this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
68 points (81.5% liked)
Work Reform
9823 readers
1967 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:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
That is the ONLY valid way to look at the conflict. Ruzzia illegaly invaded ukraine both in 2014 and 2021.
He would not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
Ah you're Polish then I assume? My condolences and I think that maybe that fact makes you quite impartial toward a narrative where Ukraine is seen as the victim, which I agree to, Ukraine IS the victim here.
Yet you're pro-war. So you apparently agree with my definition but are also pro-war. Therefore workers should fight each other if the ends justify the means? Is that right?
When a ML says "far right", he might mean a neonazi, a conservative or a liberal. On the political scale from that perspective a "centrist" would be a social democrat. However the far right party might stand in polls isn't exactly interesting. If the goal is to make Ukraine compatible with the west like Second Thought claims, then nazi ideology would be counterproductive toward that goal anyway so I'm not sure what you think that proves.
Maybe? I mean if we're supposed to entertain that argument then we could guess that Russia's elections in the regions they conquered also prove that there's a genuine sentiment in breaking off? I don't think so. Election results isn't a sign of consent. I would also like to know why he decides to call it a "puppet regime". At the same time, it's pretty common for MLs to be suspicious of any cooperation with the west. It sounds like something he would have said on his own channel but maybe it greater detail argue why that is the case.
Okay and you're sure about this why? In the video Dylan doesn't give any explanation either why he thinks otherwise. If Ukraine really is a puppet state and the protests were backed by USA, maybe that was the plan?
I have to admit that the things you bring up weren't the things I expected you to want to highlight since you seemed to argue that he has a different stance toward the conflict between his own channel and the video you posted, which doesn't seem to be the case. The video you posted of Dylan is just nitpicking on the points presented in the video. Dylan doesn't give his own evidence to his claims and while the burden of proof is on Second Thought it's important to realize that he's talking about this topic to a completely different audience who already are (or at least should be) informed of what he's talking about. He's hardly trying to present a case to convince outsiders, so making a nitpicking video against it is very easy, because the format isn't meant to convince anyone. Why should I be impressed or convinced by Dylan? Come on...
Nope, however, my country has suffered under soviets and nazis alike, I don't want that to happen again.
If defending yourself against a fascist invasion is pro war, so be it. Let me ask you: what the fuck was ukraine supposed to do? Lay down their weapons? Let the orks kill their men, rape their women and children? Should we let countries invade eachother for no fucking reason? Or should we fight back and try our hardest to defeat tyranny?
And once again and I will never stop saying this: ruzzia started this war. Not Ukraine. They are defending themselves. Kremlin always has a choice, for Ukraine, not fighting means certain death. War does not justify any means because there js no justification. Its a brutal invasion.
Its his words, not mine. He called it a far right coup backed by US. Both of these are lies.
He calls it that because he is spouting ruzzian propaganda. Hopefully we could at least agree on that.
That is a rather big if there buddy. Dylan does give explanation why it wasn't and if not in this video, he absolutely debunked it in his video about euromaidan. Also he does give counter evidence against the claim that it was backed by US. Did US send its troops? No. Their Diplomats? Their people to protest? No. They were supporting it because they rose up against their former president and in the same way against ruzzia. Obviously US would be happy about it, i am not blind. But there is no evidence for the fact it was "backed" by the us
You must have misunderstood me then, his videos are on his main channel are not so overt because he hides his true colours.
I do disagree with that. I can't change your mind on the fact you think it's nitpicking and I don't intend to. You have a right to have that opinion.
Also I just want to point out that just because I despise ruzzia with every fibre of my being, I do not like the US. They have done some really fucked up things and their domestic politics are awful. But right now, they support a country that deserves support. I don't want this war to go on, I really don't. I love ukranian cities and their people, their beautiful nature and their tasty food. I want to see my ukrainan friends again.
But it was taken, some are dead, some fight as I speak. Hopefully, some day, I'll be able to hug them somewhere in a Ukranian beach in crimea. That's all I want.
