Ukraine told critics of the pace of its three-month-old counteroffensive to "shut up" on Thursday, the sharpest signal yet of Kyiv's frustration at leaks from Western officials that say its forces are advancing too slowly.
Are the Hexbear users who are saying Ukraine is being ungrateful repeating Kremlin propaganda or are the Hexbear users who are saying Ukraine has a point repeating Kremlin propaganda?
Is Kremlin propaganda just ontologically what a Hexbear user says?
I'm referring to the concerning number of users from your instance who seem obsessed with parroting what has been confirmed to be Kremlin propaganda and lies spread through deliberate misinformation campaigns. Obviously, this isn't all HexBear users, but you guys clearly have a general problem with this kind of stuff.
Ceding land to a foreign aggressor is not a viable off-ramp. Get real.
This is nationalist rhetoric. Claiming to be a socialist and yet obsessing over the borders of one bourgeois state over another bourgeois state is one of the reasons you are being called a liberal here. You are a nationalist cheerleading for one group of billionaires to rule over the people instead of another group of billionaires, all while hundreds of thousands of people get killed in the name of that. Meanwhile socialists are out here saying we don't want people dying and do not give a fuck what borders exist as long as people aren't dying, the best solution is the quickest and fastest way to minimise death.
You are defending the state, not people's lives. You are sacrificing people for states and borders. You are a bourgeois nationalist, and you would have advocated for the same thing in every past conflict. You're not even a social chauvinist and they were shitbags, you're just straight up nationalist.
Ironic when liberals act how they claim communists act. I mean I know it makes sense logically, that it's all projection with scratched libs, but it's still so weird to see in practice
I mean the Ukranians are doing suicidal infantry attacks against entranched positions with conscripts ffs, it's just too on the nose
In the post-ww2 period we had a long period of people being anti-nationalist as a result of experience of what nationalism and this obsession with borders instead of people causes.
The current crop of liberals have no experience or connection to this and are incredibly easily led by the ultranationalists into supporting them, because nationalists share a priority with ultranationalists.
The primary issue here is nationalism. We need an absolutely massive anti-nationalism movement. Anti-nationalism is anti-fascism.
Ok so why don't you teach all us damn talkies a lesson and explain to us how you stop the war then other than libs usual line of Russia just gives up and goes home for no apparent reason.
Because currently either land changes hands at some point or everybody on one side dies and libs keep insisting the first option is a no go.
So please, inform us. We're all very excited to hear what you have to say.
it's an extremely viable off-ramp in fact that's how the majority of wars have ended
as Ukraine have tried military force and it didn't work then an outcome that doesn't relly on the Russians just deciding to give up on the whole idea for no reason might be better alligned with reality
The same group that did when the USSR invaded. The same group that did when the US invaded. They're terrible people, but you can't argue their strategy wasn't effective.
That's what Lenin did and it saved countless lives. The Tsar kept feeding people into a meat grinder and the communists took power of the promise that they'd end the war, and they had to accept heavy concessions but they did it. Which position do you agree with, Lenin's or the Tsar's?
I seriously don't understand why so many of you dickride Russia, other than "west bad". The current Russian government is antithetical to so many of the values you claim to champion.
Seriously, who? Who is "dickriding Russia because west bad"? The current state of Russia is the result of the USSR's undemocratic dissolution and the subsequent shock doctrine, obviously it's antithetical to our values. Everyone knows that. People aren't being blinded by "west bad" - because they generally aren't literal children who can only understand the world in terms of good guys and bad guys. What they're doing is critically analyzing media and history.
Hate to employ the dreaded whataboutism, but it seems to me this critique applies more to the opposite side. You say people are "Slotting nicely into Russia's playbook", "parroting Kremlin propaganda". On their own, these are empty thought-terminators. You're not concerned about understanding reality, just about making absolutely sure you're 100% not on "Russia's side" of this issue, because they're the bad guys in this dichotomy.
I seriously don't understand why so many of you dickride the west, other than "Russia bad". The current western governments are antithetical to so many of the values you claim to champion.
You guys say that but I've never seen a hexbear criticizing Russia or their side of the story, only accept it as gospel. You say you don't do that but then blindly accept their time line for the Bucha massacre or pretend their reasons for attacking a sovereign nation are real or ignore a bunch of irregularities in their 2014 referendum voting. Russia leaving is apparently never an option when they talk about possible solutions, only Ukraine giving up territory. You say the world isn't only good guys and bad guys but because when the things you guys say are actually analyzed, it's obvious that it's a lie. The west is bad, everyone else is less bad. Therefore in any thread with Ukraine, because the west is on their side, they are the bad guys. Even though Russia also has a corruption problem and Nazi problem and has a history of invading their numbers for decades. But they have the bigger military, so I guess all their neighbors have to give up their best territory to Russia for free and their citizens shouldn't expect to do anything about it and the the rest of the world has to let them.
Meanwhile, many of the people who criticize Russia in this attack don't dickride the West at all and hate plenty of things about it and will say it in the same thread or tons of others. Like they should definitely decide whether they'll fully support Ukraine or not, but we all know that to do that they'd have to get more support from their voters, which is often more difficult said than done, especially since Ukraine isn't actually in NATO.
