Being a tankie doesn't mean that you agree with everything any non-Western state does, it just means that you're critical of war and are willing to consider internationalist perspectives.
Yeah, I don't fully agree with their decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war, just as I don't agree with Ukraine's shelling of Donbass in violation of Minsk II, or with the coup and banning of opposition parties that led the disputed territories to declare independence.
The best case scenario, as has been the case since the start, is for a peace agreement to be reached as soon as possible to prevent further loss of life. Which reactionary government controls the disputed territories isn't worth people dying over.
Thank you. We can either have a good faith discussion based on facts and evidence and what was actually said, or we can have this cable news-tier bullshit of putting words into mouths and bad faith mischaracterization. I'd prefer the former.
Now, your claim is that Russia started the civil war as a pretext to invade and that the separatists are just Russian proxies. On the other hand, the Russian narrative would claim the same thing about the Euromaidan coup. I treat both of those claims with roughly equal skepticism. I don't doubt that both movements have some degree of organic support, or that both have received foreign funding and support. I'll also note that, for example, the American revolution had support from the French, so I don't consider either movement accepting foreign support automatically disqualifying.
Regardless, the question is what the best scenario is going forward. I don't see either side as being particularly concerned with the well-being of the people living there, or in actual democratic representation or anything like that. As far as I can see, it's just about US/Ukrainian state interests vs Russian state interests, and I don't really have a dog in that fight. The interests of states are generally disconnected from those of the people.
In my opinion, if people really cared so much about the Ukrainian people, then we should've been providing them with foreign aid for domestic development, long before any of this started. And if that had happened, the people would be happy and comfortable and loyal to whoever provided it. Instead, conditions declined, people became resentful and felt that there was nothing to lose, and now we have this conflict and people are being forced into a meat grinder against their will. It would be a better use of funds to accept territorial concessions and divert the resources used for war towards rebuilding. Likewise, Russia could've used the funds they're using now to relocate the people loyal to them into Russia. This was is wasteful and destructive and benefits no one but the people in power on both sides.
I'm literally right here interacting on that exact topic right now. I've seen plenty of discussions from the people mentioned about the topic and newsflash, they don't say that. Y'all just would much prefer to pass around rumors and dismissive charicatures rather than investigating what we actually believe.
I guess most the 400.000 - 800.000 Euromaidan protestors were CIA agents in Russias view then?
No, obviously, in the same way it would be ridiculous to claim that every single person who supports separatism is a secret agent for Russia. The claim in both cases is that the movement received foreign support, allowing it to convince more ordinary people to support it than they would have otherwise.
It’s well known that many people in Eastern European countries don’t trust Russia one bit after their experiences in the USSR.
Russia is not the USSR. And most people experienced a decline in quality of life, across every objective metric, following its collapse.
It's also well known that many people in eastern Ukraine have ethnic, cultural, and family ties to Russia, so it wouldn't be surprising if a lot of them wanted to have more favorable relations with them. This goes back to when the Soviets transferred the territory to Ukraine in the first place.
Before the war, people weren’t really aware of the situation in Ukraine and there were 100 other problems that seemed more urgent
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Americans don't actually care about Ukrainians, most people barely knew they existed and couldn't find the country on the map. The only reason people started caring is because they started being relevant to state interests.
Ultimately this has to be decided by the Ukrainian people.
No it won't. The Ukrainian people do not have the option to vote on whether or not to accept territorial concessions, because they don't have a democracy, and even what pretense of democracy they used to have has been suspended due to the war. The Ukrainian state may get to decide that, but that is not the same as the Ukrainian people. You don't seem to be separating the state's interests from the people's interests at all.
I live in an affluent part of South Carolina. It’s become completely overrun with Trump assholes and degenerates. I don’t know how much longer I can take it. Where can we go?...
Atlanta, Denver, somewhere in Virginia, Maryland, or DC, or possibly Ohio or Pennsylvania. There's places like Austin and some places in Florida that might have cool people, but the state government is trash.
