The "vast humanity" of the Russian literature is a part of their imperial myth. The Russians like claiming that they have the greatest culture, literature, or a "unique Russian soul". This myth justifies their military expansion and erasing the culture and language of the conquered nations.
That "vast humanity" of their culture has never got in the way of the Russians from committing atrocities. Interestingly, the Russians still claim that they never invaded other states - they only liberate them. They never acknowledged the sins of the past.
Chekhov was less of a nationalist than Dostoyevsky or many others. However, giving spotlight to any figure from the Russian culture means giving support to their soft power. It also shifts the attention away from their war crimes. A modern Russian does not read Chekhov. He watches propaganda and cheers for the strikes on the civilian targets in Ukraine.
I will never stop marveling at the way Chekhov can turn an inner life inside out in one to three pages. One of the jewels of Russian literature.
One of the most surprising things about Chekhov is how his writing is some ways beyond ideology, politics or convictions —- he tries to present people as they are, and he implies that people behave according to incentives and drives instead of their purported beliefs.
Considering what russia is doing and how propaganda works, it’s not so interesting why there are so many Chekhov and Dostoevsky on a forum for "hackers". It's interesting that there is so little about ballet here :)
The argument is not that everyone who likes old russian writers is a shill. It's that people bringing them up at current time can't read the room at least, give in to their own imperialist tendencies probably and it only goes worse from there.
writers not from colonialist regimes don't make it to HN because most of us never heard of them at school, which focuses on western writers.
are you aware that most wealthy countries are or have been colonialist regimes? this includes much of Europe, North America, Japan and China.
At the start of the big war Fridman went on podcasts as an expert on the conflict and all he did was re-translate russian talking points. He's way worse than hypocrite.
To be fair, he's not alone, a good half of IDW - group supposedly too intelligent and principled for mainstream media - turned out to be neither intelligent, nor principled, when those qualities got tested by real world events instead of social network drama.
I found most of them did have at least one interesting take or a perspective. Listening to people able to talk on serious topic for hours going deep into nuance was refreshing. And then there was Eric Weinstein, who could do that on seemingly endless array of topics and would casually drop gold after gold, before he got stuck on his DISC thing. But after "Ukraine is being brutalized. It is also corrupt." he is dead to me, of course.
Exactly, and maintaining neutrality in the face of absolute evil is immoral. Such neutrality justifies an equivalence between the aggressor and the victim and provides the evil with an advantage, because, suddenly, instead of punishment it will have to be dealt with in a civilised manner.
I see your point, but I'm using the word loosely to refer to internet flamewars about nations. One could also mention the site guideline about ideological battle. Either way, this kind of flamewar comment isn't what we're looking for here, not least because it tends to evoke worse than others (although it didn't do so in this particular case).