Objection

Objection , 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

I used to wonder if there was any line that people wouldn't cross with lesser-evilism, but now that I've seen all these takes just openly being like, "Yes, we're doing genocide, and if you break ranks over that, not only are you a bad person, but your behavior is only possibly explainable by you being a foreign agent or a conservative in disguise," and honestly it's pretty validating to know that yes, I was right all along that accepting that line of reasoning would lead to complete insanity with no limit on how extreme it could get. Like I've never voted for a major party presidential candidate because of that sort of thing but even I never expected the discourse to reach this level, and now that I've seen it play out I'm very glad I decided to distance myself from it. This is what zero principles does to a mfer.

Objection , 1 day ago

Specifically, he was appointed chancellor by the guy the SDP backed. How anyone can look at that and blame the KPD for running the only anti-Hitler candidate is baffling.

Objection , 2 days ago

Yes, but the libs thousands of miles away are determined to fight to the last Ukrainian, no matter how many die, because it was never about them in the first place. Their priority is furthering the geopolitical interests of the ruling class, which they have confused with the interests of themselves and the Ukrainian people.

The laws and living conditions aren't substantially better in one than the other. None of this was ever worth fighting a war over, for any side. It's hardly surprising that ordinary people would rather give up some land than get conscripted. It's not as if the people saying not to give up an inch are lining up to put their own lives on the line.

Objection , 2 days ago

What a ridiculous and reductionist thing to say. Marx and Engles strongly and frequently criticized anarchists, instead taking the position that after the revolution, the state would need to be maintained under a "dictatorship of the proletariat" at least until the social conditions that created it had been changed, at which point it would gradually "wither away." Of course the end goal is a stateless society, but it's plain as day in his writings and his opposition to anarchists that he believed it was necessary to use the state to achieve the necessary conditions for that end goal. Regardless of what you think of it, that's just a historical fact.

Objection , 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

Every time you people equate the Russian Federation with the USSR, you're telling on yourselves. The government completely changed, the current one destroyed the old one, and the only continuity is the location and the people. So if you equate the two, then it sounds to me what you're really saying is that Russian skull shape or whatever makes them inherently inclined towards violence regardless what form of government they adopt. Which begs the question, what is your ultimate, you know, final solution for this apparently genetically inferior race?

Objection , 2 days ago

Fool or not, he was, pretty indisputably, a communist who believed in using a state to achieve his goals.

Objection , 2 days ago

Except for the part where he didn’t actually believe in a communist revolution until his later years

He... what? Sorry, but when exactly, by your estimation, did Marx become a communist?

Objection , 1 day ago

How are the USSR's actions relevant to the Russian Federation?

Objection , 1 day ago

Good talk.

Objection , 3 days ago

"Pro-democracy conservatives" in an antifascist coalition, y'all crack me up sometimes.

Objection , 3 days ago (edited 3 days ago)

The heroic SPD, who shoveled two million conscripts to their deaths in the pointless meat grinder of WWI (which killed 20 million, all told) and violently suppressed opposition to it in the name of "national unity." Yes, I can see the resemblance.

By the way, the 1932 German Presidential election had three candidates: the nefarious communist candidate Ernst Thälmann, Adolf Hitler, and Paul von Hindenburg. The winner was not Hitler, it was Hindenburg, who then proceeded to appoint Hitler as chancellor. If only the KPD hadn't split the vote between Hitler and the guy who would appoint Hitler, the guy who won anyway might have won and, uh, done exactly what he did, which is appoint Hitler chancellor and enable him to rise to power.

Obviously, the lesson to take away from this is that the people who tried to stop both world wars were on the wrong side of history, and the people who supported the guy who appointed Hitler chancellor in order to stop him from coming to power were right about everything and worthy of emulation.

Objection , 3 days ago

The KPD weren't around when that was signed, on account of how Hitler murdered them. Because he correctly identified them as his chief ideological enemies.

