“The Ghost of Kyiv is still training with the F-35 you sent us,” President Zelenskyy told a Pentagon advisor who criticized the counter-offensive. “This is your people’s job. Either shut up, or provide better instructors.”
I’m sorry to say that you’ve fallen for the classic blunder. Assuming the Hexbear you’re responding to is not doing a bit. We’ve all been there, don’t worry 07
It’s not the worst, but certainly not a pleasant experience at least in summer or winter. In summer your face gets all sweaty and disgusting and in winter I get a runny nose and the mask gets disgusting. If it’s not really necessary I’d rather don’t wear it.
It’s funny. I didn’t understand these sorts of complaints until I remembered I have a beard. There is always something on my face and I’m just used to it.
I’m inconsistently bearded/shaved and I also don’t care about wearing a mask. I can wear an N95 or equivalent all day doing manual labour. I get that some people have breathing difficulties, etc, but for those who don’t… never really understood the objection. You forget it’s on after five minutes.
I’ve not stopped masking since the start of Covid. I’ll put one on before going into a shop and frequently only remember to take it off when I get home. Medical masks are even less of a bother.
I do hate the masks with elasticated ear loops, though. They hurt. I don’t know whose bright idea that was but they need promoting to a position where they can’t cause any more damage.
Yes, I get strange looks. But I can convey with my eyes that I think they’re a Muppet for not wearing a mask, so I don’t get many actual comments.
It’s the worst thing for me. I know there’s elderly, immunocompromised, and poor people who would be devastated after a serious illness. But I worked really hard at my office job and I need to see people smile because that’s important for some reason.
I don’t blame him for not wanting to be in prison, prison sounds like it sucks ass.
That said he needs to face his consequences and try to rehabilitate himself after smothering a dude to death while his coworkers watched and prevented citizens from stopping him.
Dude it’s in their right, it’s their homeland. If I moved away from someplace, my great great great great great great great grandchildren surely have the right to evict people living on that place and live there /s
This happened two days ago and began being reported on yesterday, yet only Dutch sources are really commenting on it. And even those Dutch media sources seem to really be burying the lede on the fact that she was killed by an Israeli bombing run. Many of the articles are putting that fact at the end and equivocating it with "According to the Associated Press".
Most of the headlines just say she died "in an explosion", giving the implication Hamas was responsible.
Or maybe the media learned not to point fingers until there's better evidence after that whole hospital debacle where everyone picked up the story without verifying the details.
Except that the IDF acknowledges that they bombed the refugee camp market on Saturday. That's not in question right now. The only hanging question is whether she was killed in that or died in some other way at the exact same time, according to the above article.
Dutch media sources seem to really be burying the lede on the fact that she was killed by an Israeli bombing run. ... that fact at the end
Not a verified fact.
and equivocating it with "According to the Associated Press". ... Most of the headlines just say she died "in an explosion", giving the implication Hamas was responsible.
Not equivocating or implying anything. Engaging in good journalism. They weren't there. They didn't see it with their own eyes. They're simply reporting on what they've been told. IDF says this. Hamas says that. Nothing more. That's just your bias speaking.
If the IDF makes a claim, reporters shouldn't report it as a fact. If Hamas makes a claim, they shouldn't report it as a fact.
the IDF acknowledges that they bombed the refugee camp market on Saturday
Article says the IDF has not yet responded to inquiries. It is as yet unclear in which explosion the victim died.
What was the whole hospital “debacle?” Like I know the facts, there was a hospital that was hit by some kind of weapon. But the intention, and the who, is not exactly clear. So what are those two very important facts that the media got wrong?
I can't remember the exact timeline of events, but early on it was reported and assumed to be IDF, while others claimed it wasn't. Reports got walked back until there were more details, and now it's generally agreed that it was probably a Hamas rocket that exploded or something.
So I think the press may just be a little more careful with how they portray things when there is only one source or they are reporting on what other news organizations are saying. You know - like they should be doing anyway.
That agreement has been getting walked back by the OSINT sources that initially confirmed it… As expected.
The only reputable international sources with journalists actually on the ground are Al Jazeera, Associated Press, and Reuters. There’s more regional sources like Al Arabiya operating there as well, but they’re not well-known in the West. Everyone else is just commenting on the same secondary sources and made up bullshit that we are online.
The problem with the theory about a rocket misfire is the ordinance is too small to destroy a hospital. There’s theories about how it could have maybe set off fuel or oxygen tanks but no confirmation.
The hospital isn’t destroyed and no staff were killed.
A bunch of refugees in the parking lot, a lot less than reported by the health ministry, got killed by being coated in propellant and ignited. Fuel explosions make a big visual effect, but don’t really destroy buildings.
The same health ministry that over reported casualties is also hiding the ordinance remnants that did it instead of showing the world.
Oop, I definitely thought part of the building collapsed. Rereading though there was only “damage to buildings” not actual structural damage (though, again, the explosion was awfully large for a supposed rocket).
So how has Israel managed to confirm the death toll was lower than initially reported? They aren’t on the ground counting bodies.
The European and US intelligence services estimated the death toll at ~50 and 100-300 respectively.
I assume satellite imagery and counting…there’s probably also UAVs from all the great powers recording footage.
Seperately im fairly certain the Israeli security services have spies all over gaza. Somewhat grimly I think the air strikes have had a large component of people on the ground marking areas for strikes after confirming the presence of some Hamas member. It was a strategy exploited during the Russia/Ukraine war and it’s something Israelis can do because they are largely the same ethnicity.
As for the size of the explosion it’s not a great source but you can review pyrotechnic demonstrations of actual military munitions versus like a small special effects explosion and a lot of fuel. The former tends to not actually have a huge fire ploom like the hospital bombing had. There is one it’s just relatively small. If the rocket misfired and had a lot of ignited fuel spraying over the area… It causes that sort of imagery and casualties.
You’re putting a lot of faith in Western intelligence gathering - are you not at all worried that they’d underestimate the death toll to undermine the reporting coming from the Palestinians? Or that they’d cover up a mistake by Israel?
I think it’s a pretty verifiable thing and that both sides have motive to push prop.
One just caught lying about this already. I don’t mean historically I mean this actual incident.
Instead of waiting as long as we have the ordinance should have been shown through spokesmen immediately and at the press conference the ministry held surrounded by bodies.
It takes time to do a convincing fake. So I expect this debate will reignite later.
I really don’t think anyone reads that Hamas bombed her. You’ll also see news will always say alleged, according to, etc until absolutely verified. That’s proper journalism.
The other comment chain is literally reading it as that. People literally deny the Holocaust, are you at all surprised that they can deny the genocide of Palestinians?
Yeah that’s what I meant. It’s not that it’s not real, but the origin of the meme was Hans saying something to the effect of “I’ll play Magnus naked to prove I’m not cheating” to which everyone responded that the anal beads technique would be how he did it. Of course the corollary of that is that there are numerous ways for him to cheat while fully clothed.
Best joke about that I saw was a video of Hans playing someone and looking confident up until a blunder or something. Then he realizes what happened and puts his face in his hands and closes his eyes.
The comment on the YouTube video was: “when the computer gives up and then switches to pleasure mode”
I remember when I first heard the rumours and I immediately thought of how sensitive one’s anal linings would be to perceive Morse code via a butt plug. Then pondered upon the max possible bandwidth of buttplug-mediated information transfer. Finally, I thought about how to send back information via rythmic anal clenching.
Only then did I conclude that it’s probably easier to get better at chess.
A YouTuber tested it and confirmed it’s not that difficult to detect messages. They didn’t use Morse code but rather a simplified set of signals for move notation
It’s in the ankles, right? I guess even if it’s a different part of the body than the inside of one’s butt (a sensitive part of the body), makes it plausible that it’s also possible for communication (perhaps one-way—towards the plug wearer).
I’m assuming the accomplice would then be watching through some camera feed, right? That makes it at least plausible since there’s no need for kegels (to send information the other way).
If it’s the same video I saw, it was the ankle guy. And yeah, when it comes to historical cases of chess cheating (almost always at a lower skill level) they’ll either use some form of chess computer that they sneak away to use, or have an accomplice and a one way method of communication.
Another thing to keep in mind is that often times players at this level don’t need to cheat every move, they just need to be given the correct move at an important moment and they’ll be good enough to understand why they are being told to do that.
Ah, yeah~ I actually wasn’t really into chess, but I was intrigued about how it might actually work in practice. Like, perhaps a code taken from chess notation, and then optimized to keep messages to a minimum. Such messages are then composed of bursts of vibration, some longer and less intense, and some short but intense. This is where my mind went to bandwidth, lol! How fast can you alternate “dots” and “dashes” such that they would still remain distinct from one another, and not be perceived as just one long buzz session?
they’ll either use some form of chess computer that they sneak away to use, or have an accomplice and a one way method of communication.
It’s the first case that I thought about when I first heard of this. Kinda like braille, but for butts. And then rather than use your fingers, you clench your butt. That way, one can operate a chess computer while seated in a tournament. At the end of it, I was like “that’s some serious kegel action!”
An accomplice sending the necessary hints/information would be more plausible, I think. And now that I’m thinking about it, electrical impulses (through the skin, like in the small of the back, another sensitive area) might do the trick as well, perhaps going full braille action this time.)
But yeah, I just enjoyed overthinking about something like this. No offense meant to anyone. I’m just like “maybe it’s stupid enough to work?”
I find that the overthinking can be fun, but the most common cheating method is to simply relay the position on the board that contains the piece to move.
For example, let’s say that the best move would be to move a pawn on b4 (same column as White’s left most bishop, in the 4th row) a signal would be transmitted of two short “signals”, a long pause, and then four more short “signals”. Thinking in Morse, this would be “…/…”.
This tells the cheater that the correct move is made by the piece in the second column, fourth row, and thats usually all a top level player will need. They can stop calculating any move that isn’t from that piece, and there’s usually one move that is clearly better from that pieces immediate moves. The difficult part is now finding which follow-up moves are the best and how to punish your opponent for not playing them (which they would have been doing anyways, just with many more possible start points)
This method has been used in the past with a device that will send a non-painful but noticeable electric shock to a player (usually on their thigh), and because these individuals got caught there are now methods in place at top level tournaments to try and prevent external cheating devices from entering the playing hall (ex/ they pat you down to try and feel something rigid on your leg).
Thats where the butt plug theory comes in; it could theoretically pass through a standard metal detector, a security guard isn’t going to check your prostate for cheating devices, and it can still theoretically be used to communicate via 0s and 1s.
My analysis didn’t really go deep (pun unintended) into the details of how the information might be encoded, but taking a cue from what you’d said, position can be encoded into six bits: 000;000 would be a1 (white king’s rook starting position, right?) and h8 would be 111;111b4 would then be 001;011. Perhaps we can save things into just three bits (there are just seven unique pieces in chess: pawn, rook, knight, white bishop, black bishop, queen, and king) if we just need to communicate which piece is to be moved. Maximally, the accomplice can communicate both the piece and the destination in nine bits, though following this discussion, it seems there’s not much need for it, and it’d introduce complexities that would hamper comprehension (like having to distinguish between the three cases so far: position of the piece to be moved, the piece to be moved, or the piece to be moved and the location of the destination).
