Why don't you actually reply to what I or anyone else said to you instead of making these comments avoiding actually engaging with anyone?
If you won't respond to people you should be banned for failure to engage in good faith. You are soapboxing instead of engaging with what anyone actually said to you.
Yeah I know. It just really fucking irritates me when they soapbox instead of responding. It's a particular irritation of mine when they do it by responding to you but not actually responding to your message but instead saying something completely different to an imagined audience. I find it rude as fuck and would honestly get physical with someone if anyone did it in person.
I hear ya. Honestly I think I'd go if it happened to me in person. It'd be bewildering to see someone just start saying something completely different to an imagined audience instead of continuing to talk to you.
I think it's a good move. I see now that most instances wanted to defederate a few weeks ago. I should have been paying attention.
Lemmy is awesome. But I guess echo chambers for all crazy kind of beliefs can easily pop up. Even such that glorify war crimes and try to defend them with illogical and irrational statements. I would really want to know if they really believe that absurdities or they are just so much invested they can't say otherwise anymore. But that I will never know.
It's good people see for themselves how MAGA deranged these people are parroting QAnon talking points and trying to drag the left into fascism. But until people see it for themselves they think "they can't be that bad". So i guess defederating is to hexbear's advantage because people need to see this clusterfuck. Then they can block the instance. I just needed confirmation.
I've seen enough. It's entirely just bizzare arguments that have been debunked so many times, seeing them again just makes me lose hope for humanity.
No one has anything to offer in the sense of a honest and reasonable response.
Minsk 2, like we don't know Russian army went in there with heavy weapons in 2014 and sponsored separatists
Minsk 2 was, believe it or not, after 2014. Having weapons for when Ukraine inevitably violates the treaty is not a transgression on the same scale as violating the treaty.
"What about USA" is not a childish argument when they are one of the driving forces behind the war, guppy brain. It's a perfectly logical argument that devastates any proponent of America supporting Ukraine. The reason why liberals like you try to frame every single argument in a way that forbids mentioning America is because you have literally no solution to any problem whatsoever that doesn't involve America engaging in naked hypocrisy. Without the rhetorical shield of "Whataboutism" you lose every single argument 10 out of 10 times.
If you need more insight into how and why Hexbear users are allowed to interact with other instances, you really should read their Posting Policy Bulletin. I found it very informative.
It points out the double standards westerners gladly accept in order to favor themselves and disadvantage others. How hollow the rhetoric is. How much rides on accepting propaganda, such as adopting the term "whataboutism" as a way to deflect from valid criticism. That's an old cold war term you picked up, probably from society in general, but it was propaganda to help ensure Soviet criticisms of double standards could be dismissed by Amerikkkans.
Minsk 2, like we don't know Russian army went in there with heavy weapons in 2014 and sponsored separatists
The form of this argument is "whataboutism" btw, lol.
But anyways, Russia's presence in 2014 was at best covert and there's little evidence. They did provide some supplies. However, why would this contradict any points made about Minsk 2? Anyone familiar with the diplomatic efforts knows that the West was far more brutal and aggressive, targeting civilians in Donbas, and repeatedly avoided diplomatic solutions. The (ignorant) rallying cry seems to be that Russia should have unilaterally done everything even while the West did nothing and even escalated. They didn't even honor ceasefires.
that by helping the attacked invaded country, the west is somehow making it worse?
"Helping" is doing the heavy lifting in this sentence. If it's making the situation worse, it isn't helping, is it? The "it" matters. The "it" from the West is weapons, loans, and auctioning off the country to Western corporate interests. The latter two get called "aid" even though they throw the poorest country in Europe into deep debt and exploitation. The former is weapons, it is direct support for the war, and whether that is "helping" depends on your understanding of where this war is going, what the realistic outcomes are, and what unexplored alternatives exist to propping up the UA military.
The simple version is that UA is fucked. It is not going to win and "reconstruction", if it ever comes from the West, will come at the price of foreign ownership, low wages, and further stripped social safety nets. Since it will lose, the question is really: how long do you want this to go on? How many Ukeainians do you want dead? I want none. The US government will accept any number so long as it hurts Russia. Do you accept any amount of dead Ukrainians so long as it hurts Russia? I don't. I want those people alive.