I saw Greenville recommended, and this is anecdotal, but last time I was there visiting friends, we (visibly queer) got followed around by this crazy guy with a metal pipe making all kinds of death threats. I love my friends but that sealed the deal for me on not wanting to live there. There are some neat places there ngl, the sex themed desert restaurant was a fun place for a queerplatonic hangout, but in general it's not exactly going to be a refuge from Trump supporters.
Funny you should say that, because if you actually read the article, the event had to be organized in secret to avoid being targeted by far right groups and then dispersed after 30 minutes because those far-right groups showed up to attack anyway.
The main reasons I've seen from vegans for not eating meat seem to be all about the morality of eating a sentient animal, the practices of the modern meat industry, and the environmental impact of it. And don't have anything to do with the taste of meat....
I don't think that lab-grown meat will ever replace animal agriculture on a large scale, at least in my lifetime. That being the case, I'd rather leave any ethically produced meat for people who would've been eating unethically produced meat instead.
If the situation is basically full on Star Trek replicator, then I wouldn't have ethical qualms but I might still find it gross and it might not digest well since I'm not used to it. Either way, it's very distant from the actual situation we're in now.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name one war the US has been involved in since WWII where a high ranking government official did not compare it to WWII to drum up support?
The reason I specified is that random people may make random comparisons all the time, so if I just said "where people did not compare it" it wouldn't really mean anything. Estonia doesn't tend to have as many wars they need to drum up support for so they don't do it as often, but it's still a greatly overused analogy in general. People said it about Korea. They said it about Vietnam. They said it about Iraq. All of those comparisons were ridiculous in hindsight but worked well enough at the time. It's basically just a go-to thing you can say and people will just knee-jerk get on board with whatever military endeavor you're doing at a given time, regardless of what it is.
A user on the online forum 4chan has leaked a massive 270GB of data purportedly belonging to The New York Times. This leak includes what is claimed to be the source code for the newspaper’s digital operations.
The New York Crimes is a garbage propaganda rag. They don't deserve a red cent from anyone after pushing their transphobic agenda, (and responding to widespread criticism by publishing an article defending JK Rowling) or after they blatantly lied and published a fake news story about Hamas conducting mass rape in an attempt to sway public opinion to be in favor of Israel's genocide. If you have a NYT subscription, you are paying people to lie to you.
People will really jump on any random thing to bash China. I'll give kudos to British state media that this constant deluge of insignificant nonsense makes it really hard to have any discussion about China that's based on like, broad trends in history or economics.
Parks do water management. At Niagra Falls, for example, much of the water is used for power generation at night, but during the day more of it goes over the falls for the benefit of tourists. You've probably never heard about it, because it doesn't matter. At all.
But make it about another tribe, about the outgroup, and suddenly it's the most important thing in the world and proves everything we always suspected and blah blah blah. Go volunteer at your local park.
Where did I claim they were? I believe what I said is "Parks do water management." And beauty and tourism are concerns that they take into account. This is a non-story.
You say "thousands" as if that's a lot. If some Chinese people want to talk about a park's water management, I don't mind. But when Westerners take some random trivial thing like this and use it to fuel a narrative that "China is a country full of lies," or whatever, that's an entirely different animal. This is a local issue, not an excuse for chauvanists to be chauvanist.
Really? Because what I'm seeing is an article from the British Broadcasting Channel and a thread full of people using this story to make sweeping generalizations about China, in English. I suppose it's possible, but I gotta say I find it a little hard to believe that this thread is full of Chinese nationals, as you're claiming.
And it’s still the Chinese people making a big deal about this.
I'm talking about what people in this thread are saying, and in response they said it's Chinese people making a big deal about it, so naturally that would imply that this thread is full of primarily Chinese people.
And I'm fine with that. What I'm less fine with are people in this thread, about a BBC article, exploiting a local issue about water management to paint an entire country as being full of liars. If Chinese people want to make a big deal out of it, that's their business.
Nobody in this thread cares about it for the story itself. They care about it because it gives them an excuse to push their agenda.
I guess I'm just confused then. When China enacted economic reforms in the 80's, there were people who opposed them and felt that these reforms entailed a right-wing deviation from communism. Those people were/are known as Maoist hardliners. You can see where I thought you might be one.