I wholeheartedly support people seeking to protect their loved ones, but war isn't that. War is when you fight for a capitalist state in order to reach their political goals. That's true both in offense as well as in defense. For Russia that interest is to steal Ukrainian land to reach Putin's flimsy goals, whereas for Ukraine, it's to preserve the independence and integrity of their country. But unless you're looking at something like literal nazis who are looking to exterminate you, then you're not looking at death when you get defeated, you instead have new management. The Ukrainian people doesn't disappear because Ukraine disappears.
The path toward war isn't instant. Ukraine has a history with Russia that can easily put them at odds with Russian interests. Their previous governments understood this and tried to keep a good relationship with Russia. War was the price they had to pay for rejecting Russia and moving closer to Europe and USA. Belarus doesn't have this problem because they managed to collaborate with Russia. In a world where might makes right (like in capitalist worlds), then this is the logical outcome of geopolitical competition. The obvious way to protect the interests of the Ukrainian state would have been to keep the nuclear weapons because then they could at least threaten Russia with nuclear war. That's how geopolitics works in capitalism.
The best way to protect the interest of the people would be to have socialist governments in both countries. Then there would be no need for war.
For Ukraine not fighting means death of the state. You seem to think that Ukrainian state and the people are the same, but they're not. Workers are workers independent of state. We are just slaves to be used by the capitalist states as they wish and we shouldn't be loyal to them just like we should be loyal to our employers. Russia has chosen to use their slaves to invade Ukraine and that most certainly means death and destruction (especially considering how Russia's military has conducted the war) so to end the war is to conclude the war as quickly as possible.
Ukraine can surrender, although I don't think that's a good option. Especially for the sake of setting a precedent in geopolitics since that means that (like you said); it validates the invasion and wars of conquest which is a bad thing and shouldn't be validated.
But once again I will reiterate I don't expect Russia to give up either. The conflict will therefore continue until either Russia decides that they can't fight anymore or Ukraine collapse. The worst case scenario would be if Russia decides to make good on their threats and decide to launch nukes and that might happen if Ukraine becomes seen as a serious threat.
Yes it is his words, spoken to a specific audience.
If that's the case than that would surprise me. I wonder what stake MLs would have in supporting modern Russia since it's a capitalist dystopia run by oligarchs. Now if it was Soviet propaganda on the other hand, I would understand. That's why I highly doubt your claims of them lying and spouting Russian propaganda, because lying for the sake of Russia doesn't make any sense.
That's not counter evidence, that's conjecture. You don't have to send troops. Every country will have people to challenge the status quo. It's not like USA sent troops to Al-Quaida or the Lybian rebels or created them from nothing, they were already there! They could support groups with weapons, supplies, communication or training or some other way. Now with that being said, I don't think US armed the rebels or supplied them and I would be surprised if Second Thought are hinting at that. I'm curious myself what they actually are referring to, but I doubt they have actually released a video on the subject. I never came across a video on their main channel about it and I don't want to listen through all of the deprogram either.
In this case you must be misunderstanding me. He's open about his biases. They're not exactly hiding that they're all MLs. That's why I said that his stance doesn't seem any different. It's similar talking points, similar rhetoric. Just a different format.
Yes it's terrible that the world has become the plaything of all these large countries USA, Russia and China. I am strictly against USA in its current form as well and I'm also against Putin's Russia. They are two very dangerous countries and it's truly a travesty that they hold the largest nuclear arsenals to subjugate the rest of the world with.
My personal stance since the conflict began has mostly been speaking in favor of Ukraine and against Russia, even if I am seemingly taken a pro-Russian stance here (I'm not). I don't have a stake either in Russia or Ukraine. They're both capitalist countries who are doing what capitalist countries do. The thing I want to avoid is nuclear armageddon and I certainly dislike USA lording over everything and increasing the risk.
Have you forgotten what Ruzzia does to its people?
Just to remind you:
You are not allowed free expression. You can be arrested for holding a blank sign.
