Maoo [none/use name] @ Maoo @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

366

Joined

2 yr. ago

This commenter thinks that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.

you just believe in continuing criminalization of any way for that performance to make them money?

?

Please disengage

The most corrupt country in the world is the one that would be making this change during martial law and this paper, like most in Ukraine now, cover stories from a perspective favorable to the government (take that article with a grain salt of course). My point is that the article itself has a smell to it and that there are deeper components to this unaddressed in it. I also was very clear that I don't believe in criminalizing the people on-camera in porn so I'm not sure why you're saying the things you are.

You can see that the article frames it as an efficiency problem, which is a commom tactic for a capitalist government to do something it wants for an entirely different reason. I would suspect they want less oversight of human trafficking. The vast majority of sex work is part of human trafficking.

A conspicuously laid-out piece that quotes social media with no stated methodology.

Punishing individuals that have to act in pornography is unacceptable, but the industry itself promotes or directly involves human trafficking and preys upon a system that cannot provide enough for its people. Sex positivity is great, but this has a serious economic component.

I think a very important question is why were no non-reactionary "against" voices heard. Why only the cons? Why not a selective ban? Who really wants you to support this policy.

I recommend reading my words again and giving a real good think - as difficult of a struggle as that might be - and decide whether you internalized them or just grabbed a piece here and there and plodded along anyways like a child.

A global system of exploitation exists that starves millions every year and disposses even more.

"But I had to buy fish once in my industrialized country with a high quality of life".

You don't know what imperialism is even though it was just explained to you.

To add to others' advice to get your own router and use the modem only to connect to the internet (WAN), consider getting a router on which you can install OpenWRT. This will give you much more confidence that only you control your network.

Russia has the power to stop the war and retreat.

I assumed that the folks rationalizing sending arms to Ukraine are people whose governments are doing so, or are otherwise in that sphere of influence. They can politically organize to stop that. They can't politically organize to get Russia to do anything. That has to come from people organizing within Russia. I'm attempting to ground this discussion in the real world, which contrasts with the world of propsganda and facile abstraction that is unfortunately common, and implicitly devalues human life.

If someone here is a Russian in Russia, I encourage you to safely politically organize.

Yeah the west and Russia where saber-rattling. But Russia choose to act and it.

The West acted, of course. Destruction of the USSR, shock therapy, creating Russia's political system (including supporting Putin's group), NATO expansion, Euromaidan, funding Ukrainisn Nazis, refusing to implement Minsk II. All of this exists in a regime of maximizing domination.

And now promoting war, preventing diplomacy, sending weapons, trying to punish states falling out of line, causing global economic issues, particularly for poor countries, all because hurting Russia is more important than all of this suffering. Story of the 20th century, really. Fall of the USSR revealed, clearly to sll, that this apparatus was not defensive or reflexive, because it not only continued to operate, but ramped up in the absence of opposition.

The thing is putin will only use diplomacy on his on terms, and these terms alone will threaten the existence of Ukraines souveränity itself.

Russia's general thrust of demanding a neutral Ukraine is as sovereign as it's going to get for Ukraine, and would be more sovereignty than they had before or during this war. The status quo is a coup government that does the bidding of Western powers and doesn't even have the de facto autonomy to even negotiate peace. Its current trajectory is to become a failed state picked apart by Western capitalists, probably with its Western portion taken over by Poland and its Eastern portion by Russia, but not before hundreds of thousands of more dead Ukrainians - normal, common people.

Personally, I don't want that to happen and therefore oppose the status quo of funding the destruction of Ukrainians.

And victim blaming is never ok, even when you think the victim is an asshole.

Who is victim blaming? States are not people and I've pointed the finger at states. The victims here are the people of Ukraine and they are already suffering dearly under the policies I'm criticizing. The West, including through arms, treats them like expendable pawns to hurt Russia with, and has for at least a decade.

Indeed

That's a false dichotomy, though it's important to consider that the people in Ukraine suffer massively under the strategy of sending "aid" (which I described earlier in a comment removed with no explanation).

The Western/NATO approach, which is to say the US approach, has been to use UA to apply maximum pressure and pain on Russia. Prevent, avoid, disrupt peace talks. Saber-rattling. And prior to the war, funding Ukrainian Nazis and refusing to implement Minsk II. There have been so many options and opportunities, and the "stoke more war" button has been pressed every time.