As for how to send information (as opposed to receiving), there’s only one signal that would be needed, if the accomplice is watching a live feed of the match: “Help!” which would be a continuous anal clench, or something fanciful as clenching SOS to avoid any random anal clenching to be mistaken for a call for help.
Now, as for a cheating device inside a butt plug not triggering a metal detector, I don’t know for certain, but I’ve got no reason to disbelieve you. If there’s someone that manages to pull it off though (the entire thing, sneaking in a device up their butt and using it to cheat at live chess competitions), I’d love to hear about the details.
While 6 bit encoding is definitely a more efficient way to transmit the data, when it comes to stuff like this transmission speed is rarely a consideration. In high profile tournaments, players may have several hours each during a game (for example, the game in which Niemann is alleged to have cheated used a time format of 2 hours for the first 40 moves, +1 hour upon reaching move 40, and +30 seconds after completing every move after the 40th. Across 2 players, and assuming they make the 40th move, that’s a 6 hour game total).
So when it comes to things like this, the main considerations are accuracy in transmission and comprehension of the message. If the player has to compute from binary to the board (which is an albeit really easy skill), there is still a chance that they can misinterpret the data. For this reason, most formerly caught “at the board” cheaters have used the simple “count columns, count rows” method.
More complex cheaters (who do not use an accomplice) have in the past gone to the washroom to find a stashed chess computer, plug in the position, see what the computer thinks, and come back.
Even amongst some top players, it’s not uncommon for someone to play a move and then go to the washroom for up to 30 minutes and come back to see how their opponent responded. I mention this to further emphasize that 1) spending a really long time not making a move is relatively common and 2) while most cheating does occur in longer periods of thought, that in itself is not an indicator for cheating.
As for your mention of sending information, it can be a lot simpler than what you proposed. Since this method requires a relatively unrestricted view of the board, it is more than likely they will also be able to see the player, making physical signals a far easier method of communicating “HELP!!!” than becoming a kegel master. You could organize before hand something like “if I run my left hand through my hair and shake my head, I need help”, and upon seeing this the accomplice could transmit the piece location.
And my theory about the butt plug being able to be smuggled through a metal detector is not based in a proven fact, but rather the assertion that if you could get one through a metal detector, which may or may not be possible, there would be no other checks in place to prevent a player from entering a hall with one.
So when it comes to things like this, the main considerations are accuracy in transmission and comprehension of the message.
Ah, I see. That’s why the encoding you detailed in your previous reply is such.
making physical signals a far easier method of communicating “HELP!!!” than becoming a kegel master.
This made me laugh out loud. But yeah! I was so fixated on making a butt plug-mediated communications protocol that I overlooked a far low-tech, but more effective method. And if detection is a danger, the gestures used can be changed up and agreed upon before the match. One match might have massaging the forehead as the signal, another match could have scratching behind the right ear.
And my theory about the butt plug being able to be smuggled through a metal detector is not based in a proven fact, but rather the assertion that if you could get one through a metal detector, which may or may not be possible, there would be no other checks in place to prevent a player from entering a hall with one.
I see. So we’re both coming from the assumption of “if it were possible, how might it go?”
More complex cheaters (who do not use an accomplice) have in the past gone to the washroom to find a stashed chess computer, plug in the position, see what the computer thinks, and come back.
Isn’t this easy to catch though? Inspect the restrooms players have access to and periodically inspect them when no one’s using it. Of course, this doesn’t stop a determined cheater stashing a small device inside a pack of wet wipes, for example. Heck, if I were in that situation, I’d probably just stash a smartphone inside a supposed pack of wet wipes. It’s boring, not as sensational as a butt plug for sure, but if it works, it works!
Just responding to the last one, it was that easy and that’s why nowadays the entire premises is swept for any potential aids before the tournament (I.e. the day before, go through every space and make sure that nothing is hidden), the player bathrooms are separate from everyone else’s so that no one can sneak in to place something there without going through player screening, and everything you carry into the match is thoroughly inspected to ensure it doesn’t contain a chess computer (to the point where they will check people’s lipstick).
The reason the butt plug theory gained so much traction is that with the current security, there’s only one check to stop it (the metal detector), the cheating method itself is theoretically sound, and its attention grabbing enough as a concept.
Much as with anything competitive, it’s an arms race to gain a leg up before the advantage is neutralized so I’m sure that someday we will see a genuine case of butt plug cheating or security measures put in place to specifically prevent anally assisted gameplay
So from having had a few exchanges with pro Russian accounts on Lemmy (which seems to be infested with a few very active ones) this is a summary of their arguments:
“Ukraine is Nazi”
“Well far right parties got a total of under 6% of the vote, and they elected a Jewish man president”
* “yeah but Bandera and whatabout America”
“Ukraine killed ethnic Russians”
“A huge percentage of their population are ethnic Russians, including in government, and they are fine, and were until the Russian invasion. And now it’s Russia that has killed, maimed and raped more ethnic Russians, including civilians, than Ukraine every did or even could. Including their own people thorough incompetence and corruption”.
* “Yeah but Bandera, and whatabout America”
“Ukraine is fighting because they are forced to by their colonial masters, the USA and NATO, and Ukrainians will keep dying so long as they keep being armed”
“Actually > 90% of the population wants to continue fighting for their country back, so what you’re basically saying is you think Ukrainians should be abandoned to Russian enslavement”
* “Yeah but Bandera, and whatabout America”
“NATO and USA are colonialists and this is just more colonialism”
“Actually both Russia and China are actual, bone fide land empires, with ethnic minorities that are forced to live like colonized people - including doing the fighting for Russia while their families back home live in misery and squalor and Putin’s Mafia collect mansions, private jets and yachts”
Didn’t lemmy.ca defed with Hexbear because someone called (in jest) for death to landlords while Canada experiences it’s biggest housing crisis ever and rents are rising rapidly YoY solely because landlords, who otherwise deliver no intrinsic value in their position, found a way to make more money from the increased demand?
No, that wasn’t the reason and if it’s the only one you can think of you have no idea how toxic and disgusting the hexbear community is. I hate landlords too but these people are really taking it so much further than joking about dead landlords.
The idea that you can’t judge anyone by actions not in your personal instance is just such terminally online idiocy. Trolls always seem shocked that their behavior might actually follow them around rather than being conveniently compartmentalized so they can start their trolling fresh before burning out a new instance.
And defederation was the action that the instance decided to policy them. If users from that instance take up the majority of their moderation effort, taking into account that instance owners are volunteers and paying for the instance, it does not surprise me.
But why would they? As discussed, very little content was posted on lemmy.ca (where the instance owners actually have moderation power) and of that, most of it was fairly tame.
“Death to landlords” is, while somewhat extreme, a sentiment that is shared by a lot of people in Vancouver and Toronto. These are cities that are facing a record housing and affordability crisis with no indication that the government will intervene.
Defederation based on political ideology seems, well, rather harmful to a healthy democracy… Which, given that lemmy.ca is supposed to represent Canadians, is rather harmful for Canada.
And, as I recently got downvoted on lemmy.ca for pointing out, it’s not (directly) due to landlords, there’s just not enough houses built, and I can cite sources on that.
There’s a reason Western Europe focuses on the Nazis in the context of the Holocaust: the Nazis never saw the Western Europeans as a stain on the Earth like they did the Jews and the Slavs. Russians don’t need to point to Jews to claim Nazism: they can point directly to the treatment of ethnically Russian Slavs during WW2 and the plans that Nazi Germany had for the eradication of Slavs.
Russia doesn’t need to point at how Ukraine treats Jews because to Russia, the Holocaust is dwarfed in societal impact by the issues that motivated Operation Barbarossa. The Russians lost 19 million Russian civilians in the war, why would they care about the Jews?
Nevermind that minorities in China get so many advantages it’s actually silly how much affirmative action goes on. Provinces dominated by minorities get significantly more funding per capita and even get loss-leading infrastructure projects like the Tibet and Xinjiang railways. Students from minorities get additional bonuses on gaokao (basically SAT, but imagine if schools didn’t look at anything else). Minorities are exempt from family planning policies and get massive interest-free loans for starting businesses. They get proportional representation in government. Hell, there are 55 minority groups in China making up 8% of the population.
In the army? The prevalence of rural populations in the army has been observed AROUND THE WORLD. It’s a function of rural communities being rather poor and underserved by governments in general, as well as the lack of economic opportunities that living on a farm provides. In fact, the entire notion of the underserved countryside is what allowed communism to rise in Russia and China.
I’d recommend that you read a more insightful commentary on Red Army practices during WW2 rather than following Nazi propaganda from that period. David Glantz’ work is particularly insightful.
Either way, those are 19 million civilians. That isn’t military dead, that’s civilians.
One thing they always forget to mention is the USSR was allied to Nazi Germany in order to partition Poland.
No doubt the Soviets suffered greatly in WW2, and contributed greatly to the allied victory. On the other hand they did not do it alone, and they certainly did not expect to have to fight the Germans at all, at least not at that point.
So? The Great Powers had decided on a policy of appeasement against Nazi Germany. What exactly would you have proposed the USSR do? They signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact prior to the war for a reason.
Without the Eastern Front, Europe was lost. Hitler only launched Operation Barbarossa because he thought the Western Front was all but won. Continental Europe was under German control and the UBoats were locking down most of the Atlantic, meanwhile imports of Russian materials was sustaining the German war economy (similarly, imports of American materials was sustaining Japan’s war in China and the Pacific)… Of course, it turns out that dividing your forces and taking on Russia in the winter aren’t the best ideas, but at the time Germany wanted energy independence and the Caucasus was seen as an easier target than the Middle East (which at the time out produced Romania but wasn’t yet the oil superpower it is today).
That’s all well and good, but that’s never taught at all to Russians and ignored by tankies.
And if you actually read your dumb narrative, your first paragraph is contradicted by your second. You really need to work on your story.
Here’s the truth: the USSR, like Nazi Germany, was an authoritarian expansionist nightmare that was happy to get Poland for free. They only fight the Nazis because they had to. And Stalin was a shit strategist.
25% ish of the Russian population live in huts and shit in holes in outhouses for a lack of plumbing (mostly ethnic minorities), all while the ruling Mafia collects yachts and private jets, and launches wars.
I’m not saying there isn’t wealth inequality elsewhere, but how about a bit of perspective here. Russia cannot actually conscript too many ethnic Russians or use them as cannon fodder, since that is the only ethnicity in Russia that matters politically, since they are the middle class. Instead they send the colonized people, who happen to be those who shit in holes for a lack of plumbing.
