I think calling the entirety of Ukraine and all the people in it "fascist" is hyperbole of the highest order.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
The diplomatic solution thing is interesting because the main point was not about Donbass at all, but about the Finlandization of Ukraine, determining for them which organizations they can and cannot voluntarily join. Why is it ok for Russia to dictate terms to smaller countries about what they can do, but when the US does it it's the worst thing in the world? What's the difference here?
What absolutely drives me nuts is that this conflict was rooted in very tangible nuts and bolts issues but Westerners all just think it happened because Putin personally wants to drink the tears of apple-cheeked Ukrainian children because Russians are Chaotic Evil
It's all mindless orgasmic cheerleading for war which is extra scary since it will fuck up the quality of life for Europeans for years to come
Like you can still think Putin sucks, which he does, but at least acknowledge reality
Hey thank you for taking the time to write out a well-thought out response. You're obviously knowledgeable on the subject, and I'd like to learn a bit more myself.
Russia did not object to Ukraine signing the EU Association Agreement - their only problem was the existing tariff-free agreement between Russia and Ukraine that would have allowed EU goods to flood the Russian market but not in return. Putin even offered to hold a tripartite meeting to resolve this problem - the EU rejected this proposal.
Would you happen to have a good source for this statement available?
I agree that Ukraine has engaged in suppression of activists and political parties. At the risk of sounding like I'm doing whataboutism, using suppression of activists and parties to justify Russian aggression when they absolutely suppress their entire population seems strange.
Could you please point out some prominent Ukrainian politicians in positions of power right now that you consider nazist? I do mean that as an honest question, I'm honestly trying to see your perspective here.
On the economic side of the spectrum, Ukraine was never a member of the Eurasian Customs Union. There was never any free trade of goods between Ukraine and Russia. There were talks of potentially joining it and it was floated as an alternative to the EU Association Agreement, but it wasn't in place. This means Russia could have put as many tariffs and controls on EU/Ukrainian goods as they wanted, there was never any danger of an uncontrolled flood of goods into Russia.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
The democratically elected president of Ukraine was removed in a western-backed coup and replaced with a new western-friendly president. The US hand picked the Ukrainian prime minister. The Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen that gained Ukrainian citizenship the same day she became finance minister.
How can you possibly look at that and say it was the will of the Ukrainian people. Do you just mean that the ultranationalists that participated in the coup were Ukrainian?
Respect the disengage, it was clear enough from the "disengage." that we could all lmao at the result. At least barbarian left without trying to get a last word
Yes, I wanted to get out of that because it was clear that the conversation wasn't about what we were talking about anymore, but point-scoring and dunking for the audience. That's why I disengaged.
Am I allowed to engage here according to our rules? Mods, remove it if not, but seems like a good faith reading would be that I can here engage, seeing as he responded to me and I'm defending the disengage request?
I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).
It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.
I don't think that is reflected badly on most of the responders directly above though, in all honesty, and I will defend them against accusations of only point-scoring when they are responding in mostly large format effort-posts. The others throwing emotes and such, for sure were just scoring points.
No idea about the rules as written, but I think it's absolutely reasonable to respond to someone engaging. If that's against the rules, those are some strange rules.
I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).
It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.
Fair points.
The main reason I felt like that is because they plainly ignored everything I wrote except the parts that they felt they could most easily attack. Ignored my counters to the claims, and just dropped in new claims. If it's not gish-galloping, at least it's gish gallop adjacent. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at at least acknowledging "Hey, I don't have a reasonable response to what you said, I'll think about it".
We have a very strong rule about disengaging where the person replied to AND ALL OTHER HEXBEARS are required to respect it. I'm technically breaking it, but I broke it by telling someone to stop breaking it so I made it a grey zone.
Sure, gish-hallop adjacent is fair. But I would maintain a distinction between gish-galloping to avoid conversation and focusing on the point which illustrates the underlying philosophical problem best. If we don't do that, the posts just get longer and longer and longer. Focusing on the aspect most illustrative can then be better for conversation. It does feel annoying though, when that philosophy isn't fully outlined through the comments. It's clear to those that agree with the other poster (I get what he's doing and what positions are being shown) but to anyone not in the "in-group" it loses that and feels like picking and choosing the arguments easiest to respond to. Hexbears posting for each other can do it, those posting to convince should do better
But you don't have to continue that style and can just call a disengage, which was a good move I think. I would encourage you to try to understand what I've said here though for understanding what the posters were saying. I do agree with them more than you after all.
The Russian military has no Azov, though there are certainly fascists in it. No one is saying the whole Ukrainian people are fascist, but the government promoting Banderism is indisputable.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
That's the horrible thing about it, and it's true.
Russia wins, they annex either parts or all of Ukraine and resumes its power projection to spread far-Right ideology in the world and try to become the superpower nostalgics see the USSR as (but without any real or nominal socialism, just naked nationalism). Possibly start new wars too, in the medium term.
Ukraine wins, even besides the ethnic displacement and iconoclasm related to Russian culture and communism (because Russian nationalism appropriated some Soviet symbolism), you will get a west that will build up their military nonetheless and prepare itself for Round 2, while going full Crusader in spreading the "Rules Based International Order" around the world - countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China, the more reactionary ones like Iran, but also currently friendly to the west ones like Vietnam would be targeted and threatened with military action unless it "democratized" and allowed market relations. Every future endeavor to break with liberalism would be squashed immediately and proactively.
This conflict is basically a mini WW1 meatgrinder over spheres of influences and a "place under the sun", but as a proxy war - so there is no rise in socialist anti-war support.
