I am seeing posts from https://hexbear.net/ once again. Anyone know what happened since they lost their domain name? How did they get it back?
I am seeing posts from https://hexbear.net/ once again. Anyone know what happened since they lost their domain name? How did they get it back?
Russia has repeatedly stated that they went to war to demillitarize Ukraine. They will not stop until they have that, either through peace deals, or force. Them leaving has no support domestically, while continuing the war does.
Yeah, okay. So kill them to the last soldier. Then they’ll stop. Sounds pretty straightforward. They can always change their mind about what they “will not stop” until they accomplish.
Like I said, your mask of Marxism is slipping and showing the Russian cheerleader beneath. I think you should go back to some pretense of “practicality” about the conflict, and how unfortunate it is that this whole situation spiraled out of control, and of course you don’t want killing or justification for same.
No, you have been entirely dishonest this entire time, to try to get me to say “Russia is good” or “Russia is correct.” I won’t, because that’s not my stance, even if you want to make a quick MWoG post for your-right wing friends.
Russia has consistently stated that NATO on its doorstep is a no-go. Russia will not leave unless this is accomplished, and since they aren’t “good guys,” they will continie until this goal is met. A peace deal is what Ukrainians want, and a peace deal now saves more lives. I am anti-war.
You keep saying I’m a fake Marxist, but haven’t been able to explain why. You call me a Russian cheerleader despite not taking Russia’s side, and instead taking an anti-US stance. Go on, make your drama post.
Or until consenting or not they lose the war. That happens sometimes. Actually quite often, to large dysfunctional empires trying to attack someone else’s homeland and facing stiff resistance. It seems like it’s been happening so far to Russia. Personally, I think shooting the invaders until they leave sounds great. I would much rather they leave sooner than later, obviously, but that’s really only up to them how long they want to stay around getting shot.
That’s leaving aside the whole question of “you joining an alliance so you’ll be able to defend yourself if I attack you is a red line for me.” Ukraine was not in NATO, that wasn’t really on the table in any serious sense, and invading them and killing thousands of people is if anything going to make them much more in favor of being in NATO, to keep themselves safe. Plenty of other little republics that were nowhere near joining NATO have been attacked and absorbed to Russia over the last little while.
This whole thing “well they said they’d be violent if they didn’t get their way, so let’s sure for peace so they don’t have to be violent.” is abuser-enabler-logic. Fuck 'em up. That’s the answer. For a domestic abuser, for Israel, for Russia, for whoever else. If you want to speak force-language, sure, we can speak force-language.
You’d have to do the legwork to show that Russia actually stands to lose, which it doesn’t appear to be. Again, US support, even thin, is waning, and the EU can’t supply Ukraine, nor are there enough people willing to fight in Ukraine. A peace deal ends the bloodshed.
Again, you’re not going to get me to say Russia are the good guys, no matter how you try to squeeze it out. I think if you were interested in an honest conversatiom, we’d actually agree more than disagree, but you’re fishing for drama to post, it seems.
Edit: oh, looks like you made a post anyways, taking issue with the fact that the USSR and PRC ended famines and Imperialism. It’s factual, though, the PRC is food secure and wasn’t when it was under the Nationalists, and Tsarist Russia had regular famines until the Soviets industrialized. Both the PRC and USSR had the last famines either country has seen, as they industrialized.
Oh, also: Is it sabotage of a peace deal to blow up a bunch of energy infrastructure the same day that you agreed you wouldn’t attack each other’s energy infrastructure? I’m really not trying to “squeeze out” some kind of statement of approval from you by asking that. I am, in fact, asking for you to show disapproval, since anyone with a functioning brain can see that that is sabotage of the peace deal. I’m honestly not sure why you seem to be having trouble saying that, although I have a theory.
My theory is that you don’t actually care what I say, and are permanently and deliberatley trying to take the least charitable interpretation of what I say. I’d say sabotaging peace deals and violating agreements is a bad thing, sure. If Russia did that, then that’s bad. I have no problem with saying that, Russia is a brutal Capitalist regime that has fallen far from it’s Soviet roots.
At the same time, I can also say that if you actually cared to have an honest conversation, you wouldn’t be trying to take the worst possible interpretation of what I say on purpose.
Sounds good. Taking the hypothetical out of it, would you say that Russia did sabotage the peace deal when they attacked Ukraine’s energy infrastructure the day they agreed not to attack each other’s energy infrastructure?
