Forums / Discussion / General

I'm not even asking Chinese students to speak out about the CCP. Just regular ol American leftists who seem to care about the plight of oppressed people's.

I was banned on therightcantmeme for "defending liberals" by pointing out that the US green party has pretty much been bought. You may notice that the US green party is definitionally liberal.

That's exactly what COPPA is supposed to do, children below 13 should not be able to use sites without explicit written permission from parents or legal guardians.

Enforcing the rule is the difficult part, I've heard anecdotal cases of people being banned in some sites for using the "I'm 12 and what's this" meme. Unless more sites start requiring verifying the age of their users using some form of legal ID, which is a horrifying prospect for online privacy and anonymity, I don't see how this could be solved.

What needs to be is better parenting, not just site restrictions but actual parental supervision and education for children on how to stay safe online. As long as people think it's okay to give 8 year old children a phone or iPad with unrestricted Internet access this will continue to be an issue.

Enforcing it would be a hell of al ot easier if we started copying and embracing what E-Stonia has been doing. I've become actually quite impressed with the direction Estonia has been going with their digital government endeavor. Unironically something we should really consider adapting here.

In terms of policy towards Russia and use of technology Estonia really is ahead of most of the EU on that front. Their Presidency actually created some progress in that area, even France seems to have taken their lead to digitalize some of their bureaucracy.

And now fucking Hungary is the President (officially, functionally no one except maybe Slovakia does anything with them).

A system with a mandatory ID? No thanks. We should ask for our rights to privacy and online anonymity to be enforced, not removed.

Oh. Thanks for reminding me

To use American Right rhetoric (in an actual useful way than just trying to de-franchise people), than what would prevent fraud?

Cost of business if you want to renew a driving license, pay bills, change voting area or even ask for a new passport online. Not that I'm against anonymity, it's just for specific official business.

So far, Estonia also doesn't have limits on internet access with 94 The score of France (78) & the US (75) is less than theirs.

Weren't we speaking about social media here? I mean, if you want an online ID for official interactions with the government exclusively, fine, I might have jumped to conclusions there. But asking for such ID just to browse the Internet would be more in the territory of an authoritarian dystopia.

Not sure, I was talking government. Well, now that it's cleared up, I agree that ID should not be required for social media. Plenty of Estonians I know are anonymous elsewhere.

China does require that ID and have been trying to expand it even for harmless leisure, as is their wont as an authoritarian dystopia. However, X (formerly known as Twitter is trying to require their ID, and that's not mentioning the rest of the nonsense Silicon Valley is cooking up…

We have a mandatory ID already in the US. Want a job? Got to have ID. Want to buy booze or smokes? Got to have an ID. Almost everything that requires proof of age demands an ID. The people that bitch about voter fraud ipso-facto lack of identification, would probably benefit from a more comprehensive and digitalized ID than not.

If we are going to utilize identification for the purposes of verification then at least the verifications system should be as cost effective, and easy to implement to the masses as possible.

I disagree.
This violates the fundamental principles I have, in terms of minimalist libertarian government. But the reality is until this philosophical model starts to truly incorporate the responsibilities of mitigating the abuse and manipulation of social media for nefarious purposes that harms society as a whole, I would absolutely prefer that there should be some sort of ID requirement to access social media. Anonymity should still be protected, but verification should not.

I see your point, but I think that social media either needs to be regulated to the level where they can be trusted enough to handle that information (which we aren't yet), or they need to be smaller & anonymous.

This hybrid system we have with Facebook & Twitter and such is the worst of both worlds as they set their rules arbitrarily and lazily at best, and in ways that are deliberately malicious at worst (organized malevolent groups with ISIS videos, autocratic propaganda, terrorist groups recruiting and even the owners of such a network using it for their own agendas).

After all this, they cannot be trusted to police themselves anymore.

>However, X (formerly known as Twitter is trying to require their ID, and that's not mentioning the rest of the nonsense Silicon Valley is cooking up…

All the more reason not to give money to Musk. The other nonsense is what people should be acting. Legislation that curtails freedom of speech and the right to privacy should always be opposed.

>But the reality is until this philosophical model starts to truly incorporate the responsibilities of mitigating the abuse and manipulation of social media for nefarious purposes that harms society as a whole, I would absolutely prefer that there should be some sort of ID requirement to access social media. Anonymity should still be protected, but verification should not.

