You're viewing part of a thread.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine's self defense. What I don't agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of "aid" that never gives anything to anyone for free.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine’s self defense.
How curious, because you began by stating
to think this conflict involves “the good guys” in some way is laughable
It's almost like a classic motte-and-bailey argument.
What I don’t agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of “aid” that never gives anything to anyone for free.
Yes, here we have the horrible motivation of [checks notes] not wanting Ukraine, a country who we have fairly close ties with, annexed by an authoritarian dictatorship who constantly causes trouble for us. Truly, we are vile opportunists here.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
Russia. And if you believe this conflict is something best described in 'shades of gray', then I still regard you as simping for Russia, in the same way that Juche apologists sometimes admit fault with North Korea, but always immediately pivot to "But South Korea Just As Bad(tm)". Playing "Bothsides!" games is old hat. It's been overused. No one falls for it anymore. Sorry.
I do think that the substance of our disagreement here is minute and the "no good side" statement I opened this with is far from the best way of wording what I was referring to here. Please note, however, that at no point did I bring "shades of gray" or "both sides equally bad" into the conversation, and that the antagonistic nature of your gotcha is deeply reductive, insensitive and automated.
Permanently Deleted
I did not interpret my original comments as genocidal rhetoric, but seeing as how they have been interpreted, I now realize that they contain an element analogous to that of "the conflict in Gaza is too complex". I am sorry for causing this pointless argument and will be more careful with the implications of concise opinions from now on.
I tend to be aggressive because I find a lot of people playing apologist for Russia, often utilizing doublespeak and changing the tack of their argument when confronted, only to return to it later when the examination is less thorough, not only on here but also in person.
I apologize that I was too quick to assume motives in this case.
So I missed y'all's argument, but I really appreciate how you both realized that you'd made thoughtless posts, apologized, and removed them.
It's a rare thing to see online.
I just wanted to say 'well done' for going over what you said, realizing how it could be interpreted adversely, and admitting it. Not enough people are willing to do that, so well done!