Posting about Trump or Putin being bad would be akin to making posts about ISIS being bad: it goes without saying.
Like 99% of people on this platform already agrees with you, it's really not a contentious issue. There's no significant MAGA or Russian nationalist instance federated. None of their supporters would see it, it would be a completely moot point.
Oh how I wish that was true. Unfortunately I've seen far too many people support Russia in this war, both offline and online, including here.
Maybe I'm wrong about hexbear, I certainly hope that I am, but on lemmygrad I saw long posts with many upvotes explaining how this war is a good thing and Putin is a hero that is fighting against the capitalists etc.
Edit: and now lemmygrad had Hunter's laptop on the front page. Could they be any more obvious?
Edit2: lol, you almost had me believing that I was wrong and just too paranoid. Then in this very thread I got two people from hexbear telling me how NATO and Ukraine are evil, heavily upvoted. Still nothing bad about either Trump or Putin. Thanks.
Right, but if you made a post about how Putin is a great leader or Republicans have better policies and child labour, homophobia and lower taxes on the rich are good on Hexbear you're going to get shat on in the comments if not outright banned.
Criticizing NATO is more pressing because online discourse is extremely pro-NATO. Reddit, for example, loves NATO expansion and loved when Finland joined. None of the disdain for NATO is praise for Putin being a corrupt nationalist.
Also anything involving Hunter Biden is funny. He's just an obscenely offbeat person. While the Trump children (except Tiffany and for now Barron) are just slimy sycophants trying to gain daddy's approval while swindling money out of MAGA morons, Hunter is doing cocaine and sleeping with prostitutes. Its never really in our discourse for anti-Biden posts to criticize Hunter, he's become a micro celebrity in his own right. If anything we literally like Hunter better than Joe
Its because we don't have to convince y'all that Trump and Putin are bad because you already think that. We'd just be spitting into an echo chamber, preaching to the choir. There's no point. To be clear we dunk on Trump all the time. We do not like him.
Why do you think that leftists have to say "but also btw Trump is also bad" every time we criticize Biden? That would make no sense.
there's different types of people that support russia. Some support it just for blowing up NATO tanks, simple as. I have seen like 2 people who actually like the modern liberal russia
I might be on the edge of what people consider liking modern Russia, but I still despise it's bourgeois state. I just see that it, despite all odds and attempts to not reach this point, has been forced to take a stance for the sovereignty of all colonialised countries. Putin being unallowed to be part of the crew of bourgeois imperialists headed by NATO and instead seen as a pariah has made it's bourgeois interests align with separating as many countries as possible from their colonial masters, because it absolutely needs to be able to trade with them despite US-led sanctions. This includes the Chinese system of trade, Asian, south American, and African nations at the moment. Nobody thinks Putin is a leftist, not that his reasons are even good. But a murderer with a gun aimed at a bunch of cops kneeling on the backs of black people (even if it's because he's afraid he'll be arrested himself) can still be the best choice to side with. Kinda weird analogy, but I'm sick and a bit hard pressed to think of anything better.
Basically the most pro-russian that exists here is "pro-what their hand was forced to do." Not "pro-what the RF is or does generally'
We had a user who would uncritically support Russia and Operation Z. A "Z poster", if you will. They were banned on several accounts and no one really missed them.
Some of us tepidly support the CPRF, which is largely controlled opposition. We recognize that counting since 2014, there's a lot of propaganda, civilian strikes, and land mines coming from both sides. Most of us favor an immediate armistice along the present LOC that follows pretty closely a "dividing line" for the plurality ethnicity as evidenced by the past 30 years of linguistic, electoral, and poling data. And we favor quick peace as opposed to continued hostility that likely will go nowhere.
It sucks that Ukraine's self-determination is being jeopardized by Russia. It sucks that Luhansk's self-determination is being jeopardized by Ukraine. It sucks that there's a geopolitical standoff between the two strongest military powers that overlays this. It sucks that the only imaginable ruling party in Russia is a reactionary capitalist one that was ushered in by Clinton's intervention. And it sucks that they're all probably just going to die in a field to resolve it, and make the situation in Bosnia look like a vacation resort in comparison.