Unless you're also advocating for censorship and suppression of dissent there is no way ID verification would stop abuse and manipulation of social media. It doesn't stop people from disseminating fake news, false information and propaganda. I know several people on this very site doing exactly that. It can only be mitigated through education and encouraging critical thinking, at least for those who are not hopelessly lost in tribalist brainrot.

Good luck getting anyone to care about the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabagh by the Azerbaijani & Turks again (this one really concerned me). Or the Rohingya genocide by Myanmar or what happened between Ethiopia & the Tigrayans. Horrible things happen all the time sadly, but that doesn't mean there isn't a limit. I'm pretty sure the Americans were pretty loud and clear about the Uyghur in China.

Maybe it's politics or to be less cynical, maybe people just have a limited bandwidth for public fury, it's why soft power is a shield.

Russia had attacked Georgia & Ukraine before, their current invasions and atrocities were just one step too far. As for what's going on between Israel & Hamas, maybe it's online misinformation to prepare the ground against Israel (because, I have seen unacceptable antisémitisme on these 'campus protests'), or maybe it's the difference between generations. The younger crowd only know Netanyahu (who's lust for power & callousness has ironically neglected Israel's physical security measures but also sapped their reputation) and not Golda Meir & Ben-Gurion.

The biggest difference I see between any conflict in Africa, Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe and Israel is that neither of the former were (directly) funded by the US. Is anyone in the US lobbying on the behalf of the PRC or is Putin getting standing ovations from the US Congress? No. It's completely different when every bomb and missile in those strikes bears the "Made in the USA" mark somewhere.

I'd argue about the issue of conflict of interest with China & Russia from some politicians, but I get the point. However, that still only explains the US.

Is this a case for not having dirty hands? I can see it, but inaction isn't necessarily better than complicity.

I've known people in Europe who didn't give a damn about Ukraine (or any other cause) who suddenly were fired up by Palestine. 'Course I've also known people who didn't give a damn about Ukraine who are suddenly all for Israel, people who care about all the above and those who plain just didn't care, people who were firmly 'anti-west' or "pro-west". Lots of different combinations.

It could be that Israel is considered part of the West and expected to having the same values. There is startling amount of people who still have a very dichotomous "black and white" view of the world. There is some strong cognitive dissonance when the people who are expected to be the "good guys" do something expected from the "bad guys". Some people have trouble processing it. And a disturbing amount of people even attempt to rationalize and justify atrocities committed by the "good guys". I've literally seen people justifying strikes on Crimea that accidentally killed children by blaming the victims. Not just from some maladjusted edgy basement dwellers spouting nonsense on Twitter, those people even celebrate war crimes, but from users here on this site.

Maybe I've become too cynical, but after a year and a half of being moderately pro-Ukrainian and then noticing the wool being pulled over my eyes, I can no longer support that stance in good conscience.

I understand that. I myself have a policy against terrorism of all kinds, because it's far too easy for too many people to try to justify that to themselves.

However, in the case of the Ukraine war it's a pragmatic (tinged with slight idealism) that allowed my continued support for them. Geopolitically & morally Russia cannot be allowed to succeed their invasion, we've already seen events in areas which they succeeded to control. Weighting the pros and cons the difference between "accidentally killed" and "deliberately killed" is important to me. The thematics of the whole arguments reminds me of a documentary about Danzig in WWII.

For me, it's a morally easier conflict to understand Ukraine-Russia than all of the other conflicts I mentioned. While I made no moral judgement there, I'd say here that anyone who's apathetic about Ukraine, but deeply cares about another conflict (apart from if they're from there) is someone whose moral sensibilities I don't trust.

You know Israel makes it's own weapons right? And it's considered some top-tier armaments. So much so that it's defense exports topped 13 billion (nearly 4 times what the US gives them in military aid). We also give military aid to Egypt, which like KSA (which we sold tens of billions of dollars of weapons to), also used it to rain missiles and bombs on Yemen, and Libya.

