OrangeSlice @ 14specks @lemmy.ml

Posts

5

Comments

45

Joined

4 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Right, you can assume that people around here aren't racist/homophobic/transphobic etc... Cause even if they are, they're gonna catch a ban as soon as they expose themselves. They generally don't deserve your full wrath if we're fundamentally "on the same side" just cause they are kinda naive and not big fat theory nerds like some people around here.

In the future you can go against the position, but you repeatedly used "you" in this post making it personal and right up against our civility guidelines.

Can you substantiate that? I'm only tangentially familiar with his work. He's certainly softer on Russia than other sources, but is he doing more than bringing "balance" to the conversation?

Watching the clip I showed, I could suspect that he may be leaving out other interviews he did where people were more pro-ukrainian, but at the same time, the woman in the video claims that about 80% of the town supports Russia, which would line up with what I previously understood about the politics of their region.

I don't particularly care that much about the guys personal politics, and I haven't had that much exposure to them, since my only interest so far has been these two interviews which I personally interpret as primary sources. I would in now way claim that these two people speak for anyone besides themselves, but what they both say is loosely backed up by the data I've seen.

Sure, like I said I don't think it's really important who is "worse", it's not a useful topic of discussion.

I did want to make a couple of counterpoints though

• just cause Zelensky is popular, doesn't necessarily make him a better leader. If we were to do a comparison (which we shouldn't!) Putin is also widely popular along Russians. In both cases support for a wartime leader is going to rally, especially in Ukraine.
• you certainly have infinitely more experience in the country than I do (dividing by zero ofc haha), but wouldn't you have run into some of the same biases coming in as a foreigner (or foreign-born)? I don't know your itinerary, and I'm not asking you to share, but the who, when and where is gonna make a difference.
• as an example, I was interested in the interviews of the first two people in this video that I saw recently [watch starting at 3:15 till about 20 mins in]: https://youtu.be/drhgjxSJG6M located in the warzone in eastern Ukraine. Both are supportive of the Russian forces and appear to claim that such support in their local area is widespread.

Because most Christians don’t feel so entitled to expect others to live by their rules, and threaten them with death when they don’t.

Ok come on, my friend. I know a bible burning won't get you the death penalty, but many many many people have been killed and imprisoned for not living to Christian values, especially in the United States. It's "just a few crazies" or whatever, but it really isn't since these actions happen in an environment of indirect public support.

UNESCO doesn't bear any authority, so the answer would be "none at all" or something like that, I guess...

always_have_been_astronaut.jpg

I'd encourage you to expound on this in your original comment, rather than start off with something inflammatory. It doesn't promote an interesting discussion.

Like I mentioned in my other comment, I think that both leaders can and should be criticized independently, a comparison between the two is not useful.

Neither leader is socialist, so in my opinion, neither truly has the best interest of their country's working class at heart. There could be some observation and speculation about how the possible outcomes of the conflict could promote socialist aims, but that is still independent of both guy themselves.

I'm not going to take a hard stance here cause I don't think a side by side comparison with Putin is a useful conversation to have, but I want to point out a couple things that may add some nuance to what you've heard before.

• Since 1991, Ukraine has been in an increasingly precarious geopolitical position, with many differences among it's population and political leadership about how to proceed. One could argue that Zelensky ended up stuck between a rock and a hard place, but at the end of the day his fumbling around and repeated motions towards joining NATO were bad political moves that nearly forced (kinda, maybe not forced idk) Russia's hand into a military action. Even if going to NATO was definitively the correct choice (weird thing to think, tbh), he managed doing so incredibly poorly.
• Be aware that Ukraine has had a lot of division among the populaton about whether the country should be Western/EU aligned or Russian aligned. There are many historical and cultural reasons for different regions, communities and individuals to have their particular views (like any political stance). Consider that if you spoke with a Ukrainian person somewhere outside of Eastern Europe, and used the English language, they are probably going to have a pro-western, pro-zelensky viewpoint. You probably won't hear much from Russian speaking Ukrainians who wouldn't prefer to emigrate to "the West", and support Ukrainian alignment with Russia.

I'd thought that even the most liberal people on nü-Lemmy had at least read some Chomsky (or even watched the documentaries based on his work), but I guess we aren't even there yet.

I'm not exactly with the other guy, but it's extremely important to realize that ALL sources are biased. The Washington post and the New York Times both function as propaganda. They often serve as the mouthpiece of the United States Department of State or Defense, and are happy to cultivate public support for military conflicts that are in the interest of the American ruling class.

This is well documented in the book Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. You can also listen to the podcast Citations Needed to gain a better understanding about how this works in the modern day.

An example you may be readily familiar with is the Iraq War, in which US government officials repeatedly lied to the public and started a meaningless war, without any real journalistic pushback. This lead to an atrocity affecting millions.

It seems like you had a point to contribute somewhere in there, but maybe try and communicate it in a way that isn't so pointed at the other user. We'd like to discourage that sort of toxicity here. Maybe if they were being a total shithead or reactionary, feel free to go off, but it seems unwarranted.

That sounds overly reductive to me

I mean, it's an article from a Japanese source, but yeah sure the OP is biased or whatever, but so is everyone else who regurgitates the top headline from the NYT or BBC. Since the others are part of the dominant ideology, it appears to be more transparent.

I mean, that's not strictly necessary either. Chinal allows a good many billionaires to exist, but they are hitting their emissions targets ahead of schedule, cause they don't let the billionaires run the entire show like they do in the USA.

You think that all of them do it out of knowledge? Remember that if they weren't born before 1980, they've really only experienced the effects of capitalism on their countries. I've heard it happen before, that some 20-25 year old who immigrated with their parents in the mid-2000s is going off about how "communism ruined my country and that's why we had to leave", or something.

In 1991 the referendum to dissolve the USSR was voted against by the population (of course it happened anyway).

I don't mean to suggest that the political or economic systems implemented under communist governments were perfect, or even that great, but in the English-speaking world there is a tendency to assume that everyone (or even a majority of people) who lived there were against their own government, when it's much more complex than that.

A modern example I noticed recently was in this video, where the people living in the warzone in Eastern Ukraine are generally supportive of Russia, and miss the USSR (I mean, if anything, the current conflict never would have happened). Of course these two people don't represent their whole community, but it's more complex than is commonly portrayed (all I'm trying to say).

Watch from around 3:15 till about 20 minutes in when the old guy in the shirt is done talking (or just watch the whole thing idc): https://youtu.be/drhgjxSJG6M?t=197

You're right, but there's nothing humanitarian about a military conflict.

Everyone else just lived in pretty poor, if stable, conditions.

That's the thing, they lived in a poor country. Not strictly because of their political system (as many flaws as it had), but because of global economics, and trade hostility from the USA that intentionally hampered growth. It's not like they were purposely kept poor for funsies or cause the government were big meanies (sure, they were meanies in other ways). The wealth inequality between modern political leaders and funding sources (where the real power comes from) and the average citizen (particularly in the USA) is far greater than it ever was in the USSR.

Things are better for some and worse for many since then in Russia, but in other places like Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova everyone lost except for the rich guys who pillaged all the private infrastructure.

People might not like it, but you can watch a couple of people who are living in Eastern Ukraine (yes, the literal warzone) in this video talk about how shit was better until 1991. Cause, you know, they wouldn't be living in a warzone for one thing. Watch from 03:15 till about 20 minutes in, if you'd like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drhgjxSJG6M

Not in the US there isn't