B-but both sides

You're viewing a single thread.

264 comments

If you're still trying to pull "both sides" to defend a country murdering and abducting children, you have no footing to stand on.
- They don't care. It's meant to muddy the waters, confuse people who only pay attention to world affairs on the surface level. Repeat it, and people remember it. Doesn't matter who responds to you. Doesn't matter what they say to refute it. All that matters is getting the material out there, making it pop, making it catchy. Then all you have to do is rely on spotty human memory to do the rest.
  It's even better when you get third parties passing along your propaganda too, and all the implications it drags with it.
- "This is not war of Russia and Ukraine. I am against such definition. This is Putin's war."
  Boris Nemtsov, before he was shot on bridge near Kremlin wall
- No one is saying that in good faith. I've only ever seen it as an idiotic straw man to attack people who don't support escalation in Ukraine.
  You can see that Russia's actions are irreconcilably evil, and still not support Western military intervention in the area.
  
  Since the west are the ones doing the most to help Ukraine right now, you kind of can't.
- I am a centrist, when I say both sides are bad, it doesn't mean both sides are bad in every single conflict but that both sides have their issues. For example, Ukraine has a problem with Nazism, but that doesn't mean they should be invaded by Russia.
  The reason why this strawman meme like OP posted, gains traction is because most centrists don't really bother wasting time and effort arguing online.
  
  "I am a centrist"
  And as such no one should listen to a thing you say.
  
  Neither should they to you either. I'm a nobody, just like you.
  
  A nobody with an opinion that destroys society vs some random person. Yep absolutely same thing (see centrism is great!!)
  
  Russia has only strengthened the position of the Nazis. A society fighting a desperate defensive war can't afford to exclude any help. If Nazis want to go fight the Russians, go let them. Either way, regardless of who dies, you win. And if the Nazis survive until the end of the war, we can thank them for their service with slightly comfier pillows in their jail cells.
  
  And if the Nazis survive until the end of the war, we can thank them for their service with slightly comfier pillows in their jail cells.
  Except this thinking is literally how half of ethnic conflicts in early 20th century arose. The problem with this is that if Nazis survive, they are going to do so by holding positions of power.
  
  what are you talking about? the far FAR overwhelming amount of Ethnic conflicts in the 20th century onwards were literally due to the collapse of artificial socio-economic structures created by then defunct empires.
  Literally: COLONIALISM
  
  And if the Nazis survive until the end of the war, we can thank them for their service with slightly comfier pillows in their jail cells.
  I see no jail cells in these photos:
  (2019) Former WWII nationalist guerrillas granted veteran status in Ukraine: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7148
  For reference:
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army
  
  You seem to be exceptionally confused. Go back and read what I said. At no point did I say that was what happened. It was my personal opinion that if Nazis help you fight a defensive war, their reward should be more comfy pillows in their jail cells. No amnesty, no forgiveness.
  I'm flattered that you went into all that effort to dunk on me, but in the future don't do all of that work until you make sure you understand the comment correctly.
  
  Your comment didn't specify a timeframe, which is why it contradicted recent events.
  It was my personal opinion that if Nazis help you fight a defensive war, their reward should be more comfy pillows in their jail cells.
  I share your opinion there.
  
  I see what you mean. Regardless, I'm glad we agree on the actual point once we got through the misunderstanding.
  A domestic enemy helping you defend your country is still a domestic enemy, and you can't just forgive their wrongs, even if it feels a bit exploitative and unfair to give them nothing.
  Ironically, your number one ally in a defensive existential war is the fascists and extremists, because they're going to be quite pissed at the prospect of being conquered. Allowing them to fight is already reward enough for them.
  
  Centrism isn't a political position. It's an attitude. It means you have a tendency to view dichotomies as false, and further that the truth, as you understand it, exists somewhere between two presented (false) dichotomies.
  Centrism means different things depending on political context. It could mean you're a socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, a bolshevik. It doesn't present a political view in and of itself, and as such it's usually an incredibly unprincipled stance.
  Do you look at class through a socialist lens or a fascist one? As in, do you believe the classes are opposed in their interests or aligned?
  Do you support the state's monopoly on violence and subsequent declaration of private property rights?
  Do you view allowing the interests of capital to steer the global economy via institutions like the IMF as a grave injustice or the invisible hand of the market doing what's best for humanity?
  The answer to these questions, if you look into things, will often align in a coherent way. It's unlikely, for example, that you'll take a socialist lens on classes in viewing them as conflicted while also supporting the declaration of property rights in direct opposition to the interests of the worker.
  If you're in the U.S and you're a self-described centrist, you're likely a capitalist who's simply undecided on some social issues. If you were brought up religious but went to secular public school, that would cause some dissonance in analyzing social issues. However, this inability to form a coherent view shouldn't be the main feature of your self-described political stance.
  It's better to just say you haven't done enough research to come to any reasonable political position. It's much better to accept that humans don't know everything and know where your own knowledge falls short.
  