Yes, China has a lobby in the US. National Committee on United States China Relations, Committee of 100, US China Business Council, these are Chinese lobbying groups in the US.

so what do yall think of the dnc so far

1. AOC and Biden showed why people have liked them over the years
2. "what a shock. Hillary made it about her"
3. after the RNC grindr mess, PP driving up the abortionmobile because there was just too much straight fucking going on makes 2024 a really fucking strange time. The dems are rabidly patriotic while the republicans are death-marching unpopular policies they aren't excited for. And when I asked someone, they said Mandela didn't die in prison I may have dimension warped.

Can you clarify number 3

To be honest with you I genuinely wonder if any of this shit matters with how little everything I do seems to affect the world….like everything in general.

Does anything we do even matters? is discussing politics online just a waste of time? Is everything we "irrelevant" people do a waste of time? I dont honestly know

YOU DO MATTER

Everything we do does matter, the smallest kick does move the ball. Don't think in a global scale! Think in a local scale! YOU MATTER!

LIVE

If you keep saying nihilistic thoughts, I will throw a sandal at you.

Looks like trump is realizing his sockpuppet campaign was stealing his own votes so he may be folding rfk jr's into his

Has anything I have said or posted have had a significant effect on wether Trump or Kamala will be the ones elected during this presidencial election? unfortunately probably not.

It sucks to be so impotent and unimportant on the fate of the entire world……

No!!, my brother. Watch this video. You seem to be going through an existential crisis.

I assume you mean the plan parenthood abortion bus and giant inflatable IUD?

I've never been a big fan of Biden, but I did like his Cincinnatus like actions and speech (stepping down when necessary, loyalty to his country instead of dragging his fellow citizens down with him in a desperate bid to remain in power).

sometimes ya gotta know when to fold em. good on him. let's keep up the momentum.

a black man just called his dick tiny, we may see the hard-R drop today

However, in the case of the Ukraine war it's a pragmatic (tinged with slight idealism) that allowed my continued support for them. Geopolitically & morally Russia cannot be allowed to succeed their invasion, we've already seen events in areas which they succeeded to control. Weighting the pros and cons the difference between "accidentally killed" and "deliberately killed" is important to me. The thematics of the whole arguments reminds me of a documentary about Danzig in WWII.

Here's a honest question. What would be the geopolitical consequences of a successful Russian invasion that would be so disastrous to the West that it is considered worth sacrificing the lives of possibly more than half a million people, and sinking the whole country into misery for decades to come, just to try to avoid it? I don't think WW2 is a fair comparison when you had the Holocaust and the extermination of people all across Europe while IJAF committing all sorts of atrocities across Asia and the Pacific.

Whether it is "Accidentally killed" or "deliberately killed" is also important, as it varies between who is telling the story. And that's what's so important about information and the way it is distorted. Sadly, most people only hear what they want to hear.

You know Israel makes it's own weapons right? And it's considered some top-tier armaments. So much so that it's defense exports topped 13 billion (nearly 4 times what the US gives them in military aid). We also give military aid to Egypt, which like KSA (which we sold tens of billions of dollars of weapons to), also used it to rain missiles and bombs on Yemen, and Libya.

They do, products from companies like Elbit and Rafael are of very high quality, but Israel still imports a large amount of ammunition and vehicles from the United States. Last I've heard they were receiving F-15 fighters, Mk.80 series bombs, 155mm and 120mm shells, missiles for the Patriot as well as other various weapons and small arms munitions. Those are what I was talking about.

To be honest with you I genuinely wonder if any of this shit matters with how little everything I do seems to affect the world….like everything in general.

Does anything we do even matters? is discussing politics online just a waste of time? Is everything we "irrelevant" people do a waste of time? I dont honestly know

It matters. Sharing and discussing opinions is important. I listen to a lot of people, many of whom I don't agree with, but the different points of view allow me to have a better informed opinion. Just don't take it upon yourself to try and change the world, you'll never change the minds of those unwilling to listen.

Putin and Russia's goals are the destruction of the Ukrainian state. Putin's bare minimum terms for a ceasefire are the seizure of not just the Donbass, but the partially-seized territories of Kherson, Zaporizhia, and Kharkiv along with the expulsion of Ukrainian troops from those territories ALONG WITH a cap on the maximum number of troops/armaments Ukraine can have to defend themselves.

