this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
68 points (81.5% liked)

Work Reform

9976 readers
63 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A video explaining modern monetary theory and how with a little Marxism it can benefit everyone.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Daily reminder that Second Thought (zero Thought) is a genocide defending tankie who ideologically supports ruzzia. https://youtu.be/4qIDOx-Pnzo?si=Bwf2tvCRKgM68FKL

[–] karet@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wow this is horrible. I only recently started watching his content and liking it. But this is surprising, also why is this on some other channel?

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To hide it. He is also on a podcast with Yugopnik and Hakim, both of which are tankies.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think it is fine that the channels are separate.

I am happy to receive the general leftist education on ST without bothering with any ML.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The fact that the video isn't posted on his own channel is likely just because the video isn't a Second Thought video, which has a very specific format. Why should he post it there?

Yes their podcast is called "The Deprogram" and you can check it out here. They all make great content, go check them out! I really liked Yugopnik's video about the commodification of people's romantic lives for example. It was very interesting and thought provoking, a very "Žižekian" approach.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He likes to act like a well meaning leftist, which he isn't.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That is your opinion. I like their content, they're thought provoking and entertaining. I don't agree with everything they claim but it's good stuff.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not really. Even in the video you yourself links he's calling an end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and an end to US involvement.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Wow. You are either incredibly dumb or incredibly disingenuous, just as zero thought funnily enough.

Calling it "end to the conflict" is such a slimy way to say what he actually wants. He wants ukraine to give up. He wants ruzzia to get away with everything they have done and to ignore all the atrocities they have committed.

It's like saying that allies should have given up after Nazi germany and ussr conquered Poland. "Oh, end the conflict, so many people have died!!!" Sure, lets just let nazis happily do their genocide while we look the other way. Same as ruzzians committing active genocide in ukraine.

US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.

And what do you think putting and "end" to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.

If you have watched the video and not noticed the insane amount of lies, something is genuinely wrong with you. It is pure unfiltered ruzzian and Chinese propaganda. Nothing else.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not going to engage with your personal attacks and you should feel shameful for saying such nasty things to a stranger you hardly know.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict can be viewed in many different ways. One of them is Russia being an aggressor and waging an illegal war of conquest like Nazi Germany, and that's a valid way to look at the conflict. I'm sure even he would agree of that. However the conflict is also very dangerous, especially with NATO involvement. The biggest threat is actually if the war would escalate into nuclear annihilation because Putin has threatened that if Russia loses, they're going to start nuking. Have you forgotten about that?

US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.

That is your opinion. A missile can be used to shoot a helicopter just as easily on the Ukraine side of the border as on the Russian side of the border.

If we assume that Ukraine would manage to sue for some sort of white peace or extended ceasefire, what would that mean with the supplies that has been lent to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and all the debt that Ukraine is racking up? Who do you think will have to pay for all that and what would the consequences be for Ukrainians? Probably not very good things. Possibly privatizations, international loans from WTO or other forms of neocolonialism. The intent of involvement from the west is highly suspicious and deserve its own scrutiny.

And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.

Maybe so, or maybe there might be a regime change in 5 years? Maybe with some time passing Putin somehow dies? Of sickness, old age or some other reason? In 5 years Putin would be over the average life expectancy of Russians. Maybe the Russians don't try again in 5 years because they got humiliated this time? The world isn't static and time changes things.

Second thought released its own video surrounding the Ukraine conflict and in a comment he posted he outlined his positions surrounding the conflict. I quote:

  1. This war doesn't benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They're suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
  2. Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
  3. Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
  4. This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards "unfriendly" states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn't do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.

This is similar to the things he said in your video you linked. What has he lied about? Can you name even one contradiction? That doesn't mean that he wants Ukraine to surrender or give up, rather that's just your interpretation of his stance which is blatantly wrong and has no evidence. The fact that you try to claim otherwise because he calls for peace is just slander.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

One of them is Russia being an aggressor and waging an illegal war of conquest like Nazi Germany, and that's a valid way to look at the conflict.

That is the ONLY valid way to look at the conflict. Ruzzia illegaly invaded ukraine both in 2014 and 2021.

I'm sure even he would agree of that.

He would not.

However the conflict is also very dangerous, especially with NATO involvement. The biggest threat is actually if the war would escalate into nuclear annihilation because Putin has threatened that if Russia loses, they're going to start nuking. Have you forgotten about that?

Those are empty threats, if you have seen the state of Ruzzian equipment you would understand that. The only country that would get annihilated in this conflict would be Ruzzia.

"US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands." That is your opinion. A missile can be used to shoot a helicopter just as easily on the Ukraine side of the border as on the Russian side of the border.

How is that an argument? Both are valid and good ways to protect Ukraine. One less helicopter means one less chance for an innocent ukrainan to be harmed.

