pay attention if your restraint and secrecy are perceived incorrectly, for example, as a demarche or reluctance to communicate. As they say, smart people will understand, but it is useless to explain to a fool.
Remember: you are absolutely under no obligation to tell anyone about yourself what you don’t want or hate. You should not explain your actions, comment on your personal life, share thoughts and feelings, or make excuses for actions that in no way concern others. Therefore, you have the right to refuse to talk on the “given topic”.
Viktor Shenderovich, writer:
My biography allowed me to track in some detail the course of the censorship disease in Putin’s Russia: in 15 years I went from a “TV star” on a federal channel and a person who attracted thousands of people to a living (and special thanks for this) illustration of a complete ban on the profession. There has been no talk about television for a long time; Recently, the possibility of performing in Russia has been completely blocked. The owners of the sites refuse to rent without any explanation, except one: “Well, you understand.” And I, of course, understand myself. The latest book of journalism is “Brain Block. 2014" - Moscow stores did not accept distribution; Its first edition was put under the knife in the Ulyanovsk printing house. But this, of course, is not censorship - after all, Putin said that there is no censorship in Russia. Putin can’t lie...
Marina Shishkina, deputy of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg, formerly dean of the Faculty of Journalism of St. Petersburg State University:
Formally, we do not have censorship - there is no such word in the media law. However, it turns out that there is no word, but there is a phenomenon. On the one hand, it manifests itself in the form of unspoken prohibitions within the framework of the activities of state media: these are the so-called stop lists (prohibition on mentioning certain persons), and thematic restrictions on content, and an attitude towards exclusively positive or negative coverage of someone’s activities etc. On the other hand, since 2012, amendments of a prohibitive nature began to be made to the law on the media. At the same time, for some reason, the media, on which crude and often unusable laws are tested, become victims of the legislators’ fight against obscenities, extremism, pornography and homosexuality. The only way out of this situation can be a constructive dialogue between the media community and legislators. I am glad that the platform for such a discussion will be the St. Petersburg parliament, where on June 18 parliamentary hearings will be held on the problems of legislative regulation of the work of the media.
Boris Pavlovich, director and head of social and educational projects at the Bolshoi Drama Theater. Tovstonogov:
There may be no official censorship, but there is a very high demand for it in society. This is what is most sad, and not the sudden movements of the Ministry of Culture. The level of aggression and xenophobia is off the charts. The human consciousness intuitively resists the degree of hatred that is constantly fueled by the media, and indeed by our entire social situation. And here a creepy incident arises: the average person is up in arms not at the cause of his actual and psychological problems, but at the one who is trying to somehow work with these problems, pointing out them. In addition, the mechanisms of suppression are contagious: the one who is constantly “pressed” wants to shut someone up. Art is the perfect subject for this. The practical benefits of art for the average person are not obvious. The disappearance of a play, film, painting, book is not perceived by society as a significant loss, and the will to power is fully realized. We banned it, which means we are deciding something. The artist is a convenient object of violence. The artist is objectively safe, cannot fight back, but at the same time has a romantic aura of a “superman”. If society sees an artist not as an ally, but as an enemy, society immediately becomes involved in the conflict. This seems to me like ancient history; there is little news in it. But there is little pleasure in getting into the epicenter of such a process.
Mikhail Weller, writer:
Any phenomenon exists de jure and de facto. De jure, of course, we do not have censorship - there is no such institution, such positions and such a censoring process. Of course, there is de facto censorship. This is reflected in the stop lists that are on any TV channel, who should not be allowed there. And, of course, there are people who are not allowed in. Nemtsov was on the stop list for many years, I know, Belkovsky is on the stop list, Navalny is certainly on the stop list, and there are many more people that could be listed. In addition, in some printing houses there are people who look at what kind of books they were sent. And now they don’t send them manuscripts, they send them a disk. And they insert it into the computer and read it, and if they believe that it is a book of dubious nature, then the printing house routinely informs the publishing house that it will not print this book. Please send it to another printing house. There will be another one, but this one won’t. This applies to almost any newspaper, which will write something and will not write something. And he won’t write much. So, of course, there is censorship, it has been there for a long time, it was called “dispute between economic entities.” And then it stopped being called whatever it was, but it was implied that they weren’t talking about it - and as if they weren’t. There is, everything is there.
What is better to remain silent about, even when asked: Seven golden tips
What is better to remain silent about, even when asked: Seven golden tips. I wrote this article and recalled situations in which I had to escape, not at all psychologically, but very quickly, from my interlocutor, who kept talking and could not stop. About how this hairstyle doesn’t suit me, about what a bastard my downstairs neighbor is, about the impossibility of finding the perfect housekeeper, or about the TV shows I’ve watched this week. Or he tried to push me to read books that weren’t interesting to me.
Do I feel guilty for disappearing from a burdensome contact silently, in English? Or maybe I needed to explain to the person why I no longer want to communicate? But is it necessary to explain to a person who is not interested in how I am with him, why I don’t want to be with him?
