A lot of people are propagandized as fuck (and I do not mean that as an insult on their intelligence or anyting, good propaganda works really well, even on smart people) and I don’t think most of these comments would survive if the posters spent a bit more time thinking about what they’re actually saying.
Obviously I don’t know everyone’s political histories. But most people around me IRL who supported the idea of going into Iraq and Afghanistan (they were kind of blurred into one conflict) said, ‘never again’ and have been quite anti-war ever since.
A few of those backtracked and said, ‘well, maybe one more time’ when it came to Libya. Then afterwards, they said, ‘we really mean “never again” this time’.
But Ukraine has sent almost everyone into a frenzy for war. I had assumed that after Iraq, especially—which exposed the depth of lying that NATO is willing to sink to—that nobody would believe NATO’s version of the truth again. How naive I was.
I wouldn’t even mind if they (not necessarily Jaysyn, whom I don’t know) still disbelieved Russia’s narrative. In fact, I’d welcome it. A little healthy skepticism would lead to far better politics. All I see is skepticism against Russia but total faith in NATO. Where has critical thinking gone?
To disbelieve Russia’s narrative only to accept NATO’s? Wtf did I miss? I don’t think gullibility covers it. As you say, it must be constant and clever propaganda. I suppose they have the money for it, considering how much they have to gain if they can beat the drum of war.
I’m in the same boat as you are. What has me really shocked is how my European friends are in full “support the troops” mode now. What’s really surprising is how all their arguments almost always follow the same simplistic dualist thinking (“so you think Ukraine should just give up?”, “but it’s a democracy”, “but pUtLeR will take Poland next”, “you’re just spurting Russian propaganda”) and how people basically ignore all of your arguments just to call you a supporter of an “evil imperialist terror regime”.
I wish people would’ve learned their lesson by abandoning the media that’s obviously been lying to everyone for the past decades.
European friends are in full “support the troops” mode now
After laughing at USians for nigh on twenty years while saying, ‘those guys never learn their lesson, they love guns and spend ridiculous amounts of money on wars of their own making yet they can’t afford schools or hospitals.’ Turns out, Europeans aren’t so exceptional; when it comes to the crunch, all it takes is one month of news cycle and many people are happy to let themselves be fooled, once, twice, as many times as it takes. For shame.
Who knew this guy was an inspiring philosopher. Tbf to most irl people I know, most people are just aghast at the war and would like it to stop. Their opinion on NATO hasn’t changed; they just believe what NATO and it’s mouthpieces say about Russia.
What’s striking about it is how they have no comebacks, they have no arguments at all expect name-calling. You can show them all the evidence in the world and they’ll just call you names. Simple minded morons. Normies.
Where’s your evidence for people being ethnically cleansed in Ukraine, that Russia only invaded to free these people, and that they managed to free millions of people from ethnic cleansing? Show several sources for each claim, please.
Enforcing the use of Ukrainian languange for official use, while not a wholly positive thing, is not ethnic cleansing.
The YouTube video doesn’t even have complete captioning. It suspiciously only captions the part that said things about filtration of Ukrainian citizens in Russian controlled regions. Not sure how much I trust it. The whole article also only refers to ‘planned’ or ‘proposed’ internment of Ukrainian with the major source being that untrustworthy YouTube video. Reference 5 no longer exists, while reference 6 doesn’t load for me. Reference 2 only refers to land rewards to be given to soldiers, nothing about ethnic cleansing.
The guy isn’t even a politician. What would anything he says prove the Ukrainian government is participating in ethnic cleansing? Also, someone else in the thread translated it as to punish those who have committed crimes in territories that were occupied by Russia. Which one is more accurate?
No sources provided. A tweet doesn’t mean anything without proper sources. It’s even showing a map from a 2003 survey while talking about Maidan Coup in 2014. Why would you trust someone that barely care about being accurate?
