Forums / Discussion / General

Heh you say you care about genocide yet you are only talking about this one gotcha

"An internationally funded UN body who's sole purpose is to encourage Palestinians that they will one day be able to move back to their "ancestral homes" in what is today Israel, and is funded by numerous countries in in the UN, and is one of the biggest employers of Palestinians today"

You say this like its not unfathomably based. Its clear you hate this organization because Zionist propaganda told you to. I mean, here you are blaming them for "radicalizing Palestinians", and yet, they are being bombed by Israel

LMAO, we've reached the point where the genocide apologia tries to redefine words.You think you got a real gotcha here, like I needed to define genocide at any point. Not only is it just incredibly silly of you to think that you did something here, but its also factually incorrect, I have on more than one occasion explained why Israels actions are genocide. Ill play along with your silly game for now, because maybe genocide is just actually empty word to you.

"gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
noun
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

Sounds a lot like Israels collective punishment of the gaza population with the indiscriminate bombing and blocking humanitarian aid !

""beCAusE IT hAS nO mEANInG TO yOu. yoU WILlFUllY, GLEEFULLy EVeN, ignORe IT aNywhERe ELSE tRAGeDY unFolDs. YEmEN? fUCk No. SuAdAN? just a buncH Of BLAcK pEoPlE. eTHIOpIA "thE WHAt opIA?". ThESE Are mEanIngless tO YOU.""

Wow, you didnt mention the Congo! yOU MUsT haTe BLAcKS! See how silly this line of thinking is, other than just being a complete projection? Not to mention the fact that you only bring up other conflicts as a means of deflecting from Israel's warcrimes. Speaking of projections.

"Because deep down your entire view of this conflict is so ideologically warped, so symbolic, there is no humanity left.. Because neither the Palestinians, nor the Israelis are human beings to you. They are symbols. Nothing more. Totems to project your ideological guilt towards. Fetishes to virtue signal from. It's so goddam evident in the language you use, the buzzwords you throw about. White on Brown. A perfect reflection of the race-politics in the US expressed on an international stage."

Other than just being a unhinged rant that doesnt mean anything, its completely hollow when comes from you. You already stated that you cared more about western countries lining their own pockets then stopping children from getting bombed. How do you get more inhuman than that?

Anyway keep projecting your image of what you THINK a leftist is like, its pretty clear you never talk to one before and that you have built an image of what these people are like solely from twitter screencaps.

Also, forgot to point out that its evident that you dont care about the other conflicts either, seeing how you only mention them in the context of defending Israel

Alright, you're all going to have cool it with the rhetoric. I'd get pissed off if I was addressed this way, or when something I care about is ignored.

All of you (because yes, it's hypocritical of me to say this).

I'll make a serious reply later, but if the UNRWA and the perpetual refugee status of Palestinians is "unfathomably based", would Steve support similar organizations for other ethnic groups in regards to other countries? Such as Assyrians with Iraq, Greeks with Turkey, or the Japanese with Korea? And yes, I did deliberately sort those in order of ascending absurdity.

We should.
And honestly, the Palestinians have suffered for long enough, both because of Hamas and Israel. It's caught between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

normally I'm not political but how the hell has this been active for seven years

H o w

People just love shouting at each other sometimes.

Okay, but you have to imagine from my perspective what its like to be called inhuman over wanting an end to a violent conflict, lmao.

It is unfathomably based.
And it's not because this organization has radicalized Palestinians. This organization has given a UN stamp of approval to a conflict that has continually destabilized the middle east to this day. By the very nature that the UNWRA views that refugee status can be passed on to descendants (which is unique to the Palestinians only), it has aligned itself with the view that many Arab states have: Settling the Palestinians – and thus removing their refugee status – is a declaration of an Israeli victory in 1948.

But you may ask, how does this translate to the broader middle east situation? Imagine, if you will, that the Palestinians, after 1948, were treated like every other refugee group and settled elsewhere. Would they be living as less than second class citizens in Lebanon? Would they be radicalized enough to try to overthrow the king of Jordan? Would they be the main recruits for Islamic Brotherhood which has been a bane in Egypt? Every single group of refugees in the wake of WW2, post colonialism, etc, has been settled, often in places that are different from their place of birth. But not the Palestinians. And every country they go to they become a de-stabilizing force – because their only goal is to reclaim what they believe in historic Palestine. And even that goal is kind sus, considering that they had no such nationalist intentions in 1948, and were more than content to be part of an Arab state, be it, Syria, KSA, or what have you.

UNWRA has given them the dream that one day, one day they will regain that territory, and they will turn it into a theocratic Arab state. And they reinforce, politically, and financially, that the rest of the Arab world should not settle the Palestinians.

And this isn't even accounting the fact that we are learning how deeply UNWRA is tied to Hamas itself.

So yes. I consider it unfathomably based to want to disband the UNWRA and put the Palestinians under UNHRC, and settle them once and for all. There are over 2 million Palestinians who have Jordanian citizenship, but are considered refugees. There are Palestinians born in the United States, that are still considered refugees. Does this in anyway sound fair to you?

