TheOubliette @ TheOubliette @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

1,482

Joined

2 yr. ago

Hey who put all these fascists in my Dem university administration?

Where is that a excuse? I was pointing out that it's not a petty dispute, russia is trying to wipe out Ukraine....the fuck.

You just repeated the excuse. Right there, lol. And Russia has caused far less damage to Ukraine and its people than the US has to its targets. You are simply inconsistent and don't believe your own logic. Your true motivations are elsewhere.

Ooo oo, I know this one....is it....whataboutism again for $400 alex?

Oh, am I not allowed to point out your inconsistency because you have a term for doing that?

Yea...no it's not, russia is doing that on their own.

This post is about a thread where the people who removed Russians from the list did so under pressure by the US federal government are: their sanctions policies. It is literally exactly what I said and not at all what you said.

Please do your best to speak the truth.

Ok. Reality, russia is a fucked up authoritarian state that willfully sends it's people to rape, murder and commit war crimes, like it got its war plans from the viking era. How's that for some reality. Champ.

It's you distracting yourself through repetition because you cannot honestly respond to my points. So it is the opposite of facing reality, it is evasiveness.

Yea...yea it is.

Nope

Sweet....are we getting somewhere...

No it is just trivially the case.

Ahhh nope apparently not....still humping about the USA.

Because they did the thing that you agree deserves kicking out their citizens from the maintainer list. And they did it more.

Hahahhaha holy fuck...o wait you're a tankie...

Are you laughing at the mass civilian bombings or the starvation of children?

And a russian apologist....man this is just hilarious...you really are following the .ml tankie guidelines.

It seems you are afraid of basic facts that contradict your beliefs.

Lol for all the west's faults, we're still not even half as murderous as the authoritarian dictatorships you love.

The West's civilian death count is orders of magnitude higher than the RF invading UA.

Yea no...

You did, accidentally.

Because it's easier to just use sanctions as the reason. The idea that a authoritarian state wouldn't force their devs to create backdoors for their state is hilariously naive, but you won't see it that way because you're a brainwashed tankie.

Ah yes, the thing you just made up that hasn't happened and calls every developer in the country "their devs" is surely more correct than decades of code review practices and individual track records.

Re: brainwashing, you will notice that I am not the one running away from inconvenient facts at every turn. I am not afraid of such things, but they are clearly a threat to your way of thinking.

Yea no shit? Who said they are?

I quoted what I was responding to and that sentiment permeates it.

To be lies or even bad faith, I'd have to not actually believe what I wrote. And I very much believe what I wrote.

Given that you simply made up some bullshit, telling me that you actually really believe it would mean you have basically no grasp on reality. You can't tell the difference between your imagination and what's real, allegedly.

Personally, I think you do know the difference.

Do

A handful of somewhat misleadingly presented quotes from people selected through an unstated process. Literally no context for who most of them are. Many if the quotes have little to do with what you are talkjng about. And then a series of unsourced narratives about what people are thinking.

This is an incoherent read that follows a particular propaganda style but mostly comes across as incompetent.

they

"An informal canvasing in Gaza".

This follows the same style but by a more competent writer. It is timed for the "honeymoon" period PR push for Harris.

now?

Democrats organized a letter from a handful of people, some of which were Pslestinian Americans. Amazing. The article does not even link the letter. Here is the link. Note that they included "Progressive Democrats" and "Community Leaders". Perhaps you are unfamiliar with tokenizing PR strategies. If you look into the signatories, you will find an array of Democratic Party functionaries either working for the Party itself, an elected official of the party, or someone at the top of a Democratic Party - associated NGO. Far from a representation of community, this is the usual suspects in a PR push from party formations. They do this for all kinds of things.

It is like this is your first time learning about journalism and PR.

I think you are likely a shill for Donald Trump. I don't assume it's directly, as in I don't assume you are being paid by the GOP or a super PAC, but wouldn't be surprised if someone was paying you.

Ahahahahahaha

Hard to say.

Then by definition I am not a shill.

That you care about the genocide. I think you are using it as a wedge to try to divide and mute the Democrat vote.

I work against the genocide and have for over a year, doing organizing work. Folks like yourself have been excysing and normalizing genocide because your team is doing it.