For the Ukrainian people they have seen how Russia has treated them thus far and how their people have fared in Russian occupation in Manriupol and Bucha. There is a deliberate and systemic attempt to commit genocide against Ukrainian people, as evidenced by the current arrest warrant out for Putin right now.

THEY are the ones choosing to continue fighting this war while they can; as for why we should support them is because if Putin is not defeated here he WILL continue his campaign in the Baltics, in Finland, in Poland, et cetera until USSR's borders are restored. A decisive defeat in Ukraine, a loss in Crimea, and the Putin regime humiliated can put an end to these ambitions.

I get if you folks don't easily understand what's at stake with Ukraine, but those that willingly believe Putin will just magically stop after he's tasted blood in the water seem unreasonably optimistic.

@TheHolyEmpress

Here's a honest question. What would be the geopolitical consequences of a successful Russian invasion that would be so disastrous to the West that it is considered worth sacrificing the lives of possibly more than half a million people, and sinking the whole country into misery for decades to come, just to try to avoid it?

Unfortunately, I think you've made a false dichotomy here, resist and be harmed in the fighting or surrender and be preserved. No, there will be "surrender and be harmed" as every Eastern European Nation has testified, since today is the anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Do you know how many people have accused Europeans for being in the payroll of the Americans for wanting to defend Ukraine (or for anything that displeases them)? Give the respect that self-defense is part of one's own self-agency.

There is a very easy way for the destruction of two countries to end. Russia could stop it's invasion.

I don't think WW2 is a fair comparison when you had the Holocaust and the extermination of people all across Europe while IJAF committing all sorts of atrocities across Asia and the Pacific.

Did Hitler start with camps everywhere? No, it built up gradually. To answer an earlier question it would be disastrous to Ukraine and it's people. That I've heard enough of Russian propaganda towards the "khokhol" that their intentions aren't secret. It could even be said that Communist China is eyeing the results of this war for their own plans. With the return of far-right politics as well in the equation and Russia's attempt to cultivate other such like-minded wannabe autocrats & extremists, I wouldn't say WWII is an unfair comparison.

There's even a lesson from France from this period about the cost of procrastinating through appeasement and surrendering.

Whether it is "Accidentally killed" or "deliberately killed" is also important, as it varies between who is telling the story. And that's what's so important about information and the way it is distorted. Sadly, most people only hear what they want to hear.

Russia invaded and deliberately targets civilians, while Ukraine hit military targets with the deaths in Crimea you mentioned being from debris. The scales in deaths of civilians are a difference in order of magnitude. Enough journalists are in Kursk to show difference in incursions.

Beware, I think you're over-correcting and going from a black-white dichotomy towards muddling in inability to distinguish between right from wrong (and they're not opposites, they're two sides of the same coin). It's a criticism that I had towards the Neo-cons & American Right (ironically enough) as well, that for all their talk of "you're either with us or against us" their mistakes shattered them to the point that they are now one of the most unreliable factions in NATO. Fanaticism burns itself out faster into nihilism than anything more even-tempered.

Anyway, learn from other viewpoints, know some will and some won't be convinced, I'll try to do the same. We're all human and I guess we're probably going to disagree here.

Two pieces of news to explain some side comments I've made:

Putin has decided that Russia is going to be a 'safe haven' for people who want to trade liberal Western ways for Russian 'moral values

Considering that family who moved to Russia, I have no doubt there'd be takers. Only silver lining is that it will act the same way that ISIS acted for jihadists; an outlet for some to leave.

Hungary Misses EU Deadline to Clarify Eased Entry Rules for Russian and Belarusian Citizens

Putin and Russia's goals are the destruction of the Ukrainian state. Putin's bare minimum terms for a ceasefire are the seizure of not just the Donbass, but the partially-seized territories of Kherson, Zaporizhia, and Kharkiv along with the expulsion of Ukrainian troops from those territories ALONG WITH a cap on the maximum number of troops/armaments Ukraine can have to defend themselves.

Putin wants to remove Zelenskyy's regime. Maybe also suppress the intensely nationalistic movements within Ukraine, the ones seeking to remove any traces of Russian or Soviet culture and hold members of the OUN as heroes. But the entire destruction of the Ukrainian state, I find that unlikely. An annexation of the entire Ukrainian territory would be asking for decades of resistance, partisan activity and continuous instability, especially in western regions that have a much stronger anti-Russian sentiment, as well as continued pressure from the West.

