I don’t want to detract from the main line of discussion here, but I find this to be a weird hangup. It’s been a normal thing since at least Facebook’s founding for social media sites to list the user’s gender. I kind of wish there was a more elegant solution in broadly-understood culture, but I think listing how the user would like to be referred to if you discuss them in the third person is, if anything, far less invasive with labeling than the common alternatives (including not including such information, which produces endless little worthless discursive circles of “actually I’m not a he” from assuming everyone on the internet is a man).
Well, I’m here to be rational and have a nice discussion. Maybe we can work through that?
If you don’t mind me asking: what do you ID as politically? Believe it or not we won’t ban you just for not being marxist-Leninist. We tolerate all sorts of liberals.
What do you mean by pronoun push? Hexbear had a pronoun field, yes. We respect the pronouns people ask us to use, yes. We are never going to force you to use or ID pronouns for yourself. Our site explored has “none/use name” as an option. I personally use the comrade option, because I think that’s nifty and wish it existed irl.
It matters to people like me, who are trans and worked very hard for our gender identities. In addition, it helps to combat the assumption that everyone on the internet is male; which can be really harmful for people who aren’t. Also it scares people who aren’t LGBT friendly.
How do you understand those terms? I get the feeling we understand them very differently.
As for the second part: we insist upon them being visible because that’s the only way to guarantee nobody is accidentally misgendered. We take the well-being of ALL our comrades seriously here.
If you feel similarly about taking care for those around you, maybe you should stick around a while and see that whatever you consider “communism” is mostly just truly caring about the vulnerable. That’s what we are here for, mostly. Caring about people.
Honestly not really. The alternative was allow Ukraine to set up as a springboard for operation Barbarossa 2, which would mean nuclear war. Russia objectively saved the world by destroying a decades worth of western plans in Ukraine. Feel bad for the citizens of the Donbas obviously, but even western Ukrainian citizens only have so much of my sympathy. Now they’re being picked up off the street and suddenly war in the east isn’t so fun anymore.
You are both correct. On an individual oblast level his highest support was in the east. That being said he did win the other oblasts except for Lviv but by a more narrow margin
I doubt that was the endgame here, the west doesnt want to do a real war with russia they just want to pressure them into letting western companies extract all that natural gas for themselves. Nuclear winter is not very profitable.
The invasion is not a good thing and I dont see russia as justified here, given the harm on the civilian poulation is far worse in this scenerio, and the west still managed to profit off it anyway.
I doubt that was the endgame here, the west doesnt want to do a real war with russia they just want to pressure them into letting western companies extract all that natural gas for themselves.
I’m going to heavily disagree obviously. It’s very clear that nato was building up a military force to push into the Donbas, that’s the entire premise the special military operation was built on. The Donbas has a large portion of Ukraines natural resources and also a majority of its production capacity. I’m not trying to be argumentative or anything, but I gotta ask, why exactly would nato want that stuff if the plan was not to take Russian resources by force at a later time? They could simply buy it on the market right now, but instead they chose to coup a government on Russias border, arm and train them to nato standards, make war with its Eastern oblasts, then once Russia actually did something about it, nato dumps even more billions of dollars into its armed forces. Ultimately what you’re saying is “nato wouldn’t do that” but that’s IS exactly what I expected from nato to be honest.
Nuclear winter is not very profitable.
You and I understand that, but profit seeking is not always logical. In nato stockpiles right now there are tactical nukes (nukes that have a small enough payload that they could theoretically destroy one city or so) as if any nuclear nation on this planet would not immediately release their entire nuclear arsenal at the thought of being nuked in any capacity. Being nuked isn’t profitable, neither is climate change ultimately, doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it though.
The invasion is not a good thing and I dont see russia as justified here, given the harm on the civilian poulation is far worse in this scenerio.
Time and time again Russia has been shown to take great care NOT to deliberately attack civilian populations. For example civilian casualties in European wars have historically been 1:1 with military casualties. Ukraine has suffered losses estimated to be closing in on 500,000. Their civilian population however has casualties in the ~20-30,000 range. No where near a 1:1 even if you included the casualties of the pre invasion Donbas war (~12-14,000).
No the war as a whole is not good, but to throw that blame at Russia is not right. the invasion was justified because had Russia not done anything Ukraine would have at least invaded the Donbas region with NATOs approval and assistance. Because of the invasion Russia has defeated NATOs easternmost army, drained a huge chunk of NATOs stockpile that will take years to build up again, secured and is in the process of rebuilding the Donbas, and has given many nations across the globe a sign that nato is not as powerful as it appears. The only thing bad about this is it did it as the Russian federation and not the Soviet Union which is EXTREMELY disappointing. It’s easy to simply be against war, if that’s your position then I understand, but when looking at the situation at hand Russia really did make the best play it could from a shit hand that it was dealt.
