The Russian commander of the “Vostok” Battalion fighting in southern Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukraine will not be defeated and suggested that Russia freeze the war along current frontlines.
Alexander Khodakovsky made the candid concession yesterday on his Telegram channel after Russian forces, including his own troops, were devastatingly defeated by Ukrainian marines earlier this week at Urozhaine in the Zaporizhzhia-Donetsk regional border area.
“Can we bring down Ukraine militarily? Now and in the near future, no,” Khodakovsky, a former official of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, said yesterday.
“When I talk to myself about our destiny in this war, I mean that we will not crawl forward, like the [Ukrainians], turning everything into [destroyed] Bakhmuts in our path. And, I do not foresee the easy occupation of cities,” he said.
Mate. Respect for Marriage Act 2022 is a federal law protecting same sex marriages. It's there. It's fact. Bwaha etc.
deleted by creator
That's not the point. I feel I've already answered your argument in other comments. If you don't agree, please let me know why and I'll happily address it.
deleted by creator
Ok. I did ask you to explain why?
deleted by creator
I mean that's just completely false. The Act requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.
From the Act:
Seems pretty clear, no?
Again I'm not trying to say this is a fait accompli and we can just sit back on our laurels and consider it done. But it's a hell of a lot better than Russia's law.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There has been nothing wrong with my arguments. Acting like there has just doesn't make it so.
deleted by creator
Someone else is going to have to explain the ignorance present in this statement for I do not have the time or energy, could one of our cishet hexbears be a good ally?
You are incapable. That is because the comment is factually correct. US Federal law has protections for queerness. The cited law proves it. What point are you trying to make exactly?
The long and short of it is that legalizing gay marriage isn't even a strong step to lgbt liberation, it is literally just tepid assimilationism. We are only "accepted by federal law" in most narrow and on their terms sense. Call me when the US government federally covers trans Healthcare, makes conversion torture a federal crime, deals with the queer(especially child) homelessness problem, and purges the people calling us all pedophiles.
Also, learn some fucking humility.
But that's not what was under discussion. Does there exist a federal law which protects queerness?
Yes, yes there does.
Is it perfect? By no means, there's a long way to go. But the characterization of the US as queerphobic in the context of comparison to Russia is a nonsense. Both-sidesing this issue is a disgusting affront to the LGBTQ people suffering under Putin.
You're original wording was:
You do not know what queerness is if you think that is met by gay marriage being legalized federally.
This is whataboutism. Also US capitalists fund the passage of anti-lgbt laws and hate campaigns globally that create basically pogroms against gay and trans people. So it is ridiculous because the US is much worse to gay and trans people globally.
They also helped illegally and undemocratically dissolve the USSR and created the situation for Putin to exist in in the first place. Who knows, if they didn't interfere maybe the USSR would currently be as progressive as Cuba is on the issue of queer liberation. And Ukrainian and NATO capitalists and Russian capitalists wouldn't be sending conscripts to their deaths.
Legalising same sex marriage is an acceptance of queerness. At no point did I say that the issue was "met" (i.e. settled). In fact, I clearly said "it's not perfect".
Its not whataboutism though. It's a response to the original (flippant) claim that the US is a queerphobic dictatorship.
I have not seen any pogroms against gay or trans people that have been funded or supported by the US government. Maybe going back a ways?
I fucking hate the US government. Just need to mention that. They're a joke and I want to see huge reforms, though I don't hold out much hope.
I hate the Russian government more, and with good reason, especially on the issue of queerphobia. Are you genuinely of the belief that the Russian government is less queerphobic than the US govt? If so, please explain that to me in big letters so that I can understand properly.
Its not going to get less ridiculous if you keep saying it.
Are you even lgbt? Maybe you should ask some trans leftists what they think of this. Maybe read some Leslie Feinberg.
It is lmao. It is literally a dictatorship of capital with the most queer people imprisoned per population.
Look at every single liberation movements that they mass murdered and you will find countless queer folks. Queer folks have always lead the charge against US imperialism in such movements.
But also, I'm talking about US capitalists lobbying governments and running private campaigns. And the capitalists and the government are in the same bed together.