The ceasefire terms put by Putin are a direct response to Zelenskyy's peace summit in Switzerland, which demands Russian forces to leave Ukrainian territory, reparations and and the like. It was meant to be a political gesture. What terms for a possible negotiated settlement could be is up for debate and I believe we'll find out sometime in the future.

The issue with "genocide" and "Russification" claims is how easily they can be weaponized and used as a political tool. People like Mykhailo Podolyak claim that Russian civilians in Crimea are "civilian occupiers". This is despite how pre-2014 a majority of 40% identified themselves as Russians versus only 15% considering themselves Ukrainian. I can't find reliable figures on Mariupol, only Wikipedia sources stating 63% by the early 2000s.

That said, any and all war crimes should be prosecuted after a thorough and objective investigation is done. That goes for the AFU as well.

THEY are the ones choosing to continue fighting this war while they can; as for why we should support them is because if Putin is not defeated here he WILL continue his campaign in the Baltics, in Finland, in Poland, et cetera until USSR's borders are restored

I get if you folks don't easily understand what's at stake with Ukraine, but those that willingly believe Putin will just magically stop after he's tasted blood in the water seem unreasonably optimistic..

This one really baffles me. On the one hand you constantly hear that the Russians only know how to perform "meat assaults", the VKS is a paper tiger, T-90M tanks are absolute garbage, the S-500 got pummeled in Crimea by US missiles from the 80s, the Russian command is so incompetent that a bunch of monkeys would do better, they're running out of tanks so they're pulling rusty tank hulls from storage and they're about to send T-34-76s from museums any day now and while they threaten nuclear war every day but their nukes are falling apart and probably don't even work. Every day for the last couple weeks nonstop it's always how they've been getting their asses handed to them in Kursk.

Yet on the other hand Putin has to be stopped at all costs or he will march into Europe like Hitler in 1939. The Baltics, Poland and Finland will fall like dominoes until the Russians are back in Berlin, possibly more.

2.5 years stuck in the Donbas against a much smaller army with barely any air support and no navy, really unlikely they could even get past the Dnieper even if they want to. How am I supposed to believe this the force that will take all of NATO head on? Can Putin summon millions of soldiers, tanks, aircraft out of thin air?

The truth is, while the state of the Russian armed forces is nowhere near as bad as some make it out to be, they just don't have the capability to project power. Rebuilding their forces will take years, if not decades. They can't do it even if they wanted and I really have no reason to think they do. Ukraine has rich fields and access to the Black Sea. What do Estonia or Latvia have that's worth risking WW3 for?

Unfortunately, I think you've made a false dichotomy here, resist and be harmed in the fighting or surrender and be preserved. No, there will be "surrender and be harmed" as every Eastern European Nation has testified, since today is the anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Do you know how many people have accused Europeans for being in the payroll of the Americans for wanting to defend Ukraine (or for anything that displeases them)? Give the respect that self-defense is part of one's own self-agency.

There is a very easy way for the wholesale destruction of two countries to end. Russia could stop it's invasion.

The invasion of Czechoslovakia might have brought decades of poverty and misery under the Soviet influence on the region, but at the same time, we're talking about a nation with half a million of people dead, critical infrastructure completely destroyed, an economy in shambles, a demographic crisis worsened and a complete dependence on foreign aid to survive.

To be completely fair, the United States has had a pretty big role in interfering and subverting foreign regimes all over the world. The CIA's constant efforts in replacing democratic governments in South America with authoritarian regimes willing to work for their interests. They did interfere in territory of the Soviet Union as well, ironically they did it in Ukraine as well during that time. Not that the Soviet Union was a harmless victim, but there is precedent for that.

The war should never have happened. In all likelihood, Russia didn't want it either, which is why they were caught completely unprepared for it. They only sent 30k troops to capture Kyiv. I believe they most likely intended to oust the Zelenskyy regime, replace it with one friendly to Russia and keep the LPR, DPR and Crimea as independent puppet states. That's when they got stuck and it was too late to go back. Now the big question is how to end it. Neither side will capitulate willingly, that is a non-starter. There are still rumors of possible negotiations, that Kursk is meant to give Ukraine a bargaining chip in them. The problem is, if things go wrong for Ukraine, if they have to cede land and renounce NATO membership in the end, the question for everyone will be if all the fighting and losses were worth it.