If we assume that Ukraine would manage to sue for some sort of white peace or extended ceasefire, what would that mean with the supplies that has been lent to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and all the debt that Ukraine is racking up? Who do you think will have to pay for all that and what would the consequences be for Ukrainians? Probably not very good things. Possibly privatizations, international loans from WTO or other forms of neocolonialism. The intent of involvement from the west is highly suspicious and deserve its own scrutiny.

Those supplies would be used to defend ukraine and bolster the border with the two fascist nations that border it. Banks have frozen accounts of ork oligarchs, have seized materiel and such. Those can be the start. The international community can band together to help. It would not be the first time.

Europes involvement is not at all suspicious. It's a brutal attack on a sovereign nation near their borders. You would be insane to not support them.

"And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again." Maybe so, or maybe there might be a regime change in 5 years? Maybe with some time passing Putin somehow dies? Of sickness, old age or some other reason? In 5 years Putin would be over the average life expectancy of Russians. Maybe the Russians don't try again in 5 years because they got humiliated this time? The world isn't static and time changes things.

If Ruzzians are not humiliated on the world stage in a way that wakes up even the most politically dead in the country, nothing will change. If we give them ANY concession, nothing will change. Total and absolute withdrawal, that is what needs to happen.

Second thought released its own video surrounding the Ukraine conflict and in a comment he posted he outlined his positions surrounding the conflict. I quote:

  1. This war doesn't benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They're suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.

How hard is it to fucking understand, RUZZIA. INVADED. UKRAINE. People suffer BECAUSE OF RUZZIA, not because of "geopolitical jockeying" Jesus fucking chirst man. The only one who is in fault is ruzzia, if they wanted they could retreat now

  1. Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.

Again, wrong. Sanctions have drastically reduced the capability of ruzzia to make new tanks, weapons, and rockets. Thanks to sanctions, ruzzia is unable to make long range rockets that have been indiscriminately killing civilians.

  1. Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.

It absolutely fucking isn't. Once again, tell that to WW2 veterans who have fought and died for the free world. A just society who accepts unjustifiable people and positions is not just.

  1. This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards "unfriendly" states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn't do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.

Holy fucking shit here we go. The myth of NATO expansion. Such a funny lie and I am so happy you brought it up. Thankfully it has been completely annihilated. https://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=gN80y0EnM2W1qJuT

This is similar to the things he said in your video you linked. What has he lied about? Can you name even one contradiction? That doesn't mean that he wants Ukraine to surrender or give up, rather that's just your interpretation of his stance which is blatantly wrong and has no evidence. The fact that you try to claim otherwise because he calls for peace is just slander.

It isn't, if I tried to explain every single contradiction and lie he has spouted in that video i would hit the character limit. Instead, I am liking a debunk of dylan burns and keffals.

https://youtu.be/hg-9Fa4MbMY?si=kPqzJwEdWBXtJwl8

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It isn’t, if I tried to explain every single contradiction and lie he has spouted in that video i would hit the character limit.

No you literally couldn't because you have nothing to say. If you have something of substance to say, say it. Don't hide between a long and obnoxious reaction video.

The rest of your post is just... ridiculous. You can argue the 4 points he raised to him if you want, but I'd rather choose not to engage with that nonsense since it's not my arguments.

You're not wrong about these arguments such as Russia being the aggressor and them being able to retreat. Nobody is disputing those facts. Preferably I would also like Russia to realize that they did wrong, surrender to Ukraine and pay them war reparations, but I live in the real world where that seems pretty unlikely. That's why I don't expect for such an outcome, not because I don't think it's the right thing to do. You can scream yourself hoarse about what Russia ought to do, but that's a factor we cannot control and we should approach the conflict with that in mind.

I do agree with him that we should have anti-war and your argument against that isn't an argument even. War is just a political event where workers are sent to kill other workers. Anti-war is the position of the worker movement and everybody who are social democrat or more left leaning agrees on that fact. Since you think otherwise, you must be a reactionary and are blowing some sort of dog whistle right now.

This is not WW2, this is a war where one country is a nuclear power, the largest nuclear power in the world in fact! The performance of the Russian army during the conflict doesn't really mean that they cannot launch nukes. Even if their nukes aren't fully effective, they can most likely still cause tremendous harm and the threat of the nuclear war isn't just the initial salvo but the retaliation and the threat of nuclear winter. For us who live in Europe, Russia's arsenal is a nasty and scary threat, but maybe you don't care because I assume you live in USA and feel more confident? I think that confidence is also misplaced, there's no defense against nuclear armageddon. If that happens, billions will die and suffer.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I live next to Ukraine, I have seen the destruction personally, I have lost people I love and see bullshit when it's there.