Thanks for the writeup, this prospective is actually pretty agreeable, but I still feel like a direct land invasion of Russia doesnt fit NATO’s modus operandi. Do you think a color revoltion in Russia might have been their primary goal instead? If NATO baited Russia into war and then used it as propagana against them to sow dissent in the Russian population, that might serve as a decent basis for an insurrection. Seems like it might be a “damned if you do damned if you don’t” type situation for the Kremlin.
Actually from what we now know, NATO’s intention was to use the unprecedented sanctions to crush Russia’s economy, which they apparently expected would collapse within weeks. Ukraine’s job was to hold out the Russian advances for a few weeks until the collapsing economy forces Russia to retreat, and for the Russians come back to beg the US/EU to let them sell oil and gas again.
At the same time, we also know that Ukraine had been building up its military since 2014, with the explicit goal of recapturing Donbass and Crimea. If Ukrainian army had reached Donetsk city, it would have been a nightmare for the Russians to retake it again. The civilian casualties could easily go magnitudes of order higher. In this sense, Russia’s pre-emptive strike was almost inevitable if the goal was to prevent the Ukrainians from reaching Donetsk at all cost.
You’re welcome, thank you for not taking it negatively, I didn’t want to come off as argumentative as I said before. As far as direct land invasion I’m pretty sure that if that plan was in the works it would have been at least 30-50 years out. I believe the plan was to win the war against the Donbas with the Ukrainian army, take the resources in the Donbas, make the Donbas the new military supply hub for nato, take Crimea, then eventually start war with Russia. In the meantime color revolution is always on the table. That color revolution would partially look like the sanctions that ended up failing anyways and also maybe terrorism from the ukronazis who would theoretically be occupying the Donbas in this scenario. You could kinda see that taking place with the few units that have crossed into Russian territory proper.
Removed by mod
This is hexbear, we use Moscow time to plan our movie nights /j
Seriously though, the backpedaling is going to get more pushback than criticizing the oligarchs and their pet banderites.
Removed by mod
Name a leftist forum that would do that to you and I’ll invoke the “no true marxist” defense. /joke
It legitimately displays a childlike understand of the world to ignore material reality in favor of vibes. /not joke
Furthermore, I invite you to hang out in our news comm. you’ll find people who actually investigate the root causes of current events there.
Removed by mod
I don’t want to detract from the main line of discussion here, but I find this to be a weird hangup. It’s been a normal thing since at least Facebook’s founding for social media sites to list the user’s gender. I kind of wish there was a more elegant solution in broadly-understood culture, but I think listing how the user would like to be referred to if you discuss them in the third person is, if anything, far less invasive with labeling than the common alternatives (including not including such information, which produces endless little worthless discursive circles of “actually I’m not a he” from assuming everyone on the internet is a man).
Removed by mod
To people who have spent their entire life being misgendered, it is
A single moment of positivity can outshine half a dozen moments of negativity
Removed by mod
Well, I’m here to be rational and have a nice discussion. Maybe we can work through that?
If you don’t mind me asking: what do you ID as politically? Believe it or not we won’t ban you just for not being marxist-Leninist. We tolerate all sorts of liberals.
What do you mean by pronoun push? Hexbear had a pronoun field, yes. We respect the pronouns people ask us to use, yes. We are never going to force you to use or ID pronouns for yourself. Our site explored has “none/use name” as an option. I personally use the comrade option, because I think that’s nifty and wish it existed irl.
Understatement of the year, I’m the only real Marxist on here
I’ll fight you. We shall use foil fencing rules with scrolls of Kapital Vol. 1 rolled up like swords as we duel.
Removed by mod
It matters to people like me, who are trans and worked very hard for our gender identities. In addition, it helps to combat the assumption that everyone on the internet is male; which can be really harmful for people who aren’t. Also it scares people who aren’t LGBT friendly.
How do you understand those terms? I get the feeling we understand them very differently.
As for the second part: we insist upon them being visible because that’s the only way to guarantee nobody is accidentally misgendered. We take the well-being of ALL our comrades seriously here.
If you feel similarly about taking care for those around you, maybe you should stick around a while and see that whatever you consider “communism” is mostly just truly caring about the vulnerable. That’s what we are here for, mostly. Caring about people.
Removed by mod
Not sure what I’m allowed to comment, mods here keep removing my shit.
Ah well so much for all that
I’ve a question for ye, then, in regards to foreign policy?
is there such thing as the West, in political terms?
If so, is there also the Global South?
Removed by mod
Aaaand they’re gone
We don’t have downvotes also
We have down Bears though:
Yeah this place might be perfect for you. We don’t bother couching our language when it comes to Ukraine
Honestly not really. The alternative was allow Ukraine to set up as a springboard for operation Barbarossa 2, which would mean nuclear war. Russia objectively saved the world by destroying a decades worth of western plans in Ukraine. Feel bad for the citizens of the Donbas obviously, but even western Ukrainian citizens only have so much of my sympathy. Now they’re being picked up off the street and suddenly war in the east isn’t so fun anymore.