Did Hitler start with camps everywhere? No, it built up gradually. To answer an earlier question it would be disastrous to Ukraine and it's people. That I've heard enough of Russian propaganda towards the "khokhol" that their intentions aren't secret. It could even be said that Communist China is eyeing the results of this war for their own plans. With the return of far-right politics as well in the equation and Russia's attempt to cultivate other such like-minded wannabe autocrats & extremists, I wouldn't say WWII is an unfair comparison.

There's even a lesson from France from this period about the cost of surrendering.

Hitler started with a well defined antisemitic rhetoric, propagating the "stab in the back" claim and blaming the Jews years before he was in power. He published Mein Kampf with outlines of his ideas as far back as 1925. By the time of the war the Nazi party had a grasp on a big part of the German population, plans of going for the Lebensraum and driving the "Untermenschen" away were already known. Likewise, Japan had already started its expansionist policies as far back as the 30s. They were prepared for war. Russia wasn't.

Russia's alignment with other autocratic states seems more like a product of necessity than anything ideological or political. It's not like they have much choice but to make ties with North Korea or Iran, they're not particularly worried about Western sanctions and they get leverage against the West by supporting one another. China maintains its distance relatively speaking.

Russia invaded and deliberately targets civilians, while Ukraine hit military targets with the deaths in Crimea you mentioned being from debris. The scales in deaths of civilians are a difference in order of magnitude. Enough journalists are in Kursk to show difference in incursions.

Ascribing intent to strikes on civilians is pretty difficult when information is unreliable and there is an extremely heavy information war campaign to influence public opinion. I mentioned the strike on the hospital on Kyiv. During a Kh-101 cruise missile attack one hit part of the hospital and killed 2 people. This isn't a small building, it's 130m long and more than 8 stories high, yet the missile somehow missed the main building, and destroyed a small toxicology building. It didn't stop many from stating the attack was deliberate and that the hospital was "leveled".

The more I looked into it the more inconsistencies, omissions and outright lies from the media I found. And that's exactly what bothers me about it. Ukraine uses misinformation and propaganda as much as Russia does, possibly even more, as the media and the public repeat the same information. Stuff like the "Ghost of Kiev" going viral is a good example, a fairly benign lie as far as propaganda goes, but it shows how readily people are willing to believe lies that support their stance. If they're continuously lying to me about Russia running out of missiles, if they're lying to me about the drones being intercepted, if they're lying to me about equipment destroyed, about battlefield casualties, about civilian deaths, if their own analyst from think-tanks like RUSI admit the West believed their own propaganda leading to the disaster of the 2023 counteroffensive, what else can they be lying about?

The problem with comparing what is happening in Kursk with what happened in the Donbas is that the latter was being fortified ever since 2014. The Kursk incursion started with highly mobile, highly trained and well-coordinated troops taking up positions in land mostly defended by border guards and conscripts, because nobody was expecting an attack there. The Donbas is filled with trenches, fortifications and minefields. Every high-rise building in urban areas becomes a fortification. Hence the very heavy artillery barrages, the buildings demolished with FAB strikes and the costly fighting over tree lines and open fields.

Beware, I think you're over-correcting and going from a black-white dichotomy towards muddling in inability to distinguish between right from wrong (and they're not opposites, they're two sides of the same coin). It's a criticism that I had towards the Neo-cons & American Right (ironically enough) as well, that for all their talk of "you're either with us or against us" their mistakes shattered them to the point that they are now one of the most unreliable factions in NATO. Fanaticism burns itself out faster into nihilism than anything more even-tempered.

Maybe. What led me down this road was noticing how much I was being manipulated and the reality being distorted. My view of the world was based entirely on one side of the story and the complexities being ignored in favor of a simplified good versus evil narrative. Let me be clear, I do not support Russia or the invasion, I find it hard to justify war in all but the most extreme cases. I do try to figure out and understand their motivations and be objective about them.