Sending weapons just ensures more and more Ukrainians dying so that the West can "stick it" to Russia. Not so that UA will win. Not so that the outcome is better. So that the outcome is objectively worse, so long as it's "hurting the right people". And all the while, the less horrible options are kept off the table, which is to say, diplomacy. Both by simply avoiding or preventing talks as early as March last year, but by ensuring the Western populace is unable to accept diplomacy at this point. This is why they tell you UA is winning, that Russians are subhuman monsters, etc etc. So that you support endless violence and think diplomacy is a bad idea.
This is also all before we get to the MIC, which drives war to fill its pockets. This is another of the real reasons the "helping" is happening: so that Lockheed-Martin can sell more weapons, keep more millions, all while children are plunged back into poverty. They steal from our children and our lives so that more Russians and Ukrainians may die, and there's always a new target of the violence ready to go for these bloodthirsty monsters.
Had you decided to listen rather than throw a tantrum, you might have learned these things.
but it was propaganda to help ensure Soviet criticisms of double standards could be dismissed by Amerikkkans.
It was actually propaganda by Britain to help ensure that Irish criticisms of double standard could be dismissed. It's funny how even leftists have adopted this straight up Russiagate lie that "whataboutism" was used against Soviet propaganda. It originated in Britain in the 80s to use against ireland
This is true but it's also not quite why Westerners know the term. That's due to cold warrior propaganda efforts, ones largely done long after the fact to explain why old soviet !snd now Russian) complaints of double standards can be dismissed out of hand. "The experts" (think tank ghouls and those in their orbit) "weighed in" and the term was thus laundered into common use by a selectively gullible press.
Removed by mod
Why don't you actually reply to what I or anyone else said to you instead of making these comments avoiding actually engaging with anyone?
If you won't respond to people you should be banned for failure to engage in good faith. You are soapboxing instead of engaging with what anyone actually said to you.
I like to let these weasels squirm around for a bit to let our big beautiful bears get their
rampage on, at least until they chill out and go 
And then we ban them
Yeah I know. It just really fucking irritates me when they soapbox instead of responding. It's a particular irritation of mine when they do it by responding to you but not actually responding to your message but instead saying something completely different to an imagined audience. I find it rude as fuck and would honestly get physical with someone if anyone did it in person.
I hear ya. Honestly I think I'd go
if it happened to me in person. It'd be bewildering to see someone just start saying something completely different to an imagined audience instead of continuing to talk to you.
Blocking an entire instance. Great move there bud.
Now you can circle-jerk the lemmy.world crowd
I think it's a good move. I see now that most instances wanted to defederate a few weeks ago. I should have been paying attention.
Lemmy is awesome. But I guess echo chambers for all crazy kind of beliefs can easily pop up. Even such that glorify war crimes and try to defend them with illogical and irrational statements. I would really want to know if they really believe that absurdities or they are just so much invested they can't say otherwise anymore. But that I will never know.
I hope you realize that hexbear federating is the exact opposite of trying to be an echo chamber.
deleted by creator
Which ones are illogical and irrational? You have not responded to any of them. Point them out, explain why they're illogical or irrational.
deleted by creator
It's good people see for themselves how MAGA deranged these people are parroting QAnon talking points and trying to drag the left into fascism. But until people see it for themselves they think "they can't be that bad". So i guess defederating is to hexbear's advantage because people need to see this clusterfuck. Then they can block the instance. I just needed confirmation.
deleted by creator
If you blocked the instance then how are you going to see any replies to your questions?
"What's going on here? Why would people believe things so different from what I see on CNN?"
"Ah, better not think any further about that."
I've seen enough. It's entirely just bizzare arguments that have been debunked so many times, seeing them again just makes me lose hope for humanity. No one has anything to offer in the sense of a honest and reasonable response.
Which ones? You haven't responded to any and you haven't pointed out any.
Tommy need drinky.
deleted by creator
...I write on !news@hexbear.net. Tankies owned.