Sure, that's why it might be hypocritical coming from me since I've lost my shit over "smaller" matters (Climate Change, LGBT, Abortion, anything to do with the American Right…). So, I can't moralize too much.

Just do it for yourself and what you think is appropriate, not for me or your opposite.

@Toasty

Forum is anonymous enough that you can probably won't have IRL consequences like say, Facebook and it's small enough that you start getting familiar with how other users act.

Or maybe we do just like yelling at each other.

Ah okay. Thank you for giving me at least a definition to work with. Let's highlight the key elements here okay?
>the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

Intent is the fundamental, the core element of what makes a genocide.
Tell me. If the intent was genocide, why would Israel evacuate Northern Gaza to the South before launching their ground invasion and bombing campaign? Why would they use door knockers, make calls, and warn civilians that there would be incoming attacks? Why would they use more bombs than the number of people dead if the idea here is that it is indiscriminate (it's absolutely not, not by any metric)? Why wouldn't they be doing the same in the West Bank? After all, Gaza and West Bank are the same ethnicity, the same nationality
If the goal was genocide they wouldn't warn those civilians. They wouldn't use precision bombs, nor would they care how they use the more "dumb" bombs. They certainly wouldn't have evacuated northern Gaza, nor provided safe passage to evacuees that decided to linger too long.
It just doesn't add up. It never has. Because the intent is not there. At best you have some politicians, most of whom aren't even involved in any of the military operations, making outlandish statements.

I bring up other conflicts because they are exponentially far worse in terms of humanitarian crises, the number of deaths – especially civilians – but are hardly ever brought up. Why is that? Why is this conflict more important? You may say "Oh it's what aboutism", yes, it is, and i'd like to know why there is a different standard here. Why is a conflict between "brown people" that is far more egregious and far far worse, utterly ignored, but the conflict between "white people and brown people" (which, I re-iterate, you wouldn't even tell the difference between a Palestinian and an Israeli – reinforcing how this is a projection of NA race-politics)?

It's tragic that children are getting bombed, and are victims of war. No parent should have to see their child die in a brutal, violent fashion, especially through a senseless war. But that is what war is. A war that Israel didn't ask for, but one it had to be thrown into. Why is it that when it comes to this conflict we so frequently bring up the children getting bombed? Are the children in Yemen not worth talking about? The children in Ethiopia or Sudan? Genuinely curious, because there is this fixation here on "children getting bombed", implying that Israel deliberately targets children. Which by Hamas' own admission isn't true given that Hamas, this week, revealed that they lost 6k of their fighters meaning that the overall civilian to militant ratio is 5:1 (by Hamas' own numbers, which is far lower than Israel's and the US)…far lower than what the UN considers the average; 9:1.

I'm not projecting what I think a leftist is like.
I know what a leftist is like. And you're doing a fine job reinforcing that view. So thank you.
Shalom.

@Chewybunny

As a notice, I'm swinging between which of you two is most credible and sounds less psychotic. You don't have to care since I don't particularly matter, but if I go one way or another, it wasn't because I was a sleeper agent for one "side", but because I was either convinced or repelled by an argument.

wHy Do yOU haVe To tyPE liKE THis

Now, I think there's having the standards down to the very ground if the argument is one whether it's "actually" genocide. Constantly deflecting, in this case to wars with worse humanitarian outcomes does not make one better.

Second, I'd challenge you asking why the "left" is hyper-focusing on Palestinians, when there's so much suffering in the world. Can I remind you that we both know the Ukrainians, Kurds and Armenians were left swinging in the wind by your "side" (as did "mine" for the latter two)? That even in terms of aid to Israel, the GOP has blocked it, so one can't even hold that standard up.

You can't fix the world, don't demand standards from Palestinian activists that you wouldn't demand for yourself (and I've made the mistake of using that same argument).

People care what they care about, for better or worse. That's why some care about Myanmar, some about Ukraine and some don't. Otherwise I'd be more on your case about caring about an Islamic theocracy, when you brushed aside Christian theocracy.

i find it interesting that you conveniently forgot to mention that you brought up the israel/hamas conflict in not 1 but 2 different entries (calendergate and keffals' catboy ranch controversy, in that order) that had nothing to do with said conflict, got the comment sections locked for not 1 but 2 entries (same ones mentioned earlier), and even got suspended for it not once but twice, while the second time was a very clear attempt to harass chewybunny for the horrific crime of disagreeing with you.

you also implied that keffals coercing children to take do-it-yourself hrt wasn't that big of a problem in the second situation, as if the myth that trans people are coming to groom your kids isn't something that entire community has been trying to shake off since forever, and that's not even getting into the coercion itself.

so yea, combining that whole entire bullshit with the fact that you scream "genocide apologist" at every single person who disagrees with you on the israel/hamas conflict, regardless of whether they believe palestine should be subjected to the nuclear arsenal of the entire world, or that hamas has maybe not actually behaved in a super awesome way, is telling me with the force of an m82 anti-materiel rifle that no, you don't want an end to a violent conflict, you just want to be a fucking pest.