But at the same time I cannot support Ukraine. I support civilians, I sincerely hope they get the best outcome that causes the least of damage for them because they're the victims. I just do not trust the Ukrainian government or authorities. I do not buy for a second the idea that the West is defending democracy and freedom when you have people like Senator Lindsey Graham bragging about how weapons that they've provided are "creating jobs in the US" and how they're "learning about their own weapon systems" while they're tested in Ukraine, or a few months back when he spoke about the trillions of dollars in minerals in the Donbas he wants so much.

But if you think it's a cause worth believing in, I may not agree, but I respect your position.

"if Russia invade nato why Russia suck"
I don't have time to write the reasons why again and I can't find a comment where I went into detail about it (it was probably on kymcord) so here's a youtuber I respect talking about it:

"Dnieper"
"what about CIA"
"Ghost of Kiev"

You claim to notice how manipulated you were yet still use the Russified names of the occupier, propagate whataboutisms, conflate grassroots memes with state-sponsored propaganda, and fail to address my single most damning point to your argument is that the defender getting invader wants to fight off its aggressor which is why the war continues on their terms.

You claim to be for the civilians but when a clear-cut case of the aggressor harming civilians is mentioned to you you go out of your way to suggest it was conflated if not entirely falsified. The reason the hospital attack got so much attention is that so many state sponsored Russian accounts and Russian-favoring propagandists believed the attack was Ukrainian from the get go, and now that we've firmly established otherwise you can only suggest "well it was ONLY 2 killed but really was it?" If you truly only support civilians you wouldn't even suggest something so heinous.

Your claim to be against being manipulated but your post-truth narrative is extremely revealing. Genuine question: are you the type of person that thinks putting Kyiv Independent on one tab and RT on the other and go "well one says this and the other says that I guess both lie huh"? Because I'm baffled by anyone that claims to independently research a Russian attack on civilians and concludes Russia is telling the truth.

I don't agree with you, I don't respect you or your position, and I suspect you are not even as neutral as you claim. Russia broke the UN charter and a dozen other political agreements by invading Ukraine, as far as I'm concerned helping Ukraine win by arming it is the barest minimum we should do as signatories of the Budapest Memorandum.

Dnieper is the term used by Wikipedia, I literally checked the spelling there. Kiev is the spelling used by pretty much every language in the world, including my native tongue, yet I mostly use the term Kyiv. You're grasping at straws.

I said that I find it incredibly hard to believe that Russia would waste a 13 million missile trying to deliberately hit a civilian target, which would absolutely get them well deserved condemnation from the world and strengthen support for Ukraine, in the eve of the NATO summit, and that the missile which allegedly has a 5-20m accuracy missed the 130m building and that the 450kg-800kg warhead, which would have destroyed a large part of the building and buried dozens if not hundreds under the rubble with a direct hit, only resulted in two civilian casualties. Am I justifying the strike or suggesting it was falsified? No. I'm saying I find it more likely that the strike was accidental despite the media and propagandists jumping at the chance of suggesting the strike was intentional.

If you see the post I made on the KYM entry for the day of the strike, I posted that I read pro-Russian claims about the missile, that I did not consider them accurate as the photos suggested it was a Russian missile and refrained from speculating further until more information surfaced. How is that concluding that Russia was telling the truth?

I do not follow Russian news sources and I am as skeptical of pro-Russian accounts as I am of pro-Ukrainians. I always look for multiple sources and look for the least biased ones, especially when sharing any information. Any time I post news I link to media outlets like Reuters, Forbes or Ukrainian media, if I quote anything from Twitter I do it from sources like NOELreports. I think I posted a video from Rybar once because I didn't find it anywhere else. I guess that makes me a "vatnik". I even posted a couple of videos from Millenium 7 once, which I consider a very neutral and fairly reliable source, yet from the reaction from some individuals you'd think I was linking to TASS or RT.

And your video does not answer my question. Okay, Putin is delusional, he thinks the west is an existential threat, he can push the Baltics around in 2027-2028. With what force? With a heavily depleted and war-weary army and an economy depleted by years of sanctions? I have little reason to think this is anything other than fearmongering. If anything this war proved that any invasion to an even moderately well defended country is extremely costly, the balance of war shifted away from traditional tactics thanks to the technological advances in ISR, drone warfare and communications. That's more of a deterrent to aggression than any political agreements.

If Tim Walz becomes VP, does that make him the first Gamer VP?

