You're viewing a single thread.
I got banned from a ml community for saying NATO is a defensive alliance lol.
Same. They can't allow acknowledgement of Europe being in the most peaceful span of its recorded history thanks to the EU and NATO. That cooperation and allowing people to be different but still respectful has been a success for many.
They're stuck in the burn it all down phase of being an edgy teenager that finds out life is hard. Unfair. And kinda sucks sometimes. That humans aren't perfect and therefore our societies and systems also aren't perfect.
But they'd throw it all away instead of iterating on what already works. My job is literally process improvement and change management. People who try to come up with the best idea on their own fail. It's diversity of thought and background that leads to the best solutions.
You got it all wrong.
They like socialism. So they need to defend ultra capitalist dictatorships where class division is in the actual binary state they hate.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, who exactly was NATO defending itself against? there was no longer an adversary superpower that needed to be fought with mass fighter jets and tanks. Russia was agreeing to let American military aircraft through its airspace for chrissakes
The only reason NATO stuck around back then was that a bunch of bureaucrats really wanted to keep their jobs.
It's amazing you're trying this rhetoric when Russia is literally on the warpath.
I recently read a book about the relevant history and it's been 20-30 years since. I was curious about how Russia started on the warpath and the transition from Clinton to Bush (Iraq, the ABM treaty, etc) was a fairly major factor. It was a very jarring contrast reading speeches and news reports from back then, such as the franco-german-russian united front against the iraq war. Things could have gone very differently back then if a few decisions weren't made.
- I can't believe you fell for that. And 2) back to the original point of late ninties early 2000s, some people can see beyond the very measly 5 years you tried to limit it to. Ciao.
This is the same energy as polo is gone so we don't need vaccines anymore.
Comparing an entire country to a disease, stay classy reddit
idk how else to respond lol. Did not expect to see defenses of the bush administration's foreign policy on lemmy
Truth is you had no point. And it was easily shown with 1 sentence.
No, the point is that the situation was a bit more complicated than "Russia is a disease that cannot be reasoned with" within living memory. Sure at this point we're cheerfully careening towards ww3 with all diplomacy out the window (with Russia as a primary driver). But it didn't use to be like that
Reality is more complicated than the strawman you were putting into someone else's mouth? Ya don't say.... I mean that's sort of the point of a strawman like the one you were making.
But also, I've not seen any serious analysis backing the idea we're currently on a path to WW3. Such a situation is unlikely to be produced by the Ukrainian conflict alone.
To back that claim you're going to have to rely on theoretical escalations outside that conflict... And that's not what "careening towards" means.
If a car is careening towards something, it doesn't mean - it would be happening if it means it is happening BECAUSE...
Funny how right after Openskies ended Russia invades a country. Almost seems like all the precautions in place were kinda keeping them from misbehaving.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in 1949 and is a group of 32 countries from Europe and North America that exists to protect the people and territory of its members.
... treaties don't just disappear after a short amount of peace. I think it would take at least 50 solid years and probably some democracy for that sort of thing to happen.
NATO is about as "defensive" as the US's arsenal of nuclear weapons is "defensive."
Not something I'd ban you for, though - until you start acting like a shitlib.
Found him!
You found what, liberal?
whooooooosh
Again - you found what liberal?
You a bot or just....touched?
You sound just like the Donald Trump supporters I've met online: the style of "argument" and even the "insults" are identical.
What a coincidence.
Come now, liberal... are you too politically incompetent to explain your little liberal joke to me?
Try not to disappoint.
I think they're referencing your using an assumed ideological generality/commitment ("liberal") to refer to someone in response to a common albeit somewhat tiresome joke.
It looks a lot like you were trying to be dehumanizing, rather than constructively asking the person a question. Most people understand that asking a question or entering into honest discussion requires some generosity, do it's only human nature that people detected when none or the opposite is given.
You know, that choice, the choice to demean people by ideology - seems to tie into to common fears about Marxist and Socialist systems... That they're authoritarian or would be "once the mask was dropped and they gained any sort of power"
...and that seems to be the appearance you would prefer to perpetuate. You're doing Capitalism's work for free. You're actively reproducing the cultural mindset you've been allocated in its system.
Remove their professed ideology and the people that choose to be dumb, arrogant, angry, tribalistic assholes are all indistinguishable. The way they act, speak, and think are identical.
My point was "this is the kind of person you're choosing to be."
what exactly does "liberal" mean to you? what makes some socialist a "lib" as opposed to a pureblooded leftist hero?