i'm surprised you aren't spamming my wall with "cope" messages, god knows you aren't above that

it occurs to me that i don't actually remember ever stating why i hold such contempt for hamas and their supporters, and it essentially boils down to one simple concept that i feel is an issue that is entirely too prevalent with humanity today: hypocrisy.

the biggest arguing point that most pro-palestinian is that israel is committing a genocide against the palestinians. i'll get to why i feel this is hypocrisy (for some of said people) in a moment.

the reason that i myself am so anti-hamas is due to one simple question i ask myself: if given the opportunity, would hamas attempt to wipe the jewish people off of the planet? i feel too strongly that the answer is yes, they would. and considering the completely and utterly vitriolic "defense" some pro-palestinian people show for hamas, and it makes sense to me that these people must support a genocide.

so you have people claiming that anyone who supports israel's existence also supports genocide, while also (atleast to me) clearly supporting genocide themselves (doesn't help that far too many of them (and by far too many, i really mean more then none) are literally saying that hitler was actually right). textbook case of hypocrisy, if you ask me

now i am not saying this to state that israel has all the right in the world to wipe out the palestinians, that's an insane idea that i disagree with strongly, i understand that israel has done some very horrific things during this conflict (apparently there are other conflicts, but i'm not well versed in the full history behind them, i just know that they happened, so i'll refrain on commenting on those ones).

and i'll admit right now that before this entire conflict started, i tend to be harsher on (whether perceived or factual) anti-semitism due to currently spending 24 years of my life living with a literal "6 million wasn't enough, hitler was right" nazi; i know very acutely that there are people out there that absolutely will attempt, or atleast support, wiping out the jewish people for no other reason then because "greedy big nose man bad, funny mustache man say so".

combine my complete lack of faith in hamas to not finish what nazi germany started, with my strong disdain for anti-semitism (again, perceived or factual) in general, and you've got a perfect storm that causes issues every time it kicks up.

this was far longer that it really should've been, wasn't it.

all that being said, i'll wait with baited breath for steve to reply "cope and seethe genocide apologist" lol

Whatever hope I had for the future is at the lowest it's been, things are so fucking bad right now.

Even if Russia won Avdiika, there's no sign they'll win this war. Avdiika is a relatively small town, and they've lost so many men trying to take it. They're still horribly undersupplied too.

Meanwhile, within a few years, we've apparently avoided a degree of warming. Our actions have lessened the degree in which the Earth would warm itself, and I've heard specialists suggest that 2023 could very well be the peak and that for greenhouse gases, it's all downhill from there.

There is always a reason to have hope, so long as it helps us fight for a better world.

I care about your opinion because I like talking to you and we can at least have reasonable disagreements while respecting the opinion. I'm biased for sure when it comes to this conflict for very personal reasons, as you'd know why and I've come to understand, and actually sympathize with your views vis a vie the rabid anti French rhetoric that came out of Bush Jr years.

I don't think I am deflecting any accusations of genocide by bringing up other conflicts. I am reflecting on why this conflict is so hyper focused by the far left, especially in the US, and why they are so utterly unhinged in the accusations and perception of Israel, and why they routinely ignore broader, more violent, more world impacting conflicts like Sudan. Especially since the Sudanese civil war directly has Ukrainian and Russians fighting there as well, has the entire region heavily involved and there are credible accusations of actual genocide being taken by the Arab forces there.

I think it's psychotic to accuse Israel of genocide given the definition of genocide and given the extent by which Israel has undergone avoiding civilian casualties. I feel like all these attempts Israel does goes completely ignored, unaddressed or dismissed entirely.

To remind you, I don't vote Republican, and I have little sympathy for the GOP, and Trump. I'm not on "their" side. I called out Trump abandoning the Kurds, I said numerous times it's the worst international relations move of his Presidency by far. i have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the Kurds and a big advocate for the establishment of Kurdistan.

I would love a good faith discussion about why the left cares so much about this conflict and is deranged by it. I have theories: that it is largely projection of leftist guilt and hyper sensitivity to anything Islamophobic as a result of Iraq 2003. The guilt of being told by academia and other institutions that you are living on colonized lands and are thus beneficiaries of said colonization and genocide is projected on the Israel Palestine conflict – after all, actually doing anything realistically tangible in the US regarding the Native American issues and causes is far harder than projecting it on a conflict thousands of miles away. I also think that the ideological left has been primed for this due to heavy influence of Soviet era Zionology.

I have never heard, in any meaningful discourse the question of "should France exist?" Nor any other country. Yet we even ask this question when it comes to the Jewish state? Why? Why is there such a completely different and nearly impossible standard expected out of Israel?

There is a gigantic difference between supporting Palestine and supporting hamas
I support the Palestinian people and also believe every member of hamas should be hanged

I won't lie I just hate both sides of the conflict, Israel and Palestine are both assholes.