You say that, but conscription always has exceptions, which usually include having an important job or going to university, which would presumably skew the result towards more poor people in the army. There’s also corruption of course.
Oh yeah CCP is all about diversity and minorities right?
I mean just ask the people of Tibet, or the Uyghurs right? They will tell you how much the Chinese government supports their minority culture.
Filthy fucking genocidal cunts. That’s what the Chinese Communist Party is. And your attempt to create a positive spin of them is not as subtle as you think.
Have you ever been to China? Ever talked to a person from a Chinese minority? Clearly not.
By and large their complaints are about a lack of economic opportunity (because, y’know, Inner Mongolia isn’t exactly the most hospitable climate) and that the government affirmative action isn’t enough to address the gap in resources. That’s what you’ll hear on the ground… And that’s an absolutely fair concern.
Fuck off idiot, don’t try to push a narrative that I’m nieve or uninformed. The persecution of minorities in China under the oppressive CCP is well documented and none of your tankie bullshit will change that.
I don’t care how much revisionism, whataboutism, alternative facts, or straight up propaganda you throw at this, the fact remains the CCP is an oppressive, genocidal and brutal regime run by cunts.
And you in support of said cunts makes you a cunt. I don’t like people who act like cunts. So fuck you!
Do you understand Tibetan history up to that point? At least it’s no longer a serfdom system (which Tibetan advocates will say was equal because of the one-in-a-million chance that one of the peasants can become the Dalai Lama and that everyone was totally happy because everyone was working towards bettering Buddhism). How many Tibetan refugees do you know who experienced serfdom?
The Tibetans should get to chose their government, not a communist dictatorship of a foreign country who undertook a military invasion and then practiced cultural and ethnic eradication in Tibet. If the Mao had not lied to the leadership of Tibet, and the chinese communists had not invaded, Tibet would most likely be a peaceful democracy now, as is the democratically elected government in exile. How’s China going? Hold up a poster of Winnie the Poo in Beijing and let me know how you go.
Improved infrastructure and better access to education is not the win you think it is. Whether infrastructure and education is good or not depends on what you do with it. If you use your infrastructure to connect unruly provinces to your center of power in an effort to better exert control, then the infrastructure becomes a net-negative for the people on the receiving end. As an example, I’m sure nobody sane enough would claim that the US building the railroad was positive for native americans. Likewise, if you use your education to indoctrinate people, then better educational opportunities go hand in hand with increased oppression.
minorities in China get so many advantages it’s actually silly how much affirmative action goes on
You claim China is engaging in affirmative action to strengthen its minorities. I’m pointing out that the actions China is taking can just as easily be turned against the minorities you claim are helped by China.
I’d ask you to cite your sources but this is all sensationalized. Also, nice summary on Bandera, and the Azov fighters everyone keeps shuffling around to parliaments and fundraisers.
If you’re all so blood thirsty go put some skin in the game.
Yeah I’m sure if you go through human history you can find some insurrections you support and others you don’t :)
Perhaps you’ll want to pick another example though, as this particular one was started because their government capitulated to a foreign invader while Parisians wanted to fight. So just a little bit of irony there
That’s a pretty poor takeaway I would say. The argument would be that the Nazis took direct inspiration from the early US idea of Manifest Destiny and the dealings with Native Americans. That in turn should give people reason to think about how to change their own society and how to make the world better, instead of handwaving it away by saying, ‘Nazi genocide was worse, why are you bringing up the US?’
Dismissing something for being a fallacy is also a fallacy. There are historical, political, social, and economic reasons things happen, and sometimes it pays to put things in context. Limiting the discussion to the thing happening NOW and only NOW doesn’t allow for a better understanding of the events.
Also, someone pointing out hypocrisy of other nations shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing, especially if it’s pointing out the hypocrisy of the most powerful and influential nation to ever exist. You can see based on past events such as the war on terror and endless drone striking of civilians how governments could expect that to be the standard way of operating. That doesn’t make it right, only that military intervention has been and continues to be legitimised politically by the international community.
Dismissing something for being a fallacy is also a fallacy
Lol
Also, someone pointing out hypocrisy of other nations shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing, especially if it’s pointing out the hypocrisy of the most powerful and influential nation to ever exist.
I didn’t realize Ukraine was the most powerful nation to ever exist.
Bruh are you being willfully ignorant about that last point or do you legitimately believe I was saying Ukraine is the most powerful nation to ever exist?
You are implying that this war is somehow orchestrated by the United States, since you are whatabouting that way.
The United States is not a belligerent here. Ukraine is the one getting invaded, and Russia is doing the invading - that is the situation. Every time you whatabout to the US you imply that Ukrainians have no agency and no rights to decide for themselves or defend themselves, or are somehow under the control of Joe Biden or some shit (hint: they aren’t - polling in Ukraine is very clear that a large majority want to keep fighting until Russia is gone from their country).
So yeah, “bruh”, I’m pointing out that when we talk about Russia and Ukraine, let’s talk about Russia and Ukraine. If you want to talk about the wider geostrategic implications of the USA, Europe, NATO, and various other nations providing aid to Ukraine, let’s dance:
I suppose your moral grounds aren’t shaken by Russia seeking help in North Korea and Iran to continue killing Ukrainian civilians? That is an actual whatabout.
Or perhaps that NATO and the EU are voluntary alliances that nations are free to leave at any moment (and don’t want in the case of NATO because of Russian aggression). Very nice, “bruh”.
The person you replied to, saying whataboutism is a literal fallacy, brought up the fact that whenever anyone criticises the US in relation to current events it gets dismissed as whataboutism. I was making a point that hypocrisy in regards to the US, which is the most powerful nation in the world, helps no one, and only hinders the ability for governments to operate.
I’m not saying Ukrainians have no agency, although they are indebted to the west now, I am saying that the US is using Ukraine and spinning it as a moral good. The fact that it aligns with what the Ukrainian government wants is not necessary.
I don’t support killing civilians. I don’t support killing conscripted people. I don’t support killing volunteers who joined because they were struggling in a system that is designed to entice the poor to fight. I don’t even support killing those who joined because their mind is warped to hyper patriotism by propaganda due to the system they live in. I would rather see peace talks, collaboration in demining and rebuilding, and genuine interest in what the people of the region want. That Russia is seeking support is not surprising seeing the west supporting Ukraine, that doesn’t make it right, that just makes it predictable.
I am saying that the US is using Ukraine and spinning it as a moral good.
Using Ukraine how? Spinning it how? As far as I can tell Ukrainians are the ones begging for help. And fighting off an aggressor such as Russia is a moral good as far as I can tell. The thing I’m curious about is the constant “fear of escalation” which means we have been providing aid too slowly.
I don’t support killing civilians. I don’t support killing conscripted people. I don’t support killing volunteers who joined because they were struggling in a system that is designed to entice the poor to fight. I don’t even support killing those who joined because their mind is warped to hyper patriotism by propaganda due to the system they live in.
Of course not. I don’t want anyone to die for the ego of a sociopathic cunt. I also want everyone to be happy, live long and prosper, and I also wish we could all ride magic flying unicorns to the infinite ice cream parlor in the Bahamas and never gain weight. There are wishes and there is reality.
I would rather see peace talks, collaboration in demining and rebuilding, and genuine interest in what the people of the region want.
This is all nice, except you have to contend with Russia. The people of the region who are not Russia want security and they can’t have it with Russia as a neighbor, unless they join an alliance such as NATO, or accept Russian enslavement.
There are precisely two countries who are Russian “allies” in the region - Belorus which is occupied, and Hungary which is run by a similar Mafia, but it’s also protected from Russia by NATO and the EU (I really wish they weren’t).
Using Ukraine to offload old weapon systems, fund the US military industrial complex, test weapons in a peer to peer scenario, and destroy Russia as much as possible through Ukrainian deaths rather than American. They are spinning it as a moral crusade to uphold democracy, just like they do in every other conflict they are involved in. The Ukrainian government and a vocal part of the Ukrainian people are calling for assistance, but also a large proportion of those fighting were conscripted against their will, which shows they do not want to fight. I don’t think the fear of escalation is why new weapons are being withheld for so long, if it was they wouldn’t be sent in the end. I feel it is just to keep Ukraine and Russia struggling on in stalemate, which devastates the country and leads to more and more death.
Indeed there are wishes and reality. I told you my wishes so you don’t think I hope for some ‘Ruzzian genocide of all Ukronazis’ or something. The reality is a ceasefire and peace talks will save lives. That’s why I advocate for it. Where it goes from there is up to Ukraine and Russia, but an all or nothing mentality does not seem to be working for either of them.
Most neighbours are in NATO now, except Ukraine obviously, and those aligned with Russia. I don’t feel that two diametrically opposed blocs sharing a big border while propagandising against each other is very stable, especially when you factor in that Russian support apparently includes countries outside the local region, just as with Ukraine.
The fact that Hungary, a nation that is clearly under a right-wing, reactionary government, is a part of NATO shows how little those in NATO actually care for democratic rule. Also the alignment with the Saudis, and the propping up of Israel despite their constant crimes against the local Palestinians. I’m not saying Russia cares about democracy, the results of Yeltsin’s rule have clearly crippled them on that front, along with Putin’s never ending run. The point is to see that these are two powerful and primarily self interested blocs, and any time they start talk about how they are fighting for good it should raise some eyebrows at least.
Using Ukraine to offload old weapon systems, fund the US military industrial complex, test weapons in a peer to peer scenario, and destroy Russia as much as possible through Ukrainian deaths rather than American.
The fact that you keep ignoring is that Ukraine is asking for the equipment. NOT asking for any boots on the ground but their own. They are willing to fight this war, they need equipment.
Not just the President of Ukraine or the government, but pretty much the whole of civil society.
I’m not ignoring that, I explicitly stated that the Ukrainian government and a vocal part of the population is asking for aid. That doesn’t mean the US isn’t using them. There is also a large number of conscripts who are forced to fight, and were either prevented from leaving the country or some basically kidnapped. Those people would definitely benefit from a ceasefire and peace talks.
I am not so sure who is using who at the minute, but sure. What’s for certain is that the Russian military, such as it was, is suffering heavy losses, with plenty of busted myths (invulnerable hypersonics, indomitable Armata etc…). It’s a good return for the USA helping Ukraine, no doubt about it.
Turns out Russia are a second tier military, who was halted by previous generation US handheld anti-tank weapons and Ukraine are holding their own using second tier equipment for the most part. Turns out when you put loyalists in charge of the military, they might not be so effective. All the bloviating nonsense coming out of the Kremlin turned out to be hot rectal air.
As for a cease fire, sure, so long as Russia doesn’t use that time to reinforce their positions in Ukraine. Because they are occupying Ukrainian land. Would it be acceptable to give up that land (because that is effectively what a cease fire would accomplish, no matter what the “talks” determine)?. Russia understands only strength and force, whether they are using it or recieving it. Giving them a chance to strengthen while “talks” are ongoing only strengthens their position. As we talk Ukraine is encroaching on Donetsk airport, occupied since 2014. Continuing to weaken Russia creates a better position to negotiate from.
