Yeah, you can call yourself a leftist all you want, but when 90% of your posts is calling Biden and Zelensky Nazis but you never criticize Putin or Trump, I get certain doubts.
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.
it would be reasonable to assume the Russians who talked about doing it did it if it furthered their geopolitical objectives.
Now you're word for word proving what I originally claimed. If something happened and another factual event happened, that may or may not be related, and you believe they're related then it's okay to make the assumption that asserts your belief.
But still, theyre described as a conservative nationalist party and split from the "Fatherland" party.
Conservative doesn't mean neonazi and maybe they split to be less radical?
Also the leader of Azov Battalion was on their military council. Hrmm.
I'm tired of constantly correcting you so I'm just going say wrong
Now you're word for word proving what I originally claimed. If something happened and another factual event happened, that may or may not be related, and you believe they're related then it's okay to make the assumption that asserts your belief.
Yes, it is extremely reasonable.
If John Smith talked about killing Jake Jones and was recorded, and then Jake Jones showed up killed as John Smith described he would be, then it would be reasonable to assume that John Smith killed Jake Jones. Jake Jones' head could have just done that spontaneously, but it is unlikely.
Do you have an alternate explanation for them saying "we're going to install the people we want and keep out the people we dont" and then that happening?
Conservative doesn't mean neonazi and maybe they split to be less radical?
Okay but there are neonazis in the Wikipedia article you linked about them
Begin article quote
The military council is a special body of People's Front. It develops proposals for strengthening of the defence system of Ukraine.
The council was created on 10 September 2014 together with the political and coordinating councils of the party. It was formed by the party congress which also approved the council's composition. It included the Chief of Staff of the party and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Turchynov, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, coordinator of the "Information Resistance" blog, Lt. Col. Dmytro Tymchuk, former acting Head of the Presidential Administration and co-founder of the revived National Guard Serhiy Pashynskiy and former secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Euromaidan commandant and organizer of the Maidan self-defense units Andriy Parubiy.
The council is made up of leading commanders of the territorial defense battalions: Andriy Biletsky, commander of the Azov Battalion, Yuriy Bereza, commander of the Dnipro Battalion, Kostyantyn Mateichenko, commander of the Artemivsk battalion, Roman Pytski, commander of the Chernihiv battalion, Andriy Teteruk, commander of the Myrotvorets battalion, Yevhen Deydey, commander of the Kyiv-1 battalion, Mykola Shvalya, commander of the Zoloti Vorota battalion, Ihor Lapin, company commander of the Aidar Battalion Serhiy Sydoryn, vice-battalion commander of the National Guard and Mykhailo Havryluk, a soldier of the Kyivska Rus battalion.
End article quote
I'm tired of constantly correcting you so I'm just going say wrong
Begin article quote
The council is made up of leading commanders of the territorial defense battalions: Andriy Biletsky, commander of the Azov Battalion, Yuriy Bereza, commander of the Dnipro Battalion, Kostyantyn Mateichenko, commander of the Artemivsk battalion, Roman Pytski, commander of the Chernihiv battalion, Andriy Teteruk, commander of the Myrotvorets battalion, Yevhen Deydey, commander of the Kyiv-1 battalion, Mykola Shvalya, commander of the Zoloti Vorota battalion, Ihor Lapin, company commander of the Aidar Battalion Serhiy Sydoryn, vice-battalion commander of the National Guard and Mykhailo Havryluk, a soldier of the Kyivska Rus battalion.
If John Smith talked about killing Jake Jones and was recorded, and then Jake Jones showed up killed as John Smith described he would be, then it would be reasonable to assume that John Smith killed Jake Jones. Jake Jones’ head could have just done that spontaneously, but it is unlikely.
It's how 4chan and Reddit decided Sunil Tripathi was the Boston marathon bomber. A bombing happened, someone knew Sunil had gone missing, images kinda looked similar, people wanted to find a connection so they made whatever connection they could find. He wasn't the bomber but people still started a witchhunt based on assumptions they thought were reasonable. So no, I don't think blindly taking assumptions as factuals is extremely reasonable.
Do you have an alternate explanation for them saying “we’re going to install the people we want and keep out the people we dont” and then that happening?
Without any further information I'd say they're just discussing ideas (in this case who should be in the government) to present to Yatseniuk with the goal of making sure Russia doesn't sabotage the movement. Nothing about it implies planning a coup.