If you're not that, then does that mean you do approve of those economic reforms? Perhaps I misunderstood, when you said China abandoned communism, did you mean it as a good thing, and you support China's direction from a pro-capitalist standpoint?
If that's not it, I give up. I'm afraid I'm at a loss what your ideology is or what you think about Chinese history or the country's economic reforms. If you could explain it to me, I'd be quite grateful, I see a lot of people around here who appear to me to be Maoists, but when I ask if they are, they don't answer or elaborate. It's very confusing to me.
Contrary to popular belief, there's actually nothing wrong with calling out bad arguments and illegitimate or irrelevant criticism of anything or anyone, regardless of what you think about the thing or person. I'll apologize for whoever I please, in other words.
I don't see how this point matters. Yes, Chinese people shared the story, because they cared about it. I still think it's a non-issue personally, but people care about all sorts of things, and I'm sure I could find some celebrity gossip with a wider spread. Perfectly fine with all of that.
Then the BBC reports on it internationally, and people on here use it to spread a narrative that China is a nation full of liars. Am I repeating myself? I think I said that part already. That's the only thing I've taken issue with. I fail to see how what you're saying, that Chinese people originally shared the story, has anything to do with that.
That doesn't seem to describe me very well. Seems like a strange take. I would think that studying history and basing beliefs on evidence would lead one to arrive at a more nuanced understanding than going, "idk seems bad."
“beliefs” are based on “faith” and “evidence” is up for “interpretation.”
No, they are not. I believe more of the earth's surface is water than land. Is that belief based on faith? Is that evidence up for interpretation?
Some beliefs are based on faith and some evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a rational, evidence-based belief.
A room full of people can read a story and all take something different from it, if we could all just study history and decide what the best course of action is, that’d be cool.
Yes, people disagree on things, but when they are grounded on evidence and reason, they can discuss them rationally and present reason or evidence that the other person might not be aware of, and possibly resolve the disagreement. If you just go off vibes, and someone else senses different vibes from you, then there's nothing you can appeal to to convince them of your perspective.
That's a common tool of propaganda. If you lie outright, you can get caught, and the audience may not believe you in the first place. The real trick is to leave gaps for the audience to fill in with their imagination, and if you're doing it skillfully, they'll end up not only believing what you want them to, but also thinking it was their idea all along. I've even seen the video cut to show the tank moving in the man's direction, and then cut away before it stops, creating the impression that the full video would show him getting run over and is not included because it would be too graphic - for example, 3:14 in this bizarre psyop recruitment ad.
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone imply that he’s important because he’s a martyr
Why did you read my comment but not the one I was replying to?
The psyops propaganda you posted is definitely cringe af but it seems to clearly show the tank turning in the clip
Right, because the tank did turn, so they can't show a clip of it driving straight at him because that clip doesn't exist. But given that it's on screen for about one second, I would venture to guess that some people might not be examining that too closely, and would just see that the tank is moving.
calling it a clear example of misleading people into thinking he was killed is a pretty big stretch imo
It's not about directly misleading people, as I said. It's about leaving ambiguity and subtly hinting at what that ambiguity might be, while leaving yourself plausible deniability. To simply lie directly is a crass and obvious form of propaganda, to be used sparingly. If you're looking for propaganda in the mindset of looking for a "smoking gun" that would hold up in court, you don't understand the nature of it. It's an art. It's advertising. I couldn't prove to a jury what Shakespeare wanted the audience to take away from Hamlet, but that doesn't mean I can't analyze it and make educated guesses.
Obviously, anyone who's seen the full video or knows the story won't be fooled, but that's not the point. If some number of people come away thinking what you want them to think, and the origin of that thought can't be traced back to you in an incriminating way, then you did your job.
I encounter situations like this rather often where I am responding to a comment that contains many individual points/statements. I typically will respond with a single comment that contains a quote of each point that is being responded to with my response under neath the respective quote — and, sometimes, for added clarity, a...
The format on here isn't really suited to multiple responses, imo, but you should look at a website called Kialo. I haven't used it in years and I don't know if it's active but it's an interesting concept based very much on that idea, with the aim of making discussions more formal and rigorous.
Here's an example of what it looks like, for the discussion topic Should American Football Be Banned?