Russia leaving is apparently never an option when they talk about possible solutions
Yes.. it isn't. Thats how reality works. Russia isn't going to just up and leave. They aren't going to have thousands of their own people killed and then just... nothing. They have goals, they want to meet them, and if not then at least get somewhat of a victory. The people in Russia aren't going to like "oh, we just left". I don't fucking understand how people can say "the war ends when russia [just up and leaves]". This isn't fantasy land, that isn't how it works. Russia will leave, if Ukraine negotiates a peace with them. If Russia wants land then UK has to negotiate for that not to happen.
A ton of people in Russia don't care that much about the war. They've had protestors and even people who report their news and propaganda speak out about it. There's no reason they should be there. They can easily leave, it's very much an option. Now the Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland, so they have just as much a motivation to not give up either. But they also have support from the strongest military in the world.
I do hope they come to some sort of negotiation soon, but saying it never would have been this bad if Russia got everything they want from the beginning and the world stayed out is appeasement and we already know how that ends with the Nazis.
You claim that these are examples of "confirmed Kremlin propaganda". What sources and/or authorities confirm the opinions contained in these posts as Kremlin propaganda?
It's in the post from the person above that we're all replying to.
https://lemmy.zip/comment/2294680
Possibly the most egregious yet: apparently the Bucha massacre was a hoax. Remember all those videos we saw of Russian soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians? Apparently they all must have been doctored, or were actually Ukrainian soldiers dressed up as Russian soldiers gunning down their own people.
There is no video evidence of the Bucha massacre though? It is based on Ukrainian investigation and an Amnesty investigation. Granted I tend to believe it happened, or at least I disbelieve the counter narrative that the UAF did it, but I don't know what videos you're talking about
See, this is what everyone is talking about. At lest you believe it, but so many others only believe the Russian propaganda and when someone disproves it, they just say it's western propaganda, which is apparently not true but Russian propaganda is?
There's tons of photos, videos, satellite images, and accounts by locals. It's been investigated by the UN Commissioner of Human Rights and numerous news agencies who published their proof. Most of the footage was of the aftermath but it's still proof, especially when combined with drone and satellite footage from before the reporters got there. Or you think the bodies were faked (been disapproved) and reporters from CNN, BBC, AFP, and more didn't see what they saw when they entered the area? They saw a bunch of fake Halloween corpses and couldn't tell the difference between that and real dead civilians, who had been raped, burned, and murdered? Or actors? Some of The Russian lies are unbelievable so it's incredible to me that people keep buying into them.
Yeah I've seen a lot of the evidence, journalistic investigations, which were pretty compelling I just noted there's no direct video evidence. But I do also believe UAF committed severe damage retaking the territory. There is a lot of evidence of civilian murders in UAF retreats in Mariupol as well. AFRF executing prisoners like in the NYT video, or the indiscriminate front line fire against civilians, the Kyiv corridor and southern campaign were a guerilla mindfuck. Civilian casualties are a lot lower now, but the urban conflict at its height was just incredibly brutal and indiscriminate.
It's possible to believe both at the same time and I applaud you for being able to hold both thoughts in your head. I'm not even being sarcastic, I've never seen a hexbear user criticize Russia or say they've ever possibly done something wrong in the war or it's lead up. So just by admitting the possibility that they could've done it, even if the UAF have done terrible things too, you've made me feel a little better. It's nice to see some nuance finally lol. And ya, war is hell.
I seriously don't understand why so many of you dickride Russia
love how liberals manage to weave in casual homophobia whenever geopolitics comes up, you people make me sick
It's not because of blind allegiance to Russia or anything like that, people have positions counter to your narrative as the result of actually paying attention to events, as they've unfolded, over years.
Impressive how mad you babies get when people don't swallow the lies you're peddling, expecting them to be taken as implicitly true or something.
Talk about swallowing lies after regurgitating Russian propaganda? You are all blinded yourself by your hate for the US that you are willing to deny massacres or genocides.
What Russian propaganda? I live in the US, I have more of a problem with my government than a government on the other side of the planet, no matter how scary the liberals try to make them sound.
And it's not even an exhaustive list. I've seen others parrot the idea that Ukraine was doing a genocide in Donbas, a Russian accusation without proof, for example. This is what I mean about you guys skeptical about every side of the story except for Russia's.
Also, which side do you think the Russians are supporting in the US? Because it's not the left...
Also, which side do you think the Russians are supporting in the US? Because it's not the left...
I frankly don't care who the Russians are supporting politically in the US because their propaganda capacity is near insignificant. Also, the Democrats are a right wing political formation, they will fight to protect landlords and break strikes.
If they're spending their time messaging to a bunch of powerless leftists on their own closed off server they're wasting their time, what does that even accomplish?
Just because they used the word "dick" doesn't mean it's homophobic/mysognist. Also it doesn't detract from their other points.
The insurgents had been shooting people and using bombs or mortars and artillery since at least 2014. They even shot down airplanes back then. It wasn't just the Ukrainian government.