So, wrong on all counts. Damn, did you know that words mean things and pulling things out of your as isn't knowledge?

Not at all. That was the first thing I addressed: if Harris loses it will be so much worse in Gaza and elsewhere.

You did literally diwnplay the genocide, trying to say it is just one issue among many and that I'm being silly to make such a big deal out of it.

Begone, liar for genocide.

Of course you inherently cannot trust a private company to keep their product open, including open core models. In that situation everyone using or contributing should be making a gamble: that if they go too far the project will be forked, the company will cut its community in two, and the fotk will go on to be decently successful as a community project.

Their inability to do the right PR things is just a signal that they can't be bothered with the facade that is useful for them to maintain community support and FOSS nerd marketing for their product.

Re: ethics, they are no longer on F-Droid because they tried to get this in under the radar and include non-free code in builds. Instead of fixing that problem they made their own repo.

Bitwarden will likely eventually destroy their FOSS model for profit-seeking, it is just a matter of when. This is how these things work.

Our feudal patrons are so stingy!

Not trusting a company that has been quietly undermining open source builds of their android client and being cagey + using guarded and laconic PR speak on this is not fallacious thinking, it is just recognizing behaviors and knowing why a company would be doing that. These companies hire people to craft responses and otherwise manage their "community", and providing no assurances of permanently open clients when they tried to pull this is an intentional omission.

Dems kicked PSL off of two states' ballots

Western Europe has committed to making itself an American dependency. This same thing would eventually repeat there but with different aesthetics.

This kind of thing is the inevitable outcome of US policy to "decouple", which they are pushing. Take something they nominally control, kick out every designated enemy / enemy collaborator, and then watch as an alternative pops up among the " enemy" and ban its purchase or use.

Obviously a huge genocide isn't enough for you - you clearly want Every Palestinian to be killed or imprisoned when Trump is elected.

Please do your best to act in good faith and not lie about me.

And not just the ones in Gaza, if I were a Palestinian in the US, I'd be terrified of that madman winning, and I'd do everything I could to support Harris like my life depended on it (because it very well might)

No, that is what you, a non-Palestinian, believe you get to decide for Palestinians, people who have lost half or more of their family in the last year. The Palestinian diaspira, generally speaking, rejects Biden and Harris.

However, you have not answered my questions.

More generally you are trying to convince us that the genocide is the only important issue in the world, and that it's somehow worth not supporting someone who is in all ways (not just all other) the far better of the two electable candidates.

Now you are downplaying the magnitude of genocide. Never again means never again for anyone, not just when it is politically convenient for you.

Welp, looks like you didn't answer my questions. Maybe next time, right?

If I understand you correctly, then I very much agree, but I don't see this happening very much.

It happens all the time on a per-organizer basis if you actively do it. The left is currently small but has the capacity to rapidly snowball if it is principled and follows good practices. When you recruit 10 people per year per organizer and 2 of them become organizers, etc etc. And these things will come in waves if you make yourself known and build capacity for onboarding. One year it's 10 per organizer, the next it may be 50.

My organizations experienced rapid growth under Trump and in Winter-Spring 2024 due to us actively doing work.

On one side I see people saying "vote for the lesser of two evils, and then we can focus on changing the system/changing the democrat policies" without actually any clear idea how to do that.

Yes this is just a line, they don't really man it. They can't even say what their goal is most of the time. They just say "push left", leaving it vague. And of course they're really telling you to stop making demands when you have the most leverage, to then give up that leverage by pledging to be a guaranteed vote then make their demands when they have the least leverage and gave already proven that they will vote blue regardless.

This line is repeated constantly because it keeps empathetic voters contained and powerless while also gaining some votes for their monstrous candidate.

On the other side I see "don't vote for either party, neither major party deserves to win" without any clear idea of how to give any realistic chance for a third party to win.

Why does the third party need to win? There are many other outcomes to shedding the false consciousness of lesser evil voting. At the moment, I am highlighting liberals normalizing genocide. One outcone is to recognize that this "democracy" is a genocidal sham and you need to work against its underlying forces. Another is to effectively boycott so as to demonstrate illegitimacy of who is elected, which has a long history. Another us to begin creating a voting bloc that doesn't ounch itself in the face every 4 years and actually makes demands with a credible threat. That voting bloc would also eventually fail because again, this "democracy" is a sham, but those people can then be organized against the genocidal status quo.