And Russia reneged on a prior treaty with Ukraine too, so it’s not like they are trustworthy. They have already openly stated Ukraine has no right to exist.
Yes the Russian and Ukrainian military, both made of up actual people many of whom were conscripts, are both suffering heavy losses. That means lots of death. I don’t see lots of death as being worth finding out the Russians overhyped their weapons.
Second tier military remarks are pretty surprising to me. I don’t get why so many people seem shocked that a country that suffered a decade of basically mob rule and ruthless resource extraction by oligarchs after the collapse of the previous political entity doesn’t match up to the last remaining superpower that has had no real war or massive disruption on its land since the American Civil War. Sure, in a peer to peer fight, which Russia against Ukraine is, Russia is not doing the equivalent of ‘impressively’ taking Baghdad in three weeks. It’s a completely different war. And yes the corruption obviously plays a huge role in how underwhelming the Russian menace seems to western audiences. I’m not saying this as some massive Russia supporting spiel, I am just constantly surprised by this take.
I imagine in a cease fire before official peace talks both sides would reinforce unfortunately, that tends to be what happens and I’m under no illusion that it isn’t. As to whether it would be acceptable to give up this land, it comes down to whatever is agreed to in the peace talks. I personally am all for giving up land if needed, especially land where there was a legitimate civil war happening before the Russian invasion, but it doesn’t have to happen that way. Before the inevitable accusations of ‘thats literally appeasement, Hitler, Chamberlain, 1939, etc’ a podcast called Citations Needed has a good rundown on why that is an often dishonest framing for situations. Episode 89.
Obviously you don’t need to agree with their takes, but it helps to put it into perspective.
There has been a lot of discussion around the Budapest agreement and the Minsk agreements on Lemmy already, so I won’t go into that as others are more knowledgeable than me.
I agree, but ignoring who started the war and who is the one actively invading who, while having already occupied territory from a past war, not too long ago, isn’t right either. Doubting the motivations of the agressor with a past in agression is important. And yes, "TheWest"™ does it too, but Ukraine, who revolted their puppet government (as told to me by people I know from there) in 2014 and having been invaded as a result, isn’t really an agressor to other countries.
I’m from northern Spain, we have had our fair share of civil revolts, the sides I support lost, and I would be SO angry with portugal or france if they had militarily intervened. Several international volunteers came to help in several of them, but volunteers != an official invasion.
I honestly feel like several commies hate "TheWest"™, and by proxy anyone that wants to be related to them so they just eat up the “There’s Nazis in power in Ukraine” speech Putin used.
And yeah, context is important, this is what I know about the whole thing, told to me by my partner, whose family lives in Ukraine and lightly searched by me:
There was a revolt in Ukrained around 2013, where they took away the alleged corrupt puppet president that was manipulating elections and funnelling tons of money to Russia. He has to flee the country when people went to his home, and he apparently had a golden toilet. So after that elections were done and another dude was put in power.
They started to de-russiafy some stuff because they were fed up of russia’s influence in a separate sovereign country, and as a result Russia invaded in 2014. They took Crimea, taking the home away from several Crimean Tatars who were originally from there. Ukraine tried to get international help but since "TheWest"™ didn’t want a full scale war against Russia, they kinda forced Ukraine to give up Crimea, since they obviously don’t have enough resources to defend alone.
Zelensky, an actor, made a TV show where he starred as a good professor that suddenly became president, and fought against the big bad of the country, corruption and oligarchs. People were quite happy by the idea he was promoting, and after popular demand he tried for elections, going into power with a huge majority. He started to de-russiafy again and try to gain more economical support of "TheWest"™, which are the countried whom they have most economical relations. He wanted to join both the EU and NATO, and Putin REALLY disliked that, since he felt threatened. Suddenly, war.
This time, "TheWest"™ decided to support Ukraine more heavily for what I’m sure are their personal reasons, but it’s important to see who the aggresor is. That the US made a bridge for Zelensky offering NATO to pressure Russia we don’t know, maybe, but the fact that a sovereign country is forcing another sovereign country against treaties that the second one wants is clear.
From now on, all the new info that I get on the subject is passed through all the before mentioned context, assuming that all info is completely tampered with. All of what I told you was stuff I knew about before this war, so it’s not like it was propaganda, for me.
As an addendum, some of the family members of my partner work for the military (tech job), and told us that there had been issues with russian agents in Donbass with removing the Ukranian passport to people and giving them the russian one, I believe that the military of every country is fed tons of propaganda, so idk about this one.
What do we also know about Russia? There are several indications that they tempered with international elections by creating fake internet movements and promoting disruptive real ones as we have seen with the whole Trump fiasco. If they did so mcuh effort for countries that are that far, I have zero ounces of doubt that the manipulation strategies Russia actively performed pre-war, in a non-NATO coutry, were a lot more aggresive. Again, commies and tankies don’t trust anything about "TheWest"™ so to them all the manipulation reports hold no weight, it’s clear that there is a divide in ideology here around how Russia operates things.
I don’t have any reputable sources to support my context because I can’t bother to search for them, I’m just browsing the web while working like all of us lazy asses, but given this context I have, it’s really hard for me and tons of people living in "TheWest"™ to trust anything Russia says, since they have a really long history of tampering with their neighbouring countries (Yes so does USA but this is about Ukraine and Russia).
That all sounds like brigading emotional nonsense. In fact, there were strong reasons for Russia to invade. It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine. It’s a shame none of the people you talked to were able to argue the issues sensibly.
Probably the tired line of NATO expansion fears. How’d that work out? Does Russia have more or less NATO countries near their borders? The invasion itself is the best sales pitch NATO could ever need.
So Russia says: “Nooo, nooo, don’t band together to defend yourself against our aggression! You mustn’t band together to defend against me! Wait if you even dare think about it, I’ll invade you. So here come the tanks”
What aggression? NATO is the obvious aggressor here? You don’t even believe what you’re saying. This propaganda is stale man. Even NATO admits it was the provoker.
There was no NATO aggression. The response doesn’t make sense anyways. It only strengthens NATO. Are you actually Russian? I can’t make any other sense of your stance here
Having a Nazi puppet state threaten you with joining the world’s most destructive military alliance and install nuclear weapons isn’t aggressive? What’s your reasoning?
They promised Ukraine they’d let them join so they could use them as cannon fodder in their proxy war. Then they betrayed them. Even Zelensky was threatening to install nukes after they joined. Totally not aggressive.
You must have missed some history then. Bush said he wanted them to join. France and Germany told him “never gonna happen cowboy”. I’m not sensing you know anything about how NATO works in this regard but they basically told ol’ gubya he could go eat a bag of dicks in the corner. Can you cite a source of NATO promising anything or are you going to join him there finish the rest of the dicks
Okay, but you didn’t actually answer the question, you just pointed to the geopolitical equivalent of blurry sasquatch footage. What’s the strategic logic?
Seems like a really dishonest question when you’re pretending not to understand such a basic concept. Unless you want me to believe that you’re an idiot or something?
The MAD play would be to stay within their borders and make sure their nukes and delivery systems are all in good working order. Escalating at great cost and with a risk to internal stability isn’t very good from a MAD perspective.
Agreed but here we are. They’re now arming their fascist puppet state with ATACMS and installing nukes in Finland, which is just eliminating MAD by reducing the time that Russia can respond.
It’s because Russia sees NATO as a threat and wants to take control of Ukraine to keep buffer states on the west side. Also, to keep it’sblack sea fleet safe. Why it happened now and not sooner or later - nobody knows. The official reasoning, of course, is bullshit, just like with any other war. Not the worst one, though.
I mean look, it’s a nation we talked in to giving up it’s nuclear weapons in exchange for protection and recognition by us. We really had no choice but to invade.
It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine.
Of course Russia had a choice. Not invading a country is the easiest thing to do. I do it every day, and I have nowhere near the power and resources that Vlad Putin does.
The hill is a pretty conservative outlet but this is a disturbing headline for sure. The only way to end the war is with peace talks, there is no other option. The better Ukraine does on the ground the better they will do in the negotiations.
The fear is that there is pressure for peace talk conditions to be less than fair to Ukraine, that this would be little more than appeasement of Russia, like what happened with Czechoslovakia in the 1930s
Ukraine was in a far better position when US and UK sabotaged peace talks last March, and Ukrainian position continues to deteriorate. So what exactly do you think delaying negotiations more is going to accomplish?
This is why religion should be stamped out world wide. Faith always overrides common sense. Any rational human will tell you that killing your own daughter is abhorrent behavior.
Mostly this, even if it’s also a thing where religion and culture have intertwined long and deep enough that people unfortunately wouldn’t know where one starts and one ends.
So, let me get this straight. Muslims don’t honor kill because religion? They honor kill because they have a cultural predisposition to honor killing? I mean honestly that sounds kinda gross.
Before you say they aren’t the only ones or something. I had to answer someone else before you. So, they got all the links showing that worldwide Muslims do the heavy lifting on honor killings, and we’re talking Muslims from the Balkans, to the Middle East, to Muslims in America, and Muslims in Europe. We are talking Muslims of every color.
I would think that Muslims in very different geographical areas would have slightly different cultures, but same religion.
I think it is partially entwined as a cultural element, like priests and pedophilia, but I don’t think it is written in any Islamic text that one should kill family members out of dishonor – except maybe apostasy.
I agree. From what I’ve read the Quran actually says it’s pretty bad to kill another Muslim. I’m assuming of course that most of these people have quit the faith. But too many Muslim communities in too many different parts of the world do honor killings, for honor killings to not have spread with Islam.
Which this has been such a popular topic that I started talking about it with a friend offline. His take on it was that “I feel that Islam IS the culture in these communities”. He went on to say that “when you have a religion that reminds you several times a day through prayer that you are this religion. You have to plan your day accordingly. So, the religion becomes the culture. “
Real education for kids on the world and what we know about how the universe works and why, the questions in science we are still working on, and teaching the scientific skills we are using to solve these problems.
I think shedding more light on the atrocities committed by these organizations and individuals would be a good start. I think we should publicly shame these people when they do horrific things. Maybe even protest outside their place of worship.
Bro honor killings in a Muslim country are closely tied to their religion. I have a very interesting relationship with Islam, and I can tell you with about 90% certainty that this is because of religion.
Here is honor killings by region. Guess who does the VAST majority of them world wide.
Technically an honor killing doesn’t have to be religious, but then you have to say that Muslims have a cultural predisposition to honor killings, and honestly that sounds super fucking gross.
But going back to what I was saying earlier. I grew up about as close to the Muslim faith as you can and not be Muslim at all.