There is no such thing as a "socialist" liberal because there is no such thing as an anti-capitalist liberal - once you cross over into anti-capitalist - ie, socialist - territory, you automatically become anti-liberal, too.
Again, your goal seems to be tracing a very small territory which will obviously be rejected by most... It's as if that's your aim is to be more radical and exclusive "than thou".
To me this is no different to the billionaire bragging about his particularly libertarian agenda, or extremists Randian "egoic motivations".
Its aim is to perform and adopt an assigned cultural position in order to reproduce the dominant cultural hegemony; positioning and imparting the awareness of the majority population's moral imperative to avoid both positions as ugly and extremist, and hence their righteousness for staying away from both.
which will obviously be rejected by most…
Then let them reject it.
Elitist.
Throughout your comments there are quite a few people who are blatantly socialist, and people who say very anti-capitalist things that may be socialists, who you have called a lib. It just seems you perceive it as an insult towards people who hold different beliefs, rather than describing capitalists... not to say that the specific OP here isn't a capitalist, but some of the others definitely aren't.
I wouldn't count myself as a capitalist, personally. I may be more amiable to short-term solutions that acknowledge that we are still in a capitalist society, but I see an investor-driven economy as ruinous to both itself and democracy, and not something that can be sustained in a truly democratic society.
It looks a lot like you're trying to alienate other leftists from your position, rather than actually make any reasonable arguments for your own beliefs.
Don't you ever feel like you're betraying your own beliefs when you go for over simplified attacks.
Like using "liberal" as an insult... I mean, it suggests your preferred ideology would be a kind of fascism or authoritarianism. Something without social liberalism.
I mean, you're obviously frustrated and a believer that any serious discussion would be futile... So why not just walk away rather than damaging your own political position?
Haven't you learned how to argue your positions using someone else's values?
Just seems like you're the biggest liberal, like you're doing a big show of the freedoms of political discourse, showing how you're free to be rude. Showing you're openly avoiding constructive discussion, and not realising that's still discussion.
It's a very liberal thing to do.
...and I'm not sure of the purpose but it doesn't seem to be bolstering any other political position. Just seems to reproduce a culture in which the far left are under represented and seen as unreasonable. One where it's seen as just and right to not have a popular Marxist party and to lock that particular rhetoric out.
Why so blatantly lean into the agenda that's so obviously what economic liberals prefer. Doesn't that just enforce the hegemonic false consciousness that works against you and your politics???
It looks a lot like you’re trying to alienate other leftists
What leftists?
Like using “liberal” as an insult…
That's because it is an insult.
Something without social liberalism.
Yes, please.
and not realising that’s still discussion.
Good thing you told me, then.
Just seems to reproduce a culture in which the far left are under represented and seen as unreasonable.
There is such a thing as a "far left" now? Where'd you get that from? PragerU?
Yes, clearly you guys keep losing because of the DNC, not because of your inability to create alliances and earn everyone else's votes.
Remember, if a candidate needs to earn your vote, then your favored candidate needs to earn their votes too. You'll find it difficult to do so while you keep burning bridges.
Yes, clearly you guys keep losing because of the DNC
Ummmm... okay?
not because of your inability to create alliances and earn everyone else’s votes.
Right.
then your favored candidate needs to earn their votes too.
Uh-huh.
You’ll find it difficult to do so while you keep burning bridges.
Most interesting, I'm sure.
Will you be saying anything relevant any time soon?
For you, probably not. What I said is for people who actually want to see leftist change happen, not for people who just want to scream and win against liberals even if it means empowering fascist authoritarians.
What I said is for people who actually want to see leftist change happen,
It's always a good idea to actually understand terms before throwing them around.
Specifically, in your case, your misuse of the term "leftist," liberal.
Oh, you misunderstood. I was referring to the socialists and bona fide leftists who are actually trying to accomplish their goals and ideals.
As opposed to you, who prefers to be right and own the libs at all costs, versus actually seeing their professed ideals become a reality.
By the way, throwing terms around meaninglessly is also a bad idea. At this point I have no idea what you mean by liberal, because it seems to be "anyone who disagrees even a little bit with me".
I was referring to the socialists and bona fide leftists
Sooo... people you wouldn't recognize if they were standing right underneath your nose, then.
At this point I have no idea what you mean by liberal,
No, I guess you don't.
Do you wanna know why we call the far right the "far right?"
Will you be saying anything relevant any time soon?
Hawt dawg, we have an edgelord!
Character A): What is it you believe yourself to be rebelling against?
Character B): Whaddya got?