"spelling"
If you are going to comment with any sort of authority on the invasion of Ukraine and even bring up and engage with topics of Russification and deny the genocide of Ukrainians, it looks HIGHLY SUSPECT when you resort to Russian spellings. By no means a damning indicator, but when taking in the full context of what you're trying to comment on it causes my eyebrow to raise. The point was also to address your conflation of pro-Ukrainian propaganda memes (Ghost of Kyiv) with pro-Russian propaganda (genocide denial, missile attack denial).

"Putin weak how push"
It doesn't fucking matter how weak the Russian army is when the motive of the regime is there, the transition to a wartime economy of the Russian state is there, and the belief that NATO will either not come to the aid of a country (as Trump has proudly said he'll do) or will be unable to do it thanks to failed efforts to re-arm. The danger is absolutely real and even an attempt that ends in decisive Russian defeat is a conflict we should avoid as a NATO-RU conflict could embolden other actors elsewhere while NATO is distracted.

"I find it incredibly hard to believe that Russia would waste a 13 million missile trying to deliberately hit a civilian target"
Yeah I do too yet here we fucking are. You have to be actually willfully ignorant as to not only rhetorically neglect to mention that 50+ people were injured in that attack and that "only" 2 were killed, then suggest that the high accuracy of the missile means it must've been accident somehow, and THEN to ignore the context of DOZENS AND DOZENS of prior attacks.

It should be immediately apparent to any monkey with a pattern-recognizing brain that the attacks on Ukrainian civilians are a feature, not a defect. If not for the causes of genocide like Bucha, if not for strategic reasons like the campaign on Ukraine's power plants/heating, then for the simple reason that Russia is a terrorist state.

You're either a useful idiot or a stooge.

context?

he was briefly addicted to the dreamcast, so you know,
taste

hes got damn good taste

Specifically to the game Crazy Taxi from what i've heard, lol

Understandable

@TheHolyEmpress

The war should never have happened. In all likelihood, Russia didn't want it either, which is why they were caught completely unprepared for it.

Let me stop you there, no country ever invades by mistake.No country invades twice by mistake, like Russia did with Ukraine. It's mistake was that of Hitler's arrogance in thinking he could keep on attacking countries without consequence (and he did whine about being at war with the UK). It's a country which hasn't realized that their hostile actions for decades against neighbours has finally depleted any soft power. It's a country which believe it was strong enough and miscalculated, like any petty bully.

That was why French Intelligence did not think Russia was going to invade it, it confused it "shouldn't" invade with "it won't". Russia built up it's army on the borders while lying through it's teeth that it was just an exercise (while only the US & UK warned us, but no one believe them because of Iraq) and the US got back a modicum of trust by being Cassandra telling the truth.

As I said there is a solution: Russia withdraws. It's rhetoric of national defence has been shown to be completely hollow with how empty it's borders are of guards, it does not have any credibility in any of it's laundry list of cassus bellis. Trying to divert attention to the US in the Cold War doesn't change that or it's history, nor is trying to displace who's the aggressor and who needs to act to stop this situation.
_________________________________________

I have also observed the interaction with @wisehowl_the_2nd and in interest of not repeating what they have said, but also not getting another argument to avoid raising my blood pressure, I will cut my response short of some other arguments you made.

I will simply state however that if you wish to state some things that have caused distrust, in the brief period at the start of the invasion a lot of people let down their masks. Russia & Russians taunted us Europeans of freezing & famine and of attacking us next. 'Anti-west' crowed about vicariously attacking and we saw the savagery of the "regime change" in the suburbs of Kyiv.

That they were deluded does not change the sentiment behind it. It has very much been a sign of the warning rhetoric & plan. For Russia it is idealogical & political, and there's no turning back the clock on that realization.

Political factions also acted.The Far-right being contemptible collaborators as they are, I fully expected them to sabotage, impede and even work with Russia. What I was unpleasantly surprised of, is the 'anti-imperialists' who tacitly support an Imperialist war. Like Stalinists of old, except worse. Beware as a warning, credibility once lost is very hard to claw it back, and I very much am on guard now.

So just to be clear. I think we are now reaching my line for this conversation.

Oof, a game of Crazy Taxi or one of it's successors seems good about now.