Really, I'm just worried about the humanitarian crisis happening. Food trucks being slowed down due to mandatory searches, so that even with the increasing pressure Biden's administration has been putting on the Israeli government to let food and water aid through it's still only trickling in at iirc half the rate before the war. Combine that with the Palestinians being huddled together in increasingly dense areas while malnourished, and you've got an epidemic of your worst nightmares brewing.

And if that's not enough, they're planning on attack Rafat too. If reports are to be believed, then hundreds of thousands, if not a million people are currently taking refuge there. What the fuck is the IDF gonna do, 'evacuate' them? Where would they go? How would it affect the already tenuous grasp humanitarian aid organizations have on the situation? Making sure everyone's at least marginally fed will be even MORE of a horrific mess than it already is.

I really don't see how ANYONE can support Israel here. Hamas won't surrender. We all know they care more about killing jews than saving Palestinians. How is this going to weed them out, especially when the populace is no doubt becoming more radicalized from this collective punishment? 'Taking steps' to prevent casualties might look good to us. But to the people affected, how does being displaced from your home city--which is most likely reduced to rubble by now--and gradually herded into more concentrated groups, missiles flying overhead, sound like anything other than the prelude to something much, much worse?

yea i agree with that sentiment as well, and i probably could've added that to the post, the palestinians definitely deserve to exist, but hamas does not. but some people definitely strike me as "supporting hamas" rather then "supporting palestine".

Thank you, and in return I'll keep in mind that this discussion isn't just some random topic of the day, but the actual danger of Israel and it's citizens (and possibly the Jewish around the world with the rise in antisemitic attacks). I'll also try to put aside the whole thing on the American Right, since I can see how my personal grudge against them is tainting the discussion when they're not really involved at this point.

Also, to explain on what I meant to say to Steve, maintaining credibility isn't just for me (or any other audience) or for your opponent, but also oneself. I know I lose a lot of my credibility and hurt my argument when I get angry.

I don't think I am deflecting any accusations of genocide by bringing up other conflicts…I think it's psychotic to accuse Israel of genocide given the definition of genocide and given the extent by which Israel has undergone avoiding civilian casualties. I feel like all these attempts Israel does goes completely ignored, unaddressed or dismissed entirely.

Sure. I'm also reaching the limit of my own ignorance in the fog of war. I want to avoid civilian casualties entirely while making sure Hamas can never commit such an attack again.

Hopefully, at heart everyone wants this.

Having plans and numbers for these attempts to reduce casualties helps with credibility.

I would love a good faith discussion about why the left cares so much about this conflict and is deranged by it

OK, going over your theories, guilt & ideology as well as rooting for the underdog may be a large part of it, I remember dismissing what you said about leftists academia in the US (honestly, I thought it was the boy who cried wolf), than was horrified that the universities I had built in my mind weren't what they were anymore, a Cornell Professor outright qualified October 7th as exhilarating. Whatever the motive, the deans had to be questioned on what kind of education they're giving. The amount of "anti-imperialists" who ignored or even celebrated Russia's invasion of Ukraine and hoped Europe would freeze or starve was … something.

There's a reason why I say that Russia encourages both far-right and far-left extremists.

However, I also have three other explanations:

1) Foreign Interference & "Fake" Left: This may seem self-serving to say this, but I remember that Qatar & Russia (more recently) have pull to mediatize this conflict, a lot of belligerent Arab states to Israel still fund weapons & propaganda for Palestine. Add to this that some nationalists in foreign countries will vote left for themselves, but vote nationalist for their home country. They're ultimately self-serving.

That's the explanation I took away from TVH when some "activistes" outright chanted they were Nazis.

2) Genuine Antisémitisme in the Left: Too many attacks in foreign countries, too many gaffes to be considered innocent. Some people are Nazbols, they think the Jewish are "bourgeois". I've criticized the Right for tolerating religious zealots and fascists, and the same standards should apply for the Left to control their murderous maniacs.

Attempting to justify Hamas's crimes on October 7th in any way is unacceptable.

3) Sincere belief: Some people do believe what they believe. Thinking that any opposition is malevolent & or in a conspiracy is a habit that one has to be careful of (a habit I'm very guilty of). Listening to Palestinian Activists, some points they say makes sense. Islamophobic attacks have also increased worldwide & cruel politicians and soldiers sap Israel's reputation (like they do with any other country).

You mentioned Sudan, but in the end no one wants the West to intervene (including the West themselves), too many worries of Imperialism. Or at least, it's going to have to be a discussion for another day on countering Russia. For better or worse, as allies or at least countries with diplomatic relations, we've got to immediately care more for what's going in Israel.

More diplomacy is needed, a bad leader can tank the reputation of even will-liked countries and Netanyahu has killed relations and credibility like no one else, I've heard that the reason why there's such a disconnect on support between the older and younger generation is that PMs like Ben-Gurion (or anyone else) aren't remembered, they only know Netanyahu.

The faster that wannabe-dictator is out of power, the better it will be for everyone.

