this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
29 points (74.6% liked)
Asklemmy
49216 readers
1013 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
that hexbear supports the entirety of russia. a lot of times i hear stuff like "they don't actually care about queer people since they support russia", which is a gross oversimplification of their views. they hate russia's reactionary politics.
this misconception i think comes from the war in ukraine, in which if ukraine wins, they get to join nato. hexbear considers nato to be an imperialistic organisation that holds power towards a large portion of the world, and therefore, anything that opposes it should receive support, albeit critical.
God forbid a sovereign nation can choose its partners...
Always very annoying listening to dipshits for whom history began in 2022 lament on how Ukraine's sovereignty was violated and they should be allowed to align themselves without interference. Just as long as they don't align against the west in which case you perform a violent coup on the behalf of neo-nazis who begin campaigns of ethnic cleansing.
But that didn't happen doesn't matter.
There is no scenario where a country can unilaterally help themselves to the internationally recognized territory of another. That this simple truth is even in question to you entirely dismisses any point you are trying to make.
Russia has no claim in any way shape or form to any territory that is not currently internationally recognized as theirs, doesn't matter if the country was in the SU, Warsaw pact, russian imperial sphere, has russians living there, has russia feel "encroached upon", or any other imbecilic pretense apologists like to bring forward. It isn't theirs.
Burgerland occupies Hawaii and part of Cuba just to name a couple of places, but sure it's defending sovereignty of a nation where it overthrew the legitimate government in a violent coup. ๐คก
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STATES GUYS, THE STATES
Fuck them, i have no love for them either.
The states is literally running a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine, but yeah we'll just ignore that important context because it doesn't fit with the narrative you're peddling right?
Your selective attention betrays your actual position
And what would that be? I think i was pretty clear. I want russia to stay within their borders, for all I care they can oppress each other until the end of days. Though I would, unsurprisingly, not shed a tear if the country collapses. Same goes for the states.
I also already gave you a reason why I don't believe it a worthwhile use of my time to engage with this literal whataboutism on a serious level.
whataboutism is a crybully whine about being held to any kind of standard. It's a shield for you to act in bad faith and not be called on it. It lets you lie about Iraqis killing infants in respirators and act like a smug piece of shit denouncing people when they point out your side is bombing baby food factories. It proves that your words mean shit. You're nothing but a vulgar nationalist. Morals are for moral victories. And it's only ever time to talk about how evil the empire's enemies are.
Usually when you post beneath a comment it's understood to be a reply to that comment, which doesn't seem to be the case here because you're completely talking around everything I said in the comment above.
Speaking of imbecilic though, what's your point at all? "You're not allowed to do the thing you did fait accompli because it's against the rules I made"
Baby brain.
I don't need to engage with you over this. We fundamentally disagree on a moral absolute.