This thread has made me realize that while I was watching the hearings on it purely for comedy aspect, there were actually people out there being like, “Yeah that makes sense.”

Love it when the government takes away our stuff. Please, take away more of our stuff. Love me that security theater.

If you don’t like the app, just don’t use it. Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with data security and everything to do with other social media companies lobbying to eliminate a competitor, using anti-China sentiment and fear-mongering as a justification. It’s all about the money.

This is such a condescending form of analysis that totally misses the mark. It’s basically just, “Trump was bad, but some people still like him. Why? Must be because they’re just too dumb to remember things.” There’s no actual evidence that people have forgotten any of the stuff they mention, it’s purely just that.

To attribute the issue to memory would imply that there was widespread agreement while he was in office that he was bad, which has faded over time. But Trump’s approval rating for most of his time in office hovered around 40%, similar to Biden’s. So what’s actually happening is not that people were on the same page about Trump being bad when the events of his presidency were fresh in their minds, but rather, that his supporters never agreed with/cared about the things the article is saying in the first place. Framing it around memory is nonsense.

Absolutely every country has different factions and inner workings, but in countries where there is a supreme authority, those are by and large null and void.

That’s not true. Even in dictatorships, the person at the top still has people who they need to keep happy in order to stay in power. Nobody gets to or stays at the top on their own, what happens is that they’re supported in that position by whatever interests they represent. If someone comes to power in a military coup, for instance, they have to keep the military happy or they’ll get replaced.

More to the point, it’s not just about who gets blame or credit for stuff, it’s about understanding the mechanics of a system, and the history, and the various material factors and interests that go into decision making.

Whether a country is democratic or not doesn’t really have anything to do with it. Every country, including non-democratic ones, has different factions and inner workings.

We cannot blame a single president for the same

Is this a typo? You just said that Trump was responsible for pulling out of the Iran deal, which is true, and which he had the power to do unilaterally.

Trump ripped up the agreement***

That’s true, but also let me just say this.

Whenever the US does something bad, you can’t just blame it on the whole US, you have to look at the specific people responsible for it, right? But what about when another country, like Iran, for example, does something bad? Do we say, “Oh well obviously you can’t blame Iran in general for it?” Very rarely. Often, people go so far as to not only paint an entire government negatively off a bad action, but to paint and entire culture and people that way, going back even to previous, unrelated governments that governed previous generations, completely different structures doing completely different things. Post-9/11, you saw people painting the entire Muslim world as warlike religious fanatics, even going back to Mideval times. People sometimes fail to make a distinction between the USSR and modern Russia. And likewise in China, I’ve seen people before trying to argue that China is inherently domineering based on ancient history.

When we’re taught history in school, all of our country’s decisions are taught with the full context and perspective, we’re taught what people were concerned about and why they did it and who were the ones who actually did it, and the conclusion for bad stuff is that it was an unfortunate necessity, or a mistake, or the product of a few bad apples in an otherwise positive project.

You are right, of course, that it was Trump who pulled out of the deal. But I think it’s important to understand that that nuance is only really seen from the inside, that from the perspective of Iran, for example, it’s just the US being fickle, and that if we expect the world to be understanding of that sort of nuance to our government’s actions, it’s important to apply the same sort of nuance any time we look at the actions of other countries.

I can see how an RV, lab equipment, and a helper might help, but you don’t actually need any of those to do OF.

out of context

Everything’s always “out of context” with him, isn’t it? Because that’s his whole deal. He does controversial stuff to make people mad while hiding behind plausible deniability.

Whether it’s saying the n word, or saying what he did about CP, or whatever other antics he’s gotten up to, it’s the same playbook of controversy-bait. Stir up shit, get people mad, get hate clicks, get clicks from people who hate the people who got mad, get clicks from people who don’t want to get left out of the loop about what’s going on, etc.

I only partially dislike him for the times he’s taken the controversy-bait too far and done something legitimately shitty. Mostly I dislike him because he’s controversy bait, and whether or not he plays the game well enough to make sure nothing sticks doesn’t really matter. It’s still just stirring the pot for attention.

The best thing to do with people like that is just to pay them no mind. It’s not like I’m missing some unique insight or valuable perspective. I wish I could to that with politicians like Trump who employ similar outrage bait tactics, but he is unfortunately relevant to world affairs.

Anyway, it is my longstanding policy to downvote any comment or post about Vaush, positive or negative, since I don’t think he’s worth paying attention to and doing so just drags down the level of discourse, so, true to my policy, I will now be downvoting my own comment since I talked about him.

You should’ve listened to your hesitancy, the less you know of him the better.

If they were optional, your boss would fire you for taking one.

It appears that I don’t need to be present for this conversation, you just want to rant and rave at ghosts and the strawman you’ve invented in your head out of nothing. You have fun with that.

And you totally didn’t say “I’m a communist” or “I look to Lenin” in your previous comments. Got it.

How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?

Literally right next to each other. Incredible source of comedy.