The first circle shows top level positions that one might take, one of which I've selected, suggesting it should be reformed rather than banned. Coming out from that are points in favor or against, like, "It is not possible to reform American football to make it safe enough to play," and then from that point there's more points, one saying that risk of brain injury is unavoidable and another pointing out health risks that could be addressed, like heat illness.
It's also possible to view the discussion in a different format, like so:
Clicking on any of those points will let you see the replies.
New comments have to be approved and they have to be meaningfully different from things that have already been posted, and they're supposed to be limited to a single point.
And you can comment on points suggesting clarification
It's a pretty different format and vibe compared to what we have here, but even if it's not something you're into, I think it's an interesting little experiment. Imo, you would need something formatted that way for the multiple comment approach to work well and be readable.
If I were Russia or China and I had the ability to influence US elections, I would try to stabilize the country. I'd want someone predictable who I can negotiate with and reasonably expect to have agreements last more than 4 years. This is what Putin said to Tucker, by the way, explaining why he'd prefer Biden over Trump, so that he can negotiate a lasting treaty. China, with all its economic ties to the US, would likely feel the same (though with all of Biden's jingoism and saber-rattling, I don't know that there's much difference from that perspective).
Geopolitics is not a zero-sum game, and the world is more complex than moustache-twirling cartoon villains. Destabilizing the US means the most militarized country in the world acting completely unpredictably and lashing out randomly to distract from problems at home.
Also, like, it's easy to make a bot but it's harder to make a bot that actually sounds like a human being and is able to make coherent arguments. Throwing around accusations based purely on a person's stance, even when the format isn't bot-like at all, is pure paranoia. It's just a way to categorically dismiss everything you disagree with without consideration.
Also also, what about the US intelligence community? Surely they'd have both means and motive to influence political discussions, moreso on both than foreign governments. Why aren't you concerned about that? Or what about the possibility of corporations hiring people to say stuff? Wouldn't it be way easier for entities that are based on America who could hire Americans directly?
It's really a nonsense belief that falls apart under scrutiny. But what it really is is a symbolic belief. It's obviously not true but by saying it you can performatively demonstrate your loyalty to the US government and hatred of the Other. There's no evidence for it and it's unfalsifiable.
Russia already interfered with the 2016 election, so they disagree with you.
Well, you asked what I would do. I don't think it's rational for Russia to destabilize the US right now which is consistent with Putin's current stated position. Of course he could easily be lying, and he did support Trump in the past. It's possible that he's consistently pro-Trump, but it's also possible that his priorities changed based on changing circumstances, or that his perception of Trump changed after seeing him in office. It's impossible to know what's going on in his head, but it is possible to speculate based on what would benefit him and what he's said.
AI doesn’t have to be used as an autoprompter. Paid workers can still review their output or use them for prompting.
Convenient! That means that you can accuse anyone you disagree with of being a bot, regardless of evidence! I imagine that's much easier than engaging with conflicting ideas.
But locally, they want functioning government so they get paid.
A government doesn't have to be particularly well-functioning in order to afford to pay it's spies. Unless we're talking about total collapse and balkanization of the US, they're still getting paid. In the meantime, they're free to persue whatever agenda they want with no oversight, and even when they do get caught, not only are they not punished or stopped, but whoever exposed the crime becomes an enemy of the state and is hunted to the ends of the earth.
Also, besides the over-the-top insults, note this guy’s account is new.
My cashier at the grocery store was wearing reflective glasses (clearly this means they're a lizard person hiding their slit pupils), my barber asked me how my day was going (clearly he's an FBI agent collecting data about my life) and a person I disagreed with online had a new account (clearly a paid agent of a foreign government).
Tell me, how long have you had these sorts of beliefs?
Do you mean to tell me that the guy who spent his entire decades-long career unwaveringly supporting the apartheid state currently committing genocide, who sent them billions of dollars of military equipment while they were performing a genocide, who redefined criticism of the government committing said genocide as hate speech, who threatened international courts for trying to hold the genocidal country accountable - are you telling me that person failed to provide an ounce of material support to the people being genocided? No way. I mean, when was the last time an American politician said something that was purely performative?