This is NOT religion. This is stupid culture. There’s a reason every religious leader in Iraq condemned this. This stupid cultural idea existed for thousands of years, long before religion, and religious leaders are the ones actually citing holy books to help put a stop to this. Blame the right people.
Look, there are Christians that believe in polygamy and child marriage as part of their faith. Does that mean all Christians? No.
Likewise, do I think that all Muslims support this behavior? No. But the numbers don’t lie. It is an almost uniquely Muslim phenomenon. It doesn’t matter where the Muslims come from.
Be they from Africa, Middle East, or Balkans. It’s a Muslim thing. If you go back far enough in history sure it’s every where, but as it applies to today. It’s an almost uniquely Muslim thing.
But the numbers don’t lie. It is an almost uniquely Muslim phenomenon.
What?? You think muslim people have the lock on killing their own children. I think I just saw a news story weeks ago about a woman in the u.s. that killed her children. I mean americans usually tend towards just killing a bunch of other people’s kids, but whatever. Keep thinking religion is the bad guy here.
And you have no way of indicating whether or not someone who had killed a child has deemed it in their mind as an honor killing. The point is, you have a lot to learn. Thinking this can just be solved by eliminating religion, well that’s a tall order. Preach on though, and show those wacky muslims how they should act.
Who cares where it originated. Also, if that’s the case. Then how did these tribal customs spread all over the old world. It’s in Muslim communities in the Middle East. It’s in Muslim communities in the Balkans. It’s in Muslim communities in Africa. I mean for that matter 90% of honor killings in the US are Muslim.
You can keep lying to yourself all you want to. But don’t tell me what the numbers plainly state. This isn’t a race thing. There are Muslims of all colors. Likewise, it’s obviously not all Muslims.
But it’s undeniable that just one problematic part of the Muslim faith is honor killings. Next you’re going to try and explain away child marriage in the Muslim faith. Tell me that Muhammad didn’t have a child bride.
My favorite was this crazy math thing this guy told me one time. He said that for women they started counting age at puberty. Since was 7 when she married Muhammad, but started puberty at 12. That means she was 19.
Ill let you figure out why that’s wrong. Here’s a hint. The answer has to do with Muhammad’s first wife.
And yes I know some Christian sects like the FLDS also do child marriage. It is equally abhorrent, but we aren’t talking about them.
The thing is that honor killings are just one more disgusting facet of Islam. Period
You do, since you’re the one who brought it up in the first place and insisted on it until facts proved you wrong.
90% of the honor killings in the US were by people from one of those ethnic regions, and they were doing it for tribal reasons. The Muslim community including Muslims of their own ethnicity were horrified by the practice and unanimously condemned it. The people convicted weren’t even religious. That’s because there’s literally nothing at all in the Quran that supports this practice. Like I said, it’s a pre-Islamic practice that dummies held onto.
Let me try to make this simpler for you since you keep ignoring the reality. There were once primitive tribes that believed they had to sacrifice a virgin every year in order to keep the crops growing. Eventually, Christianity and Islam spread to the region, and despite converting there were some who still believed in the practice and tried to do it anyway, until actual religious leaders had to trek over to these remote places and make them stop. History is full of examples like this; Iranians celebrate Nowruz as a cultural holiday even though the holiday is an ancient Zoroastrian one and Iran is now majority Shia. That doesn’t mean it’s an Islamic holiday. You don’t get to blame the religions for their practice no matter how much you hate them.
This dipshit is also ignoring that fact that there could be other killings outside of muslim culture that just aren’t branded honor killing. How about Alex Murdaugh? He killed his wife and son. His son was under indictment, accused of driving a boat into a bridge while drunk, killing a passenger. That sure seems like a honor killing to me. But hey, he isn’t muslim, so we won’t call it that.
I don’t remember saying anything about where it originated other than who cares about it.
All that matters is where it is now. It is now an almost exclusively Muslim practice. As someone who grew up hanging out with a rich Muslim family a lot. I saw my best friend, and sisters kidnapped by their father taken back to Pakistan and almost forcibly married off. The reason was because the dad felt they were too western. The only reason they got back was because my friend and her older sister escaped and because they were born here got the us embassy to send them back. The younger sisters I think we’re too young back then.
Because of that same friend and her sisters. I got invited to a lot of parties for “brown people” but really it was just kids whose parents had immigrated here from all over, and most of them went to the same mosque as my friend.
I have heard a lot of similar stories. I mean I’ve heard some funny ones too. Like one dude told me how much he loves onions, but can’t eat them around his dad because it grows under ground.
My point is. We aren’t going to see eye to eye on this. Honor killings are a Muslim practice. You’ll never agree that it is, and I’m never going to agree that it isn’t. But even without that. Islam is an especially disgusting religion.
I also want to make one thing incredibly clear. I may not like religions of all faiths (I am an equal opportunity hater in that department), but I have no problem with the people. I only have a problem with the bad things they do in the name of their religion. So, don’t get it twisted. I dislike white American Christians just as much as middle eastern Muslims.
80% of the world’s cocaine comes from Colombia. By your logic that means drug trafficking is an exclusively Catholic practice. You’re trying really hard to connect two dots that don’t actually have a relationship to one another aside from geography.
But I’ll allow it. I’m bored of playing starfield.
If you want to use cocaine and Catholicism. It would be like if cocaine showed up in your country, and Catholics are the vast majority of people doing it. So you look at a map and realize that Catholics are doing cocaine in other countries. So, you do some more reading to find out that catholic countries all over the world from Africa to Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Are all doing cocaine despite being separated by mountains and oceans. Each country being surrounded by totally different cultures, and the only thing that these cocaine doing countries have in common is Catholicism.
Just out of fairness I have to add that India is also doing cocaine, because of the caste system. But they also have a huge catholic population.
No, it’s a middle eastern practice that exited for thousands of years before islam. Even though islam forbids it the cultural practice remains. You seem to be drawing a lazy false conclusion. Mafias pre-date Catholicism but just because the Italian mafia exists in a Catholic-majority area doesn’t make it a catholic practice.
No it didn’t. None of the Islamic missionaries included that with any of their teachings, which is why you don’t see Arab-style honor killings in places like Albania or Indonesia.
You keep insisting on something factually incorrect. It’s like claiming Catholicism invented wife beating and taught it to Latin America. It was never once sanctioned by Islamic scholars or leaders throughout 1400 year history.
Who said anything about despots? These are opinions of people, not rulers. Citizens of Africa, Asia, South America have suffered under US hegemony, so they view the Russian State different than you do.
A compromise now is bad for russia, russia basically has to be able to extort Western Europe to not to be crippled for decades. Germany is apparently working to that end now.
It’s so fucking funny when the geopolitics understanders who have been drip-fed NATO propaganda state the clear opposite of reality and think they made an insightful comment.
Russia has all but won the military conflict, as has been made clear by this utter failure of a “counteroffensive.” Russia is doing better economically than before the SMO, despite the supposed economic wunderwaffen sanctions that only backfired and hurt NATO countries. Russia has only gained support by most of the rest of the world and has showed the global south that the US/NATO are indeed paper tigers. Russia has all the leverage now. So yes, for Russia to compromise right now would be bad for them because they don’t need to compromise, they can keep going as they have been and eventually have their demands met, or Ukraine/NATO can recognize they’ve lost and make a bid for peace by acquiescing to Russia’s demands before more lives are needlessly lost.
Ukraine on the other hand will be crippled for decades regardless of how things pan out. Ukraine is now deeply indebted to Western countries, has already had all national assets sold off, has had a major chunk of its working-age population killed or maimed, and is beholden to a fascist, nazi-worshipping government.
As for Germany, yeah they have been working to the end of hobbling themselves for decades too by allowing their remaining industrial capacity to be completely gutted, kowtowing to their US masters that bombed their infrastructure to prevent them ever again getting oil from ‘The Bad Country,’ they have irreparably removed nuclear power as an option even as they’re facing an impending energy crisis (in large part because of aforementioned no-oil-from-bad-country), and are right now also sliding towards right wing populism.
Yes, but the liberal pro-EU protestors got sidelined by literal neo-Nazis. The following President was basically handpicked by the US Ambassador. There’s plenty of western media from 2015-2021 about the integration of Azov into the Ukrainian military structure, the rehabilitation of World War II collaborators, and the suppression of the Russian language. The people of the East are, in principle, just as entitled to wish to join Russia as western Ukraine is to join the EU.
Look, the heckin’ wholesome slava ukrainis didn’t know where he was so they had to shell everywhere! It’s like playing Battleship, except it’s mostly other random innocent people that you hit
Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire. Russia escalated further by sending in troops. I didn’t say it’s “okay,” but the blame isn’t just on their side.
If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict? Because I’d like to condemn Russian escalation, but it’s a little hard for me to do so if I don’t have an answer to that question.
Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I’m always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.
If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict?
If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like “Come across the border and we’ll set you up with a Russian passport”.
Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I’m always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.
Minsk II was the one I was referring to, but it’s a fair point.
If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like “Come across the border and we’ll set you up with a Russian passport”.
Ok, let me rephrase that then. Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia, or should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country? Because I think that a lot of this mess could’ve be avoided if Ukraine had simply given them a referendum, but instead they banned opposition parties, which says to me that they knew how the people there would vote.
This is like saying that the US should’ve invaded Cuba when they started taking nationalizing property instead of doing what the other person said and accepting refugees and asylum seekers. There’s always another way besides war and violence.
There isn’t always another way besides violence. The German invasion of the USSR was a war of extermination. Laying down and dieing is not morally superior.
Fair enough. If you’re defending yourself, then I suppose that’s true. Which is incidentally another reason Ukraine has the right to defend themselves.
I don’t think the US dumping tons of weapons is actually helping defend themselves, it just seems to be getting conscripts killed. If they had actually negotiated after that karkiv offensive maybe you could have made the case?
Well it’s keeping them having some sovereignty over their own country instead of it falling in 3 days like everyone thought. Does Ukraine want to lose a bunch of their territory? That’s the question and considering how hard they’re fighting, it doesn’t look like they do. If the average Ukrainian wants the ability to defend and keep their home, then I want that for them, too.
And war is unpredictable. Maybe Russia will lose the appetite for war soon, or maybe Ukraine will want to negotiate (but I’m sure they want to take what they can before then). Winter is coming.
Does Ukraine want to lose a bunch of their territory?
It already has, and not in the way you think. In 2013 Ukraine had a president unwilling to take an IMF deal, and opted for the Russian one. The maidan coup happened and now they have a president who does whatever the money men want.
Even now there’s a website up for openly privatizing Ukraine, and the ultimate outcome in a NATO victory explicitly is going to be the privatization of the breadbasket of Europe.
I mean, ya, the IMF sucks and further privatization of Europe is bad. But that doesn’t mean you have to support Russia while they bomb and kill civilians or make fun of Ukrainian citizens for trying to defend their home and their lives.
The extent of “support” for Russia has been extremely critical on hexbear. You all just say that anyone not falling over themselves to slava ukraini is a Russia supporting Putin bot.