Btw, if I didn’t know better, I’d say you just assigned the label of “tankie” to me. What happened to everyone getting complete control over what labels apply to them 🤔

Removed by mod

As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are “wrong”. That’s not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesn’t know your definition. Your argument isn’t a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.

OK, great! So, if you accept that I’m a Nobel Prize winner, then for the rest of this conversation, let’s use “Nazi Germany” whenever we’re talking about Ukraine. Sound good? Exactly how far are you willing to roll with this?

You seem to think that I don’t understand that language is mutable and collectively defined. I understand that just fine. What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation. I’ve picked absurd examples hoping to illustrate that point, which you seem to be failing to understand. Yes, you can understand what I mean if I define terms differently, but if you give me license to define terms however I want, then I could make all sorts of unreasonable things sound reasonable. If you’re really committed to this stubborn, inane exercise to prove that language doesn’t matter, then I can go through the effort of redefining terms until your positions sound equal parts absurd and vile, but that seems like quite a bit of effort to prove a point that should be obvious.

You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I don’t have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things.

You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.

I didn’t assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use.

Oh, I see. So the rule that I get to have complete control about which things apply to me or don’t only applies specifically to things that are phrased as labels. Truly fascinating. Where does the line get drawn, exactly? You can’t call someone a murderer because that’s a label, but you can say that they murdered someone, because that’s not a label (even though it means the same thing), but what if you call them “A person who murders people?” Does that count as a label? What is it that’s so special about labels that gives them this special quality that doesn’t apply to other words?

Are you saying you don’t support Russia?

No, I don’t, they should seek peace.

That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?

No, they should seek peace.

Of course not!

Incorrect.

Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.

I have. The “secret positions” that I’m supposedly hiding are entirely your invention.

My balloons comment was meant to demonstrate that your hypothetical bore no relation to reality. You can construct an entirely different scenario where such and such action is justified, but if it diverges too much from reality it’s meaningless. You are asking me to imagine a world where Mexico is more powerful than the US, before even getting into the conflict, that world diverges so much from ours that I’d have to completely reevaluate tons of stuff.

Russia has no intention of invading the whole of Europe. The question is whether US interventionist policy does more good or ill. And I have completely soured on it following the whole, “20 year long war of aggression that achieved nothing” thing. It’s not about “America first,” it’s about containing the damage that we do to the rest of the world.

Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don’t understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don’t get to tell them it’s wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.

So let me make sure I’ve got this right.

I go out and murder someone in cold blood. People call me a murderer. I tell them that I’m not a murderer - yes, I did take an innocent life by choice, but I don’t like the way “murderer” sounds, so I don’t apply it to myself. You don’t get to decide what terms apply to me.

Got it. For the rest of this conversation, let “Nobel Prize winner” be defined as, “Lemmy.ml user.” I am a Nobel Prize winner, we both understand how I’m using the term, so it’s valid and you don’t get to tell me otherwise.

As a Nobel Prize winner, I think this is completely ridiculous.

How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can’t see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can’t help you.

So should I automatically oppose all separatists who accept help from other countries? I don’t agree with that. I think the question of when succession is justified is a complex and nuanced issue.

As far as I can tell, you are exclusively opposed to violence when it’s your nation’s geopolitical enemies doing it, and you have no problem with your side even firing on civilian targets. The same as pretty much anyone else, no matter where you go.

As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren’t one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. “Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves.” That’s all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say “Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad”?

It’s very funny to me that for all your claims about respecting the labels people apply to themselves, you go on to put a bunch of words in my mouth and assign positions to me that I don’t hold and have not said anything remotely similar to.

Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire

No, he has not. Source.

Removed by mod

But fine, they are not technically the same country.

I thought you had conceded the point. Guess I misunderstood.

Let me take a step back and use an example. Suppose a Native American reservation puts out a document talking about how, historically, the land that the US was founded on was stolen from Native tribes. Now, hypothetically, someone could use that argument to delegitimize the US and claim all of its territory, if, like, this reservation had a massive army somehow. But just saying that would all still be theoretical.

If I say, “Taiwan claims territory occupied by the PRC” (or vice versa) I am making an objectively true statement, because they’ve made those claims formally and explicitly. But when you say that Russia is claiming all of Ukraine, that’s just your opinion about Putin’s opinion, it’s speculation. If you say that he claims Donbass, that’s a fact, because that’s something that’s formalized. But when he’s talking about history, of course his goal is to delegitimize Ukraine, but unless it’s explicitly applied to the present day, it’s not an actual claim.

Since Belarus is a Russian vassal state?

That’s also not true.

Sorry, I’m talking about things that are actually formalized. Maybe that’s where the confusion is? Russia has never (to my knowledge) claimed any part of Belarus.

Just saying, like, “I think we have a common heritage” is not the same as saying, “All your territory belongs to me and I intend to take it.” The distinction is enormous.

It’s literally not.

In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation.

Do you think he’s also claiming Belarus?