The simplified answer is to use diplomacy to end the conflict. That is the best option for the lives of the people of Ukraine and for the existence of the country itself.

Oh, I'm liberal now. Weird as I was a fascist just before I left reddit. In a few hours someone will call me a communist.

Fascism is just an offshoot of liberalism so this isn't a zinger

I'm very honest with myself. I also try to not bullshit myself into believing it's only an Ukraine problem.

You definitely tell stories and deflect and make guesses but present them as if they're fact so gonna disagree with you, champ

Russia didn't invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis.

Yeah duh, or at least not proximally or the exact Nazis being referred to. This feels like saying things just to feel like you're lecturing but it doesn't mean anything. The next two paragraphs don't address what I said or answer my question.

But yes, Ukraine had "nazis", but so did Russia.

Cool, what impact does that have re: Russia's demand? It's a pretty liberal thing to try to come up with pointless gotchas or like entire states are hypocritical or something so you don't need to look any deeper. Are you able to provide even the most basic explanation for why the RF would want UA to hand over/imprison their Nazis?

I recommend reading about people like Aleksandr Dugin

Ahahahahahahaha

I guess we need to invade Russia, right?

Already did. First in 1918, then in the early 90s (it was called the shock doctrine).

Anyways, you seem to again be arguing with some liberal in your head that bases everything on abstract rules and gotchas. Has nothing to do with me or anything I've said.

Also, in 2019 the far-right party (Svoboda) received 2.16% of the votes in the whole country. Not even 3%.

Congratulations you've caught up with liberal arguments from 2022. It is, in fact, peak liberalism to think that election results are the same as political power, or power in general. I'm sure the Roma murdered in tacitly state-supported pogroms are delighted to know Svoboda only got a few percent in an election.

Anyways, you failed to answer my question. I'm not even a tough grader. Just looking for very basic material context, and you couldn't do it. I even gave you a hint!

If that's the case, then Putin must be part of the conspiracy?

This makes no sense.

Maybe people read what Russian politicians say, look at the size of their country, remember what happened during the days of the Soviet Union (and now at what happened to Ukraine) and say: "maybe we should be friends with that big guy over there, just in case the local bully decides to invade us".

This is a form of liberalism called idealism, and it's as hilarious as it is wrong. People just got together, for no clear reason, and thought a bunch until change happened. Actually don't mention "for no clear reason", because this begins the thought of, "well why would I need to think about material causes?", which puts you into dangerous territory of reading or understanding something before having an opinion on it. Best to just make shit up and have little cartoon characters voice your opinions and tell little stories, right?

Of course my lIbErAl mind is too dumb to understand high level politics like you do

You are perfectly capable of understanding anything I've mentioned. You're unwilling and uninterested, and are a victim of propaganda and your society. If you chose honesty, things would go a lot better, but you so far you seem unable to drop the habit of making things up to fill in the gaps. Very defensive behavior, which is typical for Reddit-brained liberlaism.

but if one reads Putin's On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians and Address concerning the events in Ukraine, it's not that hard to imagine that there's a much simpler reason.

Reading Putin and extracting value from it requires already knowing all of the things he mentions, as he is just a singular politician struggling in his own interest, attempting to make very particular cases to very particular audiences. I am... dubious that any of that happened here.

What lead to the change in Ukraine's political class? Other than Yanukovych's reversal and people getting pissed? I don't know.

You skimmed all of that and failed to notice the coup, lol.

I'm curious, that's why I sometimes actually read what Mr Putin says

Your behavior says the exact opposite

To know the real answers you can't filter out everything that doesn't fit your view.

Ahahahahahahaha

My apologies, let me make it easier for you

See the gears turning. You've been criticized! What to say in response? Hmm... well this Maoo jerk just said you used simplistic examples because you can't understand what's happening on the planet due to ignorance and worldview. That's a meany thing to say! Better turn to... uh... condescension? Yeah, and say "I'll make it simpler"! That'll get 'em!

Because I probably do have to spell it out: I said you were being simplistic. Making it simpler is dunking on yourself.

Russia, which is not governed by morons, decided to invade Ukraine to accomplish certain objectives.