I have never heard, in any meaningful discourse the question of "should France exist?" Nor any other country. Yet we even ask this question when it comes to the Jewish state? Why? Why is there such a completely different and nearly impossible standard expected out of Israel?

I haven't either, most of it is just sour grapes. Point made, any threat France faces doesn't compare with the threats that Israel faces.

I've heard people seriously contemplating "moving" Israel, it may explain why some people are putting pressure on the EU & US they believe they're the "puppet-masters" of Israel (or vice-versa). I don't know, I acknowledge there's levels of antisémitisme at play here. You would think that the Six-day would dispel that myth, since Israel had to fight on it's own, hopefully normalization of relations of Israel with it's neighbors would help dispel this revanchisme.

Whether it's antisémitisme, revanchisme, dislike of anything perceived as settler-colonialist societies or a genuine belief that the previous status quo cannot continue or something else, I can't answer.

At a February 23rd Legislative Update panel, including three Oklahoma state senators and one Oklahoma state representative, the panel was asked, about the death of Non-Binary student Nex Benedict. The response was "That’s horrible. I don’t know about that case but I’ll check into it.”

With that response having been given, later a woman asked "why does the Legislature have such an obsession with the LGBTQ citizens of Oklahoma and what people do in their personal lives and how they raise their children?”. When unaddressed, a related question was asked: "Is there a reason why you won’t answer about the 50 bills targeting the LGBTQ community in the state of Oklahoma? If you are ashamed of those bills, they shouldn’t be there"

Oklahoma State Senator Tom Woods then responds:

We are a Republican state – supermajority – in the House and Senate. I represent a constituency that doesn’t want that filth in Oklahoma.

We are a religious state and we are going to fight it to keep that filth out of the state of Oklahoma because we are a Christian state – we are a moral state. We want to lower taxes and let people be able to live and work and go to the faith they choose. We are a Republican state and I’m going to vote my district, and I’m going to vote my values, and we don’t want that in the state of Oklahoma.

Tahlequah Daily Press

This is horrible wtf

Motherfuckers. Christian Taliban pieces of shit. Line after line they've crossed and there's been gaslighting every-time, but now they're not even hiding it anymore.

There can be no hiding it anymore.

With all the preaching about freedom, in the end these theocrats will kill their own democracy more surely than anyone else.

Oh no!…Anyway….

H O W U N E X P E C T E D

Look I get it…the way they are forcing diversity into ai is fucking stupid and pandering but….

Elon Musk posted this…guy now believes "they" want to get rid of white people.

How would that even work? No honestly how would you get rid of white people?

Also is Musk turning into a white supremasist? Like he wasnt an obnoxious douche already…

I didnt search for that btw, Musk the eternal narcisist forces you to see his edgy /pol/ posts on twitter whether you want to or not…its fucking obnoxious

There is not a single actually good social media platform anymore, everything sucks, youtube sucks now, facebook always sucked, tumblr sucks (recent example), twitter sucks even more now…..

Given the tenuous position of his ethnic group in his country of origin, him being very skittish around this type of thing is to be expected. However, I think this is jumping the gun.

What I think happened with Gemini is that Google saw the success of Bing's image generator, but didn't want to just copy Microsoft's simple solution of randomly inserting terms like "ethnically ambiguous" into prompts under the hood. So instead, their engineers tried to train the machine learning program to generate fewer white people (because less white = more diverse, you see), but, being a stupid computer, it interpreted this as "generate almost no white people, and block prompts that specify white people". Whether this constitutes a major fucky wucky, a Freudian slip, or saying the quiet part out loud is a matter of opinion. My personal thought is that it's mostly the former, but that some of the responsible engineers are genuinely racist.

It's still worth concern, though. Training a machine learning art generator to be deliberately racist is one thing, but if similar training were applied to more impactful things, it'd be a major problem. And it's not like Google is a small company, either; they've been enshittifying all their products for the past 8-10 years, but they're still huge despite that.

Musk is at most 6 months from using ((())) in a post

I unironically am so glad that Tucker Carlson gave Putin the interview he did.
What I am saddened by is the absence of any sophistication around the topic. The spirit online is so offended that Putin even got a platform, it ignores, to it's tragic entirety, the reality that the "realist" school of thought, articulated by Mearsheimer, is dead wrong.

Those that have, for 2 years now, pushed the idea of NATO expansionism as the sole reason and cause for the Russian Ukrainian war have been dealt a brutal slap in the face from the man himself. No. NATO expansion isn't the main issue. The issues are metaphysical. They are beyond the Hearts of Iron 4 autism levels. It's not about just a strategic threat of Ukraine being in NATO (something that wasn't even on the table).

It's about a deep level of national identity, existentialism on the political, social, historic, and cultural front. It is about a grandiose, metaphysical, spiritual, cultural, destiny driven view that gives spirit to the war. Something that the realist school cannot comprehend.

Carlson, unironically, did a massive service to the idea that the realist school of international politics is horrendously flawed. This isn't a Paradox Interactive game, bois.

We aren't living in "rational" times.