There is a silver lining in that we are seeing a great power struggle to subjugate its neighbor, and also in that the wearing down of NATO and Russia allows the less belligerent, more progressive, emerging superpower to have more sway in the world. Some might say that makes it "worth it" but I certainly don't.
Most of us favor an immediate armistice along the present LOC
This is uncritically supporting the Z operation. It rewards the attacker and gives them absolutely no reason to not try again in 10 years (either in the same country or in another one). It's also what happened in 2014 and you see the results of that now.
Would you favor an immediate armistice with the Nazis in 1943? I surely hope not, but that would be a quick peace, very much like what the advocate for now.
I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word uncritical but go off.
Also, just so we're on the same page, what do you believe happened in 2014 and what has happened since then until Feb 2022? What political and demographic conditions do you believe set the stage for the conflict that has been going on since then?
Your comparison to WW2 in 1943 is also wildly off. For one, you've got it mixed up which side is wearing the Nazi insignia and celebrating Nazi collaborators and enthusiastic participants in the Holocaust. For another, the USSR turned the war around in 1943. It would make no sense to call for armistice when you're winning. Ukraine is currently stalled and bleeding manpower and materiel. The counteroffensive is all but done, were it not for Western insistence that fighting continues to the last Ukrainian.
For one, you've got it mixed up which side is wearing the Nazi insignia and celebrating Nazi collaborators and enthusiastic participants in the Holocaust.
I don't know, which side are Wagner and Rogozin on?
For another, the USSR turned the war around in 1943. It would make no sense to call for armistice when you're winning. Ukraine is currently stalled and bleeding manpower and materiel. The counteroffensive is all but done, were it not for Western insistence that fighting continues to the last Ukrainian.
USSR was just as stalled in early 1943, bleeding manpower and materiel, getting massive war supplies from the USA, and the West was insisting that fighting continues to the last Russian. Sounds familiar?
I don't know, which side are Wagner and Rogozin on?
Okay but can you actually name institutional promotion of nazism? For example publishing celebrations of Bandera, putting the OUN trident on old soviet monuments, funding neonazi run youth camps, etc?
I'm guessing you can't because while there are certainly Nazi Russians they've also tried to suppress any sort of Nazi organizing within Russia. The state is hostile to organized Nazism unlike Ukraine.
To be clear, theyre still a right wing neoliberal hellscape, but it is a low bar to clear and one clears it.
While it should go as without saying I think it's pretty hard to take it that way when the following statements get made a) The legitimate Ukraine government was overthrown in a NATO croup, b) Ukraine government is a neo-nazi government, c) DPR and LPR are legitimate countries and d) NATO started the war in Ukraine. Every single one of those is a Russian state propagated talking point, all of them made around nuggets of facts (like the leaked chat where some US officials were discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new government) but ultimately warped into something that can't definitely be proven true or false. Thus whoever spreads those talking points wants to believe those statements as true, which begs the question of why to believe they're true.
a) The legitimate Ukraine government was overthrown in a NATO croup, b) Ukraine government is a neo-nazi government, c) DPR and LPR are legitimate countries and d) NATO started the war in Ukraine. Every single one of those is a Russian state propagated talking point, all of them made around nuggets of facts
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
(like the leaked chat where some US officials were discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new government)
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You'll note that they kept the moderate "we should be nuetral between the US and Russia" organizers out and brought the nazis in.
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
As if to prove my point... I said they're statements made around certain known fact, facts that don't really prove the statement. Like the "coup". Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition. But the fact doesn't shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
I don't have problem understanding that things are biased. It's just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You'll note that they kept the moderate "we should be nuetral between the US and Russia" organizers out and brought the nazis in.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition.
Talking about who should be in government and those people "coincidentally" being installed is plotting to install a puppet government.
But the fact doesn't shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
Or were forced to. The point is we know they were successful at installing their people and keeping others out, and "it was just a coincidence" seems improbable given how popular Klitsch was.