Not in any of the threads that hit the defederated servers at least. I’ve seen maybe two people from hexbear ever criticize Russia or mention something they did bad, while everyone else constantly shits on and memes on Ukraine and their defense effort. You guys say you do, but don’t actually do it.
Well you’ve been on lemmy for 3 months, and just started running into us in only the last month, meanwhile we’ve been chatting and having struggle sessions about this type of shit for years to various degrees. (especially since 22)
Ever since the illegal dissolution of the USSR, Russia has been a capitalist shithole, the treatment of LGBT people there sucks. They are what we made them, politically.
You construe a lack of support for Ukraine with ‘shitting’ on them. I want to see the US drop support for Ukraine because it would mean that people like you and I stop dying on a daily basis for lines on a map. There have been many chances for a negotiated end, and from where I’m sitting the US went out of its way to blow those opportunities.
The US did blow those opportunities because the people who own the US government profit wildly from this conflict. With no Afghanistan, they need another endless war to fill their wallets up with.
Have you considered that maybe that’s because of the threads that you pay attention to? Step outside of the Ukraine war stuff if you want to actually test that hypothesis of yours.
If Russia was after lives they would be bombing the shit out of Ukrainian infrastructure. They currently hold the territories where the people who were being bombed by the Ukrainian government live.
They have been bombing tons of infrastructure. They’ve been hitting all over cities, hospitals, dams and reservoirs, etc. They’re probably not going to bomb the places they currently control for obvious reasons but that doesn’t mean they’re not hitting places with civilians they don’t currently control.
Right, but they didn’t full out invade, like Russia is doing. They definitely considered it, though lol. And it would’ve sucked for the people of Cuba if they did, just like it did for Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, or the populace of every other country that’s ever been attacked.
I mean the US didn’t. US-backed Cuban exiles did. There’s a big difference. If US had attacked with it’s full might, you guys would’ve been saying Cuba should surrender as much as Ukraine should right now, because there is no way they would have won. They would’ve been a smear of an island, probably closer to Haiti. They goodness Kennedy didn’t listen to his warhawk generals on this point at least.
Putting American boots on the ground is not the only way that the United States brings death and destruction to a region to further (or protect, as some Amercan politicians call it) American, and more broadly western, hegemony (or American interests, as craven ghouls call it). The use of proxy forces like in Afghanistan during the 80s, coups like those carried out in Chile in 73 and, well really most of South America in the latter 20th century, sanctions against countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and the DPRK (which are explicitly put in place to make life worse for the people living there and produce people who would be willing to commit violent acts to overthrow the local government not adequately subordinate to the United States), facilitating the mass murder of people opposed to the pro-america regime or too supportive of communism like in Indonesia and South Korea several times, all bring massive loss of life and terrible suffering. The crimes against humanity carried out by the United States and on their behalf are so terrible and widespread that it is difficult to name a country that has not had blood spilled to advance American hegemony in it. Like Cuba.
At that though, the United States is no stranger to directly deploying troops to crush opposition to American hegemony. Like in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan again, and the RSFSR immediately after the revolution. War is terrible, but it is not out of the question to enforce American hegemony.
In Ukraine, the United States is not interested in preserving democracy or the self determination of the Ukranian people. It never has been in any of the countries or among any of the organizations that receive its support. The United States ultimately wants to have control over the Russian economy to use as a source of cheap labor and resources. That was the USSR and later Russia were denied, several times, entry into NATO, an ostensibly defensive alliance for the region that Russia is in, and the purpose of the rapid privatization of post-soviet economies after ‘91. Ukraine is caught in the terrible position of being used to advance the United States’ goal in the region. Support for Ukraine will be dropped when the United States government believes that it is no longer useful or viable to support them against Russia, after who knows how many people are dead and permanently injured, and how many more whose entire lives have been destroyed.
Russia has fought through proxy forces and propaganda a ton as well. They were doing the same thing in Ukraine in Crimea and the Donbas regions and it’s partially what led to this whole mess. Yes, America bad I would love for them to leave all those other countries alone. But that doesn’t mean no one else can do evil in the world. Blame the people causing the dead and permanently injured, bombing out whole cities with civilians, not the ones giving Ukraine a chance to defend against it. The difference is the US was the aggressor in those other scenarios while in this one they are just helping out the defender. Yes it’s to help their own interests, but the Ukrainians don’t care, they just want someone to help them defend their land and home and families.
Oh! Well then we see eye-to-eye in that case. I think Western support to Ukraine should be limited to accepting refugees and providing humanitarian aid, not weapons. I think Ukraine should be open to ceding territory in negotiations in order to end the war and prevent further loss of life. There’s always another way besides war and violence. I’m all about peace, glad we’re in agreement.
There are countless of well-documented examples of the American empire sponsoring terrorist attacks, sabotage and assassinations against Cuba. To this day the American empire upholds an illegal an unprovoked blockade of the island as well as occupying the land on which the Guantanamo naval base and torture black site is placed.
Before the revolution, America ran Cuba as a colony, leeching off the hard work of Cubans. If anything, the history of American relations with Cuba has been one of profound violence.
But okay, most of the times they made sure to put in a middle-man to do the actual dirty work which absolves them of all sin I guess.
That’s basically what Russia was doing in Ukraine by propping up pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. But I guess it’s fine when they do that, bendy they succeeeded, it’s only bad when America does it, because they failed.
And are you saying you would’ve been fine if the US did a full-scale invasion of Cuba then, because they did all that other stuff? Otherwise, that was all unrelated and besides the point.
Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia
Of course. They just don’t have a right to drag the rest of Ukraine into Russia at the same time. On principle, I support pretty much any separatist movement on the grounds of “why should I care if a country’s capitalist class loses some of its economic base?”
should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country?
No, but if that’s what was happening we could all then be criticizing a peacetime government for acting injustice upon segments of its population, instead of advocating for an end to a war. The idea that a country should intervene militarily in order to “save” a group of people isn’t one based on honest, good-faith altruism on the part of the country that wants to intervene, if it were, then wouldn’t we be in a constant state of war everywhere? (Since there’s pretty much at least one oppressed group in every country worldwide at least one other country could claim a right to “protect” them based on shared heritage or language.)
Just because Russia (might) have the military capability to do so when all these other countries might not doesn’t mean they should.
On principle, I support pretty much any separatist movement
The idea that a country should intervene militarily in order to “save” a group of people isn’t one based on honest, good-faith altruism on the part of the country that wants to intervene, if it were, then wouldn’t we be in a constant state of war everywhere?
I don’t see how you can hold these two positions simultaneously. If part of a country wants to leave, and the government of that country says, “No, and we’ll use force to stop you,” and another country says, “Hey, seperatists, we’ll support you,” then where do you stand on all that? You’re pro-seperatist while being anti-supporting seperatists? That doesn’t make any sense, you could look at just about any successful seperatist movement and see that they recieved foreign backing from someone and that it was likely a crucial factor in winning, for example, French support in the American revolution. This foreign support is generally less motivated by altruism and more by the assisting nation’s geopolitical goals, but it’s all the same to the seperatists who need it to survive.
To me your stance is coming across as, you support the seperatists, but also they should’ve backed down immediately when Ukraine used force to avoid a war, but in that case it seems like you don’t actually support the seperatists in practice.
I don’t see how you can hold these two positions simultaneously.
They’re about different things. One is an opinion about bottom-up, community activism and the principle of self-determination, and is a belief that exists independently of the material conditions and reality of global politics. France only supported the Americans in order to “get back” at England. They later regretted it when the Americans supported the French Revolution. When I say I support separatism, I am thinking specifically about how Lenin released all of the Russian Empire’s colonial nations, regardless of how it might adversely impact the Soviet states’ security prerogatives.
If part of a country wants to leave, and the government of that country says, “No, and we’ll use force to stop you,” and another country says, “Hey, seperatists, we’ll support you,” then where do you stand on all that?
Like I said with France and the 13 colonies – no country is actually saying that or has ever said that. France didn’t go “yeah, we love what you’re trying to do 13 colonies and support your beliefs wholeheartedly”, they went “oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals.” Likewise, Russia, having lost Ukraine (and the Eastern Bloc), is trying to regain its lost glory, and it just so happens that they can exploit Donbas separatism in order to do so.
My understanding of the Donbas is that it was largely populated by Russians from the Russian SFSR during the era of open borders within the Soviet States, which also makes things different than Catalans, Kurds, and Scots, for example.
Like I said with France and the 13 colonies – no country is actually saying that or has ever said that. France didn’t go “yeah, we love what you’re trying to do 13 colonies and support your beliefs wholeheartedly”, they went “oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals.”
Saying “oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals” is still supporting them. That’s my point, seperatists often rely on geopolitical rivals supporting them for ulterior motives. You can’t really cleanly separate bottom-up political activism from opportunistic rivals with ulterior motives, because in practice the former will generally rely on the latter. Generally when you’re fighting a civil war, you don’t have the luxury of turning up your nose at offers of assistance for the sake of purity. So if your position is supporting seperatists movements except when they recieve foreign backing, you’re not going to find yourself supporting many seperatists movements in practice, at least in cases where they have to fight.
If this was still like 2018, I’d be out there supporting the various brokered deals that included Russia at the table. Framing the current conflict as a civil war is inaccurate, as it lost the characteristics of a civil conflict when Russia attacked the rest of Ukraine in February 2022. What was a protracted, simmering war between a fraction of the Ukrainian army and Russian-backed Separatists on the fringes of the nation’s territory, with a dynamic akin to plenty of regions around the world throughout the latter half of the 20th century and the start of the 21st.
So if your position is supporting separatist movements except when they receive foreign backing, you’re not going to find yourself supporting many separatist movements in practice, at least in cases where they have to fight.
I wouldn’t say that’s my position. I support separatism, but I also oppose war in most of its forms, since it means the destruction of people’s livelihoods, and heritages, which of course cost many lives in the process too. People here often talk about ending the war in Ukraine as fast as possible because of the violence, so wouldn’t the morally and ethically consistent viewpoint be to support what would prevent war too, not to argue for or justify foreign interventionism? No war but class war, you know?
Within the context of Ukraine, the DNR and LPR didn’t have the relationship with Russia that, going back to the French and American Revolution example, the American colonists had with the French. American separatists didn’t become subordinate to French military leadership or to French foreign policy goals. The newly-independent Americans didn’t then ask to join the French Empire.
As an aside, France’s support for the Americans failed them in their ambitions and led to the collapse of the Ancien Regime, which if we’re to take it as indicative of the outcome and legacy of foreign-backed separatist conflicts, means that this isn’t gonna be good for Russia long term.
I support separatism, but I also oppose war in most of its forms
Ok so what happens if a government says, “No you can’t secede and I don’t care how many of you want to?” Nations aren’t generally keen on giving up territory, especially in cases where the relationship is exploitative. Renouncing force means renouncing the threat of force, which can often leave very little leverage for a seperatist movement to work with.