In this "political event," which I would rather describe as a brutal uncalled for attack, Ruzzia sent its own workers (and prisoners) to go indiscriminately murder any and every ukranian they come across. I agree with your definition of war, never said otherwise.

But okay, I will go through the first minute alone and point out every single lie.

Calling euromaidan a "far right coup" is complete lie, it is ruzzian propaganda. Euromaidan was unilateral and supported by left and right. Neonazis joined it, of course as they saw an opportunity. Since then the far right party has been getting less and less support, today being the lowest.

Calling the new government a puppet regime is disingenuous, just like any of his and your claims. First government almost immediately held a public vote, thats how zelenski got into government.

It was never a provocation, it was a civilian uprising

They did not plan a proxy war. Ruzzia started this war for its own imperial means. That reality was not swept under the rug, its a blatant fucking lie.

That is just the first minute. Once again, I am not willing to write paragraph after paragraph when all of this has been debunked much more eloquently by Dylan, someone who knows much more than me, your or zero thought.

https://youtu.be/hg-9Fa4MbMY?si=PMoRahRzIsofExEF

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

JT, the creator of ST, certainly has expressed various views that many find problematic, respecting Marxism-Leninism and related historic events.

Nevertheless, the ST channel itself is curated to explain values and objectives that are largely noncontroversial in leftist circles, anti-capitalist and socialist. I feel JT deserves some acknowledgment for successfully explaining such ideas while separating some of his own more controversial leanings.

The broad observation is that the political world is not divided between those who criticize NATO and also laud Putin, versus those with sympathies exactly the inverse. It is possible to criticize the practices and alignments of one's own nation, without having distorted views about another.

Views about the Russian invasion of Ukraine are too nuanced and complex that anyone's may be reduced meaningfully to a few lines of text. It is helpful to avoid attempting clean demarcations between right versus wrong.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Views about the Ruzzian invasion are not nuanced and complex. You either support a democratic nation that is under attack from a dictatorial fascist regime or you dont.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I wouldn't expect you to recognize nuance or complexity on any subject.

Everyone who holds a different view from you, who emphasizes different objectives, concerns, or values, is by your description slimy and stupid.

No one can make you engage nuance. All I can do is reiterate that the subject is broader than what may be captured in your curt generalizations.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, let me bow upon you my centrist deity!!

Do give me the nuance then. Where is the fucking nuance in this brutal attack?

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not seeking a debate on the subject.

I am only calling for advancing beyond simplistic generalizations.

At the moment, your response to anyone who challenges your very strong views is to hurl insults. Plainly, any conditions under which a debate might be productive would require a revision of your attitude.

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is no nuance in the Ruzzian invasion of Ukraine.

  1. There is no reason for the invasion. All given have been fabricated by kremlin propaganda as a substitute for a reason (see: shelling of "russians" in the occupied areas, "genocide" of ethnic Russians in the occupied areas and any other "justifications" of the kremlin. All of them have been proven false beyond doubt)

  2. Invasion is illegal not only by international but by russian standards. Russia has broken its own treaty with ukraine both in 2014 and 2021.

  3. Ruzzia is commiting vast majority if not all warcrimes. Be it execution of surrendered soldiers, non-accidental shelling of civilians, mass rape, mass murder, targeting of non militarily important targets for terror and nothing else. I can continue, if need be, there are houndreds, if not thousands of warcrimes commited by this point

  4. Ruzzia is actively commiting genocide in the areas they have taken over. Mass killings and mass rapes are one thing, ruzzians are also kidnapping children on mass, deporting them back to ruzzia and "reeducating" them. This is, by definition, a genocide.

  5. Ruzzia is the country that could stop any of this, at any moment they desire, its their own choice not to do so. Ukraine has no say when the way may end, until the recapture their entire territory (yes, that means Crimea, Crimea is Ukraine and that is not a disputable fact)

These are the main reasons why this conflict has no nuance. Ruzzia is 100% in the wrong, Ukraine is 100% in the right. There are a few times where wars are like this, like ww2 or united states invasion of vietnam (I'm on the side of vietnam, just to make it obvious)

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (29 children)

Your arguments are not addressing any position that was actually presented to you.

Even someone who agreed with each point you made, and also agreed that you succeeded in rejecting some position actually presented, would not be justified in also agreeing with your rejection of all nuance.

You are simply not suited to discuss geopolitics if you believe that questions are soluble by simple statements about what is "100% right" versus "100% wrong".

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Advanced "both side"ing going on here. What does it even mean to call an end to conflict? Russia is welcome to go back home and lick its wound, why is the onus on Ukraine to end conflict?

And end US involvement? So Russia can overrun an independent country?

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That you have to ask Second Thought. This is what he has said about the conflict:

  1. This war doesn’t benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They’re suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
  2. Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
  3. Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
  4. This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards “unfriendly” states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn’t do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.

You should read the thread if you're interested.