OK, but why take the Russian propaganda for their word? And at some point you have to take some evidence of historical accounts or you're just going going by conspiracy theories.
Just because they used the word "dick" doesn't mean it's homophobic/mysognist. Also it doesn't detract from their other points.
I had to circle back to this one because the comment in question was not just misogynist for using " dick", but because of the implication that dickriding bad, why else use it in that context if it was intended to read as a positive connotation?
As soon as libs feel like it's a "safe" target they just let loose with the misogyny and homophobia.
I didn't address the threads they presented as evidence because I didn't see anything wrong.
The insurgents had been shooting people and using bombs or mortars and artillery since at least 2014. They even shot down airplanes back then. It wasn't just the Ukrainian government.
Yes, since the coup shit has been absolutely fucked, and all diplomatic solutions have been derailed.
I don't take Russian propaganda at their word, I also have decades of history to reference, all the rabid-ass Ukrainian propaganda, plus literally paying attention to shit going on in the last decade
you don't really have to support Putin per se, many of us including myself would feel glee watching him be put up against a wall by communist revolutionaries, but supporting NATO is a pretty big dealbreaker given NATO's imperialist and fascist history. e.g. Several Nazi German officials being put into NATO's government. Gladio and funding of fascist stay-behind groups in the event of Soviet invasion. Yugoslavia. Libya. I certainly want NATO to be destroyed, hopefully from within rather than without to prevent nuclear war, and unfortunately for us, the reactionary state of Russia seems to be the best bet to maybe have that eventually occur.
also, stop calling things "wars of aggression" unless you're going to call everything a war of aggression, my god. what an annoying thought-terminating cliche.
Very typical lib talking point though. What socialist spaces do you get your news and information from? Any at all? Or do you just immerse yourself in liberal spaces then end up repeating everything they say and wonder why socialists all call you a liberal? Serious question btw. What socialist media and socialist spaces do you actually participate in and follow? How can you possibly consider yourself to have gotten rid of the liberal brainworms you've had your entire life if you continue to immerse yourself within the liberal superstructure?
The only way I think it can be construed as misgendering language is if the parts of the idiom or turn of phrase are parsed individually, which is exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do with an idiom.
If this sentence is misgendering myself, then I'm the Queen of England. I get that this guy is a shithead but pretending that he's also doing something wrong here seems to be playing for some esoteric own.
I'm not saying it's not a thing, but I have literally never seen it used, and I couldn't find an ngram viewer with a corpus end date after 2019.
It would never occur to me to say "go off queen" , in much the same way it would never occur to me to say "yass slay king" regardless of the gender of the referent, making them both gender neutral in my use.
The idiom isn't gendered, a component of it is. Likening someone to 'the little dutch boy with his finger in the dyke' makes no claim on the gender status of the referent and is equally applicable across all genders. If they insisted on calling you Mr. Egon, then sure, that's misgendering, but 'go off king' is a established turn of phrase that I have also seen generically applied because it likewise makes no claim to the gender status of the individual referred.
Wait until you find out that "go off queen" is also a thing. I wonder why "go off king" and "go off queen" has to both exist. Could it be that this idiomatic expression is a gendered one and that using the expression on someone who doesn't identify with that gender is a form of misgendering?
I haven't seen either of these phrases, but in my experience even when something is supposed to be the equivalent versions of each other, it somehow feels different to hear and say. Like, it feels alright to call my group of friends "bros" but not "sisses." Could it be that "go off queen" and "go off king" have different connotations despite the fact that they should mean the same thing?
The reason that one version of the "go off" phrase (identical in every way to the other except for one word that specifies gender) might feel to you like it has different connotations is because we live in a patriarchal society that doesn't assign value the same across all genders. That's not an excuse to use the version of that phrase which misgenders someone.
And your example is really weird and obscures what's actually at issue. The difference in meaning between the words "bros" and "sissies" goes way beyond just a difference in gender. One is a common and generally affectionate term that men call each other when being friendly. The other is most often used as misogynistic term to insult men by disparaging their masculinity.
And your example is really weird and obscures what's actually at issue. The difference in meaning between the words "bros" and "sissies" goes way beyond just a difference in gender. One is a common and generally affectionate term that men call each other when being friendly. The other is most often used as a misogynistic term to insult men by disparaging their masculinity.
I wanted to give a couple of other examples too, but that's just what I thought of at the moment. "Hey guys" or "hey dudes" also works though.
That's not an excuse to use the version of that phrase which misgenders someone.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
You've all got to get used to the way federation works. Because everyone is federated with different instances the /all/ page is different for different instances. This means that when a thread reaches /all/ on a specific instance you will get a lot of their users showing up at the same time. This is true of all the large instances, lemm.ee and lemmy.ml pour into our threads all at once when they reach the top of their feeds, but it's different for every site so you get this outcome where a lot happens all at once.
Daily reminder that we all see this pop up on our feed too and you're going to have a higher quantity of people from other federated instances commenting by virtue of their being more of them active. No one is getting pings telling them it's time to go to X thread and post Y take, that's just a main character mindset people get into when they want to think they're the underdog and the 'other side' isn't playing fair.