With all due respect, most of the people who used "NATO expansion" to defend Russia were propagandists or Vatniks. To quote Satre, don't think that they aren't aware of these contradictions or how they undercut themselves. Confusion is the point.

I myself had no pretensions that Russia was rational in their "Russia Mir" and I'm not a fan of Carlson's interview or his followup slobbering endorsement of Russia. I find that those who see Carlson as a revelation quite simply aren't exposed to media from outside the sphere he's in. But hey, if the American Right suddenly realize more that Putin is insane than parrot that Russia wants peace rhetoric (which once again, a Senator of the US said), than good.

Hopefully that translates to action.

It's the nature of the amorphous nature of Russian propaganda that a value that was critical is suddenly Western propaganda, and that something which was just a stereotype suddenly becomes an existential and grandiose issue. Rinse and repeat.

In fact, I'd caution against over-correcting and buying too much into what Putin is saying, that's making the same mistake as the "realists". Pay attention as earlier last year Putin was talking about "spheres of influence", than "Soviet Union" than "Russian Empire" than "Anti-imperialism" and this.

Don't rely only on one interview, and listen to all the different rhetoric he has adopted. The heart of it all is more base, a tribal hate which just uses whatever justification that is convenient for the moment.

Although since we're on ideological matters ( and grandiose, metaphysical, spiritual, cultural, destiny driven view), I gotta tell you that there should probably more focus on that Saskatchewan family that moved to Russia.

Follow the thought of why people & parties do things to it's end-conclusion and think who engages in similar rhetoric around the globe:

To be less vague on one person and to be on-topic:

@No, Kups & Spaghetto

Elon Musk is a "free-speech fundamentalist" that bought himself a podium, and was more than happy to have Russian propagandists & other assholes run roughshod on his platform, but bans his critics and bowed down to Turkey & India's autocrats for their censorship requests. His factories are also fighting Nordic Unions & polluting German waters as part of a pattern of behaviour of being a dick to Europe.

Fuck him, people are what they do, not what they pretend to be.

the downvote stream sometimes tempt me to leave this forsaken website, oh well…I guess they dont matter too much

I disagree that they were propagandists or vatniks.
I think you're going to agree with me on this one, and I will try to articulate the best way I can.
But I think the majority of Americans, left, center, right, have a very, very Americentric view of the world. What I mean in this particular sense is that they cannot fathom international bodies that like Ukraine and Russian having a conflict that isn't inherently tied to some form of America centrism, i.e.. in this case, NATO expansionism.

I think that it is a very American thing to think that if an international war is happening with an ally, or even someone whos' not an ally but adjacent to the US is engaged in a conflict it is somehow, someway, an extension of American power. And, to be fair, it could in many waves be the facts. But not here, When Sweden and Finland join NATO and Russia is effectively indifferent to it it is clear that NATO is not the bogyman that is being fed to the American press.

I will re-iterate.
It is far, far, far worse for Russia on a strategical level that Finland joins NATO than Ukraine. Ukraine can join NATO and it would have no strategic bearing on Russia. Finland? Not so much. For you see, there is a city called Murmansk in the Russian north which is the home of the Northern Fleet, and also, the base of a ton of Russian nuclear warheads. The Kobe peninsula. BUT, the reality is, now that Finland is in NATO it means that NATO is about 50 km (less than a few hour drive) from a critical railroad line between Russia and Murmansk.

Now that Sweden Joined NATO, it means that the Russian Northern Fleet, its Submarine Arsenal, it's Baltic Fleet is completely isolated. NATO doesn't need Ukraine. NATO has accomplished more int his war than anything Russia could have dreaded.

Because Is's not about NATO. I's about identity. And Tucker made that so much clearer – and what upsets me is the lack of any sophistication in our news media to understand it.

Am I really that predictable? Probably. I have to admit that I can only know about American politics through the bits and pieces that make it out, and I've been wrong before about how the US was like. You know far more than me on this, so I concede.

So, the "realists" and people who blamed NATO expansionism really exist. If you don't mind me asking, do you any other anecdotes on what are they are like?

It is far, far, far worse for Russia on a strategical level that Finland joins NATO than Ukraine.

I think Finland & Sweden being in also means St Petersburg & Kaliningrad are more vulnerable in case of war and it helps the Baltic States a lot. In addition to what it means for Murmansk.However, I have no expertise or knowledge to make any serious claims about that.

Anyway, if we also take Russia's imperialist/irrédentiste propaganda about "Slavic Brotherhood" & "Russia Mir", Russia has not only sabotaged their own strategic position but also their reputation and ideological identity with this war. Whatever happens going forward, the way they've conducted their war with Ukraine has destroyed this identity with other countries more than anything else. The War has certainly done a lot to break ties between Russia & Ukraine,CSTO & Russia's "sphere of influence" is in tatters and Eastern Europe trusts them even less.

Which is offset by how blind a lot of Western Europe were (and some continue to be), so you're right, there's definitely an issue of still not understanding why Russia isn't acting "rationally".