The article is about overuse of force and illegal methods from both sides of the Ukrainian SBU and pro-Russian separatist. It focuses mostly on what the Ukrainians did. It’s bad, very bad, but none of them suggests ethnic cleansing like what you say. They are using illegal means to fight the war, which both sides committed. Neither side is morally above the other, so why would this be justification for Russia’s invasion?
No actual proof that Ukraine bombed the residential neighbourhood. The article claims Ukraine bombed it’s residents to place blame on Russia. That’s the most conspiratorial accusation I’ve heard yet. Since the claim is from the separatist side, I’d be stupid to trust such a claim.
You sure that’s an apartment complex? Some are claiming it’s actually a police station. Maybe you can try and verify it first since the video doesn’t really provide any proof other than what it said.
Finally, still no proof Ukraine is performing ethnic cleansing, nor that Russia liberated millions from ethnic cleansing to justify their invasion.
Enforcing the use of Ukrainian languange for official use, while not a wholly positive thing, is not ethnic cleansing.
In your opinion. I think it’s part of a slew of initiatives that constitute ethnic cleansing. Why do you think the fascist regime that reveres Nazis are doing this not wholly positive thing?
it suspiciously only captions the part that said things about filtration of Ukrainian citizens in Russian controlled regions. Not sure how much I trust it. The whole article also only refers to ‘planned’ or ‘proposed’ internment of Ukrainian with the major source being that untrustworthy YouTube video. Reference 5 no longer exists, while reference 6 doesn’t load for me. Reference 2 only refers to land rewards to be given to soldiers, nothing about ethnic cleansing.
It’s not suspicious for a piece to focus on the most relevant part of the allegation. So they only planned or proposed internment of minorities? That’s okay then. Where was this land supposed to come from that they were going to give to the soldiers?
We can go on about this all day but you’re not going to accept anything that I provide. You stance amounts to: “They’ve been doing a lot of things that are very similar to ethnic cleansing but totally aren’t because I don’t like calling it that.”
We both have different opinions, I think it’s very clear what’s been going on there. You just need to look at classroom scenarios like this one. If this was happening in China I’m sure you’d be up in arms.
This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
What’s the point of comparing rhetoric that has nothing to do with each other?
The comment you replied to compared it giving Poland away to Hitler since it both connected by the act of giving in to the demands of a dictator to avoid war, which WW2 has proven doesn’t work.
Your comment instead is comparing the act of giving into Putin’s demand is equal to pacifists refusing mandatory military service, which sounds ridiculous.
How did the countries (excepting Poland) who currently make up NATO respond when Hitler invaded Poland?
Yes, I am saying Ukraine should stop fighting. That’s what hoping for an end of the war means. Ukraine should stop fighting and Russia should stop fighting. That’s what peace entails. Or at least a ceasefire. Maybe the peace can come later, after peace talks.
In the meantime, NATO needs to stop sending weapons. Because it can’t hope to supply Ukraine with enough to turn Russia around. And it can’t hope to supply Ukraine with enough to maintain current lines until at least a year or two. So the alternative to stopping the fighting seems to be to prolongue a devastating and drawn out fight.
Is that what you would do if someone invaded your home?
That’s the wrong question in the context. Ukraine was in civil war before the invasion. So either way, you’re faced with a logic of both sides fighting off ‘invaders’. You don’t have to agree with the other side’s claims (the separatists, for you, I imagine), but it’s hard to deny that they would make that claim.
Further, were I empowered to make such decisions in similar circumstances in my country, I would never have (i) flirted with the US/NATO, (ii) given up my nukes only to later hint to NATO that I would host NATO nukes in my country, and (iii) have ignored the international treaties that I had signed, such as at Minsk or in Turkey.
Why is the continuation of this war any better than the continuation of any war?
A lot of people are propagandized as fuck (and I do not mean that as an insult on their intelligence or anyting, good propaganda works really well, even on smart people) and I don’t think most of these comments would survive if the posters spent a bit more time thinking about what they’re actually saying.
Obviously I don’t know everyone’s political histories. But most people around me IRL who supported the idea of going into Iraq and Afghanistan (they were kind of blurred into one conflict) said, ‘never again’ and have been quite anti-war ever since.