This is literally what you dronies do everytime you have to engage in discourse beyond someone circle jerking with you. Following the same predictable behavior of trying to end conversations with labels.
What's the matter? You don't like it when it's easily done back to you?
It's funny seeing the replies to your comment crying about "not brigading" but then the vast majority of the comments in this post come from hexbear users commenting tankie shit
Lack of self awareness = when something is on our /all/ page ????
Show
And why aren't you responding to anything? So much for being a socialist, you have zero engagement with anything other than liberal beliefs and do absolutely nothing to defend your position or challenge yourself.
Lol, I've responded to plenty. Do you seriously expect me to respond to each of the 100+ comments that have been left by HexBear users? It's not like any of you are capable of changing your mind about anything. Waste of time.
And again, all I have done is said that I support Ukraine. I also happen to be a socialist. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?
Because you don't support the people, you support the bourgeois state and your position boils down to "I am willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people to protect it."
This is not socialist ideology. This is first and foremost nationalism, which variant of it I am as yet uncertain as you've said nothing about what your "socialism" entails. I am unable to assess whether you're a nazi or a plain old liberal that pretends to be a socialist by saying you like welfare while still completely and totally supporting capitalism and liberal institutional design to maintain the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. The german gothic aesthetic you choose for your username certainly doesn't help the suspicions I have over what you really are though, literally retvrn.
I have never seen one of these alleged "socialists" engage on this point. I would really like to see their rationale, and it's really frustrating that none of them will respond.
They just dance around and repeat that they're a "socialist", but never point to a single socialist principle that informs their perspective
They never engage with it because they know damn well that they have no excuse. Rather than engage in something that they are completely caught out on they resort to non-engagement.
Ironically this strategy of online rhetoric is literally in the handbook from the 77th brigade that was leaked, British military psyops. However I suspect these people just learned it naturally from many bad experiences with how that went for them. This picture from their webpage makes me laugh every time because it's literally :
You know, thinking about it, i don't think i have even seen a self-described "socialist" even bring up theorists or figureheads that they say influenced them. At most, it'll be something like "someone told me they read Chomsky and they gave a quote that sounded pretty good" or "Bernie/AOC/The Squad say some pretty good things and i agree with them". I don't think i've ever seen someone talk about Kautsky or Bernstein or any of the other reformists.
Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?
Because you were defending the US revolution to own more slaves and commit more genocide elsewhere in the thread, which isn't a particularly socialist position.
Here's you having it explained to you why the American Revolution was mainly undertaken so that the American ruling class could continue expanding and genociding and enslaving and then you refusing to even read it
I do, but evidently you don't since your comments make it pretty clear that you are on the side of literal self proclaimed nazis. And there's nothing ok about that.
Removed by mod
Are the Hexbear users who are saying Ukraine is being ungrateful repeating Kremlin propaganda or are the Hexbear users who are saying Ukraine has a point repeating Kremlin propaganda?
Is Kremlin propaganda just ontologically what a Hexbear user says?
nice to know whatever I say is the kremlin position.
Wait we were in charge this whole time?
apparently
WAIT WHY HAVEN'T WE PRESSED THE COMMUNISM BUTTON
Russia will seize the means of production and establish the workers as the ruling class
ok that ought to do it
aight that was easy, good job guys! World Communism is within sight!
Congratulations on your promotion.
I'd like to thank me mum
But I dont see hexbears saying Ukraine is being ungratef... Oh. I see.
:P
I'm referring to the concerning number of users from your instance who seem obsessed with parroting what has been confirmed to be Kremlin propaganda and lies spread through deliberate misinformation campaigns. Obviously, this isn't all HexBear users, but you guys clearly have a general problem with this kind of stuff.
What are some specific examples of "confirmed Kremlin propaganda" are being posted by Hexbear users in this thread?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Ceding land to a foreign aggressor is not a viable off-ramp. Get real.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Great. Tell that to the Russians who occupied Bucha.
deleted by creator
I'm glad you can make light of a tragic situation.
deleted by creator
the bucha was debunked, their time of death was around the time the UAF arrived, long after the Russians had retreated.
This is nationalist rhetoric. Claiming to be a socialist and yet obsessing over the borders of one bourgeois state over another bourgeois state is one of the reasons you are being called a liberal here. You are a nationalist cheerleading for one group of billionaires to rule over the people instead of another group of billionaires, all while hundreds of thousands of people get killed in the name of that. Meanwhile socialists are out here saying we don't want people dying and do not give a fuck what borders exist as long as people aren't dying, the best solution is the quickest and fastest way to minimise death.
You are defending the state, not people's lives. You are sacrificing people for states and borders. You are a bourgeois nationalist, and you would have advocated for the same thing in every past conflict. You're not even a social chauvinist and they were shitbags, you're just straight up nationalist.
Ironic when liberals act how they claim communists act. I mean I know it makes sense logically, that it's all projection with scratched libs, but it's still so weird to see in practice
I mean the Ukranians are doing suicidal infantry attacks against entranched positions with conscripts ffs, it's just too on the nose
In the post-ww2 period we had a long period of people being anti-nationalist as a result of experience of what nationalism and this obsession with borders instead of people causes.