Unsolicited advice, unnecessary truth, unsolicited care - we always love to “do” good - to do and give what is not asked of us. For some reason, it seems to us that we navigate someone else’s life better than those who live it. And we also think that the truth (read harsh, undisguised criticism) helps others reach some new heights of development.
And we sincerely believe that all the people around us are interested in our personal experience, our personal opinion, and even our personal freshly hatched, itchy pimple on the buttock, or more precisely, information about how it itches and how it has changed today.
Not really. Everyone has their own experience, their own truth and even their own ass in order to grow any acne on it.
What is better to remain silent about - Never discuss her children with the mother. Even if you were asked for advice or opinion, express it as correctly as possible, first by expressing your mother’s support and understanding of how difficult it is for her. In every indication that the child did something wrong, that is, acted “badly,” the mother also hears that she is a bad mother for allowing this to happen. If you blame the child, you blame the mother. In return you will receive double defense or attack.
What is better to remain silent about - Hold back the joyful “wow” and especially do not go into a long story about what “hurts” you when the person introduced to you turns out to be a lawyer, doctor, writer or psychologist.
Believe me, these people already know too well what will follow next, so they increasingly avoid reporting their profession.
Wherever the meeting takes place - at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome or at a friend's christening - they always begin to tell them about what worries them, ask for advice or retell their whole life, hoping that it will enrich the treasury of their experience. Believe me, psychologists, doctors and lawyers have more stories in their collections than your entire life.
And the writer himself will come up with any story. You have to pay for professional advice and help. You are not ready to give away your professional services. So why am I sure that they give?
What is better to remain silent about - Do not share details of past relationships with your current partner, especially do not compare him with your ex.
Yes, we are all interested in knowing what everyone had in the past. Moreover, what and how a person talks about his past relationships characterizes him and makes it possible to understand how he will behave in the present.
However, there is a big difference between simply saying “there was a relationship, it lasted so long, it didn’t work out because” and each time launching into long stories about how you were together, where you were together, what you did, what your ex gave you gifts, what a terrible woman his mother is, and how the sex you had was not at all great. Or, on the contrary, “great, what sex, but you, dear, are not at all so skilled in bed, but that’s okay, we’ll fix that.”
What is better to remain silent about - Keep your flash drives with photos, music or films with you.
Even if you were asked to show photos from your vacation, think about it: maybe it’s worth showing only 10-15 best photos, and not all 3444 frames. People may show interest in your hobbies, tastes or passions, but is it necessary to immediately joyfully jump on your favorite hobby “I’m so interesting” and drag out the speech for 4 hours “I just returned from Spain, here is my yacht, here is my car, and here he is, me, this is me eating, this is me bathing, and this is me sleeping.
I also recorded such a cool track, it’s on my other flash drive, now I’ll play it for you, listen to it, do you like it? And I also have such an interesting film here, about how I was on vacation in Spain, you saw the photos, but they do not reflect the whole essence, now we will watch the film, then you will definitely understand everything.”
— Don’t start expressing your opinion with criticism, even if it is very objective and they are sincerely interested in your opinion.
When we start something new, we are all afraid and unsure of what the result will be. The task of criticism is to develop a person, and not to kill in him any desire to try himself in something new. Therefore, when you talk about someone’s work or work, use one simple rule: “one joy, one disgusting,” and joy should always come first.
This is the law of the psychology of perception - we are not able to hear good things coming after bad things. If you start with the bad, you can no longer say the good, it will go unnoticed. First, praise the person, note what he certainly succeeded in, wait a minute, let him enjoy the praise, and only then talk about what turned out badly.
- Do not answer questions that are not asked to you at all, the same goes for other people’s, accidentally learned secrets - be silent.
I am often asked “I saw my friend’s husband in a restaurant with another woman, should I tell my friend about this?”, “I noticed my friend’s son in the company of bad teenagers, should I tell her?” Every person is able to obtain any information himself and everyone chooses the level of awareness that is comfortable for him. By giving a person more information than he is ready and asked for, you put him in front of the need to do something, and since the person is not ready for action, he will either “close down” or then shift all responsibility onto you. Are you ready for this?
“Silence is golden,” the wise and ancient said, and they were right.
This does not mean that now you need to cut off your speech and become silent. Silent people and talkers are two extremes that make communication very difficult. But no matter what you say, you are not speaking into emptiness. You have an interlocutor and by his reactions you can always judge how he feels about what was said. Does he smile, look into his eyes with interest and encourage you with questions? Or does he yawn, look to the side or at his watch? Does he “petrify” his face and mutter a restrained “thank you”? Or has he completely turned away to run away from you and only the button of his jacket, which you are holding on to, preserves your “dialogue”?
