Mods from nottheonion removed the article. My point in referencing lemmy.world as a whole wasn’t really to blame the admins, but just to point out that the instance for whatever reason has a consistent pattern of just really remarkably terrible moderation.
You may be right. I edited my post to remove a bunch of extraneous stuff and hopefully get to the point. Does it look a little more understandable now?
And yes it seems completely reasonable to roast the dumb tankie in this case. I was implying that maybe the actual reason for the deletion of the article, since “not onion-y” seems extremely farfetched as the reason, was to shut down the discussion of Russian propaganda and how to respond to it that was going on in the comments.
Maybe it sounds conspiratorial but I can’t in any way wrap my head around “not onion-y” being the actual reason, and that’s the only alternate explanation I can possibly conceive of.
For me it helps to put some of these things in a sequence of events. First the US/EU actually supported the Russian response in Chechnya
I don’t care. Like I said, the State Department’s viewpoint means nothing to me. Clinton presided over a whole lot of terrible fuckery.
That’s not to say that people in separatist regions shouldn’t be able to express themselves, but that it wasn’t the standard for how world leaders treated breakaway regions until then.
Like I said, world leaders are almost as hypocritical on this issue as Russia is. They basically, for the most part, say whatever’s in their best interests and often invest significant effort into inflaming this kind of “breakaway” region into a way to completely ruin whatever country and collapse it into a war in which they try to put their guy on top once it’s all over. That’s absolutely nothing to do with me.
It’s wrong when the US does it, wrong when Russia does it. Not complicated.
I did quote the official report for them in that response, in fact I only referenced so as not to include the editorializing.
I wasn’t editorializing. For an example, a quote is:
The attack was carried out by fascist thugs who were empowered in the U.S.-NATO-backed Maidan coup in Ukraine.
Versus
As soon as the march began to make its way towards the stadium, anti-Maidan activists approached and attacked the demonstrators, some firing shots at them, still with no interference from the police. Both sides used pyrotechnic devices and airguns, and threw stones, stun grenades and Molotov cocktails
Exactly 100% backwards. They are lying on purpose. Again, I don’t see why I would need to be friendly to that or to anyone who’s posting it.
This is what I meant by complicity- failing to be transparent and diligent in investigating something serious, like murders, can look like you’re favoring one side.
That is actually what the judgement said. That’s not what the covertactionmagazine article said. What it said was that they strangled a pregnant woman to death with an electrical cord and drew a swastika with her blood on the wall. That’s the difference I’m highlighting.
to give you an analogy for the understanding that state powers will instrumentalize any struggle, national or otherwise, for geopolitical ends
Yes, absolutely. Which is why I have very little patience for any random individual who wants to instrumentalize whatever struggle in the same way, whichever state they’re stumping for. They’re not on your side, you don’t need to help them do that.
My suggestion was more from the direction of if you hope to be getting something from the conversation other than generating adrenaline, (I know I’m not always the best example of this) maybe you shouldn’t be so antagonistic.
Honestly my main goal is just to push back against their narrative. If they’re going to come into my post’s comments and spout propaganda I am going to speak on it. If I get banned, then well, that solves the problem of them mucking up my posts.
I actually don’t think I would be doing anyone any favors by being excessively polite to them. There have been a few different writings recently about how engaging politely and purely-factually with this type of content on the internet is a mistake because it leaves room for them to decide what of your facts to engage with, when to just switch to abuse instead of responding, basically just gives them room to employ a bunch of tactics that are pretty effective at spreading their message. I’m still being factual with what I’m saying, but not really being nice to them, I think is fully justified and the right thing way to respond.
Again, if they felt like upholding their end of the social contract and agreeing not to be randomly abusive any time they don’t like something in some other context, or have a serious discussion about what they’re saying, it would be a totally different story. And like I say you will notice that I’m completely factual and happy to have a serious discussion about it if someone’s up for that. I just don’t think that my rudeness or not has the slightest bit to do with whether Hexbear people are going to respond with factual calm rational discussion.
you obliquely accused someone of being Russian
That wasn’t really the point of me saying that, although I can see it coming across that way.
Like you said, it was just kind of a low-effort response to a low-effort insult. Since they were engaged overall in boosterism for the Russian war, I was pointing out that the Russian military and government are fucking up the war. Nothing really deeper than that. I have no idea whether the person I was talking to was actually Russian and I wasn’t aiming to imply that they were.
Sasuke’s comment was entirely innocuous when it comes to the Ukraine war and you replied to it by soapboxing about hexbear broadly.