Homosexuality is restricted if not forbidden completely in some regions. There is no protection for anyone in the LGBTQ+ spectrum.
It is a dictatorship in every single sense of the word. Elections are fake, and speaking put against it is forbidden.
Most people live in horrible conditions as all money has been taken by the elites.
Anything but "ruSSian culture" is ignored. the USSR is taken as a deity.
I can continue on, but you get the point.
Giving up, surrendering, does not mean only the death of the state. It is the death of democracy. Of free speech. Of anything that is ukranian. Houndreds of thousands of ukranians would be arrested for speaking out. How many more would die? Giving up would be the death of ukranian culture, its language, hundreds of years of history. This what ruzzia does, and this is what they intended to do.
And do you seriously think that Ukraine giving up would be the end, though? Seriously? It's like saying that everything ended after the US invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course not. Fucking hell the invasion itself was supposed to be the easy part. There would be descent all over, hidden cells that would cause as much chaos to this new "management." It would never end.
And they didn't use any of these ways to back euromaidan. It was not backed. It was a grassroots movement.
I would not blame the United States for "increasing risk of nuclear war." It's ruzzia that constantly swings its nukes around. Are you seriously gonna be like, "Oh sure, let them bully everyone because of their nukes" nah fuck that. I am more than confident that not only the orcs do not have the stupidity to use their arsenal, if they did, its them who would be exterminated, not the free world.
Finally, he is using ruzzian or Chinese propaganda, hard to tell because they are so bloody similar to this issue. It is odd to me that ML supporting ruzzia would surprise you? Why? Most MLs and tankies work on "America bad" logic. So they support any and all of America enemies. Be it China, ruzzia, North Korea, or Cuba. It does not matter, just so they can be against the us.
His whole video and and most of channel works on that logic, and this specific video is pro ruzzia. He never specifically criticises ruzzia, he sure loves telling bullshit about Ukrainians and making them just pawns in a game us is playing. Which is extremely insulting and degrading if you ask me.
You're being melodramatic! As if there's any democracy in parliamentarism anyway! You're basically telling me that people who challenge their society gets arrested and some might die. I don't sympathize with people willing to sacrifice themselves for a state or a nation. That's foolish, especially when this state has been defeated! The geographical location of Ukraine has been Russian for a very long time and I'm curious what you think Ukrainian (as opposed to Russian) culture even is. The state of Ukraine is barely 33 years old! Additionally Russia organizes itself into regions with varying levels of autonomy, sometimes regions with very high autonomy. It's not like a country such as Poland or Czechia where there's little difference between the regions.
You're wrong about the outcome of nuclear war. The only way only Russia is exterminated by nuclear war would be 1) If the US would attack first and 2) If they resign to their fate without retaliating or 3) it happens in your fantasy. 1 and 2 are highly unlikely. 3 is guaranteed but not helpful.
It's true that MLs hate America as it exists right now. Even if you ignore all of the other faults of USA, they're the primary enforcer of capitalism after all. America effectively runs the world, holds the exchange currency of the world, decides international law (especially surrounding the internet and intellectual property) and isn't held accountable by anything or anyone, not even its own citizens. The reason why MLs might support many of Americas enemies is because America decides to be enemies with Marxist-Leninist states. You have to ask yourself how reasonable it is to have a country consistently deciding to make enemies of other countries because they run a different society. Russia however isn't Marxist-Leninist so MLs don't have a stake in defending Russia.
Most people are pawns, not just Ukrainians. Like I said; we're slaves and additionally many are undereducated and uninformed. If people want to truly be their own people they should aspire to break free from capitalist propaganda but many just eat it right up. Even you seem to treat Ukrainians like pawns since you believe that so many will be unable to live in Russia, maybe you should give them more credit than that?
You know nothing about ours and their culture, yet you speak on it.
You act like states do not matter, yet you believe that the culture of the state begins at its inception. Ukrainan culture is not 33 years old. If you believe that, you are delusional.