Personally though, I’m inclined to agree somewhat with your point that seperatism isn’t always worth the conflict, and for that reason I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the stance of being predisposed to support seperatist movements. Imo, it’s better to take a pragmatic view, evaluating the specific conditions on a case by case basis.
I would argue that if Russia withdrew and the seperatist movements surrendered, there would still be a conflict between the Russian speaking population and the Ukrainian government. I suppose it’d be possible for Russia to offer citizenship and relocation assistance to everyone, but it would mean displacing a lot of people and I’m not sure it’s realistic. Do you have examples of historical precedent in a comperable situation?
Within the context of Ukraine, the DNR and LPR didn’t have the relationship with Russia that, going back to the French and American Revolution example, the American colonists had with the French. American separatists didn’t become subordinate to French military leadership or to French foreign policy goals. The newly-independent Americans didn’t then ask to join the French Empire.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the DNR and LPR would want to join Russia for legitimate security reasons at this point. If you want to label them as Russian proxies and Ukraine as a US proxy, I don’t mind, but I think the reality is that while both are influenced by foreign governments, they also both represent some degree of genuine support.
As an aside, France’s support for the Americans failed them in their ambitions and led to the collapse of the Ancien Regime, which if we’re to take it as indicative of the outcome and legacy of foreign-backed separatist conflicts, means that this isn’t gonna be good for Russia long term.
I don’t think you can extrapolate like that from a single data point under pretty different conditions.
what if…no you can’t secede and I don’t care how many of you want to?
This is what happens with every seperatist movement pretty much though, and yet i dont see many calls for arms and civil war Cascadia, Scotland, Catalonia these days. The people there know it would mean the destruction of everything they hold dear.
…possible for Russia to offer citizenship and relocation assistance to everyone, but it would mean displacing a lot of people and I’m not sure it’s realistic. Do you have examples of historical precedent in a comperable situation?
I mean, I don’t think there’s any way of getting around displacing people - if it joined Russia I’m sure there are people who’d want to leave for Ukraine, and of course we’re already talking about the reverse.
I can’t think of specific examples but there’s definitely been examples of mass migration or offering of citizenship due to “political solutions” meant to avoid conflict and reduce the spectre of war. Just off the cuff though, I can think of how people of Northern Ireland are able to hold Irish passports, or the numerous migrations that happened in the 20th century when borders were changed or imposes as parts of treaties (the part of Germany that is now Poland, the Muslim/Hindu migrations between Pakistan and India during partitioning, etc)
These aren’t good or something I’m arguing for, but I believe that it was preferable to all out war.
I don’t think you can extrapolate like that from a single data point under pretty different conditions.
Me too, that’s why I said it at the end as an aside, it was more of a glib comment than an actual thesis.
I’m perfectly fine with a negotiated settlement. Ideally, the areas where more people want to stay in Ukraine should stay with Ukraine and the areas where more people want to join Russia should join Russia. That would minimize the amount of displacement while allowing people to live under the government of their choice. My real issue is that Ukraine won’t negotiate at all, even on Crimea, and I just think that’s unreasonable.
the Muslim/Hindu migrations between Pakistan and India during partitioning
This was the biggest example that came to my mind and it’s not exactly comparable but it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of relocation.
My real issue is that Ukraine won’t negotiate at all, even on Crimea, and I just think that’s unreasonable.
For the same reason that every country tells its own seperatist movements “no”. I believe that Russia should’ve waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders. Had it done so I think given another decade or two, Ukraine would have to accept reality and cede it formally in exchange for concessions of some sort (again, thinking of historical precedent).
While I’ve been describing and explaining sovereignty as a concept I do believe it presents inherent flaws indicative of its origins with European royals and its having been imposed across the world.
it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of relocation
Of course not, but a war with shifting frontlines (since I was suggesting it as an alternative to invasion) would be inherently more destructive. (Although forced relocation can be committed as a war crime too).
I believe that Russia should’ve waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders.
That’s kind of a fair point I think but I don’t think the Donbas would ever be able to join Russia in this timeline. Without Russian intervention, the separatists likely lose and the years that follow establish precedent for Russia control of Crimea but also for Ukrainian control over Donbas. I think it’s a valid, if cynical, argument to say that Russia should’ve cashed out with Crimea instead of going all in to try to take Donbas, but it means leaving the separatist out to dry. I do kind of agree with it though, I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I’ve seen people say they’d be genocided but I don’t really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.
Valid, but cynical arguments make up a lot of foreign policy takes :/. Part of why I speak how I do is because I want to live in a world that one day won’t be ruled by realpolitik and for people to matter when it comes to the foreign policies of nationstates.
I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I’ve seen people say they’d be genocided but I don’t really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.
They did do that. My coworkers aunt was finally granted Russian citizenship and was ecstatic. They granted citizenship to a number of refugees in the war.
Most of the people I’m talking about were either born there or have lived there for longer than Ukraine has existed as a state. Those people should be the ones in charge of the fate of Crimea, regardless of their ethnicity. I don’t believe in blood and soil nationalism where only certain ethnicities get to be full citizens.
By “the Uighers” I assume you’re talking about Xinjiang? The most serious separatist movement there is the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, the US recognized these guys as a terrorist group in 2002. The US continued to recognize them as a terrorist group until 2020, when the US decided that it would be more politically convenient for them to not be terrorists anymore. The overall populace supports the central government. It’s 90+% approval for China overall, I can’t find a breakdown by region. If the people of Xinjiang were to lose faith in the central government and decided to go their own way then I would support them. The important part is that is has to be the people, not terror groups, not US-backed NGOs, and not US-backed protest movements, that support the separatism movement.
“My terminally online movement is not full of fascists and useful idiots parroting fascist propaganda because of, uhm, history” Yes, tell me again about the freikorps while every day I see another hazoid being besties with Nazis, or being a fascist themselves.
I don’t know if you’re a fascist, I’m currently not interested enough to go checking.
how you call me terminally online
Because you’re on Lemmy defending legacy of a pejorative identifier when confronted with the fact that the modern online tankie community has produced a number of fascist-aligned notable persons over the last years, and keeps spreading and regurgitating fascist propaganda because of the common alignment against the West.
The history is important. In this conversation, history is irrelevant. Stop making it about your honor
“Please stop pointing out we’re friends with fascists, it hurts our feefees. Don’t you know that muh history means I’m very cool and honorable despite being an internet warrior”.
You’re one step removed from a nationalist. Except you’re feeding your insecurity with a different flavour of a myth.
You’re not beating the allegations, you’re treating this the same way a nationalist would. If you don’t see the irrelevance of historical anecdotes here, well, I guess that explains why you’re a tankie.
Haz, Maupin, Dore and all their sphere are fascist. One guy literally went through being an “anti-imperialist” tankie to going to Tucker Carlson and talking about how wokeness is destroying West or something. Even in comments here I see tankies gladly buying and spreading Russian bullshit about Ukrainians being Nazis. Or how when I recently mentioned Russia making genocidal policies against trans people, a lot of people from a tankie sub began whataboutisming me about that. The fact that you totally ignored my larger point (tankie community producing fascists), which you apparently know about and “dunk all the time” on. The fact that you tried to deflect from that by bringing up 50-years-old historical anecdotes which are irrelevant to this particular context. It’s in the same vein as when Israel tries to deflect from accusation of fascism and apartheid by bringing up antisemitism and Holocaust. Of course, what Israel does is much worse than being a breeding ground for online fascists, but the mechanism of deflection here is similar. Don’t try to strawman me on this. No matter which honorable or victimized identity you use, this remains a deflection.
You really need to start using real words for things. You are using “tankie” to describe everything under the sun right now and I literally have no idea what you’re saying anymore.
I’ve actually been extremely consistent with my usage of the term throughout this conversation. The people I’m talking to keep using it for everyone under the sun, that’s true. From a member of a third-world communist party 50 years ago to themselves to Joseph Stalin. My focus is currently on the online English-speaking community/ies of the last 5-10 years who would fit the term
Who else would we talk about in a Lemmy conversation about people on Lemmy supporting Russia? I’ve been telling you the Vietnamese don’t matter in this context from the very beginning.
EDIT: I’ve made myself clear what I was talking about. The context was there, you were the first one to bring up the 20th century people. I could take some responsibility as the term is vague, but too many of you went for the dunks and posturing, making up shit about what I meant on the fly. The problem that truth here is relative and if enough of you decide that is what happened, whatever context I had in mind wouldn’t matter. It’s easy to be cynical about the whole interaction for both of us. Also good for the ego, as being wrong hurts and we all know it. I’m off to bed, will see if you add something else here later. It wasn’t nice to talk to you, bye.
Please learn reading comprehension in regards the article in question. Or to my message. You seem to have trouble understanding at least one of the two
I don’t like being lied about. I assume it’s you not understanding either what I wrote or the article. Or you just don’t care and I’m just feeding a troll
Gaslighting is when someone shows you your own copy and pasted words and then tells you that an article is a relevant reply to your statement.
You’re a fucking baby. If you can’t engage with something so basic without having a tantrum and pulling reddit debatebro cliches out of a hat then why the fuck are you still here? I told you to act like you gave a shit or shut the fuck up. Why do you refuse both?
This is literally the gaslighter tactic. The moment you call out the behavior you’re framed as the unstable one. I think I’ve made it clear that you’re either wrong about the meaning of my words or you’re actively lying about them, which I think is the most probable here as you keep being a POS about all of this. If you think there is a literal one-to-one correlation between the article and my words, you could’ve shown it to me hours ago. You didn’t. I did read the article, it’s not there. You keep pushing your bullshit without elaborating, so yeah, you’re a troll.
One last try before I block you and go with my day, this is not productive at all.
Gaslighting is when you make someone question their own senses. I quoted your exact words to you.
Stop draping yourself in the cloak of abuse and mental health issues just because you’re a fucking lazy idiot who wants an easy way out of being criticized for your nazi propaganda talking points.
It’s really fucking gross, you should be ashamed of yourself and fuck you.
Oh no what will I do without your continued petulant intransigence and mocking of abuse victims
Thank goodness you made a dramatic pronouncement like that instead of just fucking off hours ago like I suggested. Imagine being the main character and not having a mic drop.
Pretend I’m talking about all communists. If I wanted to do so, I would use the term “communists”. But I don’t see a reason to attack the group I myself belong to
Oh, which successful communists are you talking about?
Also, double genocide theory being holocaust trivialization still applies as it refers to calling the USSR fascist, if you think it is an irrelevant insuniation take it up with the Jewish holocaust scholars.
As I said to the person below, learn reading comprehension or fuck off. I don’t want to engage in a conversation when I’m repeatedly being gaslit on what I said.
It’s impossible to insult successful communists, as there are none. Unless you lower your bar enough to ignore glaring issues like ethnic cleansing of “unloyal” peoples and recreation of the capitalist mode of production.