By that time, I’d read 13 comments by Hexbear people. That was the 14th. I’m not going to give a calm patient response to every single one. They’d also come in and made 172 upvotes for each other’s content.
That’s the point that I was making. From the POV of the Hexbear monoculture, I know it might seem “out of nowhere” or like it’s not clear what behavior I’m reacting to, but you’ll notice that 100% of the people who reacted to my comment upvoted it. I think they generally know exactly what “let’s all gang up and say the same things and upvote each other” behavior I’m talking about when I point at the comments with their Hexbear participation and refer to it as a problem.
This is also what I was saying about talking reasonably about the merits of the argument, after the 14th browbeating comment or whatever, being a losing game. I’m fine with talking with someone who’s up for talking about stuff, but that’s generally not what goes on in Hexbear threads.
You seem to feel very strongly about your position and don’t seem very curious about why people might disagree.
I’ve already gone through it with a lot of people. I was completely curious at the beginning. Anyone who wants to show me something that’s a strong argument on the other side, I’m completely into, and I really will look at it, as I did your source about the Trade Union fire. But my experience is that they generally don’t do that, they just yell and repeat the same types of framings. And also give me abuse, and tell me what I believe and ignore me when I say I believe some other thing. So I’m fine at this point just stating my side. You’ll notice that I very directly addressed what the first Hexbear person said, in the thread, and only after a few messages with them totally ignoring what I was saying did I just say okey dokey and start clapping back.
I’m inclined to say somewhere in between, take for example the Donbass self defense forces, some of those were definitely Russian military and some of those were absolutely locals. Either way, they could not have survived without Russian military aid. However to say people are ‘moscow funded’ the equivalent is also true- the Ukraine government is US funded. Ukraines media is US funded.
Yeah, all makes perfect sense, I 100% agree with this.
Either way a core component of jingoism is nationalism, and it feels weird to be accusing people of being nationalist for a different country, when they’re an anarchist, just because you don’t like their understanding of world events.
If I think their understanding is based on lies and propaganda, then that’s how I will call it. Where they come from and who they are isn’t all that relevant to me, I’m just basing it on what they say. If it is jingo in service of some government I’ll call it accordingly if I see it that way.
In my previous response I asked twice about your position on self-determination, that wasn’t me being flippant, but more trying to get at a core contradiction in the way separatist regions looking for self-determination have been treated. When it was Kosovo it was acceptable to allow for separatists to break away, do you think that it would have made the situation better for Russia to start dumping weapons on Serbia in that situation to help them counter the ‘invasion’ from Albania? It’s a hypothetical and not really logistically feasible, but my point is more that this situation went from bad to worse because fuel has only been continually added to this fire rather than de-escalation.
My position is very different from how regions “have been treated” by the big powers. Generally I just support free individual people above whatever state entity. I think Palestine has a clear right to self-determination and anyone on the Israel side who’s been taking it away (even before the full-scale slaughter started late last year) should be in prison at a minimum. I don’t have a clear position on Kosovo or Chechnya just because I don’t know that much about them, but the massive contradiction between how Russia reacted in Chechnya versus Donbas is one example of why I don’t take their narrative on anything seriously at all.
I don’t think Moscow intervening in Donbas had anything at all to do with free people’s self-determination. Like I said, I get it if someone from there feels like they’re badly represented in Kyiv, but having automatic weapons flow in from outside so that they won’t have to honor the government that won their country’s election and can seize some government buildings and declare themselves free people is guaranteed to make things ten times worse for everyone involved. And look, it did, look at all the piles of corpses now.
The US are pros at this stuff too, we basically wrote the playbook on using that tactic to destabilize a country. Honduras and Venezuela recently, and then going back a few decades, it’s half or more of Central America. That’s fucked up also. I don’t like it when the US does it or when Russia does it, it is a crime against democracy and generally a prelude to mass murder. There is no contradiction in terms of what I think, at least that I’m aware of. If you feel like the US State Department is being hypocritical in saying it’s unfair to destabilize a country and install a friendly leader even if that kills a bunch of people, because that’s what they do, then I will 100% agree with that, but you have to take it up with them not with me.
Does that address the question? It’s a fair question but I feel like you’re assuming similarity that isn’t there, between my POV and the State Department’s POV.
The picture painted is of a government which actively made the situation worse
Correct
, and enabled those very Russian propaganda campaigns
Correct
by their own complicity in the massacre
Absolutely wrong. This is where I think you didn’t read the report carefully enough.
