tweet in which jon points out the obvious and libs get mad
excerpt from a Lib
:
Jon gives his best impression of a 14 year old tankie in this video.
The following is true simultaneously:
- It is appropriate to critique US foreign policy, it's actually necessary in a free society.
- Some bad actions are worse than others. Iraq wasn't annexed into the 51st state, as opposed to Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia.
- Not all foreign policy decisions are zero sum, it's possible for both parties to derive a benefit from an agreement (US and Philippines for example).
what a great deal
i receive Military bases and access to your natural resources
you 
received: a US backed dictatorship
- The world does not revolve around the US, people in the Kremlin have agency.
- The Russian invasion of Ukraine and PRC threats of a Taiwan invasion are not about US foreign policy, they are a response to internal Russian and PRC pressures.
- Not every policy decision is based on trade and natural resources, those some of the variables in a long list of strategic considerations.
Iraq wasn't annexed into the 51st state
the only way for the US to act imperialistically is to turn places into states. Puerto Rico becoming a state? that's imperialism. the occupation of Puerto Rico without voting rights? democracy. anti-imperialism.
Yeah annexing with full rights is actually much better and more humane than what the US does, keep places in permanent chaotic barbarism that they exploit
He doesn't even says the word Ukraine, all he says is that, like all countries, the US does things for economic reasons rather than for vague platitudes.
"Haven't we sown the seeds of this with our own arrogance and cavalier approach to a lot of these foreign policy conflicts? A) we always frame these things as 'this is a battle between democracy and the free world and liberation and authoritarianism', but the truth is we're fighting for trade channels and resources. Like, this is all a function of competing capitalist powers and aren't we the ones- I mean, we've invaded more countries than Russia and China combined. So how do we give ourselves somehow the passes to be the white hat guys when a lot of our policies have created a lot of the chaos that they're taking advantage of." [Audience starts clapping]
An absolutely irrefutably correct take. Punished Jon is coming.
communist jon would be neat
not like huge or anything but neat
Jon Stewart believes the US is to blame for Russia invading Ukraine.
That's a very generous interpretation of what he said.
Yeah Stewart’s take was
and that’s still a bridge too far for imperilibs.He dared to broach the topic of Joe Biden's age a few months ago and they all lost their shit over that, even our favorite lib Kelly got big mad
They've really just moved this far to the right lmao
Which is worse:
-
Starting a war to take territory that results in the deaths of 10s of thousands (yes, I know, I'm deliberately meeting liberals on their terms here)
-
Starting a war to install a puppet government that results in the deaths of over 4 million
I will never understand the liberal fascination with lines on a map. Since mentioning the history of US intervention in the region is mostly viewed as "conspiracy", I've started to ask liberals: will life be meaningfully worse under Russian occupation for the people living in the region they've seized, or will it be about the same? If there's no difference, why should we support sending thousands of conscripts to their deaths?
The purposeful undermining of former-USSR states like Ukraine and Russia (before Putin said "nah, no more of that...") is literal fact and obvious to even the most surface level observer. It's blood-boilingly (new word) angering that these fascist assclowns claim things never happened which clearly did happen.
Basically my entry and exit point for even bothering to discuss Russia regional draws giant circle stuff is "Do you agree that the US/NATO was the primary reason Ukraine even exists as a separate entity? Do you agree the US/NATO lied repeatedly, basically nonstop, for 35 years to the post-Soviet leaders? Do you agree US/NATO's goal is to undermine Russian regional influence?"
A lot of Nazis (referring to liberals as that now considering their actions for 8 months now. Done with liberals) live in their American Exceptionalism fantasy land that is a literal joke to those on the left and the rest of the world. Thinking "America is good" or even "America has morals and standards that it applies and follows itself" is a child's belief... a child dropped on its head.
I suppose if you're dipshitted (more new words) enough to simply listen to the rhetoric and then immediately shoot one of those metal slugs they use to kill cows directly into your frontal cortex then it is possible to believe America is doing things like increasing quality of life or spreading democracy. Otherwise you'll hear those words and then immediately see the mass murder and robbery that the US calls spreading freedom.
I'm just tired of these Nazi liberal dipshits. My only response from now is going to be "oh cool, you care a lot about Ukrainian sovereignty?! I hear they need warm bodies! No experience required! Catch a flight to Poland and they'll surely show you the right way."
There's a particular group, which I won't name because already on enough lists, that if I could feasibly go over and help them in their actually-righteous war, I don't know if I would... but maybe. Unfortunately if I did do that and survived and came back to the US I would be locked in gitmo for a decade while DeSantis signs off on my daily waterboarding. If the side you support is fully supported by the US and they even half ass support you going and fighting for the foreign army, maybe it's worth considering that's probably a sign you're supporting the wrong side.