Okay but there are neonazis in the Wikipedia article you linked about them
I'm going to need more specifics than an information dump. Outside of the Azov being in the military council (which I admit was my mistake for not noticing, and I'll get to why that's not proof) and Andriy Parubiy (who I wouldn't consider a Nazi because he been a target of that kind of disinformation campaign by pro-russian media) nobody else catches my eye.
As for the addition of Azov in that list. The council is not made up of territorial defense battalions, it's made up of leaders of volunteer battalions. Azov was at that moment a volunteer battalion which is why they were included, along with the other leaders of the volunteer battalions. He wasn't picked because he was neo-nazi, he was picked because he was leading one of the biggest volunteer battalions. The idea that the government is a neo-nazi government because the biggest political party in that government created a special body and that special body has one known neo-nazi is just bewildering. Look at how many hoops you have to jump through just to have some connection between neo-nazis and the 2014 Ukrainian parliament, and then tell me that is reasonable.
It's how 4chan and Reddit decided Sunil Tripathi was the Boston marathon bomber. A bombing happened, someone knew Sunil had gone missing, images kinda looked similar, people wanted to find a connection so they made whatever connection they could find. He wasn't the bomber but people still started a witchhunt based on assumptions they thought were reasonable. So no, I don't think blindly taking assumptions as factuals is extremely reasonable.
Okay, are you saying that this is a case of mistaken identity? I dont get what you're trying to claim.
I treat the assumption as fact within my internal worldview because it is the only explanation I can think of for what happened and it has strong supporting evidence. We have records of them plotting, so they probably carried out their plot as it seems that what happened mirrored what their plot wanted.
Again, I would love an alternative explanation for what they said they wanted and were doing lining up with what happened.
As for the addition of Azov in that list. The council is not made up of territorial defense battalions, it's made up of leaders of volunteer battalions. Azov was at that moment a volunteer battalion which is why they were included, along with the other leaders of the volunteer battalions. He wasn't picked because he was neo-nazi, he was picked because he was leading one of the biggest volunteer battalions. The idea that the government is a neo-nazi government because the biggest political party in that government created a special body and that special body has one known neo-nazi is just bewildering. Look at how many hoops you have to jump through just to have some connection between neo-nazis and the 2014 Ukrainian parliament, and then tell me that is reasonable.
Wait, did you not go over the list and look at the political history of everyone involved? It's much more than one nazi.
Do your research and then take a second attempt at replying.
Okay, are you saying that this is a case of mistaken identity? I dont get what you’re trying to claim.
I'm saying they took two factual things and then reasoned themselves to believe those things are connected. Which is exactly what you're doing here.
I treat the assumption as fact within my internal worldview because it is the only explanation I can think of for what happened and it has strong supporting evidence. We have records of them plotting, so they probably carried out their plot as it seems that what happened mirrored what their plot wanted.
You've taken two factual things and then assumed based on your beliefs that they must be connected. There's no evidence of them actually plotting a coup. I even gave you an alternative that very much suits what the leaked discussion was about.
Wait, did you not go over the list and look at the political history of everyone involved? It’s much more than one nazi.
Do your research and then take a second attempt at replying.
I'm not here to do your work lazyass. You said there are more, find your own proof and be more specific. Wikipedia dumps are not proof.
I'm saying they took two factual things and then reasoned themselves to believe those things are connected. Which is exactly what you're doing here.
Okay, yes. And it is reasonable. Do you have any other explanation for what happened?
Edit: lol lmao, this is your explanation
Without any further information I'd say they're just discussing ideas (in this case who should be in the government) to present to Yatseniuk with the goal of making sure Russia doesn't sabotage the movement. Nothing about it implies planning a coup.
That's just straight up counterfactual to what they actually say lmao
End edit
You've taken two factual things and then assumed based on your beliefs that they must be connected. There's no evidence of them actually plotting a coup. I even gave you an alternative that very much suits what the leaked discussion was about.
They're literally talking about who should be in and out of government and moving to make it happen.
I'm not here to do your work lazyass. You said there are more, find your own proof and be more specific. Wikipedia dumps are not proof.
You're literally the one being lazy.
I'm done, you're more than entitled to your willfully ignorant, arrogant bullshit.
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.”
That's what I thought too, but somehow there is a "600 page report on the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop" on their front page.
Like I said, they call themselves leftists, but everything there is only anti-Biden, anti-NATO and anti-Ukraine. Nothing about republicans pushing for child labor, for example, which should be the most important priority for a pro-workers group.