Here again you are using bad faith tactics to dismiss the idea that people in favour of voting might have valid reasons to, instead presenting it as if these people think normalising genocide is a good thing. This is divisive and not constructive at all.

It is not bad faith, it is the truth. Treating genocide like a typical lesser evil you have to accept is normalizing it. It was, allegedly, a red line, and now liberals are falling over themselves to erase that line.

This revelation probably makes you uncomfortable, but it is not false or unfair. You can see it throughout this thread. They try to avoid the topic at first, then speak euphemistically. Try asking them to say this: "I am against genocide and will never vote for a genocider". Can you say that?

Yes I know how quickly controversial discourse can go downhill

"Controversial" my ass, I said they were panicking and racist. So much for "good faith", eh? Don't whitewash my framings and pretend it is what we are talking about.

but to be that seems all the more reason to not allow our arguments to disintegrate, even if the other sides are.

You are being so vague that I can't even tell what you are recommending. This topic is something you brought up, trying to both sides communication, and what I am telling you is that there is a verifiable imbalance.

I definitely agree, I think all widespread "truths" should stand up to scrutiny, but my point is about the way this is done. Challenging a truth/point of view should mean approaching the logical base of that view, and presenting an alternative with reasons why the alternative is better.

Incorrect. That is fine for internal strategy discussions among people that agree with one another. It is absolutely terrible media and discursive strategy.

There is not a logical base for most political views. That is usually a rationalization for more basic feelings, like status, security, whether you are a good person, whether the bad people are getting what they deserve.

But so often I see people ignoring the logical base of the other side's viewpoint, and instead creating straw-men to attack instead, or simply just dismissing the other side entirely through one tactic or another.

Because it isn't about the logical base. I can present concrete facts and demonstrate pure logical contradiction in another person's arguments and they will simply deflect. Their ego gets in the way, an ego taught to them by a society where having an opinion is important for status and self-worth and every disagreement is about destroying the other side. They will lie, deflect, insult, say racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic things. Having revealed that they have no logical base and are just Himmler Lite, any pretense that you are just going after logic and debate will undermine you and become a trolling session for them.

These are not the people you are trying to reach anyways. It is the audience at the borderline that need that, "oh shit my side is racist and I reject that" kind of push. Again, not about a logical base.

To be clear, this is done by all sides, I see many people dismissing the argument to vote as simply being "supportive of genocide" (which is obviously riduculous)

It is not ridiculous you are literally voting for someone doing a genocide and telling other people to do the same. Despite your complaints you have not addressed the clear basis for this claim and are doing that thing right now: deflecting through dismissal built entirely on sentiment, not any logical basis. I should not need to explain to you that "I am voting for a genocider and so should you" is a pro-genocide stance. But your discomfort in your complicity, the threat to you feeling like a good person, means you need to start dissembling.

while people dismissing the argument to vote third party as being "stupid/ignorant" or other things to that effect, which is also obviously false.

The people dismissing that are repeating canards handed to them by their faction of the political class. They are only needed insofar as the person returns to feeling like they are good and smart for voting for a genocider. You can watch them fall apart in real time when you try to discuss their alleged "logical base", like discusing game theory and electoral strategy. They were not actually convinced to vote that way because of simplistic half-understood electoral math, they were convinced by allegiance to a political program that aligns with their idea of being a good person. And as bourgeous morality goes, they will then start making personal moralizung arguments, and then they must be reminded they are voting for a genocider.

Then we come full circle and they fall apart. Repeat ad nauseum.

Like you say, we are all products of our societies with different values, but the vast majority of people are reasonably smart and have good intentions.

Not true. Intentions are not inherently good when the society that crafted them is racist, genocidal, misigynist, etc. Being the product of conditions means the dominant intention can be oppressive and violent. With education they could acquire good intentions. If raised in a less oppresser society, they could have good intentions. But you don't get to whitewash the bad intentions of those shoring up violence and oppression, including genocide. Those are not good intentions, they ar self-serving corrosive behaviors learned from their social circles.

And dismissing people is not a good way of "calling them out", it only causes further division and makes them even less likely to be receptive to your ideas.