---

As for Tucker, it's making lemons out of lemonade with him . He got his interview, because Putin approved (and has denied or even killed any other real journalists) and he predictably got run over. One look at Tucker's staged follow-up trip to a Moscow Grocery store should have been enough where he shows as always that his ultimate goal was cheap american partisanship (and shows he hasn't ever gone to a Lidl).

This is more rant of frustration, as you may have with your media, but it's frustrating that such incompetence is constantly justified & normalized.attempts to spin it as "5D" chess. I've heard the same thing (with more push-back and explanations) from Benoît Vitkine, among others.

I don't think you're that predictable. I think that you, living outside of the US, would see something I see, as someone who came to the US as an immigrant. Specifically, just an observation I had about how Americans tend to talk about, or view, international relations. Primarily the first major instance of this was how I saw a lot of leftists view Israel / Palestine conflict through a very Americentric lens. Specifically, the idea that the Israelis are "White Europeans", and the Palestinians are "Brown Indigenous Peoples", and thus you can tie post colonialism, settler colonialism rhetoric into the conflict. Where in reality it's far more nuanced, as, for example, the historic phenomenon of Europeans colonizing the New World – a place they have no ethnic, cultural, or historic ties to, is radically different than the phenomenon of Jewish diaspora returning to the Levant in what is today Israel, which they have historic, cultural, and ethnic ties to – albeit, in the case of Ashkenazim, distant. I also argue that if you were to show these people the average Palestinian and the average Israeli, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference except for maybe religious gear. It is a very Americentric thing to do project American racial-politics and views unto this conflict, and build on top of it.

Similarly, when it came to Ukraine, the right did the same. They could not fathom that there are deeply metaphysical, historic, cultural, religious, and deeply personal relationship between Russia and Ukraine that had been the major factor of the war. For them it was easy to explain it as NATO expansionism led by the US. That if it wasn't for the US expanding NATO (it's geopolitical arm) to the East, this wouldn't have happened. But the facts are inconvenient here. In 2022 Ukraine was not in any position to join NATO. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a far larger strategic threat to Russia than Ukraine.

>Russia has not only sabotaged their own strategic position but also their reputation and ideological identity with this war.

Absolutely. There is a single major railway that connects Moscow to Murmansk that is now less than 50km away from the Finnish (read, NATO) border. If Russia ever goes to war with NATO – NATO can effectively cut off Russia from it's Northern Fleet, and a large segment of it's nuclear arsenal within half a day. It also means that the Baltic Sea is effectively a NATO lake, which means that Russia literally cannot extend it's political power without going through NATO entirely. The Realists out there would have to readily admit that this is a strategic blunder for Russia – yet Putin and Russia are effectively not particularly threatened by this state of affairs.

Kraut did an excellent take down of the realist school of thought. Now I'm no IR expert. History and international politics is more of a hobby, that largely extends to my personal stock-investing strategies (which don't always play out, given I was convinced that Russia/Ukraine war would make wheat prices soar, and I invested in some wheat holdings that have been lack luster). When I was younger I was a big believer of the realist school of thought because I believed the underlining idea that states acted rationally for self preservation, power politics, and national interest made sense. But the more I read about history and the more I learned about how the rest of the world thinks, the more I realize there are some serious flaws here. Islamism, and the war between Russia and Ukraine are prime examples.

>One look at Tucker's staged follow-up trip to a Moscow Grocery store should have been enough where he shows as always that his ultimate goal was cheap american partisanship (and shows he hasn't ever gone to a Lidl).

I found it actually weird ironic echo. Maybe I read too much into this.
See, this is a bit of a little known tidbit about history. But sometime in 1989 (i was 4) Yeltsin visited the US during the warming of relations between the two countries. Yeltsin visited a Houston mom-and-pop grocery store and found it so abundant with goods that he was utterly dismayed. Allegedly, he realized then and there that the Soviet project can never win over the US, and that Socialism (as they viewed it) was a dead end. Supposedly this is what made Yeltsin increasingly eager to end the Soviet project and led to the downfall of USSR.

I don't think you're that predictable. I think that you, living outside of the US, would see something I see, as someone who came to the US as an immigrant. Specifically, just an observation I had about how Americans tend to talk about, or view, international relations.

Makes sense. I also have to be careful about my own euro-centrism, so I can't judge too much.

Specifically, the idea that the Israelis are "White Europeans", and the Palestinians are "Brown Indigenous Peoples", and thus you can tie post colonialism, settler colonialism rhetoric into the conflict

I've become familiar with that rhetoric these past few months, having listened to what some of the American Left are saying. The "settler-colonialist" view of Israel & Palestine always neglects to mention the Mizrahi, and is a dangerous use of blood & race in politics ( I've seen too many slide into justifying Hamas).

Similarly, when it came to Ukraine, the right did the same. They could not fathom that there are deeply metaphysical, historic, cultural, religious, and deeply personal relationship between Russia and Ukraine that had been the major factor of the war. For them it was easy to explain it as NATO expansionism led by the US.