Posts about the ongoing child labour in the US appear on hexbear and lemmygrad frequently...
Trump isn't president, It's not weird for leftists to criticise those in power more often, nor an offensive organisation responsible from bombing innocent working people or a banderite state for that matter
nor an offensive organisation responsible from bombing innocent working people
Weird that you mention this. I assume you mean NATO, because there is another organization responsible for bombing innocent working people right now, as well as taking the working people of their own country and sending them to die. Why is criticism reserved only for the one that did not start the current war?
banderite state
Can you show in what way is Ukraine more right-wing than Russia?
Can you show in what way is Ukraine more right-wing than Russia?
I hate the Russian government for being cynical liberal mafiosos who use reactionary rhetoric similar to if Republicans were transposed there ("our enemies are exporting homosexuality to us to weaken us" etc). That is still substantially different from making your #1 national hero a Holocaust perpetrator, which Ukraine has done.
Why is criticism reserved only for the one that did not start the current war?
Probably because none of us live in Russia, so criticizing them is a waste of time. Of course they suck, but there's nothing we can do about it. Nobody in Russia is ever going to read our criticism.
We do, however, mostly live in NATO-aligned countries. We CAN affect change in our own countries. That is a productive conversation to have.
Can you show in what way is Ukraine more right-wing than Russia?
Nobody is claiming that. You're having an argument with a guy you made up.
do you realize we have had hundreds of discussions over the republicans pushing transphobia and anti communism? We critique them constantly, just bring up meatball ron!
"600 page report on the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop"
Idk about Lemmygrad, I can't speak for them (I also couldnt find this post when I went to check, and I doubt its slipped off the first two pages in the five hours since you posted this?)
But on Hexbear we think the Hunter Biden story is funny and dont take it seriously. We post about it to mock it.
Supporting Trump is when you show interest in (admittedly boring and inconsequential) ongoing news issues.
Biden is a right wing monster who literally wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that has caused over a generation of misery, horror, and suffering. Not going to get in to the other ones because we literally have several pinned posts on the matter and I'm sick of re-iterating them to ideological brick walls.
Yeah, you can call yourself a leftist all you want, but when 90% of your posts is calling Biden and Zelensky Nazis but you never criticize Putin or Trump, I get certain doubts.
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.
Now you're word for word proving what I originally claimed. If something happened and another factual event happened, that may or may not be related, and you believe they're related then it's okay to make the assumption that asserts your belief.
Conservative doesn't mean neonazi and maybe they split to be less radical?
I'm tired of constantly correcting you so I'm just going say wrong
Yes, it is extremely reasonable.
If John Smith talked about killing Jake Jones and was recorded, and then Jake Jones showed up killed as John Smith described he would be, then it would be reasonable to assume that John Smith killed Jake Jones. Jake Jones' head could have just done that spontaneously, but it is unlikely.
Do you have an alternate explanation for them saying "we're going to install the people we want and keep out the people we dont" and then that happening?
Okay but there are neonazis in the Wikipedia article you linked about them
Begin article quote
End article quote
Begin article quote
It's how 4chan and Reddit decided Sunil Tripathi was the Boston marathon bomber. A bombing happened, someone knew Sunil had gone missing, images kinda looked similar, people wanted to find a connection so they made whatever connection they could find. He wasn't the bomber but people still started a witchhunt based on assumptions they thought were reasonable. So no, I don't think blindly taking assumptions as factuals is extremely reasonable.
Without any further information I'd say they're just discussing ideas (in this case who should be in the government) to present to Yatseniuk with the goal of making sure Russia doesn't sabotage the movement. Nothing about it implies planning a coup.
I'm going to need more specifics than an information dump. Outside of the Azov being in the military council (which I admit was my mistake for not noticing, and I'll get to why that's not proof) and Andriy Parubiy (who I wouldn't consider a Nazi because he been a target of that kind of disinformation campaign by pro-russian media) nobody else catches my eye.
As for the addition of Azov in that list. The council is not made up of territorial defense battalions, it's made up of leaders of volunteer battalions. Azov was at that moment a volunteer battalion which is why they were included, along with the other leaders of the volunteer battalions. He wasn't picked because he was neo-nazi, he was picked because he was leading one of the biggest volunteer battalions. The idea that the government is a neo-nazi government because the biggest political party in that government created a special body and that special body has one known neo-nazi is just bewildering. Look at how many hoops you have to jump through just to have some connection between neo-nazis and the 2014 Ukrainian parliament, and then tell me that is reasonable.