The other person is able to show or tell you what he wants from you. And, most importantly, you can always ask if he wants to know, hear, get information, advice or help from you. Be attentive to your counterpart and then your communication will become truly fulfilling and interesting.
Natalia Gevorkyan, journalist, writer:
The problem for many talented and independent-minded journalists today is not that they are censored, but that they simply have nowhere to write, no one to film for. Independence of thought and professionalism became a death sentence. That’s why Leni Parfenov is not on television with her broadcast. That's why Lenya Bershidsky lives and works in Germany. Igor Svinarenko and Vera Krichevskaya are unemployed. Sergey Parkhomenko is published on Facebook, there are no more stories from Roma Super, Katya Gordeeva, Anton Krasovsky. You can install “your” reliable editor-in-chief, and he will do everything himself, without any external effort, and the disobedient ones will “go away.” This happened with Gazeta.ru. You can put people in front of an impossible choice, and they will leave on their own, as happened with Lenta. The owner of the media must be the right person; he will do everything himself, without waiting for instructions from above. Rather, we can talk not about censorship, but about instruments of pressure and/or control of the media. The transition of Kommersant to Alisher Usmanov is a tool for controlling Kommersant. Lenta and other assets in the hands of Mamut are similar. There is no need to interfere in television stories on federal channels, because there are people on television who themselves know perfectly well what is required of them
Sex: is it sometimes better to remain silent?
Words that are hard to hear
Sexuality is the foundation on which a couple is built, but at the same time remains the personal territory of everyone.
Once part of a couple, a person may want to isolate himself from his partner - through masturbation, adultery, or abstinence. This detachment indicates an intention to independently explore your twilight zones. This is a search for one's own identity. “At first, each of us participates in the search for the dark side of the other,” explains Alain Eril, “this is exciting. But after some time a person begins to be interested in himself, and then the presence of a partner can interfere with him.” But to openly admit this would be to risk offending someone else. “In sexual life, people sometimes perceive everything incorrectly,” continues Alain Eril. Anna recalls: “When I told my husband that I didn’t like having sex, but I didn’t know why, he decided that I just didn’t want it anymore. He turned my confession inside out."
Not only words, but also silence can be misinterpreted. 40-year-old Elena faced this: “Andrei believed that I did not dare admit what I wanted. For him, my silence meant a ban, and the bans inflamed his desire. He couldn't wait to try everything I didn't talk about. In the end, I had to demand even what I didn’t want at all - this was the only way to avoid new erotic experiments.”
White lies, forced lies... sometimes they become the least evil. However, if we lie too often, it may turn out that we are lying primarily to ourselves - wishful thinking, trying to create, through words or omissions, relationships that do not have much in common with the real relationships in our couple. “I have met people who, out of love, convinced their partners that they liked sex,” says sexologist Damien Mascret. “But those who think that lying can be a means of maintaining desire are mistaken. Because life in a couple is a process of constant adaptation to each other, and a lie forces the other person to adapt to something false, something that does not exist in reality. As a result, the relationship dies."
36-year-old Alexander had to work on himself: “Because I told made-up stories about myself, I myself stopped understanding who I am and what I really want. I tried too hard to protect myself and got lost along the way.” When we lie often, we put our relationships to the same serious test as when we tell everything without concealment, without thinking about our partner. “Ultimate lies and extreme frankness are two extremes, and both of them are disastrous for relationships,” emphasizes Lev Shcheglov. “In the sexual area, there are no general recommendations for everyone, except for one: each time two people must re-recognize each other’s needs, listen sensitively to desires - yourself and your partner, and be careful when talking about anything that could hurt someone else. Living together is a constant balance of trust and delicacy.”
In those couples where the relationship develops, the partners do not know everything about each other, since neither of them tries to invade the territory of the other. Today Alexander lives in this situation: “We don’t tell too much about ourselves, but we never lie to each other.” He explains this position this way: “Lying to another person about serious things is ultimately lying to yourself. I believe it is better to remain silent than to lie. Leave something hidden." Damien Mascre confirms: “I study stable couples. Their only similarity is their absolute refusal to invade the intimate territory of the other. Their attraction to each other is maintained thanks to this secret, the perfect alternation of the proverbial “lie or truth.” It is this that maintains the necessary tension in sexual life, and sex in such couples becomes the most beautiful manifestation of love.”
Marat Gelman, gallerist, publicist:
During Soviet times, censorship was legal. There were people who “read” texts and “authorized” exhibitions and performances. Of course, there is no such censorship. Now there are many different people, customs officers, priests, heads of housing offices - all censors. As a result, this is no longer a system of prohibitions, but a total attack on culture. Because what is possible and what is not is determined by many people. Indeed, at the state level it is not a ban on works (censorship), but a ban on names. But, since there is no legal basis for this, defamation continues. Well, that is, I want to say that censorship, although an atavism, is quite a legitimate civilized tool. What is happening in Russia is not censorship, it is the formation of a fundamentalist society.