You jumped into this thread to flail around because you didn't understand what those were, and continue to miss the most basic points made about them, lol. No wonder this is left vague.

They knew what they were doing, you don't need to make excuses up to defend their actions.

Now you're doing the "I'm rubber you're glue" thing. Amazing how contradiction brings out the inner child in liberals.

Like any major power, they don't give a fuck about Ukraine or the people that live in Ukraine. It's not a nice thing, but hey, it is what it is.

Who are the "they"? Be specific. This will help you on your journey on learning how to know things.

No, Russia didn't have to invade.

According to what logic? Who makes any country invade another? This type of thinking isn't even appropriate for the category of thing we're talking about. I'm giving you baby's first realpolitik here and nothing is sinking in.

No, Ukraine wasn't going to invade Russia

lol who on earth are you talking to? Do you think I said anything like that? If not, tell me who you're talking to. Be specific. Does the person in your head saying these things look like a muppet? Did you win your argument with them?

And no, there's no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (they've been trying since the early 2000's...).

UA isn't joining NATO in the near term either. If you stopped making shit up and asked questions or read things, you might say things that are germane to this conversation.

Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine.

Liberal brain strikes again. Good guys vs. bad guys. If you criticize me, you must support the bad guys. I have a big brain.

Just don't try to come up with bs excuses for what they're doing. You like Russia and you like what they're doing.

Now we've graduated to the "lying their ass off" portion of disagreeing with a liberal.

I on the other hand don't agree with they're doing and also have a similar position when other countries do the same, so you can see why I don't support their invasion of Ukraine.

Ah yes, that's the thing we're talking about: whether or not you support Russia invading Ukraine.

It's literally everywhere in this thread. There's history lessons abound about how bad Ukraine is (with no noticeable criticism of Russia) but no example of what should be done now except to have them give up their sovereignty, their most valuable land, and giving in to Russian's demands.

Show one example, lib.

Yes. "Denazify" everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territory... or else.

Kind of amazing how liberals will tell themselves little stories and even believethem rather than actually having to learn something.

You should be honest with yourself and at least become familiar with the context of the demands before forming an opinion. I'll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RF's invasion.

Can you explain why countries want to join NATO? Why do they want to give away some control of their military so badly and risk being dragged into someone else's war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?

These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And let's just say I'm dubious that you're actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that they're taking a deal to be subservient to the United States, which usually requires their political class, and therefore economic ruling class, to see an interest in doing do. Not that they're correct - the US is slowly deindustrializing its European allies as we speak. The reason why those interests won out? Those are specific historical stories. Try answering your own question but for Ukraine's toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?

It's as if there's a country to the east pushing the idea that they're actually part of Russia, that their culture doesn't exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said country's army should just invade!

Case in point that you're not curious in any real answers.

Reminds me of that meme where the guy puts something into his bike wheel and then blames someone else for the outcome.

Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.

Ask your mommy if lying is bad

lol

Like half your points are either insane or just provably wrong and there's an essay for each point.

Interesting that you proved none of them wrong and just said made-up nonsense in response then, isn't it?

Going over each one separately only to find out the only source is Russian state media is more than a little demotivating, especially on my phone, when arguing with people like you.

And now you're just lying. So pitiful.

Like the NATO offensive war part: the only one that would be an offensive war is the Serbian one and all the others listed are definitely not offensive wars initiated by NATO.

You are 100% incorrect and I invite you to spend literally any amount of time learning about NATO's involvement in both Libya and Afghanistan. If you were a student I'd having a talk with your parents because you keep making things up rather than reading and learning.

Maybe you don't know how to find information? Put the words "Libya" "NATO" and "bomb", read the results, ask yourself if NATO was defending lol.

And then there's the insane claims like Russia could win if they just wanted to

Yes obviously. Only gullible people think otherwise. Military folks expected RF to immediately curbstomp Ukraine because they thought RF would use the tactics of, dare I say, NATO countries and just bomb everything war crimes style. RF chose a very different tactic. I know you don't know why they did that, but you should do yourself a favor and read about it.

Russia has total air superiority since the start of the war

A basic fact. RF bombed UA airfields right off the bat and UA has had very little air presence while RF does basically whatever it wants outside of manpad resustence. You are free to go spend any amount of time learning these basic facts.

