It's often the way. Hopefully someone else reading will see the flaw in forever calling an alternative viewpoint 'bad faith' because it's presented with humour.
If you're talking about violence used to uphold their rule, you can't separate domestic and foreign violence. All those people living, working, and dying young in atrocious conditions outside of the US for US prosperity, all those people gunned down in the dark or in protests against their government's subservience to the US, and all those people murdered in wars and 'conflicts' and by sanctions to further US interests must be counted.
Otherwise you're doing that thing where you redefine violence in such a way that distorts the picture. It doesn't matter whether you now explicitly mention the US because by nature of a comparison, the US is implicated, anyway. Likewise, replace US for every other government in the above equation for the true figures of how violent a state is in its own protection.
Did he assign a trait to liberals? Because if not, there's no inconsistency.
Then a follow up question: is there a difference between 'liberals' as a group (i.e. not liberalism) and a government (i.e. an institution)? If so, there may be no inconsistency.
What I mean is, when people talk about governments it's often as a non-human legal person, which can act, omit, sue, and be sued, but which does not have the full range of human traits, like insincerity. Whereas a group that does not have legal personality and only describes a collection of humans, albeit in the abstract, like 'liberals', can demonstrate a fuller range of human traits.
Then, as an experiment, switch the terms and see if it has the same ring to it:
politics for [governments] are just a big reality show
Does this anthropomorphise 'governments' in the same way as attributing human emotions to them?
I don't necessarily have answers to these questions but it seems that you can't be calling someone out for bad faith unless you can strongly argue yes, no, yes, to the above questions.
That's a different story to being told, for shaking hands after competing. So at the very least, if you're right, there's another plausible story than the one presented. Which casts doubt on the narrative. Which means we'd be wise to suspend our belief until there are better sources than unreliable western media that have a firm track record of being number one and refusing to shake hands with numbers two and three in making shit up competitions.
School officials decided to crack down on parents with unpaid tabs by cutting off kids from the hot lunch line and giving them an alternative lunch -- a cheese sandwich, a fruit or vegetable and milk.
The school board said the policy has been effective in getting delinquent parents to pay, but many parents are outraged, saying it stigmatizes their kids.
While I agree this is problematic, it also highlights another problem. A cheese sandwich, banana, and a glass of milk is quite nutritional. If it's anything like my school, where the hot dinner line meant pizza, burgers, and chips, forcing kids to have the option that isn't deep fried isn't terrible. The penal aspect of it is fucked up. Not only does it target poor kids and stigmatise them, it's also going to contribute to eating disorders.
I feel the same with any kind of official form. These things are so high pressure. It feels like one spelling error and your life as you know it is over. It doesn't work like that in practice but the fear is real.
Just made me think that it's the same with 'capitalism'. To liberal minds, they're not real categories, capable of analysis. They're kinda like slogans. It's okay to use them in the very, very abstract. You can say them to make yourself sound clever or patriotic but only if the subject of analysis is something else. Like 'agriculture in America' or 'entertainment media in America'. 'Capitalism' is similar; it can only be mentioned tangentially.
The moment you make one of these things (or something similar) the subject of analysis is the moment you're in trouble. The ruling class knows it's dangerous for people to look too closely; and people know not to rock the boat. Nobody wants you to see and nobody wants to see that the emperor is stark naked.
Maybe there's something in the way that revolutionaries have got around talking about capitalism that could help with talking about other taboo and censored subjects that could help with what you're thinking of.
They've decided that Ukrainians want or should want a glorious death and any suggestion that they might instead want to live is ridiculed as weakness or dismissed as Russian propaganda. The libs are as bloodthirsty as they've always been, with more or less civility and/or concern trolling depending on the setting.
Edit: I should say that this is mostly in the media. IRL the only thing I really hear in conversation is people asking me when I think the war will end. Otherwise, nobody mentions it unless I bring it up. Which I do when someone starts talking shit about how progressive their politician of the day is (i.e. because almost every politician fits the description in my original paragraph).
I'm at a loss as to how you're interpreting my words. You say you're asking simple questions, then you put words in my mouth and ask me to defend them.
If the Ukrainian government can’t be trusted to decide on when to surrender, who do you suggest?
When did I say or imply this?
If you think saving Ukrainian lives isn't a good reason to find an alternative to war, this is unlikely to become a fruitful discussion.
Zelensky is not forced by NATO in the sense of being a hostage. Although he does seem to be in over his head. Hence trying to come to a peace deal last year and then being told by NATO, apparently through Boris Johnson, that it wasn't going to fly.
Since then, especially since the start of the counteroffensive, there have been several reports in US media explaining that the US military pushed Ukraine into the action knowing that it was under supplied and unlikely to achieve its goals. The US 'hoped' Ukrainian grit would see the day. Those soldiers are braver than I am for running headfirst through minefields into Russian artillery and defensive lines that Russia had months to prepare. But it's a careless and tragic use of Ukrainian lives.
The US knows that it has not – likely cannot – supplied Ukraine with what it needs. Neither can the rest of NATO. If Ukraine is to keep fighting, it must look elsewhere. NATO doesn't have the industry for it. Other US reports confirm this and hint if not confirm that the US interest is not in helping Ukraine to secure it's independence but to fuel the US economy while trying to undermine the Russian economy. Ukraine is collateral damage for the US. This is the same US that had Ukraine dismantle it's military through the 90s by insisting on economic reforms attached as conditions to IMF and World Bank loans.
NATO support is waning. Partly because Ukraine is losing. (Partly because the US plans to start a war with China, which will occupy all its attention. In fact, a new cold war may have started this week, according to China and the US.) Zelensky may be able to regain that support but only if things turn around on the battlefield soonish. Until the steps taken to do so clash with US/NATO goals, Zelensky can do what he likes.
It's not that Zelensky can't decide for himself. It's that if he hadn't already decided to align with the US, he wouldn't be where he is. He is where he is because his class interests align with those of the US/Anglo-European bourgeoisie.
With this context and clarification of what I meant about the US running the show, I can now address your question.
Seeking weapons outside the NATO-sphere to better achieve NATO goals does not, to be trite, conflict with NATO goals. The US is not going to be upset if Zelensky can get support from elsewhere to keep fighting US enemy #2 (China being enemy #1).
Zelensky is also one man. Just like with Putin, Biden, or anyone else, individual men can't make decisions of this nature alone.
Can he just fold? Without the support of whoever supports him, if he decides to fold, alone, he'll be replaced or assassinated or otherwise incapacitated. Does he have the power to fold if he did just take a stand? I'm unsure what the Ukrainian constitution says or of how it will be effected by martial law.
It's often the way. Hopefully someone else reading will see the flaw in forever calling an alternative viewpoint 'bad faith' because it's presented with humour.