The current crop of liberals have no experience or connection to this and are incredibly easily led by the ultranationalists into supporting them, because nationalists share a priority with ultranationalists.
The primary issue here is nationalism. We need an absolutely massive anti-nationalism movement. Anti-nationalism is anti-fascism.
Ok so why don't you teach all us damn talkies a lesson and explain to us how you stop the war then other than libs usual line of Russia just gives up and goes home for no apparent reason.
Because currently either land changes hands at some point or everybody on one side dies and libs keep insisting the first option is a no go.
So please, inform us. We're all very excited to hear what you have to say.
it's an extremely viable off-ramp in fact that's how the majority of wars have ended
as Ukraine have tried military force and it didn't work then an outcome that doesn't relly on the Russians just deciding to give up on the whole idea for no reason might be better alligned with reality
Worked for the Taliban twice.
deleted by creator
The same group that did when the USSR invaded. The same group that did when the US invaded. They're terrible people, but you can't argue their strategy wasn't effective.
That's what Lenin did and it saved countless lives. The Tsar kept feeding people into a meat grinder and the communists took power of the promise that they'd end the war, and they had to accept heavy concessions but they did it. Which position do you agree with, Lenin's or the Tsar's?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I see this one a lot.
Seriously, who? Who is "dickriding Russia because west bad"? The current state of Russia is the result of the USSR's undemocratic dissolution and the subsequent shock doctrine, obviously it's antithetical to our values. Everyone knows that. People aren't being blinded by "west bad" - because they generally aren't literal children who can only understand the world in terms of good guys and bad guys. What they're doing is critically analyzing media and history.
Hate to employ the dreaded whataboutism, but it seems to me this critique applies more to the opposite side. You say people are "Slotting nicely into Russia's playbook", "parroting Kremlin propaganda". On their own, these are empty thought-terminators. You're not concerned about understanding reality, just about making absolutely sure you're 100% not on "Russia's side" of this issue, because they're the bad guys in this dichotomy.
I seriously don't understand why so many of you dickride the west, other than "Russia bad". The current western governments are antithetical to so many of the values you claim to champion.
You guys say that but I've never seen a hexbear criticizing Russia or their side of the story, only accept it as gospel. You say you don't do that but then blindly accept their time line for the Bucha massacre or pretend their reasons for attacking a sovereign nation are real or ignore a bunch of irregularities in their 2014 referendum voting. Russia leaving is apparently never an option when they talk about possible solutions, only Ukraine giving up territory. You say the world isn't only good guys and bad guys but because when the things you guys say are actually analyzed, it's obvious that it's a lie. The west is bad, everyone else is less bad. Therefore in any thread with Ukraine, because the west is on their side, they are the bad guys. Even though Russia also has a corruption problem and Nazi problem and has a history of invading their numbers for decades. But they have the bigger military, so I guess all their neighbors have to give up their best territory to Russia for free and their citizens shouldn't expect to do anything about it and the the rest of the world has to let them.
Meanwhile, many of the people who criticize Russia in this attack don't dickride the West at all and hate plenty of things about it and will say it in the same thread or tons of others. Like they should definitely decide whether they'll fully support Ukraine or not, but we all know that to do that they'd have to get more support from their voters, which is often more difficult said than done, especially since Ukraine isn't actually in NATO.
Yes.. it isn't. Thats how reality works. Russia isn't going to just up and leave. They aren't going to have thousands of their own people killed and then just... nothing. They have goals, they want to meet them, and if not then at least get somewhat of a victory. The people in Russia aren't going to like "oh, we just left". I don't fucking understand how people can say "the war ends when russia [just up and leaves]". This isn't fantasy land, that isn't how it works. Russia will leave, if Ukraine negotiates a peace with them. If Russia wants land then UK has to negotiate for that not to happen.
A ton of people in Russia don't care that much about the war. They've had protestors and even people who report their news and propaganda speak out about it. There's no reason they should be there. They can easily leave, it's very much an option. Now the Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland, so they have just as much a motivation to not give up either. But they also have support from the strongest military in the world.
I do hope they come to some sort of negotiation soon, but saying it never would have been this bad if Russia got everything they want from the beginning and the world stayed out is appeasement and we already know how that ends with the Nazis.
You claim that these are examples of "confirmed Kremlin propaganda". What sources and/or authorities confirm the opinions contained in these posts as Kremlin propaganda?
Here's one. It's a business insider article disputing the Russian line on the Bucha massacre.
Neither of the posts linked to in the removed post talked about the Bucha massacre though.
It's in the post from the person above that we're all replying to.
https://lemmy.zip/comment/2294680
There is no video evidence of the Bucha massacre though? It is based on Ukrainian investigation and an Amnesty investigation. Granted I tend to believe it happened, or at least I disbelieve the counter narrative that the UAF did it, but I don't know what videos you're talking about
See, this is what everyone is talking about. At lest you believe it, but so many others only believe the Russian propaganda and when someone disproves it, they just say it's western propaganda, which is apparently not true but Russian propaganda is?