I’ve started to ask liberals: will life be meaningfully worse under Russian occupation for the people living in the region they’ve seized, or will it be about the same? If there’s no difference,
We already have an example, Crimea, to confidently state that it will be better under Russia than under Ukraine, and that was even before the war and the current plunder of Ukraine by west.
ve started to ask liberals: will life be meaningfully worse under Russian occupation for the people living in the region they've seized, or will it be about the same? If there's no difference, why should we support sending thousands of conscripts to their deaths?
The problem with that is far too many liberals sincerely believe this idea they invented themselves that this is going to result in some Ukrainian genocide by the Russians, either fully murdering everyone or a cultural genocide by replacing them and their culture with Russia's
The reality is of course that no, life will not meaningfully change, but few libs actually engage with material reality
It's even worse than that. They don't think genocide is going to happen, they think it's happening. I've heard liberals saying that pro Palestine activists are hypocrites for not protesting against Russia because the war in Ukraine is apparently "quantifiably worse in terms of death displacement and suffering". Nevermind the United Nations themselves reporting that child deaths in Gaza in the past 8 months exceed deaths in all other global conflict combined in the past 4 years. They have an entirely made up set of facts in their heads.
The UN are captured by tankies don't you know, they reported there's no genocide in Xinjiang and so are controlled by China
Which is worse:
Both. Both are horrific. It's like the trolley problem: it's artificial and you shouldn't solve it
Ok.
But I think 150 million Russians being plundered by the US again actually is worse.
So far nobody talks about plundering Russia, unless Putin attacks the Baltic states.
But TBH, given how the West implements sanctions, this plundering would look like they're shooting in their leg.
Nobody's outright talking plunder but friend, what do you think the ultimate outcome is here?
Libs won't stop until Russia either balkanizes into a shattered Libya-style failed state that the West can gobble up piecemeal under the guise of helping them recover, or the Russian government changes to an explicitly pro-EU one that empties its coffers in a show of newfound solidarity
For the West, there is no world in which Russia will be allowed to exist as a sovereign state. The end goal, full stop, is to plunder it, even if that's not the stated goal
Nope. Both Russia and the US are fucking imperialistic states.
Thinking that Russia is somehow left inclined is insanity
Thinking that Russia is somehow left inclined is insanity
That's not what anyone here is claiming. Our critical support is for the Russian Federation's opposition to US hegemony. No one thinks they are "left" in any way
They've literally written horseshoe theory sarcastically. If you are not aware, horseshoe theory is a claim that is far right and far left are quite similar.
Here we have completely different situation where we fucking have 2 nazi states opposing each other. Eventually, they'll compromise leaving the world in the middle of a catastrophe
even with that I'm still confused though.Are they saying that that Russia and Ukraine are both nazi states and will compromise with each other? And that will be a catastrophe. Or that Russia and US are both nazi states and they are going to compromise for some reason?
Niether way makes any sense but i can't even get past that part lol
I was deliberately referring to the poster quoted in OP who stated:
Some bad actions are worse than others. Iraq wasn't annexed into the 51st state, as opposed to Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia.
It was a dunk pointing out that they're arguing against themselves but don't realize due to American exceptionalism. I agree that Russia is not aligned with the left, and personally would like to see the war ended, but to be realistic, Russia will not just leave, especially when they have the upper hand (which it is clear they now do). As a resident of the US, the most I can do to end the war is to call on our government to work towards negotiations, as peace would obviously be the best case for the working class in both countries. However, the US and its allies more broadly would prefer to continue looting Ukraine and to make money for their arms industries, so they aren't in any hurry, and they will instead insist on that ludicrously unrealistic scenario where Russia just stops for no reason as a means to prolong the war instead without having to say so.
-
The Russian invasion of Ukraine and PRC threats of a Taiwan invasion are not about US foreign policy, they are a response to internal Russian and PRC pressures.
Yeah NATO expansion has nothing to do with Russian aggression towards Ukraine, it’s all because Russians are genetically predisposed to invade and conquer. Absolute child takes.
The world does not revolve around the US, people in the Kremlin have agency.
I hear this kind of line so often to dismiss the influence the US has globally. It completely misses the point. The US is effectively still the most powerful country on earth, meaning they're a major part of the broader geopolitical landscape that everybody else must respond to.
Notice also that this "well people in the Kremlin have agency, we didn't literally force them to invade smol ukraini" reasoning goes away when they want to talk about Chinese loans in Africa, or how Georgia's foreign influence bill is some sort of Russian plot.
I usually give these
the wall (of text).- List of Atrocities committed by US authorities
- A Detailed Chronological List of US Interventions, Invasions, Destabilzations, and Assistance to Oppressive Regimes (ending in 2002)
- The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
- Shock therapy (economics)
- Are We The Baddies?