I’m not interested in the “no U” back-and-forth. If you want to defend online tankie community producing prominent fascists, then do so without deflecting. If you don’t, then stop acting indignant
I didn’t mention Holocaust anywhere you paranoid fuck. Stop deflecting. If you link the double genocide thing once more I will assume you’re just here to defend the resettlements. Which kinda proves my point.
Do you have anything to say about the prominent online fascists or fascist Russia apologists coming from the tankie community, some still publicly identifying as tankies?
I literally lost ancestors to the holocaust. Stop carrying water for fascists by equating the people who ended the holocaust to them. You’re doing work to trivialize the holocaust, according to literally every prominent Jewish historian who studied the holocaust and has spoken about double genocide theory. This is literally a mainstream position outside of communist circles.
Either learn to prioritize not giving the nazis ammo over your desire to be a mini-mcCarthy or learn what the actual differences between communism and fascism are instead of relying on propaganda that benefits the nazis.
Fuck off you gaslighting fascist pig, losing ancestors to Holocaust doesn’t prevent you from being a fascist POS which you proved enough to me already. I have zero respect for you as you keep lying about my words without a pause and kept deflecting criticisms of fascist behavior and ethnic cleansings by deceptively framing my position as something it is not. Which is the same egregious thing fascist supporters of Israeli apartheid are known for. Fuck off and go deport Kalmyks or whatever your favourite hobby is
I am not lying about your words. I am telling you that equating communists and fascists (which you have repeatedly done) is incorrect, and holocaust trivialization, according to mainstream liberal historians, which you could literally look up right now instead of continuing to show your own ass and be incredibly offensive to a communist organizer who lost family to the fucking holocaust.
Is double genocide theory in the room with us now? Why do you keep bringing this irrelevant shit up? How do some fucks equivocating USSR and Nazi Germany relate to the repackaged Russian fascist propaganda I see coming daily from the tankie community? How does it justify the defense of ethnic cleansing you’ve engaged in this conversation? A whole bunch of people sharing community with you came out of woodwork to lie about me the moment I mention the really bad fucking things I see daily among people like you. You all lie, you reframe my words into something entirely different, you keep bringing stuff from time periods completely unrelated to the fucked up shit I see in front of me. My original message had nothing to do with neither USSR nor Nazi Germany, it’s you who decided to push the conversation towards “successful communists” and the DGT. I see the same fascist tactics of deflection as I’d see from Nazis or Israel apartheid supporters. “Oh, you’ve criticized our fascist behavior? But we’ve suffered greatly from Nazis, so it’s you who’s the real fascist actually”. Your offense should be directed towards yourself internalizing fascist tactics and not me calling you out on them.
Is double genocide theory in the room with us now?
Yes, you repeatedly are equating communists with fascists which is the main rhetoric it uses to advance holocaust trivialization, you ass.
How does it justify the defense of ethnic cleansing you’ve engaged in this conversation?
Didn’t you just accuse me of gaslighting?
Lmao.
repackaged Russian fascist propaganda I see coming daily from the tankie community?
You need to open a history book specialized in how fascist systems exist and operate. Russia is literally just a belligerent bourgeois democracy. Putin is beholden to the oligarchs, a word for capitalists with an orientalist connotation. There is not the transition from primarily extracting increases of productivity from abstract surplus labor value to concrete labor value which marks fascism economically.
What “tankie community” lol? There isn’t a unified one. Do you mean us, who generally oppose the war and want a negotiated peace so Ukraine stops losing the war so expensively (in blood of conscripts)?
There’s no equating, I specified which things I have issues with. You’ve been deflecting from those things by bringing up Holocaust, which is a tactic used by fascists. Also saying that there are prominent fascists who call themselves tankies or communists is not related to Holocaust in any way. The only way you can link it is by malicious use of the aforementioned tactic.
defense of ethnic cleansing
When I bring up ethnic cleansings done by USSR and the first thing you do is deflecting by lying that I said they were equal to Holocaust, this is defense of ethnic cleansing. When called out on that, you continued to do so, so I can’t write it off as you being unaware of what you were doing. The moment you called me out on the thing you thought I was doing, I corrected you. When you got called out, you just ignored it and kept doing the same thing.
Russia is just a […] democracy
Thank you for verifying you don’t know shit. Trivializing fascism we go.
You need to open a history book specialized in how fascist systems exist and operate.
Generally it’s a bad idea to hinge the whole question of whether a country is fascist on a single esoteric economic factor. Which part are you talking about: the slave labor? the war economy? You’re a bit word salad-y there.
What “tankie community” lol?
The one which decided to come out on me with your fascist deflections. Or the same which keep calling Ukrainians Nazis, following the same propaganda tactic used in the War on Terror. The same from which fascists like Haz, Maupin, and Hinkle sprouted and got popular in. Or the same which tried to do whataboutism when I brought up Russian genocidal policies on trans people around a month ago. Those which pretend that created via a Nazi coup DNR is actually an embattled Russian minority defending itself and not a blatant puppet-state. The one that tried to justify Russian invasion to me countless of times, the one that parroted Russian narratives on Bucha. What I’m doing here is basically describing my every second interaction with tankies to you.
Obviously there’s not a single community, but there are large nodes, and even if there were none, this wouldn’t mean the patterns of behavior can’t be criticized.
Haha, you think I’m gonna defend nazis? Nah, they were worse than the soviets, but not by much. You tankied are about equivalent to neo nazis in my book
I think it’s bad for thousands of ukrainians to die in war they cannot win, which they do not want to fight, purely so NATO can accomplish some esoteric geopolitical goal, but that’s just me shrug-outta-hecks
Lmao new tagline dropped.
No one on hexbear supports Russia, it’s a neoliberal hellscape that’s somehow even worse than the us on LGBTQ rights. We just dont uncritically consume state department propaganda.
Then why don’t you help feed them instead of posting in a platform through a device that very likely is using tech that came from space research operations?
Just like Musk isn’t responsible for the work the engineers at SpaceX have accomplished, Modi isn’t responsible for the work the engineers in India have accomplished.
But Modi is the one that decides where funding goes…
He’s also the one that decided India is exporting rice again, despite all the children starving. So prices go up, the wealthiest make money, and even more can’t afford the remaining rice.
When the Brits exported rice during famine to make money, they were monsters…
When Modi does it…
He’s still a monster. Unless you’re a hypocrite, then it’s somehow cool and a moon rocket makes up for it
Ah… this person is a complete utter Indian/Modi hater. Read their comment history. I’ve replied to them in a previous comment related to India space techs. He kept throwing arguments that I believed in a (supposedly) Indian propaganda and Modi kept his people starving backed this same reference. When I see this post I wonder if they would be here throwing the same hatred. Lo and behold, who have I found.
Edit. I’ve found their previous comment thread. Their comment began quite sound but getting ridiculous down the thread. According to them, It seemed no matter what, Indian space techs just an illusionary accomplishments where any other country can achieve (which is not true as my I put out a reply that my country can’t, and likely so for many other countries) and India shouldn’t invest in techs because their citizens are starving - which is ridiculous to me as we need to invest in knowledge to progress. Every country has to deal with countless domestic issues but that shouldn’t stop them progressing technology wise.
I mean sure, there are failures all the time. But it just seems weird bringing up Russia’s (or anyone’s) successful space program when India lands on the moon.
It’s not that weird, Russia’s was the most recent attempt before this one. India landed today, Russia crashed last weekend, Japan crashed back in April, India crashed 2019. Those are all the most relevant ones to talk about in relation to this one due to timing and landing site.
The landing part is the hard part, but it isn’t like Russia is any less inept than any other nation with a space program. Until SpaceX and now NASA got their new launch systems up and running, it was Russia that was getting our people to and from the ISS. The US had a pretty long span of time having to rely on basically the same launch systems that were directly competing against them during the race to the Moon. Shit is just really hard no matter how long any nation/company has been doing it. We still get plenty of pretty epic explosions from SpaceX and will see many more (especially with the BFR project). And before them we lost Challenger without it making it to space, and Colombia while coming back to earth. They did at least get to the Moon and did leave a mark of sorts. I wish there were cameras with high resolution recording all the landings and crashes from all nations that could upload after the fact for us to see. I would love to see how big the dust plumes get from all of them (especially the crashes), and see how long it takes for shit to settle again.
NASA still haven’t really got their SLS or any other launch system up and running, just SpaceX with Crew Dragon. SLS is in the pipeline but not yet certified for people - the first crewed launch is currently scheduled for Nov 2024, however that date may well slide. That leaves just SpaceX as an alternative to Russia, at least for crewed missions.
More recently the reliability of Russian rockets has been called into question. SpaceX launch far more than Russia now and with SpaceX it’s pretty much become routine. Excluding Starship, SpaceX haven’t had a launch failure since 2016. Meanwhile, Russia have their own distractions going on here on Earth.
Space is hard, but achieving orbits is on the easier end of it and should be fairly routine. Russia have experience landing on the moon in the past, however by their own admission that experience wasn’t available in the recent mission. Obviously we don’t know exactly what went wrong with Russia’s attempt, but it is a little concerning they failed at such a small hurdle.
Go back to lemmygrad, your kind isn’t welcome here, tankie. Slava Ukraini. Proud member of the SSBN force, ready to set 1SQ for strategic nuclear launch when directed. KILL THE BEAR!
Go back to Reddit, Anglo devil, for your empire will die the most horrific death, giving the loudest scream while going unheard by one. Slava Rossiya, slava BRICS+ and gottstrafe Anglosphere!
Seriously though, she chose a show that was randomly chosen by the algorithm, she watched it, and more content of that type was suggested to her by the algorithm.
They didn't figure anything out. There's no sentience in the algorithm, only the creators of said algorithm. It only chose content based on input. So it all revolves around the choices of the article's author.
Same thing with the woman who was pregnant, the algorithm gave choices based on the user's browsing history. It made the connection that the choice of product A was also chosen by pregnant mothers, therefore the shopper might be interested in product B which is something an expecting mother would buy.
Ugh, I was agreeing with you, and you go pedant. Come on, you should know "figure out" doesnt necessarily imply sentience. It can also be used synonymously with, "determine."
I believe in case of the pregnant women she was offered diapers and stuff. Based on food she bought. So it’s no simply “you both diet coke, maybe try diet chocolate?”. In case of Netflix there’s no " A show only gay people watch" so her complaints are silly.
Has this story ever been confirmed by Target directly? As this happened in America and her father was outraged about it, it would have been awfully convenient, to “blame” the algorithm for “discovering”, she was pregnant. It takes quite a data analyst to figure out trends before someone even knows they are pregnant. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out a pattern for someone if they know they are pregnant and are just hiding it from their dad.
Yes. It’s many years in my past, but this was confirmed. Target still does their targeting but now scatter unrelated items in the ads to hide what they know.
worldnews
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.