https://archive.li/Z0m5m

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.

  • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mate. Respect for Marriage Act 2022 is a federal law protecting same sex marriages. It's there. It's fact. Bwaha etc.

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

              • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                ·
                1 year ago

                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:

                Congress finds the following: ((a) In General.--No person acting under color of State law may deny-- (1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or (2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

                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.

    • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      yikes-1 yikes-2 yikes-3

      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?

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You're original wording was:

              which accepts queerness in its federal law.

              You do not know what queerness is if you think that is met by gay marriage being legalized federally.

              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.

              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.

              • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Legalising same sex marriage is an acceptance of queerness

                  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's a response to the original (flippant) claim that the US is a queerphobic dictatorship.

                  It is lmao. It is literally a dictatorship of capital with the most queer people imprisoned per population.

                  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?

                  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.

                  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.

                  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.

                  • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    its not going to get less ridiculous if you keep saying it.

                    Nor will it get any less true until you refute it.

                    Are you even LGBT?

                    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.

                    • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      1 year ago

                      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.

                      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        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?

                        • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                          ·
                          edit-2
                          1 year ago

                          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?

                          Stop being a debate pervert.

                            • Flaps [he/him]
                              ·
                              1 year ago

                              You've been provided what you've asked for now shut up and read it loser

                                • Flaps [he/him]
                                  ·
                                  1 year ago

                                  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.

                              • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                                ·
                                1 year ago

                                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.

                                    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                                      ·
                                      1 year ago

                                      ? You said you weren't a liberal, suggesting that you think you're something else. Which raises the question, what is that?

                                        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                                          ·
                                          1 year ago

                                          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?

                                          • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                                            ·
                                            1 year ago

                                            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?

                                            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                                              ·
                                              1 year ago

                                              I'm a Marxist. I reject identity politics, too. You should look into Marxism. It could be right up your street.

                                              • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                                                ·
                                                1 year ago

                                                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.

                      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        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.

                          • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                            ·
                            1 year ago

                            That seems like something which would be infinitely harder to do with Saudi subjects. Probably because they aren't allowed to be gay.

                              • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                                ·
                                1 year ago

                                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.