If you feel I am taking your stuff in bad faith, I can take a little bit of time and only ask direct questions relevant to our conversation, so that you can explain your point of view fully without my misconstruing. I do have a follow-up question about the quest for peace in Ukraine, but I just want to make sure of this point first.
Sure, fuck em, but it would be mutual disrespect of the ceasefire deal. It is best for all parties that a peace deal be made.
And with that, I’m disengaging, like I said I would.
Cool cool.
Hey, quick question:
What’s that dip in “World” and “Asia” there?
Follow-up question. This one’s a fill in the blank. The British Empire at its peak was 35 million square km. If you don’t count pre-20th-century historical empires, what’s the second one, and how big was its total land area?
It’s not the Spanish or the second French… we could include the Mongol empire (24 million sq km) and the pre-revolutionary Russian empire (22.8 sq km) if you wanted. If you included those, what’s the fourth largest?
Socialism doubled the life expectancy in Russia and in China. Both did so by working towards ending famine and improving industrialization. Both had famines in their early years during Socialism, but these were the last famines in a long history of them. Seeing as how you already made a post, I don’t think you really care about being honest, though.
Secondly, land size is not what defines an “Empire.” It’s an economic relation, not a land relation. I genuinely don’t see how this is a gotcha.
Cool cool. Hey, if the increase from 27 to 60 for Asia (which more than half of was USSR and China) from 1910-1975 was because of communism, does that mean that the increase from 35 to 60 for America from 1875-1950 was because of capitalism? Because clearly we established that it wasn’t because of any kind of scientific advances in medicine or agriculture or anything, it’s purely a result of their economic system.
Oh, also, what’s that dip in “Asia” and “World”?
To be fair, I did not disengage from this comment string, so I’ll give one last response.
The reason I say this conversation is unproductive is because you regularly take the least-charitable interpretation of what I say, like when you falsely claim I said ending famine was “purely a result of their economic system.” This kind of bad-faith and dishonest argumentative style makes any kind of productive conversation difficult, except that it exposes the kind of bad-faith argumentative style you have in general to more people.
To directly compare the United States at the turn of the 20th century, a developing Capitalist power that had already been the beneficiary of centuries of slavery and settler-colonialism, and the genocide that comes with them, to Russia emerging from a backwards, largely agrarian and underdeveloped feudal system, and China, a backwards, agrarian country which was coming from a century of colonization and eventually decades of Civil War, requires more than a little critical analysis. A better comparison would be to countries that had similar levels of development and went the Capitalist road, not the emerging superpower.
With the above clarification in mind, why did life expectancy grow in the US over that time period, and why did it grow in Russia and China? In the case of the US, it had a long period of peace, no wars on its lands, had industrialized and become a rising global power, and a new Empire, plundering the rest of the Americas. This rise in total wealth, combined with FDR’s expansion in Social Safety Nets as a measure to protect against rising Left-wing organization (a process Western Europe would also follow, in an attempt to provide what the USSR was providing in the form of Social Services so as to not have a copycat revolution), led to the rise of life expectancy. Medicine improved, as did technology, as they always will with industrialization, yet the US required a far longer time in far more generous circumstances.
In Russia and China, we see constant sanctions, no colonies to plunder, and the brutal task of industrialization that led to a drop in life expectancy in Capitalist countries like Britain. Technology and science weren’t being freely shared with them, either, nor was medicine. Instead, much of the advancements from these countries were inwardly driven, through direct efforts to industrialize. They still faced problems, such as the 1930s famine in the USSR, and the Great Chinese Famine in China (the drop you keep pretending I am unaware of as you pretend my point about ending famine is that Russia and China pushed the Socialism button and all famine was immediately gone).
However, the process of industrialization in these countries was focused on the working class, not on private business, and as a consequence we see large rises in life expectancy at a far faster rate and without the usual drop in Capitalist countries that even managed to avoid famine, like the British Empire, whose working class often had life expectancies in the 20s during its industrialization. Socialism was important because it allowed industrialization in a faster time period without the extreme excesses or even outright slavery in Capitalist countries, all without the tools of Imperialism employed by Western Europe and the US (as well as Japan, later).
I think there could have been an opportunity to have an actual discussion with you, but your insistence on making up claims of mine I have never made and your permanent bad-faith readings of my comments made that impossible, and unproductive. From moving the goalposts constantly (such as dropping the question of Imperialism when you tried to make it about landmass, and not Imperialism itself as an economic process) to the bad-faith readings, there’s really nothing productive here, unless you count the internet points you get from misrepresenting my points to your right-wing pals on MWoG (from someone who made a post about bullying on the fediverse, no less).
And with that, I disengage.