And what about fucking sacrifice for a state are you fucking talking about? How about all the LGBTQ+ community in Ukraine? Do you wish for their rights to just fucking dissappear? Do you wish for all the political parties to go with them? The socialists too? You understand they would be banned and replaced by ruzzian "counterparts," right?
You are genuinely fucking insane if you would rather see entire cultures die and leave people to get annihilated by imperial regimes, rather than fight back. That is not a pro war position. It is the only sane one.
And the irony that you are socialist, yet the fact ukraine has been conquered by ruzzia in the past holds any water to you says a lot. The state is outside culture. It is not the same thing. And ruzzian and ukranian culture are different. The problem is that the way fascists like ruzzia conquer states is to erase culture with it, and replace it with their own. They move or kill people, move their own in so its more and more ruzzian. Same as china. Both of these are by definition, a genocide.
I do not treat Ukrainians like pawns, you do. You want them to give up, for the western support to stop, they don't. Vast, VAST, majority do not want to be ruzzian. Do you know why? Can you possibly know why?!
Because they remember. We remember what is was to be under a dictatorship, we know too well how evil USSR was. We all felt the cost.
But Ukrainians even more. Their houses were bombed. Their men killed. Their wives raped. Their children kidnapped and are being reeducated in ruzzia as we speak. Their villages ravaged.
Say Bucha, say its name.
If after that what this imperial regime has done to Ukraine you still feel like ukrainans should lay down their arms and resign to their fate...
...then I have nothing to tell you, because then you are too deep down up the ML ass to even talk to.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, let me bow upon you my centrist deity!!
Do give me the nuance then. Where is the fucking nuance in this brutal attack?
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.
There is no nuance in the Ruzzian invasion of Ukraine.
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)
Invasion is illegal not only by international but by russian standards. Russia has broken its own treaty with ukraine both in 2014 and 2021.
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
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.
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)
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".
Then explain in which way is Russia right in attacking ukraine then. You calling me wrong without any reason why.
Again, you are not addressing any position actually presented.
It is beginning to seem as though your pattern is that when someone fails to affirm a position identical to yours, you impose your own invented view of the other's position.
When you understand why such a pattern is counterproductive, then you will be beginning to deepen your engagement in nuance.
Your position is that the conflict in ukraine is nuanced. I argue that it isn't. I gave my arguments why it isn't you failed to give yours.
Only thing you have done is to say I'm not adressing any position presented, which is a lie.
It is beginning to seem that you have no arguments and are here simply to waste my time
No. You have been profoundly dishonest and disrespectful throughout.
You asked me why I believe the invasion is good.
Please quote the text in which I expressed a view that the invasion is good.
You have said the conflict is nuanced, not black and white, not good or bad. I have given numerous reasons why its bad and argued that its only bad.
I am still waiting for the good. If there isn't, the conflict is not nuanced.
You are dishonest in your argument as you have failed to provide even a single shred of evidence in its favor. You are disrepsectful to those who suffered greatly under fascist ruzzia by implying there is even a bit of nuance to the conflict. There isn't.
You're extremely confused.
My position is not that whether the invasion is good or bad is ambiguous.
My position is that from the objections against the invasion itself, your broader condemnations of particular individuals and their views are not following as robustly and unambiguously as you are expressing them.
For example, it should be plain to notice that one might object both to the invasion by Russia and to the support by other countries, yet your ossified and narrow narrative allows the existence only of positions that are in agreement or disagreement with your own "100%".
You condemn, attack, and insult everyone simply for not affirming the one particular set of ideas that you hold firmly.
How else is Ukraine supposed to defend itself, other than the support from other countries? If a bully twice the size of the victim attack them, do you watch as the bully beats the victim to a pulp or do you intervene or call the police?
People who both condemn the ruzzias invasion (jt never actually condemned ruzzia, only the west for "causing the war", straight out of kremlin propaganda) and the support of other countries have no idea what they even talk about, as their position makes no sense.