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
- Infographic: US military presence around the world The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.
- Michael Parenti: Africa is Rich
.
In the case of Ukraine in particular, I have a couple other walls I tend to copypasta.
Except we did that. We did it to Mexico. We started a war with our neighbor and took their land. Just because it was the era of stuffing bullets down barrels and dying of consumption doesn't mean it happened a million years ago or has had no bearing on policy and attitude since!
I mean, I'm kinda surprised Jon doesn't even point out the obvious provocation of the prospect of Ukraine joining a hostile anti-Russian military alliance that would put
hypersonicnuclear missiles 5 minutes from Moscow. Like, literally right on the Russian border.Uh -- let's entertain a hypothetical in which one of the US's neighboring countries decided to join a hostile military alliance that put nukes 5 minutes off the US coast. Oh right, that happened!
We responded by invading, trying to assassinate their democratically elected president, and then we blockeded, sanctioned and starved them for generations.Why not point out that Putin is literally doing what any US president would do, except, like... not nearly as barbaric?
Small nitpick: the US has failed repeatedly and spectacularly at developing hypersonic missile tech.
lmao its going about as well as f35 development
Is there anyone with as big a mainstream audience as Stewart expressing even a little bit of this rhetoric?
Yeah its not a huge jump from this kind of "we're hypocrites, only doing things in our self interest" to "are we the baddies?"
I disagree tbh. I'd say the entire point of framing things the way Stewart does is to prevent further consideration. Stewart very clearly "both sides" the aggression in a way that dismisses the reality of the US's position as The Oppressor of the world. We know how these arguments play out long term, with Rallies to Restore Sanity type bullshit and Stewart himself giving awards to NeoNazis at Disney 10 years later.
If the US actually annexed its targets it would then face serious pressure to pay for their reconstruction and pay them as well as any other US citizen, i.e. maintain a common baseline. This runs counter to the whole point of imperialism and its functionary, systems of marginalization.
Can't afford another West German Economic Miracle in the age of neoliberal austerity, it seems.
i'm ready for the libs-cancelling-jon-stewart-for-being-a-tankie arc
Pretty sure it's already so. I thought I heard he wasn't going to host the daily show anymore. Even as a guest
Tankie Jon Stewart (Chat-GPT)
"Alright, folks, let's talk about Stalin and his grand tour of Europe. Now, I know what you're thinking – Stalin, really? But hear me out. The guy had a vision, and he wasn't afraid to make some bold moves to see it through. I mean, sure, he stopped at Berlin, but why stop there? Why not keep on truckin' and spread the revolution like wildfire across the continent? Think about it – a communist Europe, from Lisbon to Moscow. It's like the Red Wedding, but without all the backstabbing and betrayal. Sure, there would've been some logistical challenges along the way, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day. And think of the perks – no more Cold War, no more NATO, just one big happy socialist family. So yeah, maybe Stalin missed a golden opportunity to shake things up a bit, but hey, hindsight's 20/20, right? So let's raise a glass to what could've been, and who knows, maybe one day, someone else will pick up where he left off. Cheers to the road not taken, comrades."
"It's like the Red Wedding, but without all the backstabbing and betrayal," sounds like making a terrible analogy and then rapidly backtracking for comedic effect, and I could imagine Stewart doing something like that. But it's also just botbabble.
The world does not revolve around the US, people in the Kremlin have agency.
People living in Donetsk don’t have agency though in fact they aren’t even real, they were all “little green men” sent by Putin.
i didnt know this guy is based, he just seemed like a lib to me from the admittedly little i know about his takes.
He IS a lib.
This is just how far gone they are, Jon was considered a garden variety lib that was maybe just a bit left of them 10 years ago, and his positions haven't shifted much if at all. It just shows how far the overton window has moved.
blue maga has don't a lot to fuck us over this election cycle and i pray (as an atheist) that they won't complete sink us.
if it were to base my feelings on the fediverse or reddit i would be screwed but watching that last 3 elections not play out as reddit expected gives me hope.
Twenty years ago it was commonly understood that one could not and should not believe anything in the mainstream news without investigation first, because we all watched as the news carried water for an illegal and immoral invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq
Those same people who would've scoffed at any word out of the Press Secretary's mouth now go into a frothing rage if you were to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the news doesn't always give an accurate framing. It's baffling to me, and the change happened subtly - maybe I wasn't paying attention, I was unfortunately one of those "it's over for Drumpf" style libs back in 2016, but I can't really point to a moment where the change happened, just that it did
He's very very lib, a real true believer in liberal democracy and all that, but he occasionally stumbles on the right criticisms of the system.