It's just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
The western narrative deserves criticism. And hexbear is very critical of the Russian narrative, just not the things that they say that are supported by evidence.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
The thing is Tyahnybok was a nobody politically, they went with the more well known Yats as prime Minister. You'll note that Yats is the leader of the "Fatherland" party
They also say about the defacto leader of the movement Klitsch and the other moderate democrats:
I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together.
I want to ask the reader something, what is being said here? Does this come off as innocent?
No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Because to me this reads as plotting to install certain leaders within Ukraines new government.
You're literally proving my point. You've added nothing to factually prove the coup, you're adding assumptions to make the fact fit the narrative. Also Yats is not the leader of the Fatherland party, he used to be there but moved to People's front in 2014.
You're literally proving my point. You've added nothing to factually prove the coup
I dont need to add more stuff. What they said makes it obvious they're talking about a soft or hard coup. You're being shown a red balloon and asking for more proof it's a red balloon.
What would you accept as proof, if not the senior US officials there talking about who should be in government and about moving to make it happen?
Also Yats is not the leader of the Fatherland party, he used to be there but moved to People's front in 2014.
Oh, cool, the people's front! Let's learn more about them:
The Ukrainian People's Party (Ukrainian: Українська Народна Партія; Ukrains'ka Narodna Partiya) is a political party in Ukraine, registered on Old Year's Day 1999 as the Ukrainian National Movement
Oh. Cool. A nationalist pseudo populist organization. Where have I seen those before?
Russian politicians were also talking how Russia should nuke Nevada test site, so I guess Russia has nuked America because the only thing required to make it true is someone talking about it.
The Ukrainian People's Party (Ukrainian: Українська Народна Партія; Ukrains'ka Narodna Partiya) is a political party in Ukraine, registered on Old Year's Day 1999 as the Ukrainian National Movement
For fuck sake, at the very least search for the right thing. not this, but this.
Russian politicians were also talking how Russia should nuke Nevada test site, so I guess Russia has nuked America because the only thing required to make it true is someone talking about it.
Did a nuke go off at the Nevada test site in a way that wasn't connected to US nuclear testing? If so, it would be reasonable to assume the Russians who talked about doing it did it if it furthered their geopolitical objectives.
For fuck sake, at the very least search for the right thing. not this, but this.
Oh, sorry. But still, theyre described as a conservative nationalist party and split from the "Fatherland" party. Also the leader of Azov Battalion was on their military council. Hrmm.
I don't think I could ever make you believe that we came to these conclusions based on an analysis of world history, economics, and the current geopolitical reality and didn't need any help from Yuri at the FSB.
You literally don't understand how we analyze geopolitics.
“The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.”
Posting about Trump or Putin being bad would be akin to making posts about ISIS being bad: it goes without saying.
Like 99% of people on this platform already agrees with you, it's really not a contentious issue. There's no significant MAGA or Russian nationalist instance federated. None of their supporters would see it, it would be a completely moot point.
Oh how I wish that was true. Unfortunately I've seen far too many people support Russia in this war, both offline and online, including here.
Maybe I'm wrong about hexbear, I certainly hope that I am, but on lemmygrad I saw long posts with many upvotes explaining how this war is a good thing and Putin is a hero that is fighting against the capitalists etc.
Edit: and now lemmygrad had Hunter's laptop on the front page. Could they be any more obvious?
Edit2: lol, you almost had me believing that I was wrong and just too paranoid. Then in this very thread I got two people from hexbear telling me how NATO and Ukraine are evil, heavily upvoted. Still nothing bad about either Trump or Putin. Thanks.
Right, but if you made a post about how Putin is a great leader or Republicans have better policies and child labour, homophobia and lower taxes on the rich are good on Hexbear you're going to get shat on in the comments if not outright banned.
Criticizing NATO is more pressing because online discourse is extremely pro-NATO. Reddit, for example, loves NATO expansion and loved when Finland joined. None of the disdain for NATO is praise for Putin being a corrupt nationalist.