  As someone who thought for a while they were centrist, this represents how I came to see it better than I could have put it into words.
  Centrism is a desire to compromise between the two available options. There is no compromising with fascism. They might pretend to compromise, but they are really just solidifying their position for their next push. A compromise means they accomplish half of their goals and thus will have an easier time getting the rest of them than they would have before the compromise. Especially if their concessions all had nothing to do with real power, like allowing gay marriage. If they can offer the decriminalization of abortion to secure more political power, they can just consolidate that and use it to ban abortion again for everyone down the line. Their primary goal total power, everything else is secondary to that.
  I see the Democrats as largely representing the status quo economically and politically with a healthy dose of social of progressivism thrown in. That social progressivism is important, but the economic and political stuff is what really needs to change to fix things. The Republicans, on the other hand, are regressive economically, politically, and socially, which was the case even before their recent descent into fascism. A compromise between those two won't do anything good, so centrism is out.
  
  Or rather, the Dems are, as a product of the nature of being such a broad party, centrist.
  They're only left compared to the far right. They try to keep balance far too often, often at the degeneration of the left (or greater good).
  I'm not saying it's bad (it isn't ideal), but it is what it is.
  
  You say all of this and practically not a word of it shakes out in reality
  
  Being a victim of a murder doesn't make you a good person?
  
  What? Who murdered Putin? What the fuck are you on about?
  
  What? Who said anything about Putin being murdered?
  I stated that being a victim of something terrible doesn't mean you're automatically good.
  
  Yes it does you absolute buffoon. If you are being attacked as part of an invasion that means you are automatically and without question on the good side if youre defending yourself.
  If you argue in any other way you deserve to have your opinions and arguments laughed at online.
  
  You are the victim, but that doesn't make you 100% good XD.
  
  Okay, let me explain this to you like you are a four-year-old:
  Pointing out the idiosyncrasies in either country's culture is irrelevant to the discussion yet you did so and now defend doing it.
  You only brought up an issue in Ukraine's culture, none of Russia's.
  Therefore we know you are bringing up irrelevant shit in a biased way to make Ukraine look bad.
  Therefore you need to shut the fuck up.
  
  Okay, let me explain this to you like a four-year-old:
  Oh he's really going to listen to and consider what you're saying, and maybe change his mind, based on you talking to him like that.
  Therefore you need to shut the fuck up.
  FFS
  
  He has no choice. He’s on a public internet forum making dumbass statements where everybody can see and react to them.
  Just be thankful I bothered to break it down for him instead of roasting him outright.
  The point that you're missing is if you're actually trying to change his mind, or just berate him publicly.
  If its beration, then I guess carry on, though that makes for horrible reading by the rest of us, though it probably makes you feel very good for yourself.
  And in the real world, when you say stupid shit, people are going to react honestly.
  Because you would say the exact same thing to him to his face if you were both in a party in a room full of people, right?
  
  Okay then, let me explain this to you like you're a four-year-old:
  The point you're missing is that I don't care what some sycophantic bootlicker thinks. Or what anyone thinks.
  I'm not out to change minds.
  I'm making fun of him. And you.
  Why, I absolutely would say the same thing to his face and everyone else would laugh in his face. It happens at protests all the time.
  Does that make the situation clear enough for you?
  
  There's a good side, and there's a bad side. One side is abducting and killing/raping everybody they see, while trying to expand their country back into soviet times. The other side is trying to survive. You calling them both bad is like saying "My neighbour and hitler are both bad, hitler killed jews, and my neighbour called me a bad name."
  The things you talk about do not compare at all.
  
  Okay so you can't read. Got it.
  Just for clarity, I'm literally agreeing with you that Russia is in the wrong.
  