There's tons of photos, videos, satellite images, and accounts by locals. It's been investigated by the UN Commissioner of Human Rights and numerous news agencies who published their proof. Most of the footage was of the aftermath but it's still proof, especially when combined with drone and satellite footage from before the reporters got there. Or you think the bodies were faked (been disapproved) and reporters from CNN, BBC, AFP, and more didn't see what they saw when they entered the area? They saw a bunch of fake Halloween corpses and couldn't tell the difference between that and real dead civilians, who had been raped, burned, and murdered? Or actors? Some of The Russian lies are unbelievable so it's incredible to me that people keep buying into them.
Here's some videos from CNN and BBC and the New York Times.
Yeah I've seen a lot of the evidence, journalistic investigations, which were pretty compelling I just noted there's no direct video evidence. But I do also believe UAF committed severe damage retaking the territory. There is a lot of evidence of civilian murders in UAF retreats in Mariupol as well. AFRF executing prisoners like in the NYT video, or the indiscriminate front line fire against civilians, the Kyiv corridor and southern campaign were a guerilla mindfuck. Civilian casualties are a lot lower now, but the urban conflict at its height was just incredibly brutal and indiscriminate.
It's possible to believe both at the same time and I applaud you for being able to hold both thoughts in your head. I'm not even being sarcastic, I've never seen a hexbear user criticize Russia or say they've ever possibly done something wrong in the war or it's lead up. So just by admitting the possibility that they could've done it, even if the UAF have done terrible things too, you've made me feel a little better. It's nice to see some nuance finally lol. And ya, war is hell.
spoiler
love how liberals manage to weave in casual homophobia whenever geopolitics comes up, you people make me sick
It's not because of blind allegiance to Russia or anything like that, people have positions counter to your narrative as the result of actually paying attention to events, as they've unfolded, over years.
Impressive how mad you babies get when people don't swallow the lies you're peddling, expecting them to be taken as implicitly true or something.
Talk about swallowing lies after regurgitating Russian propaganda? You are all blinded yourself by your hate for the US that you are willing to deny massacres or genocides.
What Russian propaganda? I live in the US, I have more of a problem with my government than a government on the other side of the planet, no matter how scary the liberals try to make them sound.
Are you serious? We just went through a ton of examples in the post above that we're all replying to.
And it's not even an exhaustive list. I've seen others parrot the idea that Ukraine was doing a genocide in Donbas, a Russian accusation without proof, for example. This is what I mean about you guys skeptical about every side of the story except for Russia's.
Also, which side do you think the Russians are supporting in the US? Because it's not the left...
I frankly don't care who the Russians are supporting politically in the US because their propaganda capacity is near insignificant. Also, the Democrats are a right wing political formation, they will fight to protect landlords and break strikes.
Apparently their propaganda is not that insignificant considering how many people on the right, and you all, are falling for it.
If they're spending their time messaging to a bunch of powerless leftists on their own closed off server they're wasting their time, what does that even accomplish?
Already read the post you linked with casual homophobia/misogyny in it, it's wild how libs just let that rip as soon as it's about a state enemy.
The Donbass has been getting shelled for almost a decade, and until recently it was pretty much entirely the work of the Ukrainian government.
The US is a world historic force of evil, can you blame us for not taking their propagandists at their word?
Just because they used the word "dick" doesn't mean it's homophobic/mysognist. Also it doesn't detract from their other points.
The insurgents had been shooting people and using bombs or mortars and artillery since at least 2014. They even shot down airplanes back then. It wasn't just the Ukrainian government.
OK, but why take the Russian propaganda for their word? And at some point you have to take some evidence of historical accounts or you're just going going by conspiracy theories.
I had to circle back to this one because the comment in question was not just misogynist for using " dick", but because of the implication that dickriding bad, why else use it in that context if it was intended to read as a positive connotation?
As soon as libs feel like it's a "safe" target they just let loose with the misogyny and homophobia.
I didn't address the threads they presented as evidence because I didn't see anything wrong.
Yes, since the coup shit has been absolutely fucked, and all diplomatic solutions have been derailed.
I don't take Russian propaganda at their word, I also have decades of history to reference, all the rabid-ass Ukrainian propaganda, plus literally paying attention to shit going on in the last decade
Ah yes, Kremlin propaganda that is being spread around by... THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT!
💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
Ukrainians are Russians so everything they say is Russian propaganda duh
okay thats not very cash money of you
Russia is going to strive for world-standard lgbt+ equality initiatives and to implement OGAS for once and for all
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Acting like a lib for pointing out an abundance of blatant misinformation? 🤔
deleted by creator
All hail Marshall Egon!
deleted by creator
Your word is our command!
*removed externally hosted image*
deleted by creator
It's a reaction gif, but we all know your assumption game could use a little work.
I assumed it was reactionary, and boy was I right
deleted by creator
Good one.
deleted by creator
Owned
Socialism with State Department Talking Points Characteristics.