As for the pact itself, it was signed after Stalin unsuccessfully attempted to form a unified front against Hitler with Britain and France. The latter two signed many agreements with Hitler, such as selling out Czechoslovakia, in the hope that he would stay focused on fighting the communists. Nobody was eager to get involved in a second world war.

Objection , 3 days ago

What can I say? I can't resist the siren call of people being wrong on the internet.

Objection , 3 days ago

Curious

It is curious. So curious, in fact, that your whole conspiracy collapses in the face of it.

since their feuding with the SPD was instrumental in the rise of the Nazi Party

It takes two to fued. Maybe the SPD should've tried not shoveling millions of people into a pointless war, or not killing KPD leaders who opposed it, or throwing their weight behind the only candidate who actually was neither Hitler or aligned with Hitler, or not saying the communists were just as bad as the fascists (you know, like you're doing now).

Objection , 3 days ago

Er… which suppression are you talking about? I’m a little out of my depth on it but the only suppression I’m aware of came after the KPD started a violent rebellion against them. But like I say I’m not that well aware of it, can you tell me?

When a government gets millions of people killed for no reason, using violence against that government is completely justified.

And I likewise have no idea whose “fault” it was between the SPD and KPD that they were both pretty consistently at each other’s throats.

It was the SPD's fault, for the whole, you know, "war that killed 20 million people" thing.

Objection , 3 days ago

Curious indeed considering that through the mid-20s the SPD and the KPD got along fine

If you consider being beaten into submission and having all their radical leadership slaughtered "getting along fine" then yes, I suppose they "got along fine" for a very brief period in between violently opposing them and calling them fascists.

Objection , 3 days ago

Right, except that as established, the SPD were the ones who chose to back the guy who made Hitler chancellor. So it's really more like, should they have backed the people who already got 20 million and a bunch of people from your party killed, so they can support the guy who'll support the guy who's going to get 75 million and virtually everyone in your party killed?

Your claim that Hindenburg winning by a wider margin could have possibly prevented Hitler's rise to power is a counterfactual, even long after the fact, there's no way to know if that's true. I could just as easily say that the SDP could've thrown their weight behind Thälmann and that might have stopped Hitler, and maybe it would have, or maybe it wouldn't. One way or another, the differences between the SDP and KPD were not one-sided, and those differences began over a disagreement where the SDP were clearly in the wrong and got millions of people killed for nothing.

Objection , 3 days ago (edited 3 days ago)

On the other hand, I also do think it’s relevant that the countries run by the same people (ideologically) who were backing Thälmann turned into totalitarian nightmares, where people were risking death to flee from in order to get to places run by people like Hindenburg, in the decades after the war, when all the Hitler issues were in the past. If we’re going to analyze the viewpoint that the KPD was on the right side of history and the SPD should have dropped everything and unified with them, then I think that’s a relevant data point.

And if we're going to bring that up, I think it's a relevant data point that most of the countries you mention that were run by people like Hindenburg, where those people were fleeing to, were countries that had lots of wealth which had been built on centuries of slavery, exploitation, and colonialism, while most of the countries run by people like Thalmann were starting from a pre-industrial level and actively opposed, economically, militarily, and through assassinations, by the wealthy countries controlled by the people like Hindenburg. I would also point out the many, many cases of countries trying to enact policies that would benefit their people, without taking precautions against foreign subversion, who were murdered by the people like Hindenburg, and replaced by the people like Hitler.

Objection , 3 days ago

I actually do agree with you on a lot of that analysis, but my conclusion is the opposite of yours. Allow me to explain my perspective and worldview, in that context.

Nobody becomes a major geopolitical power without some skeletons in their closet. The USSR and PRC do not represent my ideal systems of government. I don't care much for "The Great Game" or getting the whole world to adopt one or another ideology.

