Beside yours being a wrong premise, you are still wrong: the nazis literally started the war the way you described it. They sent German infiltrators dressed as polish soldiers to attack a radio station. They then claimed Poland attacked first, so they declared war to them and that’s when the invasion started (Gleiwitz incident). Maybe before calling people dishonest fools you should have a minimal idea of what you are talking about.
Yeah right, calling your points childish was such a terrible offense in an adult conversation that you are forced to stop the conversation. I’m sure that’s the reason ;)
I’m not accusing you of being an apologist for Russian war crimes even though I could characterize you that way
Why? Because i criticise Ukraine i am necessarely on Russia’s side? I literally said in the comment before that nothing excuses Russia from attacking civilian structures, as much as i think Russia’s governemnt is a criminal for invading Ukraine and causing death and destruction. Is after saying this my opinion still going to be discarded because comes by a putinist in your mind?
I don’t think it’s fair to take the reasoning of my position and say it’s something a “nazi would be proud of”. A Nazi would not be putting this level of thought into the morality of war crimes, and you know this.
I understand i sound harsh, but i think it’s very important ot be clear here: your line of thinking is exactly what allowed the holocaust and other war crimes and crimes agaisnt humanity to happen. if you really think nazis didn’t evaluate their morality in doing what they did, i strongly suggest you to take a deeper look at conflicts and not banalise them as “the good guys with their beautiful morality” “and the bad guys which clearly are the bad guys because they don’t haver any morality”. This is not how conflicts, the world or human beings work. Conflicts have always a cause and who starts them always thinks they are doing for a just cause.
I think the world isn’t black and white in morality, and I think it’s naive to act as though it is. Immoral actions are sometimes warranted, I think. Do you agree with that principle at all? If not, we just have different moral views.
I do agree absolutely there is no black and white, but i’m the one who you accused of being a “russian apologist” becuase i criticise Ukraine’s behaviour in this war. Isn’t that a black and white kind of thinking? It’s important to not circumstanciate principles, but adopt them widely. Otherwise they are just a gimmick to push somebody’s point.
You can’t, in my view, tell victims of war crimes that they can’t respond in any meaningful way when you aren’t willing to enforce the law against the perpetrator. Another context that’s important. You can only morally tell people to let rule of law work when rule of law is being enforced; you can’t tell them to rely on a justice system that is non existent.
We are not discussing about responding in a “meaningful way”, here we are talking about allowing attacks against civilian and civilian infrastructure as a response. Your line of thinking could be used the same way by Al-Qaida (“The americans killed us for decades and nobody cared, so we had to attack them with terrorism because it’s the only efficient way to hit them”), ISIS/Daesh (“Our people have been subject of a western crusade, we answer back with our own”), Hamas and any other reprehensible group that uses terrorism as a form of attack because they feel they have no other way to hit their enemy. Do you see how dangerous is that way of thinking and in what terrible spiral sends people?
It’s really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
Jesus christ this kind of thought is how genocides happen. You are literally saying if nobody can force me to have a moral, then i’m justified to behave as inhumane as my enemy. This is a line of thinking that a nazi gerarc woukd be proud of. Stay human people, we are getting very close to a world of barbarism.
I’m ok with people dieing. I’m not ok with people being murdered. Doesn’t matter if i like or not the people that kill. And yes this works for Russia too, but attacking civilian infrastructure is a crime as much as it is bombing civilian infrastructure. Seems to me that a lot of people are willing to justify any action taken by Ukraine because it’s in self defense, even if that means committing war crimes. People ask themselves how the holocaust happened and at the same time they are ok justifying any sort of atrocities against their enemies. We are a primitive species that was given lethal tools.
It’s refreshing to hear reasonable takes in a world where people are willing to accept any crime made by the faction they like if they do them against the faction they don’t like.
Or don’t do little miningless things that give you the excuse to not do anything about the real problems.
I’ll add one that supersedes all the other you listed: stop making sacrifices while the rich are the ones destroying the planet and build a guillottine.
Your assumption is that the perception of Trump by MAGA is entirely based on a distorted view made up by Democrats, and that’s not true.
No. My assumption is that Trump did very well politically in not trying to defend himself publicly from the accusation, but to stir the focus on him being persecuted because he wants to fight corruption in the governemnt. More he was ridiculed, more his point of being “the outsider that is fighting the big corrupt powers” gained credibility in the eyes of potential voters.
Nothing changed in between Trump presidencies
Nothing? You have as a president a felon suspected of pedophily that has no shame in insulting allies and enemies, who insults journalists and heads of state publicly without consequences and has sent gestapo in the streets. The first time i could have said as well that it’s business as usual and he was just another guy voted with the belly, but now he is openly behaving like he does things because he can. It never happened before. The rule of law has no meaning anymore, he can openly behave as a king with little to no challenge in the US. That’s the opposite of nothing. What is happening now in the US has never happened in the last 70 years.