So the summary story says that the Ukraine government empowered fascist thugs to slaughter anti-Maidan protestors and strangle a pregnant woman and so on, and they were found guilty by the EHCR court.
The actual court finding was that against a backdrop of periodic deadly street violence related to anti-Maidan elements trying to overthrow the local government, some anti-Maidan protestors conducted an attack with live ammunition against a pro-Maidan demonstration, then the pro-unity people got the upper hand in the ensuing firefight / riot, the anti-Maidan people took refuge in a building, both sides threw molotov cocktails at each other, a big fucking fire started, and a bunch of people on all sides died including because of failures by local authorities (which caused understandable upset which was then compounded by failures of the Ukraine government during the investigation).
That part of it is basically the total opposite of what your article says, with the only true parts being “failures by the Ukrainian authorities” and “confirmed and found guilty.”
Again: I have no real idea of the underlying facts, I’m reading about this incident for the first time. But it is extremely easy to just read the EHCR report, and see for myself that covertactionmagazine.com is lying about what it contains, and I feel pretty safe in the judgement that they’re probably lying about other things too.
I think that covers most of it, let me know if I missed something, as I’m trying to be detailed in addressing what you’re saying without getting too dug down in minutiae.
Catching strays. My apologies. The fuckage, ironically enough, will not honor borders.
At the time, Google assured me that SafetyCore was an enabling framework and would not actually start scanning photos or other content.
I audibly snorted at this.
Well that time has now come and it starts with Google Messages. As reported by 9to5Google, “Google Messages is rolling out Sensitive Content Warnings that blur nude images on Android.”
I know whenever my phone announces of its own accord that it’s figured out that an image on my phone is a nude, the first word that comes to mind is “safe.”
Cross=1, Skull=3
Obviously
Whee look at the goalposts go lol
See them fly
I have ascended, though. I have no need to run in pursuit of them any further. I like how we totally moved away from the direct discussion of how you’re still defending this dogshit strategy now that the exact horror that me and many other people predicted from it, has come to pass. Well done! I really can’t emphasize enough how proud I am of your strategy, or how well it has worked.
I edited the URLs so the links work.
You really want me to take more time digging up more comments about this?
Okay sure.
They were actually easier to find, starting at the opposite end of the search list, than the other ones more recently. I think Trump getting elected means that some of these accounts have calmed down or moved on to other things, as the horror of what they were advocating has come to pass, whereas before the election it was a typhoon of this stuff and it was easier to depart from reality in their predictions.
Edit: Took the colons away so the links work
The Green party opposes everything Trump and MAGA stand for.
https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-how-why-i-will-stop-kamala-harris-winning-white-house-1961100
Kamala Harris cannot win the presidential election because she has lost the crucial support of Muslim and Arab Americans in key battleground states, Jill Stein has said.
I made an edit just now (before seeing your response), specifically tying it back to the place this discussion started.
Also, asking what you think so I can clarify why that, also, is wrong, is not at all moving the goalposts. It’s just scoring one goal and then another one.
I’m literally criticizing the strategy you just explained to me.
Edit: Oh, also, I’m criticizing some of the people I quoted up above who said that Trump might actually be better on Israel and similar things. I linked to them so you can see they are not imaginary. But, you don’t necessarily have to be responsible for their viewpoint. I am also criticizing your viewpoint you just expressed to me, also, though.
I was hoping their candidate would back off of supporting Israel and their sitting president would follow suit.
Super realistic. Absolute master stroke. And look how well it worked. I apologize for ever have criticized you or your strategy.
What was your theory for how refusing to support the Democrats was going to produce an improvement in the world, then? Tell me.
I never said you had said you were pleased about it. I said you should be pleased about it, now that it’s had the absolutely 100% predictable result, and you should be proud to tell all the people scared or suffering because of it how this was an impact of your master plan to improve the Democrats, and how well it’s working, and how important it was for you so you could accomplish your goals.
Sweet! Yes very occasionally and completely by accident it does happen.
Oh, yeah, like I say I very much agree with you about making an argument and then not backing it up being bullshit. I actually would really like if that was an across-the-board rule that drew mod action when people violated it. It’s way too accepted on Lemmy to just spout off whatever’s in your head and then wander away or get offended if someone asks you to back it up. I’m just saying that deciding that rule as a one-off and applying it to a person on the opposite side of an active argument you and NSXRN are in (whether or not your comments were close enough to this person’s comments to be “in that thread” is, to me, not relevant) is pretty authoritarian of you.
100%
It definitely feels farfetched, I can see that.