  You are. But the both sides bit came in when you said Ukraine has bad stuff too.
  
  So? Just because Russia is invading Ukraine doesn't mean Ukraine's actions OUTSIDE of the conflict are excused. Russia is wrong in invading Ukraine. But Ukraine has problems of its own too. If you don't understand something as simple as that, then I'd strongly suggest you to not be as confident in your thinking.
  
  No you said "I am a centrist, when I say both sides are bad, it doesn't mean both sides are bad in every single conflict but that both sides have their issues. For example, Ukraine has a problem with Nazism, but that doesn't mean they should be invaded by Russia.
  The reason why this strawman meme like OP posted, gains traction is because most centrists don't really bother wasting time and effort arguing online. ".
  As a centrist you would have stated that you despise the person in the middle of the meme if anything and that's it. As a centrist you would hate to be associated with a whataboutism spewing shitposter or worse a russian propaganda bot. You are not. While everyone here is on the same page about the Russia invasion you brought up irrelevant shit that has nothing to do with the russian invasion war that is going on right now. Why? Probably because you think playing devil's advocate means being a centrist.
  As a centrist: Russia is obviously wrong and nobody needed your affirmation for this and it doesnt matte if Ukraine had a Nazism Problem, because now the World has a Russia Problem.
  
  Except that I posted more than one comment. And you conveniently ignored them lmao. Shameless.
  
  Cite them. What else did you say that would make all the criticism you got unjust?
  I read all your comments. You are not a centrist.
  
  https://lemm.ee/comment/4198075
  I don't care about "unjust criticism". I believe Russia is totally wrong in this conflict. But that doesn't mean the world should go full Canada and start celebrating actual SS Nazi soldiers in Parliament.
  And I don't need to prove whether I'm a centrist or not, the best answer I can give you is that both tankies and bigots disagree heavily with my views, I believe in seperation of economy from government (actual center right economic policy) while also believing that everyone should have the freedom to express themselves and right to basic needs, and freedom to immigrate (center/center left).
  
  Your citation just proved my point. But since the mods here already removed my comments because i wasnt nice enough to you i will leave it at that. Have a life.
  
  it doesn't mean both sides are bad in every single conflict
  But you're implying it. You're implying far greater equivalence exists than there is.
  If English isn't your native language, then let me help you.
  both sides are bad
  Is wrong. That is a final judgement, and it is wrong
  both sides have faults
  Is correct, and what you mean. It still isn't good, but is closer to what you mean.
  Also, on the topic of left, right, centrist and moderates (etc), you should be aware of the concept of the Overton Window. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) I am not going to support the entirety of the concept, but the basic relevance is that "if the general trend of the times is for people to be more right wing, then what you thought was central becomes what was right wing in the past". This is a fault / problem with describing an idiology not on its own, but only in relation to others.
  Language is used for communicating ideas and thoughts, and if you don't use it "correctly", in the manner that other people use it, then you will be misunderstood.
  
  Ukraine has a problem with Nazism, but that doesn’t mean they should be invaded by Russia.
  This tells me that you both think that Putin invaded Ukraine because of the nazism (he didn't) and that you shouldn't invade a country for being full of nazis (you absolutely should) Congratulations, the average liberal once again managed to support the worst of both sides.
  
  What in the fuck makes this person a "liberal"? sounds like a Fox News viewing trump supporter to me
  
  Yes that's why Fox News does that. It's called poisoning the well. They do it to drive the narrative that the left and the right are equivalent.
  
  yes, a Liberal
  America has some stupid redefinition of these words, people like Thatcher, Regan, Clinton, Boris Johnson, etc... are all Liberals
  
  this is just called pendantry. I've heard this a million times, but it doesn't change a damned thing about how millions of people use the word. at that point it's an alternate definition.
  
  and how millions of people use the word doesn't change how billions use the word, because this is literally an America vs. rest of the word thing
  
  that's fine I'm just telling you it doesn't help anyone to pretend you don't know what americans mean
  
  I wasn't the one being confused/upset about people using the word "Liberal" correctly, Omega_Haxors used it very much correctly, and you got upset the rest of the world doesn't use American definitions.
  now you are unironically getting upset at me for "pretending I don't know what Americans mean", How entitled do you have to be, to be upset the rest of the world isn't using your definition?
  
  I'm afraid you have no idea what I meant. bye

264 comments