Okay, are you saying that this is a case of mistaken identity? I dont get what you're trying to claim.
I treat the assumption as fact within my internal worldview because it is the only explanation I can think of for what happened and it has strong supporting evidence. We have records of them plotting, so they probably carried out their plot as it seems that what happened mirrored what their plot wanted.
Again, I would love an alternative explanation for what they said they wanted and were doing lining up with what happened.
Wait, did you not go over the list and look at the political history of everyone involved? It's much more than one nazi.
Do your research and then take a second attempt at replying.
I'm saying they took two factual things and then reasoned themselves to believe those things are connected. Which is exactly what you're doing here.
You've taken two factual things and then assumed based on your beliefs that they must be connected. There's no evidence of them actually plotting a coup. I even gave you an alternative that very much suits what the leaked discussion was about.
I'm not here to do your work lazyass. You said there are more, find your own proof and be more specific. Wikipedia dumps are not proof.
Okay, yes. And it is reasonable. Do you have any other explanation for what happened?
Edit: lol lmao, this is your explanation
That's just straight up counterfactual to what they actually say lmao
End edit
They're literally talking about who should be in and out of government and moving to make it happen.
You're literally the one being lazy.
I'm done, you're more than entitled to your willfully ignorant, arrogant bullshit.
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.
deleted by creator
are the pro-Trump leftists in the room with us right now?
https://lemmygrad.ml/
deleted by creator
That's what I thought too, but somehow there is a "600 page report on the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop" on their front page.
Like I said, they call themselves leftists, but everything there is only anti-Biden, anti-NATO and anti-Ukraine. Nothing about republicans pushing for child labor, for example, which should be the most important priority for a pro-workers group.
There are articles about this regularly on Hexbear and, I must assume, on Lemmygrad as well.
People like the Hunter story because it's funny and there is genuine corruption going on, but I don't think any of them think it's actually important.
Posts about the ongoing child labour in the US appear on hexbear and lemmygrad frequently...
Trump isn't president, It's not weird for leftists to criticise those in power more often, nor an offensive organisation responsible from bombing innocent working people or a banderite state for that matter
Liberals arguing in bad faith and ignorance? Couldn't happen.
Weird that you mention this. I assume you mean NATO, because there is another organization responsible for bombing innocent working people right now, as well as taking the working people of their own country and sending them to die. Why is criticism reserved only for the one that did not start the current war?
Can you show in what way is Ukraine more right-wing than Russia?
I hate the Russian government for being cynical liberal mafiosos who use reactionary rhetoric similar to if Republicans were transposed there ("our enemies are exporting homosexuality to us to weaken us" etc). That is still substantially different from making your #1 national hero a Holocaust perpetrator, which Ukraine has done.
Probably because none of us live in Russia, so criticizing them is a waste of time. Of course they suck, but there's nothing we can do about it. Nobody in Russia is ever going to read our criticism.
We do, however, mostly live in NATO-aligned countries. We CAN affect change in our own countries. That is a productive conversation to have.
Nobody is claiming that. You're having an argument with a guy you made up.
dude at least nazis are banned in russia
do you realize we have had hundreds of discussions over the republicans pushing transphobia and anti communism? We critique them constantly, just bring up meatball ron!
Idk about Lemmygrad, I can't speak for them (I also couldnt find this post when I went to check, and I doubt its slipped off the first two pages in the five hours since you posted this?)
But on Hexbear we think the Hunter Biden story is funny and dont take it seriously. We post about it to mock it.
Supporting Trump is when you show interest in (admittedly boring and inconsequential) ongoing news issues.
Biden is a right wing monster who literally wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that has caused over a generation of misery, horror, and suffering. Not going to get in to the other ones because we literally have several pinned posts on the matter and I'm sick of re-iterating them to ideological brick walls.
we do critique them, its just that the discourse centers around the other two rn
Literally posted 3 articles yesterday criticising trump but go off.
You forgot the genocide denial as well. I don't understand why they worship Russia like the ussr is still around.
bro I don't think you've read a single one of our comments
They haven't this is all pointless. Their worldview is a religious conviction unrelated to material reality. All vibes all the time.
Oop im feeling it, gotta worship Russia now.
. Wanna hit?