100% incorrect, certainly when it comes to media and fronts, which is more like how social media operates. The most effective means of agitation is direct callouts, particularly when it comes to reactionary positions that need to be made socially unacceptable.

The person receiving the callout will get defensive, but they do that anyways regardless of how you frame the problem in what they are saying. But now they get to coast by and pretend to be in the right and the audience will also miss this. Over time, that defensiveness can and does lead to change, where many go and do some research and come back in a few months as if they had always held a different position. Online, they might just make a new account. I've seen users bullied for their transphobia do this repeatedly, they got less transphobic over time but were still recognizably the same user.

If, on the other hand, someone is already sympathetic and not oppositional, they will let you know this early on. The main thing they will do is commiserate and ask questions. These are the people you can gently correct as they are not just trying to reaffirm their biases - such as to the white race and whose suffering they care about - and status as a good person by retaining them.

If you cannot see the reasons for someone's beliefs (even if you strongly disagree with those reasons) then you stand very little chance of changing their mind.

Buddy I have recruited more people than you've ever talked to online.

Bourgeois democracy has always been like this. It presents itself as representative of the people while using a massive array of capitalist-controlled apparatuses to call the shots. Media, jobs, capital strikes, education materials, think tanks, threats to the government. Their first line of defense is "democratic" institutions with enough structure and hurdles to prevent popular will from directly having influence. And, of course, vigilantes and organized right wing thugs when the former don't work.

If the election were between Trump and somehow someone even worse who was calling to nuke the entire area and turn it into glass, then I would absolutely be pushing for Trump.

It does not get worse than genocide. The habit of inventing a hypothetical bigger and harder gun to hold to marginalized peoples' heads doesn't work on this one.

Shockingly, if we are trapped in a horrifying, dystopian version of the trolley problem (which we are), I'm going to make the choice that causes the least damage.

We are not trapped in a trolley problem. You are a human with agency. You can join organizations, you can educate, you can take action. Reducing your political agency to a lever pull for genocide is a helplessness taught to you by the political class because they just want you to vote for them even when they commit genocide right in front of your eyes. They want you to think of Palestinian lives as strategically expendable and that you are actually smart, not racist, for toeing that line. And your compliance with their demands is exactly what ensures they can shove any monster down your throat as a candidate. Harris is complicit in genocide and didn't win a single primary but Dems say, "well, time to fall in line". Dems strategists know that "progressive" Dems do this so they do nothing for them in policy, they just deploy PR goons to vote against every 4 years. Compliant voters enable their own irrelevance.

Though of course, voting is very limited and there is much more to be done.

Using another analogy

I refuse to entertain analogies justifying genocide.

Oh yes, the Democratic Party is an antidemocratic capitalist party that will fight democratization to its death. There is actually an even better example, which is lefties taking over the party in Nevada via their own official process, simply organizing people to jump through the hoops Dems had set up. In response, the Dems defunded the party and built shadow campaigns with the money, then changed its rules so they could remove the lefties.

At the same time, Americans only understand politics in terms of electoralism. So the fact that they are doing the exact opposite of what a voting block should be doing to establish itself short circuits the pro-genocide "but actually it's smart to vote blue no matter who" self-defeating logic.

No, it is because liberals were agitated under Trump and were told to care about women, black people, abortion rights, etc, and mobilize to spaces where they could be recruited for political education. Under Biden, they feel a sense of normalcy and have returned to supporting the equally violent status quo.

Sorry you're afraid to engage with what I said. You'll get the courage of your convictions someday. Might want to stop sharing your onions until then, sport.

I think they would continue staying hone, this time out of spite, until Trump ramps something up and they are given permission to care by their political class, who would attempt to coopt the the pro-Palestine movement while still being explicitly Zionist.

No this has nothing to do with the USA right now.

Here's you making excuses for removing all the Russians from the contributor list: "Russia invaded a sovereign nation...but that's a petty dispute...are you sure you're on the right instance? Sounds like you need to recreate your account here on ml..."

Your logic, if you can call it that, is that if the country you're from invades a sovereign nation, it makes sense to get kicked off the list. Guess which country invades sovereign nations every 3-6 years.

To make another point, of course the US is relevant, its government is the one making this exact thing happen.