Painting support from other countries as negative is a support to ruzzia, as they themselves have showed.
I condemn, attack and insult those who support a fascist regime, JT being one of them.
I hold my views firmly because millions of lives depend and have the same views as I do, that being that the invasion is not nuanced and is perpetrated by a brutal, dictatorial, fascist regime.
You are ranting and deriding, and arguing against a straw man.
A view can have merit other than your own, and your own can have flaws more serious than you realize.
Lives being at stake ought to make you more willing, not less willing, to engage and to refiect thoughtfully.
Unfortunately, it has seemed you are not thoughtful.
Your attitude is brash, your framing is inflexible, and your judgments are binary.
Lmfao.
You can call me whatever you want, your opinions mean less than nothing coming from pretentious dumbasses like you.
I'm not, nor I ever was arguing with a strawman, I argued with your position on the war head on and you never gave me a single argument, simply called me stupid every step of the way. I was arguing against JT as his video contains so many falsehoods in 5 minutes, its actually pretty impressive.
I was more than willing to engage with your arguments, you have failed to meet that bare minimum with your own.
I am not trying to change your opinion on the events relating to the invasion.
I was just hoping you could find a way to consider the subject without insulting and misrepresenting everyone whose views are not identical to yours.
Anyone with a shred of empathy has their opinion on the war already set, as it's evilness is not disputable.
I have no insulted you once, until the last comment, even though you insulted my intelligence and pretty much called me stupid all the way through.
As far as JT and tankies/MLs are concerned, they deserve to be insulted as their views are horrendous and they will gladly deny or even support genocide, as long as the regime doing it has red and hammer and sickle on its flag.
I have not misrepresented your views (not arguments, you are still yet to present one), by your own words, I was at worst confused, given your own stances are incomprehensible.
I read comments about JT, and your responses to another participant in the thread.
In both cases you opened with insults, and misrepresentations of the views that were presented, and then proceeded along the same course.
In every case you have seemed unable to recognize that no one has defended the invasion or felt happy about it.
I have opened with insults, as JT is a tankie who directly with his videos supports ruzzia. I have not misrepresented JT, all of his points which I have argued against are plainly stated.
The only reason JT is unhappy about the invasion is because ruzzia is losing. He does not care a single bit about the people in ukraine, if he did, he would not be lying about the invasion and reasons for it.
You did.
You keep doing it, too.
You are just too proud to notice, too cocky to stop long enough to reflect.
Give me a single example of me misrepresenting his arguments.
Attempts were made to explain how you misrepresented the position, but you have been unable to respond except by asserting further misrepresentations and hurling additional insults.
You need to stop arguing and to start reflecting.
So you couldn't find any.
Perhaps you could try to figure out the differences between arguments someone makes and the conclusions someone arrives at, seeing those arguments.
Did JT directly say he supports the war? Of course not! That would be character suicide
Does he imply very heavily the way he argues and who he blames for the war? Absolutely.
You know I am so sure we agree on many things, especially concerning economics and socialism, but if you can't see how JT has fallen off dramatically, I have nothing to say to you
Wars have many causes.
Some are personal. Some are systemic.
Some are immediate. Some are long term.
Putin obviously started the war.
The war also has other causes, obviously.
No thoughtful person tries to collapse the entire situation into a few terse generalizations.
Again, someone is not completely wrong because of having ideas not identical to yours.
Your understanding of others is not as accurate and robust as you believe.
I agree, wars have many causes.
This war, all of those causes are Ruzzian.
Not only has JT not once blamed ruzzia for the war, he has only misrepresented facts and directly lied about the causes.
This is not about you or me, I assume we both are intelligent enough to understand the underlying causes of the war.
Did JT deny that Putin ordered Russian troops to cross the border and then to open fire?
He never said anything about ruzzia, thats the problem. On his video about the war, all he does is blame the west for causing it
The subject of discussion is the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
If you are complaining that someone is discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine without affirming that Russia invaded Ukraine, then you are giving a rather stupid objection.
