Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

shoo

@ shoo @lemmy.world

Posts
1
Comments
155
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Removed

    Russia will use nuclear weapons in response to attacks deep into the country — deputy Kolesnik

    Jump

  • Trump is not in Putin's pocket. You need to pay attention to what politicians actually do

    He has demonstrably deconstructed the aid and intelligence network surrounding Ukraine. He quite literally halted aid in the lead up to a Russian offensive. He's eased sanctions. You can easily find these real and tangible examples and contrast them with previous administrations and his own past actions. He doesn't give two shits about supporting Ukraine with the exception of keeping a nominal threat around to line his pockets.

    It's not "BlueAnon" (whatever you imagine that is) to open your eyes and call a spade a spade. Nobody has been a more consistent political winner in the last 20 years than Russia. Putin has talked and written about his geopolitical strategy, it's not a secret. Russia's online propaganda proliferation is honed to a fine point; and you don't even have to trust a filthy western government on that, just review the publicly available research yourself.

    If you know anyone who lives/has lived in Eastern Europe they won't hesitate to tell you their experience with Russia as a neighbor. Your picture of a poor, resource limited country is 100% accurate and completely in line with their expansionist ambitions. It's why they've always maintained an outsized strategic focus on military strength and indirect subversion.

    What do you mean by "copy and paste" arguments? My arguments are very consistent with other communist orgs... [pasted links and unexamined block quotes]

    If you want to meaningfully engage with political reality outside of your echo chamber, you have to start by not dismissing everything you disagree with whole-cloth and realize that you are basically never exposed to online content with honest motives.

    Look deeper and holistically at the platforms and people you engage with. For all of .ml's criticism of wikipedia I never see any mention of the fact that all authors and edits can be explored, or that different language sources can be influenced in opposing directions (for example, compare Chinese to English on any article). For all of its flaws, it's widely accessible to all actors and sees a ton of activity.

    Conversely, why put so much faith in ProleWiki? The number of editors is tiny and their identities are entirely obscure. There are vanishingly few competing viewpoints to contrast and the density of citations is extremely sparse in comparison. Its closer in scale and content to a personal blog than an honest knowledge base.

    I'd challenge you to read this leftist piece on Russia's strategy from way back in 2015 (well before the term "Russian interference" had hit the mainstream) and contrast it with your usual sources.

  • Removed

    Russia will use nuclear weapons in response to attacks deep into the country — deputy Kolesnik

    Jump

  • Brother I took literally no stance on any domestic Ukrainian politics. "Critical support" is a horse shit excuse for not having the moral fiber to push back on your propoganda regimen. Somehow every whiff of a staged coup is an affront to human decency but foreign tanks rolling in and blowing up hospitals is complex and multilayered?

    Crazy that we have every fascist regime lining up with Putin in a united opposition to... more fascists? With your favorite leftist talking heads in tow? It doesn't make sense at a fundamental level and it's trivial to trace the rhetoric back to who it most benefits. But sure, make a strawman and call me whatever you want if it helps ease the cognitive dissonance.

  • Removed

    Russia will use nuclear weapons in response to attacks deep into the country — deputy Kolesnik

    Jump

  • Nothing you've touched on has any relevancy to your purported support of the people in the Donbass region. Unless your theory is that Russia is a bastion of socialist empowerment and not 5 capitalists in a trench coat, every single one of your talking points is carrying water for Russian imperial ambition. Swapping out one master for another isn't breaking your shackles. I hope Moscow is at least cutting you a check for your hard work.

    The west is not "licking Putin's boots."

    The guy in charge of the nukes has been in closer contact with Moscow than any western official in the last 50+ years. He's constantly spewing support on stage, in the media and in private meetings. He's been holding this stance well before his first term in office. How can NATO be any kind of threat when he's in your pocket?

    His own sycophants are constantly spouting the same NATO talking points as you. Truly you're a student of 20th century Stalinism when your foreign policy somehow aligns perfectly with every contemporary fascist and proto-fascist government.

    It seems that Russia is going to achieve all of its stated goals

    When did I deny that? I'm pointing out that taking this aggressive route is a backward approach if maintaining a strong defensive stance is your primary goal. It's almost like they wanted to gamble for more unstated goals than just that. Taking territory is only necessary if you insist on a future escalation or want to exploit its people/resources.

    I know you're going to try to explain how this obvious Bad Thing (exploitation and escalation) is really a Good Thing via some Rube Goldberg-esque logical knots. Save your keyboard, I'm just not gonna buy that some special flavors of international meddling via national ambitions are good when your whole argument is formulated against it.