No more excuses, champ. Gotta look reality straight in the face.

It's a strawman to whip out the "but the USA" card.

lol no it isn't.

Russia has sanctions

Yes we all know this.

they invaded a sovereign nation

The US has invaded at least 4 sovereign nations in the last 21 years. It has bombed far more in that time, including couping Libya, turning it from the highest HDI country into a failed state with open air slave markets.

and are willfully targeting civilians

The RF has been comparatively less harsh on civilians. Look at what the US, NATO, and Israel do to civilians. They bomb residential buildings, pharmaceutical factories, hospitals, schools, buses, civilian infrastructure. Millions died in Iraq, about half children, in the 90s due to the US systematically destroying civilian infrastructure and then coordinsting tight sanctions.

And do you know what preceded the RF invasion? Ukraine ramping up its civilian shelling campaign in Donbas.

They're fully against the west at this point

Given what the West does with its power that is a smart position to take.

allowing them continued access to help build tools the west uses,

Yes and? You're just admitting that this is a chauvinist political move headed by the United States.

is not only against the current sanctions, it's also a dumb security risk as well.

It's not a security risk at all, the Linux team has tight review procedures and all of these people have been making contributions as maintainers. There were zero concerns raised about their code.

PS the US is not entitled to the world and every international project.

She said 500 people were deported

Okay one last note: she estimated 500 Jews were deported in a single deportation. You can go ahead and read the book that you have no read and that I have if you want the privilege of asserting otherwise.

Such proud, unapologetic, arrogant lying.

Okay but really, last reply. Have a nice life. Hope you find a way to stop huffing your own farts.

Ukraine had a national identity before Lenin, tho.

It was suppressed and the language was dying out in written form.

Although the dude is/was ahead of it's time. And the social idealism that follows looks pretty neat. Sadly he quickly died and another fella came to power. Usually when people bash USSR they bash Stalin's regime. It's far from socialist ideals. You shouldn't mix it up and just nitpick what you like.

It was Stalin's USSR that transformed from a quasi-feudal backwater into a superpower that defeated the Nazis. It did so following Marxist-Leninist principals, which is to say, the development of Marxism based on the Bolsheviks' contributions - they seized the reins of capital and directed them to develop productive forces at a lightning pace and in a way that is never an option for imperialized countries. They ended famines, electrified the country, built rail at a scale that horrified and surprised the Nazi invasers, who remarked that little of it was on their mapsnfrom just a few years ago. And it did this under sanctions and attempted isolation by the major powers, the European capitalist forces that capitulated to the fascists, refused pacts with the USSR to build an alliance against the fascists, as they hoped they would turn east and deal with their red problem.

You should educate yourself about the USSR.

If people are subjugated and still remain under democratic rule, they can still be under repression, due to voting majority.

This can happen without voting as well and it is not inherently good or bad, relative to circumstances. We oppress murderers in one form or another. The impetus for thatbis understandable. Some have oppressed ethnic minorities for land grabs. That is not acceptable. Revolution requires oppression, you have to undo the order against which you are revolting. It does not immediately disappear just because you seized the army or run the newspapers.

It's the same reason why Israel fears giving the vote access to palestinians.

Israel oppresses Palestinians because it seeks to steal their land and they know that Palestinians will oppose them in this. Israel is not an example of "tyranny of the majority" and it is not democratic. It is an ethnic supremaxist settler colonial apartheid state and should be destroyed as such.

You can try to follow Nazi fascism idea of fascism by following history notebooks. But it will get us nowhere.

That will get you the whole way. You must read history to understand this historical reference. No shortcuts!

Since for example Lithuania had a president which was with dictatorial levels of power during the time. He was not aligned with Nazi Germany. What kind of word would you use to describe the rule? There are reasons why fascism is defined like it is.

Lithuania's president was a racist, antisemitic anticommunist liberal nationalists that dabbled a bit with fascists. Liberals have had all of the qualities of fascists over time and done the same kinds of deeds on a much greater scale. This is why you have to read history. If you just go by simple modern definitions, they will tell you that liberals are all about personal freedoms and equality. They will neglect to mention that liberals were the most brutal and racist colonizers and ethnic supremacists and misogynists and that this might pose a problem for their definition. They become an infinite No True Scotsman, defined in a way that means they never committed any crimes and it may be that, per their logic, no liberal has ever truly existed.