I can't ignore that some really believed that. It also ignores a lot of Eastern Europeans themselves believing that NATO has prevented them from being attacked, they weren't being annexed into a defensive alliance. Thinking that Putin will be satisfied by some guarantees is making the same mistake of appeasement as in the Munich Conference.

Kraut did an excellent take down of the realist school of thought. Now I'm no IR expert. History and international politics is more of a hobby, that largely extends to my personal stock-investing strategies (which don't always play out, given I was convinced that Russia/Ukraine war would make wheat prices soar, and I invested in some wheat holdings that have been lack luster)

Alright, I'll follow your link. Thank you for the video.

Sorry to heart about your stock-investments. As a consolation, wheat prices stabilizing probably means there's less chances of famine related troubles? A lot of other stocks may have fallen , which may have been worse if you had a diverse portfolio.

I found it actually weird ironic echo. Maybe I read too much into this.
See, this is a bit of a little known tidbit about history. But sometime in 1989 (i was 4) Yeltsin visited the US during the warming of relations between the two countries. Yeltsin visited a Houston mom-and-pop grocery store and found it so abundant with goods that he was utterly dismayed. Allegedly, he realized then and there that the Soviet project can never win over the US, and that Socialism (as they viewed it) was a dead end. Supposedly this is what made Yeltsin increasingly eager to end the Soviet project and led to the downfall of USSR.

That is actually very interesting, I never made that connection before. I may start repeating that, if that's alright.

It works within the analysis of ideology and "avenging" past humiliations. I guess this propaganda did have some value in helping to learn more about the propagandist.

Dude, it is just an event. Get over yourself.

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that states can't just remove candidates from ballots, at least when it comes to federal elections. Not everyone is taking this well, but I think it's a pretty straightforward and reasonable decision.

So, what'ya think about the SOTU address?

well uh

that gop response was fucking awful

I didn't see the whole thing, but I heard some bits of it on the radio with one of my parents. What I heard didn't impress us, so we turned the audio off.
I saw the GOP response on YouTube, and I wasn't impressed by that either. To be fair, I can't think of any response to the State of the Union from either Republicans or Democrats that wasn't bad. Bernie Sanders's response(s) doesn't count since they're not done on behalf of the Democratic Party.

I liked the mentions on foreign policy and Roe vs Wade from Biden.

The one from Katie Britt? Yeah, there was actually three lies there that I wanted to adresse (or maybe they should be called delusions, because I think some in the GOP believe it), and I'm not going to "both side this", because what your policies do matters.

Actions matter more than rhetoric (although personally, I hated Britt's delivery).

The American Right need to be brought to task on what they've done, they can't hide under the pretense of just being an opposition party or being a "political outsider" anymore (as much as the GOP shift from Neo-con to Alt-right can be called the emergence of new political actors anyway).

1) Families are in trouble: From the same party whose economic policies range from failed trade wars which hit their base the most to tax cuts to the richest, failed attempt to re-industrialize in their states, policies which are actually turning away business in states like Texas & Florida, slashing of worker rights, short-sighted weakening of environmental protections like against PFAS compounds which have killed cattle.

That's not even going on their claim on family with slashing child labour protections, lowering their already abysmal education standards with their religious zealotry, all the while hypocritically having just 26K rape-related pregnancies in Texas alone, mistreatment of LGBT teens and just their own personal mores (why do "family" politicians have some of the most dysfunctional families). Just medieval religious fundamentalism.

2) Trouble in the Border: The Republicans have denied any deal on that front, it's such an apparently cheap ploy to have ammo for elections, which goes to the last and most important point for me.

3) Betraying Allies: The sheer audacity.

During the last presidency there was a dichotomy where a lot of Western Europeans hated the GOP and the Eastern Europeans were not necessarily a fan of the trade wars, but were still willing to trust them on NATO (certainly more than Western Europeans with their tendency towards flakiness and under-powered militaires, and I can't even blame them for that). A lot of the American Right knew that and reveled that they still credibility somewhere, that it was just a problem with the Westerners.

This has changed.

Some of the Central & Eastern Europeans are particularly pissed with the GOP's sabotage, and how their flakiness on collective defense in NATO has shifted to outright threats, with maybe the exception of Hungary because everyone has noticed the little dealings between Orban's Hungary and the American Right (and Orban being Russia's little Trojan meaning…). Anecdotally, I was talking to a Polish friend just yesterday (we think alike so there might be bias), and he's even more pissed than I was (maybe I should ask him if I can transcribe his arguments). Reputations shift.

There's a reason why she said only a short sentence there, where she rambled on for the other sections. Trump said they were a laughing stock, and proceeded to make that true. Everyone knows that they're the ones holding up aid to Ukraine, and the ones who can't be trusted to hold up any deal, and the CCP is likely noticing that as well. More paragraphs could be spent on their various betrayals and failed leadership on the global stage.
_____________________________

Finally, she ended the speech with no policies only "patriotic" nonsense which wouldn't be out of place in Starship Troopers & Helldivers. Satirists have to work overtime when reality becomes stranger than fiction.