    And don't bother with your cherry picked reading list. It's all formal dialectics until a different source makes some cogent points at the flaws in your dogma. Then it's endless genetic fallacies and character attacks on sources with no original thought or debate. We can have a real discussion when you come up with a talking point that isn't copy-paste.

  • Removed

    Russia will use nuclear weapons in response to attacks deep into the country — deputy Kolesnik

    Jump

  • establish a buffer zone so the west can't as easily invade by land

    Lolwut. The same west who's sole military arm is currently licking Putin's boots? Seems to me Russia had a much simpler and easier strategy if that's all they wanted: bide their time and not get involved with any foreign military actions.

    America seems to be collapsing (with or without their interference) and Europe wouldn't have any public support for militarization without Putin rolling tanks around and brandishing nukes. NATO could have easily dissolved without doing anything in a decade or two, it was already starting to be viewed as a Cold War relic in the west.

    You're saying it's logical to risk all of that just to help some poor, needy rebels? They need to defend themselves by painting themselves as the largest active aggressor? That's just straight up bad geopolitical strategy. The 'Merica-Bad goggles have really messed with your vision.

  • It Took Many Years And Billions Of Dollars, But Microsoft Finally Invented A Calculator That Is Wrong Sometimes

    Jump

  • That's a great question! I'll be happy to help you count the lights. I see five lights.

    Here are a few ways you can improve indoor lighting:

  • China is winning on renewables. Will it win on green steel, too? While the U.S. backtracks on green steel commitments, Chinese companies are starting to make iron with hydrogen.

    Jump

  • I know what a type 1 civilization is but why is it something to aspire to? And how does it justify the irreversible ecological destruction which must be inflicted to get there?

    Production (and it's correlated consumption) as the sole measure of societal development is a Cold War anachronism, leave that in the 20th century. Talking about MW of power and Mt. of materials and dollar efficiency of infrastructure is completely detached from the derived human value.

  • China is winning on renewables. Will it win on green steel, too? While the U.S. backtracks on green steel commitments, Chinese companies are starting to make iron with hydrogen.

    Jump

  • What is this word salad supposed to mean?...

  • Cars 2266 is going to be lit!

    Jump

  • Car Trek

    Come on, it was right there...

  • China is winning on renewables. Will it win on green steel, too? While the U.S. backtracks on green steel commitments, Chinese companies are starting to make iron with hydrogen.

    Jump

  • There's no such thing as green steel. Zero/low emissions steel requires expanded steel usage to meet the energy infrastructure requirements for production.

    Getting enough hydrogen to process steel, in particular, takes a massive amount of energy. This means more renewable infrastructure to offset that, combined with more transmission infrastructure (and shorter renewable lifespans) you can easily exceed 10-20x the steel intensity per MW of non-renewable sources.

    As with most ecological problems, the solution is to cut our usage to a minimum. The tired lie that we can grow our way out of growth problem should be put to rest. Reporting on any country "winning" a "green race" is puff piece propoganda.

  • President Trump, Obama, Bush - Second Term Job Approval Rating

    Jump

  • In this single conservative financed polling site I guess. Looking at other polls and aggregates, the highest I've seen is 38 with plenty below 35.

    Disapproval rating still at a record high for any president. IIRC he hasn't gotten under 50 since like week 1.

  • Just a reminder that our planet is currently the coolest it will ever be in our, and our children's lifetimes.

    Jump

  • What about winter? Checkmate libz

  • The great myth of empire collapse

    Jump

  • This is such a weird essay. Almost nothing about the function of our modern world is related these ancient empires and small modern dissolutions. Yes, life in an agrarian society probably improved somewhat when your food was no longer being taxed to feed an army.

    In our global economic reality, basically no country is self sufficient. We don't have a 90% rural population ready to adapt to subsistence farming. Even putting aside reductions in QoL and luxuries, nearly 60% of global population lives in densely populated urban centers. Once the logistics supplying these centers break down, the surrounding areas don't have carrying capacity to support them (much less so when you account for dependence on fertilizer and pesticides).

    When things fall apart on a large scale in 2025 we don't get to revert to a humble bucolic life, at least not until a ton of people die

  • Spotify to raise prices in September

    Jump

  • Out of curiosity, what is your experience/usage like with this? Spotify is very easy to justify if you heavily use some of their features because there's not a way (that I know of) to replicate them. For example:

    • Shared playlists
    • Universal links directly to songs
    • Playback control from a second device
    • Group listen/jam
    • Zero overhead for search and discovery. From someone mentioning a band you can find, sample, and add to a playlist in 30s or less
    • Public playlist discovery
    • Easy crawling. Eg. browsing from Song -> Featured Artist -> Album -> Record label -> Related Artists etc...

