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?
Actually, this part I should give some kind of genuine response to. Maybe. I don’t think you deserve it, but whatever, at least to clarify my own position on it:
Obviously I want peace, as do the Ukrainians, as should any Russia conscripts who are sometimes equally victimized by the whole situation. The reason I’m reacting with derision to this idea of blaming the US or anyone other than the Russians for Russia invading Ukraine and killing all those people is that at the end of the day, they’re ones who invaded Ukraine and killed all those people.
They could go home tomorrow. Since they’re not doing that, but instead hanging around on Ukrainian land and blowing up Ukrainians, is the only reason I say the path to real security is to keep blowing them up instead. Again, if someone comes into your house and is killing family members, it ceases to be relevant why they feel they had a good reason for it, or how they were provoked, or whether or not you apparently squandered your chance to make peace with them before they decided they had to do that, or anything else. What matters is to defend yourself. I don’t think Ukraine squandered any chance for peace in that fashion, I think Russia is lying about how much they want peace. Why do I think that? Because they’re on Ukrainian land, killing Ukrainians.
Them violating the terms of their own cease-fire more or less immediately is a pretty strong demonstration of that. To me. The fact that Ukrainians obviously “don’t want to fight,” which is accurate, they’d rather not be in the war, doesn’t mean they’re not on board for defending themselves against a hostile power which is blowing up their country. They seem far more on board for that than the rest of the West as a whole seems on board for supporting them in it.
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.
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”?
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.