A few of those backtracked and said, ‘well, maybe one more time’ when it came to Libya. Then afterwards, they said, ‘we really mean “never again” this time’.
But Ukraine has sent almost everyone into a frenzy for war. I had assumed that after Iraq, especially—which exposed the depth of lying that NATO is willing to sink to—that nobody would believe NATO’s version of the truth again. How naive I was.
I wouldn’t even mind if they (not necessarily Jaysyn, whom I don’t know) still disbelieved Russia’s narrative. In fact, I’d welcome it. A little healthy skepticism would lead to far better politics. All I see is skepticism against Russia but total faith in NATO. Where has critical thinking gone?
To disbelieve Russia’s narrative only to accept NATO’s? Wtf did I miss? I don’t think gullibility covers it. As you say, it must be constant and clever propaganda. I suppose they have the money for it, considering how much they have to gain if they can beat the drum of war.
Edit: grammar
I’m in the same boat as you are. What has me really shocked is how my European friends are in full “support the troops” mode now. What’s really surprising is how all their arguments almost always follow the same simplistic dualist thinking (“so you think Ukraine should just give up?”, “but it’s a democracy”, “but pUtLeR will take Poland next”, “you’re just spurting Russian propaganda”) and how people basically ignore all of your arguments just to call you a supporter of an “evil imperialist terror regime”.
I wish people would’ve learned their lesson by abandoning the media that’s obviously been lying to everyone for the past decades.
After laughing at USians for nigh on twenty years while saying, ‘those guys never learn their lesson, they love guns and spend ridiculous amounts of money on wars of their own making yet they can’t afford schools or hospitals.’ Turns out, Europeans aren’t so exceptional; when it comes to the crunch, all it takes is one month of news cycle and many people are happy to let themselves be fooled, once, twice, as many times as it takes. For shame.
Who knew this guy was an inspiring philosopher. Tbf to most irl people I know, most people are just aghast at the war and would like it to stop. Their opinion on NATO hasn’t changed; they just believe what NATO and it’s mouthpieces say about Russia.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=rQ6N-sb7SVQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I love when they call me a republican for saying we shouldn’t keep sending weapons to war.
What’s striking about it is how they have no comebacks, they have no arguments at all expect name-calling. You can show them all the evidence in the world and they’ll just call you names.
Simple minded morons.Normies.Nah, no need for name calling. It’s just effective propaganda and it works best on normies.
You’re right, I need to be more patient with them.
Where’s your evidence for people being ethnically cleansed in Ukraine, that Russia only invaded to free these people, and that they managed to free millions of people from ethnic cleansing? Show several sources for each claim, please.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/ukraine-adopts-law-enforcing-use-of-ukrainian-in-public-life
https://www.voltairenet.org/article184430.html
https://twitter.com/JohnEdgarCarter/status/1627231891345514498
https://twitter.com/Kanthan2030/status/1632366929745940480
https://thesaker.is/a-disturbing-trend-in-the-ukraine/
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Donbass-Update-Ukraine-Continues-to-Shell-Residential-Areas-20220224-0004.html
https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1673686231064952834
I have more if you want.
Enforcing the use of Ukrainian languange for official use, while not a wholly positive thing, is not ethnic cleansing.
The YouTube video doesn’t even have complete captioning. It suspiciously only captions the part that said things about filtration of Ukrainian citizens in Russian controlled regions. Not sure how much I trust it. The whole article also only refers to ‘planned’ or ‘proposed’ internment of Ukrainian with the major source being that untrustworthy YouTube video. Reference 5 no longer exists, while reference 6 doesn’t load for me. Reference 2 only refers to land rewards to be given to soldiers, nothing about ethnic cleansing.
The guy isn’t even a politician. What would anything he says prove the Ukrainian government is participating in ethnic cleansing? Also, someone else in the thread translated it as to punish those who have committed crimes in territories that were occupied by Russia. Which one is more accurate?