Ukraine military is run by nazies

Actually I didn't say that, though you csn tell the military is run by people in that neighborhood based on their statements. Remember when the UA MoD endorsed calling Chechens orcs and dipping bullets in lard? Of course you don't, you haven't paid attention. But you are free to review the extent to which Nazis have been incorporated into UA's military both formally and informally.

NATO members join by being threatened by NATO.

I didn't say that either. In UA's case it was less a threat than a coup, though UA isn't joining NATO soon anyways.

There are probably others I'm forgetting. The only people saying something that batshit is Russian state media and their strategy has been to overwhelm you with bullshit to debunk so either you are get all your bullshit there or you are a professional and I'm not going to waste my time with playing whack the Russian propaganda.

And now we return to your habit of, "everything I don't know is Russian propaganda". Like I said before, my sources are Western and Ukrainian. At no point in this conversation have you asked a question, sought information, or demonstrated knowledge of anything I'm talking about. But you have repeated some confused poorly-remembered talking points and seem to be very comfortable with lying when you don't know something.

Work on that, buddy. I don't think I should have to tell you that lying is bad.

If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies it's quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.

You're not listening. I've already told you, explicitly, twice why RF is making that demand, and neither time was it, "well they just don't like Nazis".

Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.

Right sector and its offshoots are very powerful in the military and the military is calling a lot of the shots.

Also, have you noticed how hard it is to find pictures of UA soldiers without either a Wolfangel or a Right Sector reference? Probably not because I am not convinced you read anything about this topic, but.. it's surprisingly difficult.

And again, it doesn't matter if Russia did it too or does it more or whatever impetus is making you try to find these facile gotcha moments. I'm not the Russian state and I don't care if a nation-state are hypocrites in rhetoric or whatever (though RF didn't incorporate a Nazi regiment into their armed forces, so there's that).

In terms of negotiation demands being reasonable, all that matters is whether the material ask is directly addressing the grievance and would support peace. This does both.

Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive.

Azov was significantly weakened in Mariupol and UA didn't retake that city. They still have a large presence, as an official part of the UA armed forces, in Lviv, Kyiv, Odessa, and distributed near the front. They still appear in an inordinate number of press photos and stories, which speaks to their privileged status.

Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.

You got the order wrong.

The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO.

Given your comfort with saying things you don't know, I won't take your word for it on the exact frequency of military exercises. But I will point out that NATO itself has carried out more and greater aggressions, and ceased to have any ostensible purpose after the fall of the USSR. Mask off, it continued under its actual goal of furthering the interests of US imperialism, which Baltic countries happily oblige.

If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others.

Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya are the most notable.

You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.

This comparison trivializes the holocaust, which us not out of character for a NATO fan from the Baltics. In addition, this is again a piece of propaganda, a thin pretense for the actual goal of Balkanizing Yugoslavia. The NATO bombings were brutal and targeted civilian infrastructure.

This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.

You have been wrong about nearly everything you've said, even just simple facts. Now you want an excuse to leave rather than just doing it - ah, my information is just "Russian" (nearly everything I've said comes from Western and Ukrainian sources).

How pitiful.

Why pizz-a when you could pizz-no?

UA, and by that I mean its state, has been a naked pawn since 2014, responding to Western interests to stoke and prolong civil war by the Russian border, target ethnic Russians with discrimination and violence (and Roma, and LGBTQ+ people, etc), and generally toy with joining NATO, a highly aggressive anti-Russian military organization.

The dominant Western propaganda narrative is to try to get everyone to forget the breathless reporting their media outlets did on Ukraine from 2013-2022 and to instead use absurd little terms like, "unprovoked invasion", which I would guess is also where the idea of UA being simply defensive comes from. Yes, they were invaded by Russia, but they've also been ratcheting up pressure on Russia for a decade through various cynical moves, beginning with a coup against a government that was becoming slightly friendlier with Russia. The most notable events just prior to the RF invading was a huge ramping up of shelling of the Donbas, including civilian population centers.

Anyways, yes it is bad to keep pushing the "escalate and fight to the last Ukrainian button". It would be much better if Ukraine were forced to negotiate peace and were not acting as a pawn against Russia rather than a state protecting its own people.

I'd like Ukrainians to be alive and not in a war.