Saying that Trump’s victory is partly a consequence of how Democrats pictured him is also extremely naive
It’s extremely accurate in my opinion (and not only mine, you’ll find many articles about this subjext on virtually any US newspaper). Half of the merit of trump’s victory is no doubt because of the dems and their inhability to talk to people and to relate to them. Choosing Kamala Harris as opponent, with her patronising tone, inhability to take clear stances on sensitive subject and classic politician way of talking was the nail to the coffin. If this is not understood, get ready for many more trumps in the future.
I don’t know if that’s true Please inform yourself about it then, because that would change the entire discussion. This is an entire field of study, it’s not hidden stuff.
I agree they shouldn’t have a platform and visibility. Definitely shouldn’t be normalised. Shaming them and isolating them is HOW their ideas grew so much. The key is to invalidate their points with arguments, even if they don’t listen, it’s important they are out there and visible to other potential viewers. If you cannot do that because you are isolated from the fascist/flat earthers or whatever, their bubble will grow constantly because they talk to the belly of the people, and these folks will look for the opinions their belly tells them their are right. This is how we got wehere we are now. People saw something they could relate to when they heard these extremists complain about immigrants, corrupted system, secret plots to rule the world. Without access to a counter argument (becuase of the isolation) the spiral started to go deeper and deeper, until full extremization. We have seen something similar with covid.
For example i think banning Hitler’s Mein Kampf, like they do in Germany, is a mistake. The only copies in circulations will be from people that probably simpatize with him and there will be little or no control over the content, which could be altered. This is very dangerous. If the book is freely available there could be laws that force to have notes on the book, which explain why Hitler was a bullshitter and out of his mind. People will be in contact with this content if they look for that book for any reason, it’s not a small thing. They will still find the “altered” copies, but they will be much less attractive (not fascinating because forbidden and easy to find) then will be much easier to see the alteration and to counter it. I hope my point is clearer now
I agree with you. When i say demonising i mean from the point of view of maga folks. The democrats wanted to show how shitty and corrupt he is, they ended up making him a working class hero that is fighting the power and then president for the second time. Trump won thanks to inhability of the democrats and the american public at large to understand that times have changed. Trump understood it and made the “persecution” his winning horse. They manage to transform his mugshot in a huge political win ffs.
I’m not suggesting to let anybody say what they want and offering them a platform. I’m saying that if you don’t want these people in power, like you didn’t want trump in power or fascists in the streets, the key is not to do the easiest thing that comes to mind, but to listen to what people that study other people say, and they all say the same thing: the more you isolate shitty people, the more and more shitty they will become, because they will create their own closed community, which history tells us will only grow. What happened when the flat earthers became mainstream and people started to ban them everywhere and threat them like idiot? Their numbers decuplicated and the closeted flat earthers suddenly were public, to the point that athletes, politicians and other public figures came out as flat earthers. The point was to isolate them, they ended up way more and widespread than before.
Yes, because current efforts seem to be focused in only trying to isolate the people we don’t like. During pre-internet time might have relatively worked, now it’s clear it doesn’t and saying “it’s the best option we have” is just false. It’s the easier option that people (but not sociologist or social psichologist) keep adopting because it’s very easy, fits with our desire to not have shitheads around us and because people assumed that’s how it worked so far.
Stop ignoring the reality and accept the fact that despite attempts to isolate them, the right is getting stronger everywhere. It’s time to change approach or to start to get used to the new reality. Don’t trust me, go beyond social media and go check what experts of hate and extremism say, not the politician we like this year.
I’d love to hear the thoughts of the people that downvoted. If they disagree with what i said, or if stimply they don’t like it and want it to disappear. Unironically, the (very expected) reactions to my comment are proving my point.
Comments on social media make harder to think it’s just a couple dozen rich guys. People forgot or have no idea what war is beside propaganda movies and the media push for war every day. I read every day articles that say how this or the other guy are absolutely sure that Russia is getting stronger and will attack a NATO country any moment. The drones appearing all over Europe are just a warning (even if hey seem to be all Ukranian drones). I also read at the same time that Russia is so weakened by the west that will capitulate any time. In war times you can say a thing and it’s opposite and if you point it out you are for sure a friend of this dictator or that other one. People are so used to thinking in black and white that having an opinion became the same as unconditionally supporting a sport team.
Exactly, but seems that we have been proven multiple times that banning/shunning/shaming only achieves the opposite.
True, but not because they didn’t try, which is my point. The attempt was to make him so much of a monster and demonise him that nobody would have voted him. The point was to isolate him and they achived the opposite, as you correctly said.
I disagree. Trump got elected (twice) with >30 felonies and after having said all sort of things that only few years ago would have made him completely uncandidable. Deplatforminng doesn’t have the impact that it used to have and only make the person look like “they are going against the strong powers”, that’s why the afd in germany keeps getting stronger despite the multiple bans, Trump in the US, the neo-fascists movements in the uk, the neofascists in Italy. What has calling these people “fascists” and isolating them has achieved? Only raising their consent. Also, television and radio are not so meaningful anymore as they used to be, internet has made them completely obsolete and most people take their info from the latter. It’s counterintuitive, but the political history of the last 10 years has proven this multiple times. It’s very useful to look into how cult works and what’s the best way to unlock them. Isolating the people in the cult is the worst move one can make.
We really are in the age of functional analphabetism. Extrapolate!