Ukrainians voted in Zelenskyy because he ran on a platform of stopping the conflict and killings in Donbas, remember
He won because of eastern votes, I don’t think he had as much support in the west
You are both correct. On an individual oblast level his highest support was in the east. That being said he did win the other oblasts except for Lviv but by a more narrow margin
That is a good point and I agree up to a point, but like I said my sympathy is limited, not nonexistent.
I doubt that was the endgame here, the west doesnt want to do a real war with russia they just want to pressure them into letting western companies extract all that natural gas for themselves. Nuclear winter is not very profitable.
The invasion is not a good thing and I dont see russia as justified here, given the harm on the civilian poulation is far worse in this scenerio, and the west still managed to profit off it anyway.
I’m going to heavily disagree obviously. It’s very clear that nato was building up a military force to push into the Donbas, that’s the entire premise the special military operation was built on. The Donbas has a large portion of Ukraines natural resources and also a majority of its production capacity. I’m not trying to be argumentative or anything, but I gotta ask, why exactly would nato want that stuff if the plan was not to take Russian resources by force at a later time? They could simply buy it on the market right now, but instead they chose to coup a government on Russias border, arm and train them to nato standards, make war with its Eastern oblasts, then once Russia actually did something about it, nato dumps even more billions of dollars into its armed forces. Ultimately what you’re saying is “nato wouldn’t do that” but that’s IS exactly what I expected from nato to be honest.
You and I understand that, but profit seeking is not always logical. In nato stockpiles right now there are tactical nukes (nukes that have a small enough payload that they could theoretically destroy one city or so) as if any nuclear nation on this planet would not immediately release their entire nuclear arsenal at the thought of being nuked in any capacity. Being nuked isn’t profitable, neither is climate change ultimately, doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it though.
Time and time again Russia has been shown to take great care NOT to deliberately attack civilian populations. For example civilian casualties in European wars have historically been 1:1 with military casualties. Ukraine has suffered losses estimated to be closing in on 500,000. Their civilian population however has casualties in the ~20-30,000 range. No where near a 1:1 even if you included the casualties of the pre invasion Donbas war (~12-14,000).
No the war as a whole is not good, but to throw that blame at Russia is not right. the invasion was justified because had Russia not done anything Ukraine would have at least invaded the Donbas region with NATOs approval and assistance. Because of the invasion Russia has defeated NATOs easternmost army, drained a huge chunk of NATOs stockpile that will take years to build up again, secured and is in the process of rebuilding the Donbas, and has given many nations across the globe a sign that nato is not as powerful as it appears. The only thing bad about this is it did it as the Russian federation and not the Soviet Union which is EXTREMELY disappointing. It’s easy to simply be against war, if that’s your position then I understand, but when looking at the situation at hand Russia really did make the best play it could from a shit hand that it was dealt.
Thanks for the writeup, this prospective is actually pretty agreeable, but I still feel like a direct land invasion of Russia doesnt fit NATO’s modus operandi. Do you think a color revoltion in Russia might have been their primary goal instead? If NATO baited Russia into war and then used it as propagana against them to sow dissent in the Russian population, that might serve as a decent basis for an insurrection. Seems like it might be a “damned if you do damned if you don’t” type situation for the Kremlin.
Actually from what we now know, NATO’s intention was to use the unprecedented sanctions to crush Russia’s economy, which they apparently expected would collapse within weeks. Ukraine’s job was to hold out the Russian advances for a few weeks until the collapsing economy forces Russia to retreat, and for the Russians come back to beg the US/EU to let them sell oil and gas again.
At the same time, we also know that Ukraine had been building up its military since 2014, with the explicit goal of recapturing Donbass and Crimea. If Ukrainian army had reached Donetsk city, it would have been a nightmare for the Russians to retake it again. The civilian casualties could easily go magnitudes of order higher. In this sense, Russia’s pre-emptive strike was almost inevitable if the goal was to prevent the Ukrainians from reaching Donetsk at all cost.
You’re welcome, thank you for not taking it negatively, I didn’t want to come off as argumentative as I said before. As far as direct land invasion I’m pretty sure that if that plan was in the works it would have been at least 30-50 years out. I believe the plan was to win the war against the Donbas with the Ukrainian army, take the resources in the Donbas, make the Donbas the new military supply hub for nato, take Crimea, then eventually start war with Russia. In the meantime color revolution is always on the table. That color revolution would partially look like the sanctions that ended up failing anyways and also maybe terrorism from the ukronazis who would theoretically be occupying the Donbas in this scenario. You could kinda see that taking place with the few units that have crossed into Russian territory proper.