Have you watched his video? If you have, the tone would be obvious as he never once blames ruzzia for anything, calls ukranians puppets under western control and calls the war a proxy war.
JT is an American, with a platform largely inside the US.
An American addressing other Americans about policies of the US and other NATO-aligned countries is a kind of legitimate and constructive political engagement.
It may make you feel better for someone to complain about Putin and Russia, but such complaining already happens constantly, and leads to no real accomplishments.
I little doubt that if JT somehow could influence Putin, then he would try to change his mind about the invasion. However, JT's interest and opportunity realistically are in discussing, and at least hoping to influence, the role of the US.
Most Americans believe that the US is virtuous and exceptional, and that expansive military force is the best defense against evil people such as Putin, who are personally responsible for most of the conflict in the world.
The narrative is childish and destructive, and criticizing it is completely necessary, even if in doing so someone fails to follow the same script you would have chosen based on your own priorities and concerns.
That is not a problem
Problem is, JT lies, throughout the whole video.
There is almost not a single fact during his 5 minute rant, that wasnt ripped straight out of kremlin propaganda.
The speech has problems, but so does your characterization of the position.
No denial was made that Russia invaded Ukraine, or that the invasion is unacceptable.
The speech is asking those in NATO-aligned states, particularly the United States, to reconsider the narrative fed to them by the media and government in their countries. The narrative largely projects the national ambitions of such countries as benevolent, and enemy countries and their rulers as evil, and emphasizes the moral and practical necessity of US-led militarism, to keep the world safe for everyone.
The speech is presenting an alternative narrative to challenge the one familiar to Americans.
Particularly, it is asking those in NATO-aligned countries to consider the issues more broadly, in terms of the harmful ramifications of NATO and its expansion. It is asking us to consider whether NATO makes the world safer, or rather more dangerous. It is asking us to consider whether NATO supports the safety of all, or the power of the few.
The general historic background and analysis may support the case that NATO is not helpful to most common people around the world, as much as it is a vehicle for preserving and expanding the wealth and power of a few oligarchs.
Ukraine is characterized in the speech as a puppet to the West in order to emphasize that the leaders in Ukraine cater to certain demands, favoring the preservation of their own positions of power, more than acting according the interests of the mass of the population, and because support for Ukraine by Western nations is guided more by geopolitical ambitions than by humane concern for the people of Ukraine.
If NATO were seeking contraction not expansion, then harmful people like Putin would still exist, but overall tension across the world may be reduced. The US would have less power as a nation, but such is not the same as the world being more dangerous for most of the population.
Unfortunately, the ideology promulgated from within the US and similar countries would never concede that less military power for such countries could ever lead to greater overall safety for the world.
The US government of course is not open to diplomatic solutions such as one including an agreement to contract NATO. The US is not against war, rather only against wars started by other countries.
There are many strategies for building a counternarrative. I am not defending the strategies chosen by JT or the CPUSA, but I am asking you and others to be less hasty and less harsh in your judgments.
Invasion is pre supposed, ruzzia is barely mentioned at all. All blame is placed on the myth of NATO expansion, which I touch on later below.
While this is true and USA and West has many, MANY problems, compared to dictatorships like Ruzzia or China, the West is much better off. People don't get arrested for speaking out against their government, people are free to move from country to country, given they are wealthy enough (that is is of course bad IMO, I don't like Borders too much and wish it was much freeer). I do not like capitalism, but China and Ruzzia are still capitalist countries, even though they love to call themselves otherwise. Don't get me even started on stuff like LGBTQ+ right, rights of minorities and other issues. While the west can be bad in those sorts of issues, it is incomparable to the either ignorance or even malice to those issues in before mentioned countries.
NATO expansions, just as any other kremlin propaganda, is a myth based on truth. NATO is expanding, of course, but not by itself. NATO itself does not force upon countries. Countries themselves WANT to be part of NATO and most for simple reason: to protect themselves from Ruzzia. Some countries like Poland didn't ask to be part of NATO, they bullied the US into joining themselves because they had such a bad time with the USSR.