Yes, they are more queerphobic, because they kill more queer people globally, and seek to destroy liberation movements globally. Russia might have worse laws but the US has more queer blood on its hands, and is ultimately responsible for a right wing Russian government existing in the first place.
Nor will it get any less true until you refute it.
Fuck off. I don't know you.
The US is a plutocracy. You need to have a look at the definitions. It's definitely not a dictatorship because there is a regular handover of power. Is it any better than a dictatorship? Up for discussion. But the definitions of words have to matter, and you've got the wrong one.
So no examples of US government-led/supported pogroms against queer people then? Not even a single link to a pogrom which was supported by someone who was supported by an American capitalist who is demonstrably in bed with the American government? That's looking like a pretty weak line of argument at the minute, though I'm open to hearing more.
Your last paragraph is similarly hugely lacking in supporting evidence. It may be true, but at the moment I have to dismiss it utterly since it's just your opinion, and, again, I don't know you.
Most of what youre saying isn't worth responding to; for example, claiming that the rich aren't in bed with our politicians lol, but for the audience, some history:
Here the Yankees are admitting to influencing the elections after the coup to keep the communists out of power because the people had previously voted not to dissolve the USSR before the coup and they were afraid of communists regaining control of the government.
Here is a fun article on how the US is responsible for violence targetting lgbt people worldwide Just a tiny sample though
Here is a relevant essay on liberals like you speaking over queer liberation activists.
Except I never made that claim. Is English not your first language? Your comprehension seems a bit below par and I don't want to bully you out of the conversation if that's the case. I could be less idiomatic if that would help?
Stop being a debate pervert.
Is it against some rule of yours to ask for evidence?
You've been provided what you've asked for now shut up and read it loser
I'm sorry, the claims are not supported by the provided links.
While I disagree, I can see where you're coming from. Shouldn't have called you that. Gonna do some introspection, since this entire federation thing and the influx of bad faith actors I didn't encounter for three years, interaction with other users has made me pretty hostile. Sorry about that.
No worries
Did you click on the links and read them?
Yep. They don't prove the US is a queerphobic dictatorship. Not even close. I don't know what more to say. Maybe you should open your mind a bit? There is some pretty good literature out there on the nature and inherent value of truth that might be illuminating for you.
And one last thing. I'm not a liberal. Not everyone who you argue with is.
I'm curious now, if you're not a liberal what are you?
What do you want to know? Do you want me to label myself? PolComp score? What?
? You said you weren't a liberal, suggesting that you think you're something else. Which raises the question, what is that?
I'm not a liberal because I hold strong anti-capitalist views, for one example.
Okay you say you're not a liberal and you're an anti-capitalist but what are you, in the positive? Unless you only define yourself by what you're not?
I'm not into identity politics either. I am far left, anti authority, pro-worker, pro-human, pro-science. Lots of things. What about you?
I'm a Marxist. I reject identity politics, too. You should look into Marxism. It could be right up your street.
Nice! I've read the manifesto, most of Das Kapital and some of his essays and his thinking is a big part of my worldview. I'm reading "at the café" by Malatesta at the moment and I think I like it enough to recommend.
Thats because you did not ask for links proving that, youre either being a debate pervert or have the memory of a goldfish.
Or, I'm considering your argument which is supported by your evidence that some US citizens aided homophobia in other parts of the world. What was that again?
Debate pervert, got it.
deleted by creator
The Act nonetheless exists, and as such, proves my point quite handily.
deleted by creator
If the act protected queer people, then I would defend Saudi Arabia against comparisons with countries that actively litigate against the existence of queer people, like Russia, yes.
But I would not consider it proof that Saudi was accepting of queer people. For that I would probably look at testimonies of queer people in the country. Like the ones you can see from millions of US citizens.
deleted by creator
That seems like something which would be infinitely harder to do with Saudi subjects. Probably because they aren't allowed to be gay.
deleted by creator
Glad to have surprised you. And yet, if you actually parse what I'm saying, you'll see that the evidence in providing is a presumed lack of testimony being evidence of a lack of acceptance which indicates a comparison which is favourable to my argument.
deleted by creator