xor @ xor @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

0

Comments

530

Joined

2 yr. ago

The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you've asked here doesn't match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not "war bad", but specifically that Ukraine's counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to "defend themselves".

There's a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.

• This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
• The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn't change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
• As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
• Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn't change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia's.

The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.

From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be "how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good", to which the answer is "oh fuck off mate"

Holy moly

Has Kim been transphobic? Or is this just you generally hating techbros (not that I'd really consider him a techbro tbh)

They are somewhat right about the fact that the vaccines haven't been sufficiently accessible in Africa to actually tackle the crisis, though

Though it is worth noting that the original commenter very nearly hit on an important point: the vaccines are not accessible enough to communities in Africa, especially in the poorest - often the most impacted - regions.

Mpox is something we could have stopped long ago with a better system of distributing/purchasing vaccines, like with tuberculosis.

It is true that when these diseases reach Europe, North America and East Asia, these medicines suddenly start being distributed far more effectively, since that's where most of the companies that manufacture them are based, and since the countries there are wealthy enough to effectively do so, but only now that it's an Us Problem™️

Too little, too late, though, in classic Congress style

The Myanmar Rohingya genocide was nearly a decade ago now, and we're somehow still at the "asking Mark nicely to do a better job of moderation" step, somehow

I guess the police at least are able to order Facebook to remove it (sounds like that's what happened) but then yeah, as you say, I expect they will have just escalated to the county/state police, if anything

I knew this was beneath that Read More long before I pressed it

Especially since their one example is Caesar, who lived in a time when basically everyone was gay!

Edit: and about 1.5 thousand years before capitalism was invented

The Churchill example I think demonstrates the OP's misunderstanding, in that all of them did terrible things/were horrible people, but excelled at being effective leaders in the context they were in.

Churchill was a terrible human being, racist, abrasive, homophobic, a drunk etc etc. But he was an outstanding wartime prime minister, because he was a talented war strategist, a compelling speaker and, frankly, had enormous balls.

We can go back and try and just classify every human into the good/bad boxes, but that reduces away all the details that make them so interesting.

It wasn't for him, but for those who were named after him it was used to symbolise that they - like Caesar - were one of "the greats"

Our system is fucking broken - too many people cannot get the care they need, or they go into debt to get it. It needs to be fixed.

Reading comprehension

Yeah, and it also somewhat happens as a consequence of building military infrastructure there too. Military bases need people to staff them, and those people need food, water, entertainment etc etc

I kinda disagree - that's not to say that they don't usually do so for illegitimate reasons (or that these bans are legitimate), but there's plenty of valid reasons why a government would want/need to ban a platform

X, for example, has been giving the UK a whole lot of good reasons why they may wish to consider it (restoring the accounts of people like Tommy Robinson, allowing misinformation, the owner of the platform himself actively spreading that misinformation)

But you're actively supporting the people who banned it

Covfefe

The words in the middle are the key difference, though:

Communities are groups

Communities involve (i.e. are not) topics

Communities involve (i.e. are not) individuals

The social structure of Lemmy is fundamentally centred on groups, and that's what makes it distinct from other fediverse platforms, even if there is some interoperability

HOW DARE YOU TREAT THIS COMMUNITY LIKE THIS

Yes, it's a joke

I think you misunderstand the idea - he wasn't proposing hiring more police, but temporarily increasing the total man-hours being worked to make sure there is sufficient capacity to respond

There's a significant number of police staff, including those who usually work non-citizen-facing roles, who are trained to be riot police, for circumstances just like this.