Because the policy of deliberate ambiguity is consistent with what Taiwanese people want and has successfully maintained peace for over 40 years while still allowing Taiwan to be functionally independent.
But, you know, who cares about peace and prosperity for ordinary people when our leaders could score a couple political points against their leaders, amirite?
Why on earth would you bring up Clinton to support your argument? She did exactly what you described and somehow managed to lose what should've been an extremely easy election. Biden managed to win by a very narrow margin in another extremely easy matchup. Not included in your data set are any candidates who ran more to the left, such as Obama (though he governed far to the right of how he ran).
There's so many more disengaged voters than swing voters that it doesn't matter if swing voters are worth more. Besides, swing voters don't just vote according to a rational policy calculus of centrism. A lot of it is vibes or superficial nonsense.
The dems are not going to magically move left, against their donors interests and the interests they've repeatedly demonstrated they hold, just because they win. Especially if that win comes through unconditional support from the left. They are not your friends, and they don't share your interests. They're careerists pursuing their own advancement.
Sure, there could be some specific cases where they're correct. But if you can't say anything about elections unless it's generalizable to all circumstances, then you can't say anything about elections at all. I'm speaking generally.
Hillary Clinton thank you for bringing that up. What do you think the window would be if Hillary Clinton won? Easy, it would be further left. You’re making my case for me.
Instead Trump won and guess what happened to the Overton window? It went off the cliff to the right. And it’s still there because he won and could win again. You’re making this too easy.
It is, in fact, very easy to have a conversation when you're only having it with yourself.
If you agreed with everything I said, do you think that would make you more correct or less correct? That's right, more correct. Therefore I'm right. You're making my case for me, this is too easy, blah blah blah.
Russia's LGBTQ+ community is turning to Telegram as the government cracks down on them ( www.lgbtqnation.com )
Seriously, where do I go?
I live in an affluent part of South Carolina. It’s become completely overrun with Trump assholes and degenerates. I don’t know how much longer I can take it. Where can we go?...
Ukraine just held its first Pride event in years despite Russia's continued invasion ( www.lgbtqnation.com )
China's Xi accused the US of trying to trick him into invading Taiwan, but said he won't take the bait, report says ( www.businessinsider.com )
Xi Jinping accused the US of trying to trick China into invading Taiwan, the Financial Times said....
Vegans of Lemmy, would you eat lab-grown meat?
The main reasons I've seen from vegans for not eating meat seem to be all about the morality of eating a sentient animal, the practices of the modern meat industry, and the environmental impact of it. And don't have anything to do with the taste of meat....
‘We’re in 1938 now’: Putin’s war in Ukraine and lessons from history ( www.theguardian.com )
Interesting article that talks about the similarities between now and 1938, and the sort of lessons we can learn from history.
The New York Times source code leaked by a 4chan user ( stackdiary.com )
A user on the online forum 4chan has leaked a massive 270GB of data purportedly belonging to The New York Times. This leak includes what is claimed to be the source code for the newspaper’s digital operations.
Yuntai: Hiker finds pipe feeding China's tallest waterfall ( www.bbc.com )
A controversy over a waterfall has cascaded into a social media storm in China, even prompting an explanation from the water body itself....
The full video from the famous "Tank Man" photo ( vimeo.com )
Edit: YouTube link if Vimeo gives you issues...
When responding to a comment with multiple points, should one create a new thread (new comment) for each point, or should one make a single large comment containing individual responses to all points?
I encounter situations like this rather often where I am responding to a comment that contains many individual points/statements. I typically will respond with a single comment that contains a quote of each point that is being responded to with my response under neath the respective quote — and, sometimes, for added clarity, a...
Americans, what's the plan if Trump wins the election in November? (serious)
Happens once per thread ( lemmy.cafe )
Pentagon says none of the aid unloaded from US pier off coast of Gaza has been delivered to broader Palestinian population ( edition.cnn.com )
'Stop threatening Taiwan', its new president William Lai tells China ( www.bbc.com )
Taiwan's newly inaugurated president William Lai has called on China to stop threatening the island and accept the existence of its democracy....
Sad, but rule ( pawb.social )