But what I do care about is allowing countries, especially developing countries, to chart their own path ideologically, and to decolonize and assert control over their own resources. And the question that's always in the back of my mind is, what can allow that to happen? And the answer I've arrived at is, "Having multiple options for trading partners." And the country that is presenting a second option for these countries is China.

In a world dominated by one superpower, if you're a small country going against the interests of that superpower, how can you have any hope? But when there's two great powers, you can play them off each other, you can say, "the Chinese are offering me this, what can you offer?" and turn around and say, "the IMF just beat your offer, can you beat theirs?" And if they move against you, whether through invasion, assassination, or sanctions and seizing funds, then other countries in your position will take note and move towards your competitor.

China often offers fairly lucrative deals to these countries, and is also flexible regarding their domestic policies compared to the World Bank or IMF. A big part of that is simply that they're trying to break into the market. But another part of it is that China's own development was very messy and they don't really see it as something for other countries to follow and emulate.

My dream is not a world dominated by China rather than the US. My dream is rather that some random developing country will have the freedom to experiment and will hit on the right formula to flourish, and will both grow themselves and provide a model for growth for similar countries. China is primarily a means to that end. At the same time, they did make massive strides in economic development and life expectancy, both compared to before the revolution and compared to before the economic reforms post-Mao.

I believe that, at least for now, China is doing more good than harm for developing nations, which are at the center of my concern in terms of geopolitics. There may come a time when China supplants the US as global hegemon, and it certainly looks to me like they're on that path. When and if that happens, I'll have to reassess my positions. But we're still a good ways off from that.

In the meantime, I believe that the best way for the US to remain competitive in the long term is to refocus domestically. There are so many crises here at home that desperately need to be addressed, and those things are fueling America's decline, and yet the only thing that gets substantial funding is the military, because of the perverse incentives in the military-industrial complex. And every time the US tries to throw it's weight around, doing things like seizing Venezuela's assets, for example, more and more non-aligned countries start to wonder if they're going to be the next ones on America's shitlist and if China might be a more reliable trading partner.

Frankly though, I don't have much hope for the US. In fact, I'm terrified by the fact that the US spends more on the military than the next 9 countries combined, while China has focused so much on economic production. I consider it a real possibility that, at some point in the future, China is going to emerge as the global economic hegemon, and the US will be desperate to maintain their place and will recognize that the only weapon in their arsenal is, well, the weapons in their arsenal. Pretty much the only thing I still have hope for is that this doesn't happen.

Now, the American ruling class doesn't want a war with China, but they do want to line their pockets and there's no better way to do that than military spending. In order to justify that, they're more than happy to saber-rattle and get people fired up against China, and especially with COVID, they were happy to blame China to deflect from their own mishandling of the situation. But doing this is playing with fire. In the short term, it just means more wasteful spending and a rise in hate crimes against Asian-Americans, which are bad enough, but they are also creating people who actually crazy enough that they do want to start WWIII. And they're just gambling that they can rile up these frenzied warmongerers enough that they won't mind when they cut education to buy more bombs but not so much that they're actually able to take power and end all human existence. But this gamble is creating the conditions for someone to come to power who doesn't know or care that the saber-rattling is supposed to be an act, and as long as it keeps working out for them, they will keep raising the stakes higher and higher until they lose control. I have no idea whether that loss of control will come in the form of a rabid, frothing nationalist, or in the form of a well-meaning liberal who's simply bought into too much of their own propaganda, like, for instance, the psychos I've seen talking about a "limited nuclear exchange" with Russia being an acceptable outcome.

There's a certain point of recklessness where the only responsible thing to do is to refuse to be a party to it. Frankly, too much attention goes to voting choices in the US presidential election, but I believe there are strategic arguments to vote third party and I'm not motivated solely from frustration or spite, though there are plenty of other reasons why I hate his guts, and it's a longshot that a vote will matter at all regardless.

