Doubledee [comrade/them]

oil prices are high because that’s what putin can use as leverage against the developed world after his failed annexation of Ukraine and it’s clear he’d rather die than accept Ukraine is an independent country.

… is this “Putin” in the room with us right now?

No no you don’t understand! The proper way to attempt to address an ongoing genocide is to wring your hands and give more weapons to the people doing it. Doing anything proactive is bad form you silly geese.

Liberal, proud of it.

Okay sweet so you’re aware of the role they’re playing in the current government then. Not sure why you found that idea objectionable a minute ago but whatever.

And yes I’m aware, not a big Putler fan here. It’s too bad the left is so weak in the former Soviet nations.

Personally I just hope a peace can be negotiated soon to save lives.

Oh dang we left the door open and a wandered in. Poor little fella.

It may be helpful for you to consider this piece covering the long running problem with the far right that Ukraine has been dealing with. A cursory search would show you that this is a problem reputable news agencies have been documenting for years before the current war.

I like to think about the historical perspective. It’s not much consolation but systems like these can’t maintain themselves forever, cracks are showing and the US really is more vulnerable than people would like to admit.

Once things start changing there will likely be a lot of problems, things will probably get worse in some ways, but I think even if I don’t survive to see what people come up with in the aftermath of the US I can get satisfaction from seeing it burn.

When you read history you learn humans are very resilient, humans will not end when the empire does. Maybe the failure of this place will be good for the world.

Ah, but have you tankies considered how cheap it is to send mentally disabled Eastern Europeans to die and how much value The West™ is getting out of this?

This is clearly a sign of good things just around the corner.

The technical term is ‘disrupting the democratic space.’ It’s an innovative approach to democracy that builds on the Bidenist model, where you’re morally required to rubber stamp one bad option or It’s not democracy anymore.

The cool new twist is that the rubber stamping has been automated to save everyone time and keep anything unexpected from happening.

I think there was a culture shock when federation first hit. We had a ton of ‘engagement’ from people who were using ableist, racist, and transphobic slurs, which brought out strong reactions from our community because we believe its important to shut that stuff down on solidarity with our comrades. And as things got heated I think our willingness to believe people wanted good faith debate eroded.

We do love a good dunking though, and I think overall the community has a lower threshold for going full pig poop balls on people than I would prefer.

I don’t even understand what the stakes are from his perspective, he’s already banned like a dozen political parties and nobody cares, what do you have to fear holding an election when you’re allowed to ban people who oppose you? It’s a free rubber stamp basically, you get democracy points and to renew your mandate by being the only legal option, it’s a win win.

Pressure to do what?

As someone who lives in a country that’s been in more or less continuous conflict since I was born I would be pretty upset if the leadership here decided elections couldn’t happen during wartime.

Then why do it? You’re the only one in this whole thread with any issue, unless you can point to someone else who has had it. The most desperate form of deflection was using upvotes/downvotes as a point like populists always do.

But they aren’t the only person here with an issue. My comment wasn’t as confrontational but I also clearly raised a red flag at the question being asked and the reasons people start asking these kinds of questions. I also see what you’re doing. I just don’t want to spend the next week doing this thing you’re calling a debate.

Because the two things aren’t actually the same and because of what it means in context to oppose a culture vs. a cult. You might oppose scientology in a variety of ways, they have a leader, buildings, staff, bank accounts, a documented history of infiltrating the government and harassing people, a curated list of members etc.

A cult may or may not have all of those but they’re a different kind of thing than a culture. Cultures are social categories that encompass a much wider range of human behaviors for one, they include things like sport and art and language. Festivals and practices and food and manners. They’re things a human can’t really help having even if you can choose to adopt parts and change others. Religion, which is a thing you seem to be conflating with culture, is just a part of culture. Egyptian Copts have Christianity like many Americans. They are also very different culturally.

But the bigger reason people should be very careful when people start criticizing culture is because we know what that means. What does one do about “cultural Bolshevism?”

What do conservatives actually want done about “Black culture?” What did bringing “culture” to the “savages” mean? How does someone stop being from a culture?

We know how those questions get answered. And that tells us something about why those questions might be asked in the first place.

It’s a UK English thing, a row is a fight, they would describe the US Congress fighting over the shutdown as a row.

/s? Right?

Edit: didn’t look at the username. Classic blunder.

What the fuck even is this question? Is it a joke I don’t understand?

I can’t in good conscience make a worker’s day worse because of something they don’t control, but I understand the sentiment. I agree though that collective action is probably our best shot at seeing change.

The enshitification of all things is so frustrating. You witness perfectly useful technology being destroyed in the pursuit of like 5 dollars. I don’t answer the phone unless I’ve told someone to call me because it’s always a robot, my email inbox is full of garbage I didn’t ask for so I don’t check in much, now they’ve got robots texting me scams. I can’t even pay for petrol in peace, because they make a nickel having a tiny television try to sell me an energy drink. And nothing is done because heaven forefend that anything should come in the way of an extra .02% increase in some asshole’s quarterly report.

I’m not moving the goalposts, I’m just pointing out that it’s a bit disingenuous to frame a question about what should happen in an unresolved civil war as a question of nations and their sovereignty. It would be disingenuous to frame Russia’s intervention in Ukraine as defending the independence of an entire country, I think it’s a similar situation between ROC/PRC, the primary difference being the length of the dispute.

Which is relevant if we’re talking about how one can consistently be anti-imperialist, I think. I agree it’s a bit flippant to say stuff about ‘giving up Loser Island’ but I think it’s important to recognize that it’s more complicated than ‘two independent countries fighting over the territory of one of them.’

I appreciate your openness here. I think the PRC would also prefer peaceful engagement with the longer term goal of peaceful reincorporation, the trade ties they’ve cultivated in spite of US hostility I think lend credence to their sincerity there. In the big picture I just don’t think the region can sustain two governments that each claim sovereignty over the same areas, and given their historical cultural and economic ties I think reunification would be the outcome of a process of dialogue between them.