Fascists are really just a form of reactionary liberals that emerged out of inter-imperialist struggle after World War I. The fallout of WWI led to various nationalist and separatist movements in Europe as well as attempts to claim imperialist power. In particular, fascism rose most strongly in those places where conditions were degrading and communists were organizing for revolution. Fascists presented a triangulating position. They criticized the problems of capitalism by coopting socialist phrases but sought, in reallobersl simply organize capitalism into a nationalist form that had ambitions for Imperialism of their own. They built on the "fallen nation that must return to glory", a sentiment that could only resonate among people living in a country losing its status and among degrading conditions. They offered scapegoats playing on old forms of racism. Antisemitism, anti-Roma, Anti-Russian, many more. And most importantly, they opposed the communists, which is why they were so well-funded by capitalists and found friends among liberals. Fascists found their most committed and prominent recruits from the petty bourgeoisie and their sons, an inherently liberal base.

And dude, you can't be racist against a country.

I think you did not mean it to be racist. But Russian is also an ethnicity and Russophobia is at a peak in Western countries and they are reviving their age-old racist talking points. Tell me if any of these old school racist talking points seem familiar: they're just throwing masses of soldiers at the wall hoping to win, they are uncivilized/barbarous, they are not European, they are inherently untrustworthy, they are ugly, and their lives are just plain worth less.

You and I operate with completely different definitions. I doubt we'll come to a conclusion. Would love to discuss it next to a beer, since it's fascinating to find these so wildly difderent ideas. How do you even get to a point where you know so much but manage to draw completely different conclusions.

It is because communists live in the same world as everyone else and describe it in nearly the same way as liberals, but emphasize knowledge of history, political theory, and real-world organizing experiments. In contrast, liberalism is hegemonic ideology that offers narratives that, despite being false or misleading, go largely unchallenged. In a disagreement, someone drawing from hegemonic liberalism only needs to pluck an idea from a massive vat of talking points they have been bombarded with since birth. A communist needs to become fairly familiar with the topic, as they must criticize it and defend their talking points against hegemonic liberal ideas. They have to read the sourcec materials and understand why, say, Robert Conquest was an absolute hack when it came to certain topics because a liberal will unknowingly repeat one of his lies as "common knowledge".

Ukrainians aren't russian.

Many people in Ukraine are ethnically Russian. Ethnically Russian people have faced reoression in Ukraine since Euromaidan, particularly those in the separatist Donbas areas. Those there under the Kyiv regime face(d) cultural oppression. Those in separatists controlled areas face(d) artillery shelling.

Their language is different.

Many Ukrainians speak Russian as a first language, their everyday spoken language, and their language at work. Most people in Ukraine do not speak Ukrainian in that capacity. Ukrainian is more of a way for people from different backgrounds to communicate with one another.

Since Euromaidan, Ukrainian nationalists have been imposing Ukrainization on their people, suppressing other languages in schools, offices, and public life.

Their culture is drastically different.

Ethnic Russians in Ukraine have both cultures. Averaged out, Ukrainian and Russian cultures are very similar. Russians have an affinity fot the Kievan Rus, like an origin story nostalgia, and tie many of their practices to those of Ukraine.

Damn even regions inside Ukraine could count as different cultures.

There is certainly cultural diversity in Ukraine, yes. Some is represented by ethnic Ukrainians, some by Poles, some by ethnic Russians, and some by various diasporas.

For the split. It happened quite recently. I do recommend talking to people why they split and what was the common ideas on the streets back then from people who lived there.

Speaking of Ukraine, polls consistently showed that the generations that were adults at the time preferred to stay as part of unuon with Russia, I.e. "be in the USSR but with reforms". Those same people said it was better to live in the USSR than after it fell. Such a story is fairly typical of most post-Soviet states with the exception of the Baltics, who are a whole host of things, but the main one is their astonishing level of racism.

There were massive forced mixing in of Russians in those countries.

That sounds like a racist framing to me.

Those people are usually the ones that still find as "it was better back then".

Central Asians also had this opinion. It is really basically everywhere except the Baltics and Czechia.