If you disagree with me, or see me as misguided, stubborn, or whatever else, that's all fine. But whatever I may be, I am a person and not a bot or a foreign agent or a conservative in disguise, and these are my real beliefs and concerns. If you've made it through this long comment, I'm grateful.

Objection , 3 days ago (edited 3 days ago)

"The news is so focused on children trapped in a war zone but they're ignoring the real issue we should be focusing on: children being safely transported out of a war zone."

Objection , 3 days ago

Yes, I'm aware of that definition, but there is also a real and present danger to leaving Ukrainian children in the war zone, and I'm not aware of other countries lining up to take them in. It's also completely ridiculous to compare civilians being slaughtered wholesale in an open-air prison to war orphans being raised by parents of a different culture. Would you prefer they be left where they are?

Objection , 3 days ago

I never called them saints, I only said that transporting war orphans into safety is not genocide.

Objection , 3 days ago

So you would prefer that they be left where they are, understood.

Personally I think it's good that children not be left in dangerous, traumatic situations, but if you want to classify something as "genocide" when it involves saving the lives of the "victims," then I guess I am defending "genocide." And if you wanted to call if "murder" when I take a drink of water, I guess that means I'll defend "murder" too. If you play around with words enough you can make anything look bad.

I consider people being slaughtered worse than children being raised in a culture different from that of their parents, so sue me.

Objection , 3 days ago

You’re using a false-dilemma argument

No, I'm using a real-dilemma argument. If you'd care to provide an alternative to taking them out of a war zone or leaving them there, I would love to hear it.

How many Rubles do you get per comment?

Of course, the "everyone who disagrees with me is a secret agent" conspiracy theory. I'm not feeling particularly quippy today so I'm not going to bother making fun of it.

Objection , 3 days ago

I wish Biden would stop sending weapons to Israel.

Objection , 3 days ago

Where they'll be raised by French or German or English parents, etc. Still doesn't address your core issue.

Objection , 3 days ago

We're talking about war orphans. Generally, their family is either dead or can't be located.

Objection , 3 days ago

POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.

False

Objection , 3 days ago

So you want them to stay in the orphanage system indefinitely, until the war ends.

I'm sorry but the pressing, immediate issue is the humanitarian crisis. The orphanage system of any country can only handle so many and if there are families willing to take them in, then that's better than the alternatives for them. Cultural concerns are secondary to humanitarian ones.

Also we don't really know what Russia's plans are for war orphans after the war ends. The idea that they have no intention of returning them seems like speculation on your part.

The thing that would change my mind on this is to see established precedent for how these issues have been handled in the past, during previous wars. Every war creates war orphans but not every war is classified as a genocide.

Objection , 3 days ago

It also says:

The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 gives the President of the United States the authority to control the import and export of defense articles and defense services.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but these people are and they say:

“The law is clear and aligned with the majority of Americans who believe the U.S. should cease arms shipments to Israel until it stops its military operation in Gaza”

Biden himself exercised an emergency provision in the law to bypass congress, in order to send more weapons to Israel

Objection , 3 days ago

So if Israel took every Palestinian child they saw, regardless of what family they have

Russia is not doing this. We're talking about war orphans.

Objection , 3 days ago

Being a tankie is when you consider children being adopted to parents who raise them in a safe environment "safety," in comparison to living in a war zone.

Objection , 3 days ago

I'd be better than the current situation, yes. It's by no means ideal, but Palestinian children would be better off being adopted by Israeli families than starving to death or being bombed or shot. My problem is with them putting them in the situation in the first place.

Objection , 3 days ago

We're talking about war orphans, children whose families cannot be located.

Objection , 3 days ago

What I'm learning from this is that libs are perfectly fine with children being left to die in an active war zone and are actively opposed to getting them to safety.

Objection , 3 days ago

What I'm saying is that the problem isn't moving war orphans out of a conflict zone, the problem is that there's a conflict zone in the first place.