Aw, you think you're not a liberal
So I'm not a true socialist unless I support Putin's war of aggression. Got it.
you don't really have to support Putin per se, many of us including myself would feel glee watching him be put up against a wall by communist revolutionaries, but supporting NATO is a pretty big dealbreaker given NATO's imperialist and fascist history. e.g. Several Nazi German officials being put into NATO's government. Gladio and funding of fascist stay-behind groups in the event of Soviet invasion. Yugoslavia. Libya. I certainly want NATO to be destroyed, hopefully from within rather than without to prevent nuclear war, and unfortunately for us, the reactionary state of Russia seems to be the best bet to maybe have that eventually occur.
also, stop calling things "wars of aggression" unless you're going to call everything a war of aggression, my god. what an annoying thought-terminating cliche.
Absolutely nobody has said that except you.
Very typical lib talking point though. What socialist spaces do you get your news and information from? Any at all? Or do you just immerse yourself in liberal spaces then end up repeating everything they say and wonder why socialists all call you a liberal? Serious question btw. What socialist media and socialist spaces do you actually participate in and follow? How can you possibly consider yourself to have gotten rid of the liberal brainworms you've had your entire life if you continue to immerse yourself within the liberal superstructure?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Please respect other users pronouns even if you politically disagree with them
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I simply wouldn't use misgendering turns of phrase
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
The only way I think it can be construed as misgendering language is if the parts of the idiom or turn of phrase are parsed individually, which is exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do with an idiom.
If this sentence is misgendering myself, then I'm the Queen of England. I get that this guy is a shithead but pretending that he's also doing something wrong here seems to be playing for some esoteric own.
"Go off queen" is 100% a thing, which means that "go off king" isn't just a neutral idiomatic expression, but a gendered idiomatic expression.
I'm not saying it's not a thing, but I have literally never seen it used, and I couldn't find an ngram viewer with a corpus end date after 2019.
It would never occur to me to say "go off queen" , in much the same way it would never occur to me to say "yass slay king" regardless of the gender of the referent, making them both gender neutral in my use.
deleted by creator
The idiom isn't gendered, a component of it is. Likening someone to 'the little dutch boy with his finger in the dyke' makes no claim on the gender status of the referent and is equally applicable across all genders. If they insisted on calling you Mr. Egon, then sure, that's misgendering, but 'go off king' is a established turn of phrase that I have also seen generically applied because it likewise makes no claim to the gender status of the individual referred.
deleted by creator
Then go ahead, we're all waiting
Just "but go off" would work perfectly well.
deleted by creator
Wait until you find out that "go off queen" is also a thing. I wonder why "go off king" and "go off queen" has to both exist. Could it be that this idiomatic expression is a gendered one and that using the expression on someone who doesn't identify with that gender is a form of misgendering?
I haven't seen either of these phrases, but in my experience even when something is supposed to be the equivalent versions of each other, it somehow feels different to hear and say. Like, it feels alright to call my group of friends "bros" but not "sisses." Could it be that "go off queen" and "go off king" have different connotations despite the fact that they should mean the same thing?
The reason that one version of the "go off" phrase (identical in every way to the other except for one word that specifies gender) might feel to you like it has different connotations is because we live in a patriarchal society that doesn't assign value the same across all genders. That's not an excuse to use the version of that phrase which misgenders someone.
And your example is really weird and obscures what's actually at issue. The difference in meaning between the words "bros" and "sissies" goes way beyond just a difference in gender. One is a common and generally affectionate term that men call each other when being friendly. The other is most often used as misogynistic term to insult men by disparaging their masculinity.
I wanted to give a couple of other examples too, but that's just what I thought of at the moment. "Hey guys" or "hey dudes" also works though.
When did I say or insinuate that it was?
Couldn't resist that misgendering urge huh?
No, you arent. You are repeating imperialist talking points
Again, all I said was I support Ukraine and call out deliberate disinformation. You guys seriously need to work on your reading comprehension.
You support a Nazi country that works with imperialists. You aren’t a socialist, but nothing more than a Fox News watching liberal
'Brigading is when you federate and then use the federation feature. I am very smart.'
deleted by creator
When we talk amongst ourselves we're an echo chamber.
When we talk to other people we're brigading.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
I've read this before; where is it from?
Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti
Based Parenti. I've recently read him on Tibet and his writing style is striking.
Removed by mod
That's usually how echo chambers and brigading work, yes.
Not saying you are, don't really care either way.
If you don't care, then why make an obtuse comment that seems to not get the point that was being made?
So does that mean all discussion is one of the two?
It's the second post on our /all/ page?
You've all got to get used to the way federation works. Because everyone is federated with different instances the /all/ page is different for different instances. This means that when a thread reaches /all/ on a specific instance you will get a lot of their users showing up at the same time. This is true of all the large instances, lemm.ee and lemmy.ml pour into our threads all at once when they reach the top of their feeds, but it's different for every site so you get this outcome where a lot happens all at once.
So basically this is going to cause a world War of social media echo chambers
deleted by creator
It’s pretty much exactly the opposite of echo chambers. Which is why these threads are usually full of shellshocked libs
You Then: post something bad and untrue about Hexbear
You Now: Why are all these Hexbears commenting on my post?
Daily reminder that we all see this pop up on our feed too and you're going to have a higher quantity of people from other federated instances commenting by virtue of their being more of them active. No one is getting pings telling them it's time to go to X thread and post Y take, that's just a main character mindset people get into when they want to think they're the underdog and the 'other side' isn't playing fair.