Also anything involving Hunter Biden is funny. He's just an obscenely offbeat person. While the Trump children (except Tiffany and for now Barron) are just slimy sycophants trying to gain daddy's approval while swindling money out of MAGA morons, Hunter is doing cocaine and sleeping with prostitutes. Its never really in our discourse for anti-Biden posts to criticize Hunter, he's become a micro celebrity in his own right. If anything we literally like Hunter better than Joe
Its because we don't have to convince y'all that Trump and Putin are bad because you already think that. We'd just be spitting into an echo chamber, preaching to the choir. There's no point. To be clear we dunk on Trump all the time. We do not like him.
Why do you think that leftists have to say "but also btw Trump is also bad" every time we criticize Biden? That would make no sense.
there's different types of people that support russia. Some support it just for blowing up NATO tanks, simple as. I have seen like 2 people who actually like the modern liberal russia
I might be on the edge of what people consider liking modern Russia, but I still despise it's bourgeois state. I just see that it, despite all odds and attempts to not reach this point, has been forced to take a stance for the sovereignty of all colonialised countries. Putin being unallowed to be part of the crew of bourgeois imperialists headed by NATO and instead seen as a pariah has made it's bourgeois interests align with separating as many countries as possible from their colonial masters, because it absolutely needs to be able to trade with them despite US-led sanctions. This includes the Chinese system of trade, Asian, south American, and African nations at the moment. Nobody thinks Putin is a leftist, not that his reasons are even good. But a murderer with a gun aimed at a bunch of cops kneeling on the backs of black people (even if it's because he's afraid he'll be arrested himself) can still be the best choice to side with. Kinda weird analogy, but I'm sick and a bit hard pressed to think of anything better.
Basically the most pro-russian that exists here is "pro-what their hand was forced to do." Not "pro-what the RF is or does generally'
We had a user who would uncritically support Russia and Operation Z. A "Z poster", if you will. They were banned on several accounts and no one really missed them.
Some of us tepidly support the CPRF, which is largely controlled opposition. We recognize that counting since 2014, there's a lot of propaganda, civilian strikes, and land mines coming from both sides. Most of us favor an immediate armistice along the present LOC that follows pretty closely a "dividing line" for the plurality ethnicity as evidenced by the past 30 years of linguistic, electoral, and poling data. And we favor quick peace as opposed to continued hostility that likely will go nowhere.
It sucks that Ukraine's self-determination is being jeopardized by Russia. It sucks that Luhansk's self-determination is being jeopardized by Ukraine. It sucks that there's a geopolitical standoff between the two strongest military powers that overlays this. It sucks that the only imaginable ruling party in Russia is a reactionary capitalist one that was ushered in by Clinton's intervention. And it sucks that they're all probably just going to die in a field to resolve it, and make the situation in Bosnia look like a vacation resort in comparison.
There is a silver lining in that we are seeing a great power struggle to subjugate its neighbor, and also in that the wearing down of NATO and Russia allows the less belligerent, more progressive, emerging superpower to have more sway in the world. Some might say that makes it "worth it" but I certainly don't.
This is uncritically supporting the Z operation. It rewards the attacker and gives them absolutely no reason to not try again in 10 years (either in the same country or in another one). It's also what happened in 2014 and you see the results of that now.
Would you favor an immediate armistice with the Nazis in 1943? I surely hope not, but that would be a quick peace, very much like what the advocate for now.
I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word uncritical but go off.
Also, just so we're on the same page, what do you believe happened in 2014 and what has happened since then until Feb 2022? What political and demographic conditions do you believe set the stage for the conflict that has been going on since then?
Your comparison to WW2 in 1943 is also wildly off. For one, you've got it mixed up which side is wearing the Nazi insignia and celebrating Nazi collaborators and enthusiastic participants in the Holocaust. For another, the USSR turned the war around in 1943. It would make no sense to call for armistice when you're winning. Ukraine is currently stalled and bleeding manpower and materiel. The counteroffensive is all but done, were it not for Western insistence that fighting continues to the last Ukrainian.