It's not as if these orphans are some sort of "prize" to be won and brought home as spoils. Caring for them takes resources. Individual Russian families are not out there twirling their moustaches thinking, "How can I help destroy Ukrainian culture... I know! I'll adopt a child and spend years raising them as my own, that'll show 'em!"

Objection , 3 days ago

Yes, and hopefully peace will be achieved as soon as possible so that that process can happen, but it's a little hard to track people down during the chaos of war. This isn't a new phenomenon.

Objection , 3 days ago

War orphans are not a new thing. Every war that's ever been caught has produced children who's families cannot be found, because wars are chaotic and also deadly.

Objection , 3 days ago (edited 3 days ago)

If the US ever tried evacuating Iraqi orphans into the US adoption system, the right would start race riots over it. We didn't even let our collaborators in.

No, instead, the children were left in the war zone where countless numbers were killed.

Objection , 3 days ago (edited 3 days ago)

From the perspective of the ruling class, a draft would be an absolutely terrible idea. Many Americans do not care at all what the military does because the victims are mostly PoC foreigners, and if some American soldiers die they might care a little bit, but they chose to be there and knew the risks so it's whatever. This apathy allows the ruling class to do whatever they want, to go on these random, decades-long invasions that leave hundreds of thousands dead, and nobody actually gives a shit at all, and the handful that do can be written off as traitors and foreign agents.

Nothing would get Americans to start paying attention and caring about foreign policy like forcing them to get involved and potentially risking their own lives. From the ruling class's perspective, they've got a good thing going. They'd have to be truly desperate for manpower to fuck that up, and they're not.

I won't say they won't do it because I don't want to underestimate their stupidity. But if they do decide to start bringing people in who don't wanna be there, away from their bread and circuses, to get front row seats to all the horrors and atrocities the media doesn't like talking about, and give them guns and training, well, all I can say is that's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

Objection , 3 days ago

I try not to be but sometimes I can't help myself.

Objection , 4 days ago

Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.

Why is this only necessary at the extremes? I don't want to accept the current system I live under, but I'm coerced into complying with it through force (police).

Objection , 3 days ago

I don't know that I agree with your definition of extreme. On the one hand, there's popularity of various ideas, and on the other, there's how much the idea differs from the way things are currently done. It's possible for an idea drastically different from the status quo to be popular, but it would still be considered extreme because of how big of a change it would be.

Objection , 5 days ago

long before it was clear that Trump would be the nominee. Or that he would be assisted by Russia.

How are either of those things relevant to the fact that Clinton elevated Trump? It's possible to elevate someone and for them to still lose, it's also possible for two different people to elevate someone, so neither of those things contradict the claim at all.

Objection , 5 days ago

That's not what the Pied Piper strategy is or what happened.

Objection , 5 days ago

Generally speaking I hate the troops but in WWI most of them were conscripted and didn't have much choice about being thrown into the meat grinder. Trump has the same kind of callous disregard for them as the people who sent them out to die.

Objection , 5 days ago

I'm very confused why you think my username would indicate that I'm a bot. I am, however, entirely unsurprised that you'd make that allegation without a shred of evidence, as evidence doesn't really seem to be your thing.

I picked it because I'd recently gotten into the Ace Attorney games, and also like to ground my beliefs in evidence and expect other to as well. For a while, I was channelling Phoenix Wright's voice, as a bit, but then I got bored of it.

If I am a bot, then whoever programmed me deserves a promotion, because I think I sound very human. But I'm not really sure how I could go about proving that I'm not a bot. Let's see, punching Nazis is cool and you should do it, does that work? Ah, but maybe I'm a bot with safety restrictions turned off. Probably there's nothing I could say to prove it to you, it's utterly unfalsifiable.

At that point, how do I know you're not a bot? Maybe this whole thread full of bots! Oooooohhhhh~ spooky spooky. Can we return to reality now, please?

Objection , 5 days ago

As predicted lol.