I am linking a video that explains this much more eloquently than I can: https://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=qiCZbZi6kdgdyJ4Thttps://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=qiCZbZi6kdgdyJ4T
Not sure what kind of historic analysis you have done, but it must have been inspired by kremlin. If NATO was not a thing, countries bordering ruzzia like Latvia or Estonia would have been in the same situation, if not worse than Ukraine. If you do an actual historical analysis you see the long history of threats of invasion and nuclear annihilation made by the ruzzians. They have of rich history of staging false flags attacks, lying, completely ignoring treaties and attacking sovreign nations having either of these as justificiation. US has done this in the past in the middle east, don't get me wrong, but that fact alone does not make any nation less willing to join NATO.
NATO is a defensive pact, not an offensive pact. And its to defend itself from dictators like Putin.
The leaders of Ukraine cater to the demands of their people! Do you know why euromaidan happened? Because Yanakovic promised to make bigger ties with the west but lied and tried to collude with ruzzia.
While its true that western nations have geopolitical goals with helping Ukraine, why would they do so much and not the bare minimum? Not only that, perhaps you have forgotten that its not that long ago that a fascist regime was appeased so far until they have taken over the whole of Europe? It almost happened again, not the taking over europe, but the appeasment part yes. NATO is finally taking stand against a fascist regime and I don't see how that is harmful, rather then helpful for democracy as a whole.
It wouldn't. Simply no, tensions would be much higher, as countries like Estonia and Latvia would be in the same boat as Ukraine.
USA is not the danger for most of the population. Please remind me: who has invaded Ukraine? Who has made all the nuclear threats? Who is constantly pushing for more and more? Is taiwan threatening to invade China or is it other way around?
Ruzzia and China are infinitely more dangerous for the world than USA ever will be.
Its not about less military power, what the fuck are you talking about? That military power and NATO article 5 is protecting nations that have no hope of defending themselves from dictatorships from being invaded.
ITS. NOT. ABOUT. US. GOVERNMENT.
The nations, which you are treating as some kind of puppets that were forced to be part of NATO, CHOSE to, by their own people.
If NATO contracted it would mean more war, much more war, not less.
If Ukraine was part of NATO, we would not be talking right now (at this point is becoming tiring having to say pretty much the same shit all over again) as Ruzzia would have never invaded.
I am harsh because JT and people like you love to hide behind layers of obfuscation to hide the fact that you either have no idea what you are talking about, are lying or bit of both.
I am not debating you.
I offered perspective on the speech, because you urged me to watch it.
Yet, as before, you continue to be more interested in arguing than engaging, acting as though you hold a special truth superior to any other contribution. As before, you misunderstand the position being presented, not even seeking to broaden understanding.
As before, you express a grievance about a perceived failure to condemn Russia.
It serves no purpose for an American to explain to other Americans that Russia invading Ukraine is unacceptable. Everyone already agrees. Even CPUSA has clarified as much in writing.
Please take a few days or weeks to reflect, and then review the perspectives offered to you.
In case you have concerns, I am certain that many will be willing to discuss with you in good faith.
Please try to avoid ranting insults whenever someone fails to affirm a position identical to yours. Such behavior sows division and discord, and it damages movements and relationships. You are not obligated to agree with anyone, or to consider anyone your ally, but please seek to understand others more strongly than you seek to condemn them.
Who are you to give me advice? All you have done is defend people who support brutal dictatorships.
I was not looking for a perspective on the speech nor the video. It was created in bad faith with the purpose of affirming already held false beliefs or to confuse those that don't know any better.
I will throw insults at tankies. They deserve nothing but. I am not looking to make them my friends. I understand what tankies believe, and it disgusts me to no end.
I don't need reflection. You need to reflect on who you are actually defending.
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?
That you have to ask Second Thought. This is what he has said about the conflict:
You should read the thread if you're interested.