Yet another liberal bot brigade spewing nato talking points
they got them poor langley interns down the postin mines workin overtime i tell ya hwaht
Boo! Get another insult besides calling everyone who isn't in your hivemind a liberal and posting a huge fuck off pic.
You guys are boring and have the same taking points. It's like a text version of a record skipping.
do you understand that all I did was say back to them the type of thing you say to us? can you not comprehend the irony here?
Absolutely ridiculous, these fucking people
This is literally what you dronies
do everytime you have to engage in discourse beyond someone circle jerking with you. Following the same predictable behavior of trying to end conversations with labels.
What's the matter? You don't like it when it's easily done back to you?
So you use labels to argue against people putting labels on you?
Ok.
Yes. Read the comment.
deleted by creator
I know you are, but what am i?
These Polish bots don't know English idioms!
like a broken record is already a phrase
scratched liberal detected
OK?
Cunning retort, I can see why you spent two days working on it
First time I've been on on two days. Spent a whole 3 seconds on it.
Might be some of my best work.
deleted by creator
rent free
It's funny seeing the replies to your comment crying about "not brigading" but then the vast majority of the comments in this post come from hexbear users commenting tankie shit
deleted by creator
Could it be active users of this platform are organically posting in this thread????
No, i don't agree with them, so they're brigading
deleted by creator
remind me what the ml in this comm name refers to
Milquetoast libs
But more seriously, while the Lemmy devs are comrades, the .ml stands for Mali. That’s it.
Are the brigades in the room with us right now?
Gentlemen, there is no brigading in the war room!
deleted by creator
It's almost as if they completely lack self-awareness.
Lack of self awareness = when something is on our /all/ page ????
And why aren't you responding to anything? So much for being a socialist, you have zero engagement with anything other than liberal beliefs and do absolutely nothing to defend your position or challenge yourself.
Lol, I've responded to plenty. Do you seriously expect me to respond to each of the 100+ comments that have been left by HexBear users? It's not like any of you are capable of changing your mind about anything. Waste of time.
Yes? What do you think challenging yourself is?
Answer my points on your nationalist brainworms being completely at odds with any assessment of yourself as "socialist" at the very least.
Lol, chill TF out. I have much better things to do than spend hours arguing with weirdos on Lemmy.
And again, all I have done is said that I support Ukraine. I also happen to be a socialist. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?
Because you don't support the people, you support the bourgeois state and your position boils down to "I am willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people to protect it."
This is not socialist ideology. This is first and foremost nationalism, which variant of it I am as yet uncertain as you've said nothing about what your "socialism" entails. I am unable to assess whether you're a nazi or a plain old liberal that pretends to be a socialist by saying you like welfare while still completely and totally supporting capitalism and liberal institutional design to maintain the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. The german gothic aesthetic you choose for your username certainly doesn't help the suspicions I have over what you really are though, literally retvrn.
I have never seen one of these alleged "socialists" engage on this point. I would really like to see their rationale, and it's really frustrating that none of them will respond.
They just dance around and repeat that they're a "socialist", but never point to a single socialist principle that informs their perspective
They never engage with it because they know damn well that they have no excuse. Rather than engage in something that they are completely caught out on they resort to non-engagement.
Ironically this strategy of online rhetoric is literally in the handbook from the 77th brigade that was leaked, British military psyops. However I suspect these people just learned it naturally from many bad experiences with how that went for them. This picture from their webpage makes me laugh every time because it's literally
:
You know, thinking about it, i don't think i have even seen a self-described "socialist" even bring up theorists or figureheads that they say influenced them. At most, it'll be something like "someone told me they read Chomsky and they gave a quote that sounded pretty good" or "Bernie/AOC/The Squad say some pretty good things and i agree with them". I don't think i've ever seen someone talk about Kautsky or Bernstein or any of the other reformists.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Because you were defending the US revolution to own more slaves and commit more genocide elsewhere in the thread, which isn't a particularly socialist position.
Uh... I think you have me mistaken for someone else.
https://reddthat.com/comment/2406567
Here's you having it explained to you why the American Revolution was mainly undertaken so that the American ruling class could continue expanding and genociding and enslaving and then you refusing to even read it
LMAO, that's literally not me. Are you sure that you can even read? What's going on buddy?
I only have time to bait an entire community so i can dissmiss them as weirdos for commenting on my bait post
Don't lie, weirdo
its so funny that a lemmy is saying that
bot detected, report sent
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
something you guys don't care about lol
Human rights like food, shelter and breathable air, right?
Right?
Awww, another alt-right nut is upset their Nazi country is not just Nazis, but Nazi loosers
Keep throwing out baseless accusations. That's always the smartest thing to do when you're wrong.
nazi go home
Removed by mod
I do, but evidently you don't since your comments make it pretty clear that you are on the side of literal self proclaimed nazis. And there's nothing ok about that.
You defend Nazi countries. Your reading comprehension is terrible
Ah yes, famous Kremlin propaganda as reported by mainstream western media.
Thank you for your sacrifice, now we can just mass block them :)
deleted by creator
you're so silly