No sources provided. A tweet doesn’t mean anything without proper sources. It’s even showing a map from a 2003 survey while talking about Maidan Coup in 2014. Why would you trust someone that barely care about being accurate?
The article is about overuse of force and illegal methods from both sides of the Ukrainian SBU and pro-Russian separatist. It focuses mostly on what the Ukrainians did. It’s bad, very bad, but none of them suggests ethnic cleansing like what you say. They are using illegal means to fight the war, which both sides committed. Neither side is morally above the other, so why would this be justification for Russia’s invasion?
No actual proof that Ukraine bombed the residential neighbourhood. The article claims Ukraine bombed it’s residents to place blame on Russia. That’s the most conspiratorial accusation I’ve heard yet. Since the claim is from the separatist side, I’d be stupid to trust such a claim.
You sure that’s an apartment complex? Some are claiming it’s actually a police station. Maybe you can try and verify it first since the video doesn’t really provide any proof other than what it said.
Finally, still no proof Ukraine is performing ethnic cleansing, nor that Russia liberated millions from ethnic cleansing to justify their invasion.
In your opinion. I think it’s part of a slew of initiatives that constitute ethnic cleansing. Why do you think the fascist regime that reveres Nazis are doing this not wholly positive thing?
It’s not suspicious for a piece to focus on the most relevant part of the allegation. So they only planned or proposed internment of minorities? That’s okay then. Where was this land supposed to come from that they were going to give to the soldiers?
We can go on about this all day but you’re not going to accept anything that I provide. You stance amounts to: “They’ve been doing a lot of things that are very similar to ethnic cleansing but totally aren’t because I don’t like calling it that.”
We both have different opinions, I think it’s very clear what’s been going on there. You just need to look at classroom scenarios like this one. If this was happening in China I’m sure you’d be up in arms.
I mean to insult their intelligence. These people believe what they hear on the news. They’re stupid af.
How is this different from someone saying “let’s just give Hitler Poland”
Are you saying the Ukrainians should stop fighting? Is that what you would do if someone invaded your home?
This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
How does mandatory military service relate to helping to fund another country from an invading force?
Should the other European nations not fight against the Nazis when they invaded other countries in order to not ‘prolong’ the war?
I’m comparing rhetorics. Read the post I was replying to and then mine again, please.
What’s the point of comparing rhetoric that has nothing to do with each other? The comment you replied to compared it giving Poland away to Hitler since it both connected by the act of giving in to the demands of a dictator to avoid war, which WW2 has proven doesn’t work. Your comment instead is comparing the act of giving into Putin’s demand is equal to pacifists refusing mandatory military service, which sounds ridiculous.
However it’s not rhetoric. It’s cold hard history. Allowing a fascist dictator to invade a sovereign country led to WW2.
They liberated millions of people who were being ethnically cleansed by Ukraine’s Nazis. That required invasion.
How did the countries (excepting Poland) who currently make up NATO respond when Hitler invaded Poland?
Yes, I am saying Ukraine should stop fighting. That’s what hoping for an end of the war means. Ukraine should stop fighting and Russia should stop fighting. That’s what peace entails. Or at least a ceasefire. Maybe the peace can come later, after peace talks.
In the meantime, NATO needs to stop sending weapons. Because it can’t hope to supply Ukraine with enough to turn Russia around. And it can’t hope to supply Ukraine with enough to maintain current lines until at least a year or two. So the alternative to stopping the fighting seems to be to prolongue a devastating and drawn out fight.
That’s the wrong question in the context. Ukraine was in civil war before the invasion. So either way, you’re faced with a logic of both sides fighting off ‘invaders’. You don’t have to agree with the other side’s claims (the separatists, for you, I imagine), but it’s hard to deny that they would make that claim.
Further, were I empowered to make such decisions in similar circumstances in my country, I would never have (i) flirted with the US/NATO, (ii) given up my nukes only to later hint to NATO that I would host NATO nukes in my country, and (iii) have ignored the international treaties that I had signed, such as at Minsk or in Turkey.
Edit: grammar