Minsk 2 was, believe it or not, after 2014. Having weapons for when Ukraine inevitably violates the treaty is not a transgression on the same scale as violating the treaty.
"What about USA" is not a childish argument when they are one of the driving forces behind the war, guppy brain. It's a perfectly logical argument that devastates any proponent of America supporting Ukraine. The reason why liberals like you try to frame every single argument in a way that forbids mentioning America is because you have literally no solution to any problem whatsoever that doesn't involve America engaging in naked hypocrisy. Without the rhetorical shield of "Whataboutism" you lose every single argument 10 out of 10 times.
Whataboutism
Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?
Lmao, great bot.
Amber.
Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?
deleted by creator
If you need more insight into how and why Hexbear users are allowed to interact with other instances, you really should read their Posting Policy Bulletin. I found it very informative.
It points out the double standards westerners gladly accept in order to favor themselves and disadvantage others. How hollow the rhetoric is. How much rides on accepting propaganda, such as adopting the term "whataboutism" as a way to deflect from valid criticism. That's an old cold war term you picked up, probably from society in general, but it was propaganda to help ensure Soviet criticisms of double standards could be dismissed by Amerikkkans.
The form of this argument is "whataboutism" btw, lol.
But anyways, Russia's presence in 2014 was at best covert and there's little evidence. They did provide some supplies. However, why would this contradict any points made about Minsk 2? Anyone familiar with the diplomatic efforts knows that the West was far more brutal and aggressive, targeting civilians in Donbas, and repeatedly avoided diplomatic solutions. The (ignorant) rallying cry seems to be that Russia should have unilaterally done everything even while the West did nothing and even escalated. They didn't even honor ceasefires.
"Helping" is doing the heavy lifting in this sentence. If it's making the situation worse, it isn't helping, is it? The "it" matters. The "it" from the West is weapons, loans, and auctioning off the country to Western corporate interests. The latter two get called "aid" even though they throw the poorest country in Europe into deep debt and exploitation. The former is weapons, it is direct support for the war, and whether that is "helping" depends on your understanding of where this war is going, what the realistic outcomes are, and what unexplored alternatives exist to propping up the UA military.
The simple version is that UA is fucked. It is not going to win and "reconstruction", if it ever comes from the West, will come at the price of foreign ownership, low wages, and further stripped social safety nets. Since it will lose, the question is really: how long do you want this to go on? How many Ukeainians do you want dead? I want none. The US government will accept any number so long as it hurts Russia. Do you accept any amount of dead Ukrainians so long as it hurts Russia? I don't. I want those people alive.
Sending weapons just ensures more and more Ukrainians dying so that the West can "stick it" to Russia. Not so that UA will win. Not so that the outcome is better. So that the outcome is objectively worse, so long as it's "hurting the right people". And all the while, the less horrible options are kept off the table, which is to say, diplomacy. Both by simply avoiding or preventing talks as early as March last year, but by ensuring the Western populace is unable to accept diplomacy at this point. This is why they tell you UA is winning, that Russians are subhuman monsters, etc etc. So that you support endless violence and think diplomacy is a bad idea.
This is also all before we get to the MIC, which drives war to fill its pockets. This is another of the real reasons the "helping" is happening: so that Lockheed-Martin can sell more weapons, keep more millions, all while children are plunged back into poverty. They steal from our children and our lives so that more Russians and Ukrainians may die, and there's always a new target of the violence ready to go for these bloodthirsty monsters.
Had you decided to listen rather than throw a tantrum, you might have learned these things.
Love this bit
deleted by creator
It was actually propaganda by Britain to help ensure that Irish criticisms of double standard could be dismissed. It's funny how even leftists have adopted this straight up Russiagate lie that "whataboutism" was used against Soviet propaganda. It originated in Britain in the 80s to use against ireland
This is true but it's also not quite why Westerners know the term. That's due to cold warrior propaganda efforts, ones largely done long after the fact to explain why old soviet !snd now Russian) complaints of double standards can be dismissed out of hand. "The experts" (think tank ghouls and those in their orbit) "weighed in" and the term was thus laundered into common use by a selectively gullible press.
We don't like Putin. He's not a communist.