I don't know, which side are Wagner and Rogozin on?
USSR was just as stalled in early 1943, bleeding manpower and materiel, getting massive war supplies from the USA, and the West was insisting that fighting continues to the last Russian. Sounds familiar?
Okay but can you actually name institutional promotion of nazism? For example publishing celebrations of Bandera, putting the OUN trident on old soviet monuments, funding neonazi run youth camps, etc?
I'm guessing you can't because while there are certainly Nazi Russians they've also tried to suppress any sort of Nazi organizing within Russia. The state is hostile to organized Nazism unlike Ukraine.
To be clear, theyre still a right wing neoliberal hellscape, but it is a low bar to clear and one clears it.
Nazis fighting Nazis
Hunter Biden's laptop is big news though. Why would it not be on the front page?
It's not though? We got tired of riffing on that literally years ago.
While it should go as without saying I think it's pretty hard to take it that way when the following statements get made a) The legitimate Ukraine government was overthrown in a NATO croup, b) Ukraine government is a neo-nazi government, c) DPR and LPR are legitimate countries and d) NATO started the war in Ukraine. Every single one of those is a Russian state propagated talking point, all of them made around nuggets of facts (like the leaked chat where some US officials were discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new government) but ultimately warped into something that can't definitely be proven true or false. Thus whoever spreads those talking points wants to believe those statements as true, which begs the question of why to believe they're true.
So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?
This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.
Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You'll note that they kept the moderate "we should be nuetral between the US and Russia" organizers out and brought the nazis in.
As if to prove my point... I said they're statements made around certain known fact, facts that don't really prove the statement. Like the "coup". Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition. But the fact doesn't shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.
I don't have problem understanding that things are biased. It's just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.
You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.
Talking about who should be in government and those people "coincidentally" being installed is plotting to install a puppet government.
Or were forced to. The point is we know they were successful at installing their people and keeping others out, and "it was just a coincidence" seems improbable given how popular Klitsch was.
The western narrative deserves criticism. And hexbear is very critical of the Russian narrative, just not the things that they say that are supported by evidence.
The thing is Tyahnybok was a nobody politically, they went with the more well known Yats as prime Minister. You'll note that Yats is the leader of the "Fatherland" party
They also say about the defacto leader of the movement Klitsch and the other moderate democrats:
I want to ask the reader something, what is being said here? Does this come off as innocent?
Because to me this reads as plotting to install certain leaders within Ukraines new government.
You're literally proving my point. You've added nothing to factually prove the coup, you're adding assumptions to make the fact fit the narrative. Also Yats is not the leader of the Fatherland party, he used to be there but moved to People's front in 2014.
I dont need to add more stuff. What they said makes it obvious they're talking about a soft or hard coup. You're being shown a red balloon and asking for more proof it's a red balloon.
What would you accept as proof, if not the senior US officials there talking about who should be in government and about moving to make it happen?
Oh, cool, the people's front! Let's learn more about them:
Oh. Cool. A nationalist pseudo populist organization. Where have I seen those before?
Russian politicians were also talking how Russia should nuke Nevada test site, so I guess Russia has nuked America because the only thing required to make it true is someone talking about it.
For fuck sake, at the very least search for the right thing. not this, but this.
Did a nuke go off at the Nevada test site in a way that wasn't connected to US nuclear testing? If so, it would be reasonable to assume the Russians who talked about doing it did it if it furthered their geopolitical objectives.
Oh, sorry. But still, theyre described as a conservative nationalist party and split from the "Fatherland" party. Also the leader of Azov Battalion was on their military council. Hrmm.
I don't think I could ever make you believe that we came to these conclusions based on an analysis of world history, economics, and the current geopolitical reality and didn't need any help from Yuri at the FSB.
You literally don't understand how we analyze geopolitics.
Of course you can't, because there's nothing you can provide except your belief that it is the way you want to believe.
That's nice.
Feel free to provide proof.