• 420blazeit69 [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Imagine a conman rips you off a dozen times. It's always the same scheme, too. The same conman comes to you again with the same scheme and says "but this is a legitimate business proposition!"

    Even if you do your due diligence (which you did all those other times, right?) and it looks above board, you have to realize that trusting him yet again makes you a fucking rube.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
        ·
        11 months ago

        You're right! This time the conman is totally telling the truth!

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
            ·
            11 months ago

            It's a simple question:

            Someone lies to you a dozen times in the same way. Then they come up to you again with the same story and say they're telling the truth. No matter what you think the merits of their story are this time around, does it make sense to believe them?

              • super_mario_69 [he/him, comrade/them]
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                this is not some fucking made up weapons in Iraq scenario.

                Are you absolutely sure about that? Would you have been against the Iraq war before it happened as well?

                Look, I get it. I was in your shoes once. Ten years ago I would have figured that this a clear cut good vs. evil scenario with good guys fighting bad guys. One side is Good because they uphold Democracy, Freedom, Human Rights etc. and the other side is Bad because they are against that. There we go, fully summarized, easy to digest and wrap your head around. This kind of world view is rather easy to hold, because you don't ever really have to think about why things happen. Things just kind of happen because the bad guys did something bad, because they are evil. They have red light sabers, they're voldemort, they use forbidden magic. China is bad because Xi and his party are evil. Same with Putin.

                But what exactly do we mean when we say "democracy, freedom, and human rights"? If you look past all the buzzwords they are rather vague, utopian concepts that very few, if any, countries can honestly say they uphold. Take my own country, Finland, for example. Widely considered a democratic and free country with a solid human rights record. But is it, really? I wouldn't say our treatment of the Sami was particularly considerate of their human rights. Spousal abuse and alcoholism are more or less our national pastime, and let's not even mention the suicide rates. Year after year more and more of public utilities get privatized and sold of to the highest bidder, to line the pockets of some fat cat executive, because of "the economy". We try, successfully too, to uphold the facade of being a happy and progressive country, but man, things could be a lot better. But hey, at least we get to vote every few years, which might make us feel a little better but ultimately not really change anything. But aside from that, how free are we really when everything costs money and keeps getting more expensive? How does the threat of starvation and homelessness (yes, it's a thing here too) unless you sacrifice most of your waking time to working comply with basic human rights? I would say it doesn't. The "national debt" or whatever the hell the economists blame don't mean a single fucking thing to me, the ordinary citizen. The national debt could be 0 tomorrow, and my life would not improve in the slightest. My observation of the material reality I exist in is that shit is fucked. I base this opinion on the world around me, the things I see and hear, and the people I talk to. Material things and observations, as opposed to statistics and news articles and feelgood stories and buzzwords. A Chinese or Ugandan or American citizen will hold opinions based on their observations, and arrive at a different conclusion. Putin and his lackeys, too, looked at the material reality and arrived at the conclusion that Russia must invade. Simply "being evil" is not a material, objective, quantifiable thing. NATO encroaching on the border of Russia, however, is a very material threat to the Russians, whether we think it's good or bad or justified or not. A threat to their democracy, freedom, and human rights, or whatever buzzwords they use there, you might say.

                Anyway it's really fucking hard to deal with questioning your entire world view. I would know, because I had to go through it, and I really, really, REALLY wanted to stay in the comfy warm hot tub of my previous ideology where everything was easy to explain. But I couldn't, because once I started asking "why?", the ideology eventually didn't hold up any more. Try it. "Yes, but why?" "Because X Y Z." "Okay, but why? Why X? Where did it come from?". Go on, ask.

                You might not bother to read all this, but that's fine. I'm kind of posting it for myself anyway.

          • MCU_H8ER2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            deleted by creator

              • Historical_General@lemm.ee
                ·
                11 months ago

                stupid ass genocide apologetic rhetoric

                Are you american? Why do you believe a nation led by fools and armed by the most powerful military needs your defending? And have you ever given thought to the victims of the american state?

      • charly4994 [she/her, comrade/them]
        ·
        11 months ago

        The point 420blazeit69 is making is that for decades the US has been waging wars either proxy or direct and will point to how necessary it is for US intervention in the situation. In Afghanistan it was the first Al Qaeda then Taliban, in Iraq it was Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Al-Qaeda was originally funded by the CIA to fuck with the Soviets who were in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein was part of a US backed assassination plot to kill the leader of Iraq in 1959 and only because of that failed assassination did the Ba'ath party really rise to prominence. The US makes decisions in its own self interest and damn the consequences, but it'll also use its own consequences as further justification for continued intervention.

        In this instance 420blazeit69 is referring to how NATO is an anti-soviet turned anti-russia alliance. Somehow Russia's borders seem to be right up against a bunch of US military bases. The continued expansion of NATO further east into Europe is threatening to Russia. The US has done regime change in Ukraine, the US is right on Russia's doorstep and people are shocked to see Russia react. The US damn near ended the world with the Cuban Missile Crisis. This war could have been avoided if US and NATO had just kept to themselves and in the end the people hurt by this are the Ukrainian working class being thrown into a meat grinder as western capitalists converge to further divvy up what's left.

        • AOCapitulator [they/them]
          ·
          11 months ago

          Cuban Turkish Missile Crisis

          It started when America put nukes right next to russia, and it only 'became an incident' when the USSR did the same

          • charly4994 [she/her, comrade/them]
            ·
            11 months ago

            Hey lib, maybe you should get those fucking brain worms looked at because your brain has to be fucking Swiss cheese at this point.

            You won’t listen to people and frankly any advice for you to try to educate yourself will fall on deaf ears. Any further discussion is as worthless as your ideology.