Care to explain where I did that? How is the pro-NATO narrative not by an authoritarian regime?
Yep, let me refreshen your memory. You equated NATO’s justification (stopping a genocide) to Russia’s justification for a full scale invasion of Ukraine and are acting (or pretending) like we don’t have an abundance of information showing otherwise. This is called a false equivalency.
Next you’re gonna ask me how we know they’re not equivalent. And at some point down the line, you’re gonna ask how we know that 2 + 2 = 4. Ask me how I know.
You can call yourself a potato for all I care. It matters not what you call yourself. I judge you based on your claims and actions, not your self-reported internal monologue or the way you want others to see you.
With that out of the way, why don’t follow your own suggestion and scram.
You equated NATO’s justification (stopping a genocide) to Russia’s justification for a full scale invasion of Ukraine and are acting (or pretending) like we don’t have an abundance of information showing otherwise.
That sentense doesn’t parse. “Otherwise” for what?
I’m not sure I got what you’re saying because of that and if my guess is correct, then I have to apologize for my brash and sometimes undercomplex tone. I sneak in little comments at… a place where I shouldn’t be posting on lemmy, so I’m sometimes a bit agitatory and might seem provocational doing that… that’s just not helpful, so: sorry for my choice of words. I mean it.
As far as I understand it: you’re assuming that I want to be a contrarian who tries to partake in some sort of pissing contest of whch “side” (or country, or treaty organi’ayion) is more evil. But that’s not what I’m trying to achieve.
I don’t want to paint any country as the victim and the other one as an evil aggressor. I find this way of thinking of politics more than counter-productive. I am simply observing politics and trying to make sense of it all. I can do the barebones of how I came to these conclusions. Maybe it’s at least interesting for you.
The first thing you need to understand is that the interests of a nation do not coincide with, the interests of their population. At least not necessarily, or completely. If the place you live is being invaded by Russia is a horrible thing to live through, I’m sure of it. But that doesn’t mean that I should accept being killed for “my” nation.
I grief for every killed Ukrainian (as much as I can, considered the emotional/geographical distance between us). That’s why I don’t think that their “sacrifice” for the Ukrainian government was “necessary”.
I’m against any war, because it is never in my interest. The proletariat does not have a homeland.
I’m drawing up similarities that all military aggressions have something in common: they are framed as acts of defense against oneself (Israel/Palestine) or some underdog who you’re trying to help. Are you gonna tell me that the bombing of Yugoslavia wasn’t an act of aggression?
I’m not trying to justify any military act. I’m drawing up similarities. You could also convincingly argue that Putin’s invasion of mainland Ukraine had something in common with Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 (“ab heute wird zurückgeschossen”). Am I now downplaying Hitler? Or bigging up Putin? Or am I pointing out similarities without actually making any moral judgement?
Next you’re gonna ask me how we know they’re not equivalent.
No, because comparing them on any metric simply justifies one side over the other. I’m don’t want to be on anyone’s “side”. Every “side” is an authoritarian, capitalist nation state. And I am a member of the proletariat. Why should I condone any of them? (Please don’t claim that I am “both-sidesing” now)
You can call yourself a potato for all I care. It matters not what you call yourself. I judge you based on your claims
I hope you’ve (or anyone) understands my reasoning better now.
and actions
How would you know my actions? O.o
With that out of the way, why don’t follow your own suggestion and scram.
I really hope you stick around. I think political discussion requires a bit of dissenting opinions. As the Channel “what is politics?” put it (paraphrased): If you want to avoid anything that contradicts your already held beliefs: Go read a religious book, but don’t expect to gain any political understanding like that.
Yep, let me refreshen your memory. You equated NATO’s justification (stopping a genocide) to Russia’s justification for a full scale invasion of Ukraine and are acting (or pretending) like we don’t have an abundance of information showing otherwise. This is called a false equivalency.
Next you’re gonna ask me how we know they’re not equivalent. And at some point down the line, you’re gonna ask how we know that 2 + 2 = 4. Ask me how I know.
You can call yourself a potato for all I care. It matters not what you call yourself. I judge you based on your claims and actions, not your self-reported internal monologue or the way you want others to see you.
With that out of the way, why don’t follow your own suggestion and scram.
Have a nice day tho
That sentense doesn’t parse. “Otherwise” for what?
I’m not sure I got what you’re saying because of that and if my guess is correct, then I have to apologize for my brash and sometimes undercomplex tone. I sneak in little comments at… a place where I shouldn’t be posting on lemmy, so I’m sometimes a bit agitatory and might seem provocational doing that… that’s just not helpful, so: sorry for my choice of words. I mean it.
As far as I understand it: you’re assuming that I want to be a contrarian who tries to partake in some sort of pissing contest of whch “side” (or country, or treaty organi’ayion) is more evil. But that’s not what I’m trying to achieve.
I don’t want to paint any country as the victim and the other one as an evil aggressor. I find this way of thinking of politics more than counter-productive. I am simply observing politics and trying to make sense of it all. I can do the barebones of how I came to these conclusions. Maybe it’s at least interesting for you.
The first thing you need to understand is that the interests of a nation do not coincide with, the interests of their population. At least not necessarily, or completely. If the place you live is being invaded by Russia is a horrible thing to live through, I’m sure of it. But that doesn’t mean that I should accept being killed for “my” nation.
I grief for every killed Ukrainian (as much as I can, considered the emotional/geographical distance between us). That’s why I don’t think that their “sacrifice” for the Ukrainian government was “necessary”.
I’m against any war, because it is never in my interest. The proletariat does not have a homeland.
I’m drawing up similarities that all military aggressions have something in common: they are framed as acts of defense against oneself (Israel/Palestine) or some underdog who you’re trying to help. Are you gonna tell me that the bombing of Yugoslavia wasn’t an act of aggression?
I’m not trying to justify any military act. I’m drawing up similarities. You could also convincingly argue that Putin’s invasion of mainland Ukraine had something in common with Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 (“ab heute wird zurückgeschossen”). Am I now downplaying Hitler? Or bigging up Putin? Or am I pointing out similarities without actually making any moral judgement?
No, because comparing them on any metric simply justifies one side over the other. I’m don’t want to be on anyone’s “side”. Every “side” is an authoritarian, capitalist nation state. And I am a member of the proletariat. Why should I condone any of them? (Please don’t claim that I am “both-sidesing” now)
I hope you’ve (or anyone) understands my reasoning better now.
How would you know my actions? O.o
I really hope you stick around. I think political discussion requires a bit of dissenting opinions. As the Channel “what is politics?” put it (paraphrased): If you want to avoid anything that contradicts your already held beliefs: Go read a religious book, but don’t expect to gain any political understanding like that.