B-but both sides
B-but both sides
168 comments
-
-
There is a "peace organization" here in Sweden, Svenska Freds, that are hard core pacifists. No matter what - pacifists. Their reasoning is like children. War is bad, everybody should be friends, the end. Reality should conform to this simple principle.
In the early days of the invasion, their loud public stance was that Sweden should not support Ukraine with military equipment. Ukraine was just as bad as Russia for defending themselves with weapons when they should use reason and diplomacy.
Then they got all weepy in the media when people called them useful idiots for Russia.
-
Absolutely hate those sorts of people. I'm a pacifist too, but not at the cost of my own life.
-
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
exert from Orwell on Pacifism and the war
-
There's this codepink in u.s. thats like this organization too, except only think remarkable about them is when their website was flooded with signatures from trolls that said things like hating african americans, praising zelensky or putin AND hitler in same sentence and using putin's credentials as if it were a regular signature.
-
Source?
-
-
This reminds me of that cunt Caitlin Johnstone saying the simple solution in Ukraine was detente. As if that is an option when you're defending against the entire removal of your culture, history, heritage, and people.
-
-
So if your country was being invaded you'd just lie down and take it? Perhaps even say thank you? You're naive to think that talking will magically solve things when you're against an enemy who clearly doesn't have the same moral standards as you. They're attempting to take what they want with force, they've already demonstrated that they don't care for niceties like negotiation.
Imagine trying to talk it out with a mugger. They don't care what you want to talk about. They want your money.
Every downvote is a vote for death, hatred, and suffering of innocents
This makes you sound like those moronic Facebook posts that say things like "1 like = 1 prayer, ignore = you hate puppies". It's not a good look.
-
Oh most enlightened one, ye who stands upon the highest of moral ground, please share with us your illuminated opinion of how the Ukraine should have responded? Or for that matter, any enemy who wishes to take your land and kill your people.
Clearly you are the most learned among us, and have solved the puzzle of how to overcome a violent enemy without resorting to violence, so please I beg of you oh sage one to teach us your great wisdom so that we may be as ethically correct as you.
EDIT
Aww I missed their rage response, I am guessing they had no better response than "let the violent party take whatever they want"? Yeah cause that's a super great plan, and definitely doesn't incentivize more violence.
-
This guy would help the Russians if they invaded his country. Just vile.
-
WW2 happened because of retards like you.
-
So the solution is that the one side that already has a bunch of guns, gets to kill as many people on the other side, and we must not help the other side defend themselves?
Always give the aggressor everything they want and let them kill as many civilians as they need to.
Sure.
temporarily get some of what they want while things are worked out
Some of what they want = to own all of Ukraine, and for Ukrainians to not exist as a culture, let alone a nation.
There's no temporary about it. There's no "some of what they want" about it. Negotiations have been tried time and time again. Ceasefires have been tried, but guess what, Russia just bombarded the civilian evacuation corridors when they were negotiated because the goal is to kill as many Ukrainians as possible.
Putin is not rational, this is an ego war. I take it you were never bullied in school. You might not know what it's like when someone's main goal in life is to make yours hell. You can just lay on the ground and play dead, that won't stop them from kicking you. There's no talking your way out of it unless you yourself are at least as strong as the bully. This is what Russia is. A schoolyard bully. Any type of negotiated peace short of total capitulation is going to be nothing more than a way to catch Ukraine with its' pants down and kill more Ukrainians and grab more territory. The only way Russia will stop killing innocent people is if they either run out of resources, or Putin himself gets deposed.
-
-
-
-
*raped, tortured, and shot
-
The children were ravenous demons! Foaming at the mouth!
-
Our hands were forced. We had to kidnap them from their families we killed and send them to residential schools.
-
Omg, (after we killed their parents with missiles) we found all these poor orphans, abandoned!
-
-
-
did china shoot children recently?
I dont get it.
-
I mean, yes, definitely they have. But they were probably Uyghurs or something so sympathizers don't mind.
-
Only devil's advocate in war I will ever advocate for is "what happens to the populace when their government eventually gets collapsed"
Russian government is corrupt as hell and the military is fucked, dont get me wrong, but if we get a repeat of Brazil/Korea/etc. where a 'west-friendly' dictator is installed, I would rather them be under their current gov
-
It's Russia. It will be a dictator or nothing, it is their culture and has been for centuries.
-
I personaly don't give rat's arse what happens to russians when their government collapses. They brought it onto themselves, both by being "apolitical about it all" or by supporting and cheering the government all the way back ten years ago when it was just "little green men" and "polite people".
-
And how about the millions who weren't okay with Putin, but were forced into silence because one person can't fight governmental tyranny? Like, I don't support Russia's invasion and I think Putin needs to pay, but do millions of Russians who had no say whatsoever (and were brainwashed for decades through expertly crafted propaganda) deserve to starve alongside their children for the actions of a monster?
If you say 'yes', then tell me if all Americans deserve to suffer the consequence of Trump's presidency when the majority didn't even vote for the guy.
-
-
Pretty shit example considering what Ukraine did to civilians during 2014 but good on you for picking a side!
-
-
-
Hey everyone, come point and laugh at this tanky using the only rhetoric tankies have. This dude is unironically pro Russia kidnapping children from Ukraine and most likely also pro Chinese genocide. What a piece of shit.
-
-
Долбоёб🤡
I may not speak Russian, I do have Google though:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%91%D0%B1
-
-
-
Is about Elon fucking up last month with starlink?
-
Don't get Musky Billionaire involved please, he's just puking out nonsense.
-
As is the protagonist in this comic. So it’s a fair assumption.
-
-
-
-
According to the rules of this community, you need to prove that claim:
- Nazi Symbols on Ukraine’s Front Lines Highlight Thorny Issues of History: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/world/europe/nazi-symbols-ukraine.html
-
-
168 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.