    From my usage, sacrificing a majority of those is a non-starter because my Spotify usage has become more than mp3 hosting and organization.

  • O no! Not the nazisss

    Jump

  • Not an ad-hominem when it's directly pertinent to the debate and an example of your implicit bias. If you take not understanding a word or filtering it through your own bias that be stupidity then that's on you.

    What should the Soviets have done instead?

    Again, the conversation won't go anywhere because no matter what I say, you'll say it couldn't be done.

    That there was literally no possibility of making concessions to the Allies or leveraging their resources in a more indirect way. No way to manage your political footing that didn't require reliance on Nazis or giving them an open flank in Eastern Europe. No German aggression that could be deflected and spun to international support. They definitely needed to make a photo-op of signing documents next to Nazis and of Soviet troops shaking hands with Germans. They needed to immediately start the annexation and sovietization of territories fresh off their liberation from inevitable German capture. No other way, definitely needed to happen like that.

    Talking to you is a clinic in historical determinism.

  • O no! Not the nazisss

    Jump

  • 1940 is the date Goebbels reported

    All of these were verified by the Red Cross and there are stacks of documents giving evidence and testimony to the contrary. But yes, I suppose if you throw out everything you don't like then any argument will get flimsy. Certainly we don't get "genuine analysis" as you put it.

    Further, again, the Soviet weaponry did not fire German ammunition.

    The NKVD was a police force, they were under no compulsion to use military issue weapons. There are other documented instances of them using foreign weapons, it's not out of the ordinary.

    This whole weapon discussion is circumstantial evidence at best, there are plenty of ways it could have happened. And of course Goebbels was eager to report it, it's very well documented in his own records that he was excited about the find and the bad PR it would give the Soviets. The fact that you're dismissing the general consensus that the international community has come to after decades of investigation just to maintain your own narrative is pretty disappointing.

    America rightly draws criticism for their strong arm enforcement of "democratic values" through occupation, but you see no parallel to the USSR enforcing "Soviet values" through the same occupation strategy. You've got some massive blinders on.

  • O no! Not the nazisss

    Jump

  • Profit in English has a usage with the definition I gave. You said yourself they were doing it to their own advantage. They benefited from it, there was some profit to them in the arrangement (unless they like helping Nazi's out of the kindness of their heart). It's not throwing anyone under the bus to say I can't have a conversation if you lack a grasp on the meaning of words in their context.

    Would have been great if they traded with them, but it would have also been beneficial to not sign the non-aggression pact and trade agreements, painting yourself as not aligning with their interests while also preaching a revolutionary gospel. You're stacking the deck against yourself. But again, we're talking in circles and you refuse to concede literally any ounce of fault or poor political maneuvering, not much to be said.

  • O no! Not the nazisss

    Jump

  • German-USSR trade was still ongoing in 1941. As part of that trade they did gain access to samples of German artillery, tanks and more. German companies were also known to export arms (in violation of the Versailles treaty) well before WWII. And even if you deny that, there were dozens of countries manufacturing arms and ammo in the German caliber because, get this, German guns were well designed!

    Dismissing all evidence that could put Soviets in a bad light, even when it's internal. Truly you are a Communist at heart.

    So let's put all that aside: capturing thousands of POWs and having them end up massacred in a ditch is acceptable? There's no fault attributable to them for having this happen to people in their control and under their protection?

  • O no! Not the nazisss

    Jump

  • The Soviets didn't have a profit-driven economy, what are you talking about?

    Profit: to derive benefit, to be of service or advantage, a valuable return. Are you ESL or do you just have a conditioned response from all the propoganda you gobble up?

    Brother in Christ if you can't even admit giving Nazis oil, iron, rare earth minerals and other war necessities is bad then there's no discussion to be had here. And you keep pointing it back to the West as if I care or that's even relevant to the USSR's actions. Dozens of countries can equivocate and justify their ethically grey actions surrounding WWII, why do the Soviets deserve special treatment in your mind?

    The world is a massive place, diplomacy has a million facets, there are always options and trade offs. If you can't find a single flaw in the USSR's actions then I pity you. You've lost sight of your purported support of class struggle and solidary in favor of waving around Cold War flags.

  • O no! Not the nazisss

    Jump

  • Per our other conversation, the Soviets were trading for German finished goods. Why would you not expect to find German goods here??

    And again, the Soviets themselves admitted to it. Why are you even discussing forgeries?