I think calling the entirety of Ukraine and all the people in it "fascist" is hyperbole of the highest order.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
The diplomatic solution thing is interesting because the main point was not about Donbass at all, but about the Finlandization of Ukraine, determining for them which organizations they can and cannot voluntarily join. Why is it ok for Russia to dictate terms to smaller countries about what they can do, but when the US does it it's the worst thing in the world? What's the difference here?
deleted by creator
What absolutely drives me nuts is that this conflict was rooted in very tangible nuts and bolts issues but Westerners all just think it happened because Putin personally wants to drink the tears of apple-cheeked Ukrainian children because Russians are Chaotic Evil
It's all mindless orgasmic cheerleading for war which is extra scary since it will fuck up the quality of life for Europeans for years to come
Like you can still think Putin sucks, which he does, but at least acknowledge reality
Hey thank you for taking the time to write out a well-thought out response. You're obviously knowledgeable on the subject, and I'd like to learn a bit more myself.
Would you happen to have a good source for this statement available?
deleted by creator
Incredible effortpost by you, thank you very much ♥️
I agree that Ukraine has engaged in suppression of activists and political parties. At the risk of sounding like I'm doing whataboutism, using suppression of activists and parties to justify Russian aggression when they absolutely suppress their entire population seems strange.
Could you please point out some prominent Ukrainian politicians in positions of power right now that you consider nazist? I do mean that as an honest question, I'm honestly trying to see your perspective here.
On the economic side of the spectrum, Ukraine was never a member of the Eurasian Customs Union. There was never any free trade of goods between Ukraine and Russia. There were talks of potentially joining it and it was floated as an alternative to the EU Association Agreement, but it wasn't in place. This means Russia could have put as many tariffs and controls on EU/Ukrainian goods as they wanted, there was never any danger of an uncontrolled flood of goods into Russia.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
The democratically elected president of Ukraine was removed in a western-backed coup and replaced with a new western-friendly president. The US hand picked the Ukrainian prime minister. The Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen that gained Ukrainian citizenship the same day she became finance minister.
How can you possibly look at that and say it was the will of the Ukrainian people. Do you just mean that the ultranationalists that participated in the coup were Ukrainian?
disengage.
Removed by mod
Respect the disengage, it was clear enough from the "disengage." that we could all lmao at the result. At least barbarian left without trying to get a last word
Yes, I wanted to get out of that because it was clear that the conversation wasn't about what we were talking about anymore, but point-scoring and dunking for the audience. That's why I disengaged.
Am I allowed to engage here according to our rules? Mods, remove it if not, but seems like a good faith reading would be that I can here engage, seeing as he responded to me and I'm defending the disengage request?
I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).
It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.
I don't think that is reflected badly on most of the responders directly above though, in all honesty, and I will defend them against accusations of only point-scoring when they are responding in mostly large format effort-posts. The others throwing emotes and such, for sure were just scoring points.
No idea about the rules as written, but I think it's absolutely reasonable to respond to someone engaging. If that's against the rules, those are some strange rules.
Fair points.
The main reason I felt like that is because they plainly ignored everything I wrote except the parts that they felt they could most easily attack. Ignored my counters to the claims, and just dropped in new claims. If it's not gish-galloping, at least it's gish gallop adjacent. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at at least acknowledging "Hey, I don't have a reasonable response to what you said, I'll think about it".
We have a very strong rule about disengaging where the person replied to AND ALL OTHER HEXBEARS are required to respect it. I'm technically breaking it, but I broke it by telling someone to stop breaking it so I made it a grey zone.
Sure, gish-hallop adjacent is fair. But I would maintain a distinction between gish-galloping to avoid conversation and focusing on the point which illustrates the underlying philosophical problem best. If we don't do that, the posts just get longer and longer and longer. Focusing on the aspect most illustrative can then be better for conversation. It does feel annoying though, when that philosophy isn't fully outlined through the comments. It's clear to those that agree with the other poster (I get what he's doing and what positions are being shown) but to anyone not in the "in-group" it loses that and feels like picking and choosing the arguments easiest to respond to. Hexbears posting for each other can do it, those posting to convince should do better
But you don't have to continue that style and can just call a disengage, which was a good move I think. I would encourage you to try to understand what I've said here though for understanding what the posters were saying. I do agree with them more than you after all.
I don’t know if he’s a nazi, or just a nazi lover, but the head of Ukraine's military, Zaluzhny, has a bust of Stepan Bandura in his office
The Russian military has no Azov, though there are certainly fascists in it. No one is saying the whole Ukrainian people are fascist, but the government promoting Banderism is indisputable.
That's the horrible thing about it, and it's true.
Russia wins, they annex either parts or all of Ukraine and resumes its power projection to spread far-Right ideology in the world and try to become the superpower nostalgics see the USSR as (but without any real or nominal socialism, just naked nationalism). Possibly start new wars too, in the medium term.
Ukraine wins, even besides the ethnic displacement and iconoclasm related to Russian culture and communism (because Russian nationalism appropriated some Soviet symbolism), you will get a west that will build up their military nonetheless and prepare itself for Round 2, while going full Crusader in spreading the "Rules Based International Order" around the world - countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China, the more reactionary ones like Iran, but also currently friendly to the west ones like Vietnam would be targeted and threatened with military action unless it "democratized" and allowed market relations. Every future endeavor to break with liberalism would be squashed immediately and proactively.
This conflict is basically a mini WW1 meatgrinder over spheres of influences and a "place under the sun", but as a proxy war - so there is no rise in socialist anti-war support.