this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
68 points (81.5% liked)
Work Reform
9830 readers
2093 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
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.