521
teeter totter taco (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/politicalcartoons@lemmy.zip
142 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Liberals just group anyone who doesn't subscribe to their specific ideology into the same category. It's wild how oversimplistic and childish that perspective is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Tankies just group anyone who doesn't subscribe to their specific ideology into the same category. It's wild how oversimplistic and childish that perspective is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The classic, "I know you are but what am I?" but the problem is that the comic is the thing that actually does it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Isn't that what all political factions do? Everyone who isn't them is stupid, then they engage in infighting with their own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    To an extent. Maybe I'm spoiled because in Marxist circles people actually read things sometimes.

    I guess I'm just amazed at how wildly wrong the comic is. The main reason any of them are on the same side in the first place is because the US can't stop getting involved in conflicts all over the world, and Trump is absolutely not an exception to that trend. It's utterly bizarre to look at Trump's foreign policy, including starting a pointless trade war with China, and thinking that he needs to be more aggressive. But what's actually happening in the real world is irrelevant to liberals, who don't dare criticize US foreign policy for being too aggressive for fear of appearing disloyal, and so they're only capable of criticizing it from the right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    But what’s actually happening in the real world is irrelevant to liberals, who don’t dare criticize US foreign policy for being too aggressive for fear of appearing disloyal, and so they’re only capable of criticizing it from the right.

    When I hear stuff like this I literally do not understand what you're talking about. Who are these liberals afraid to appear disloyal? Are you talking about international relations, internal government representatives or the voting bloc that might identify themselves as liberal or part of the liberal identity? Because my next question to whoever you're going to label as the "liberals" is -- what the hell are you talking about? Liberal voters are never-endingly critical of their representatives / government, politicians in liberal nations benefit from appearing to be "not the other guy" and cause disloyalty in all directions towards their opponents, international relations between liberal countries is literally the equivalent of public shaming to try and keep each other in step together. All left-leaning political factions engage in the circular firing squad, constant criticism that drags each other down, Marxists and socialists included.

    It is actually insane to state there is any form of loyalty among liberals historically or today. Within a few years of America's founding, the liberal facade shattered into political factions that have only become more and more polarized and fractured. It's really just nonsense to say what you said. It's also super arrogant to state marxist circles actually read things when here on lemmy the "marxists" constantly spread some of the fakest news you can find and ban each other on their instances for disloyalty or stating alternative opinions.

    Trump's foreign policies and all of his policies have nothing to do with the US agenda or historic goals.

    Also this comic is taking arguably the most complex thing on this planet, international relations/history and framing it on a freakin' seesaw, some delicate things are going to be lost in translation. That's literally the point of political cartoons, to take super hard to define topics and basically make them into caricatures for people to laugh at and get a small grasp of the bigger picture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    Liberals are critical of specific politicians, and of their own governments, but only to and extent, and that critism is often framed in such a was as to reaffirm the thing they're criticizing. The worst criticism a liberal is able to manage is that a leader (and it's generally one specific person rather than any systemic analysis) is no better than foreigners, as presented in this comic. In doing so, they are in fact reaffirming their fundamental loyalty to the state even as they criticize it, because they cannot denounce the state without denouncing the state's rivals and reaffirming their willingness to fight on the side of their own state against them.

    This is what's happening in the comic. The author is practically begging to rally behind Trump against the others, and criticizes him, not for all the fucked up things he's doing, starting wars, sending masked thugs to raid workplaces, etc, but only for not being aggressive enough against the "real" villains of the world.

    Liberals can't help but try to outflank the right from the right. That's why, for example, the Dems shifted hard-right on immigration and tried to say, "we're the ones who will actually build the wall, Trump's all talk." It's also why you often seen bizarre claims accusing Trump of being a communist. But it's arguably worst when it comes to foreign policy, when Trump is bizarrely accused of being "too soft." As if an "insufficiently" aggressive US foreign policy would be my problem somehow!

    It is actually insane to state there is any form of loyalty among liberals historically or today.

    I'm glad you brought up history, because it happens to contain a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Before WWI, the "social democrats" across Europe agreed on the necessity of opposing the coming war and uniting the people across borders against it. But then, the German SDP voted in favor of entering the war, and social democrats all across Europe fell in line behind the ruling class, ordering ordinary people to go kill and die in a pointless war for their masters. These same people were perfectly happy to denounce war and imperialism in the abstract, they would even criticize their own governments somewhat, but when push came to shove, they all fell in line (with Russia being the only exception).

    It's all the same shit today. Liberal criticism is just brattiness. It's all keyfabe, it's stepping out of line playfully, with the tacit understanding they are still loyal to the state and its leaders, that they will only oppose the state's actions on principle, not even presenting true rhetorical opposition, much less taking any sort of action.

    Trump’s foreign policies and all of his policies have nothing to do with the US agenda or historic goals.

    How do you mean? Trump has taken aggressive stances against all three of the leaders depicted in the comic. The proxy war in Ukraine continues, a pointless trade war was started with China, and the largest military exercise in the world still takes place every year on the Korean DMZ, right on schedule.

    Of course, we need to be clear what we're talking about with "US agenda or historic goals." Ordinary Americans have virtually no input on any foreign policy decision, not has US foreign policy ever been about serving the interests of ordinary Americans. The ruling class wishes to expand the power and influence of the empire in order to seize more wealth and resources for themselves, which is why they keep starting conflicts in every corner of the globe.

    If Trump were taking a more peaceful and amicable approach to foreign policy, which he absolutely is not, that would be in line with the interests of ordinary Americans. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, who got any benefit out of those wars but the ruling class, while our own people killed and died pointlessly on their whims?

    Trump's foreign policy is entirely in line with those goals of the ruling class. The only thing different is that he's pursuing those goals brazenly, whereas before there was more of a pretense that it was about some higher purpose, but that pretense was never anything more than that.

    get a small grasp of the bigger picture.

    This isn't "a small grasp of a bigger picture," it's just entirely out of line with reality in every possible way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Man look you're right on some parts but you're either intentionally or unintentionally pushing almost all the responsibility onto one party while giving the others in this image a pass.

    You're applying an analysis of the United States' structure that you're not applying to Russia, China or North Korea. These countries all have a ruling class, capital, engage in imperialism and wield a specifically unique geopolitical power.

    If we agree states are vehicles through which a ruling class pursues power, wealth and control then that has to apply to them all equally. They all have ruling elites, their own geopolitical ambitions and engage in their own means of repression or information control. Russia cracks down heavily on dissent, China engages in transnational repression and border disputes, North Korea has literally destroyed any meaningful space for political opposition or criticism of the Kim regime.

    You're portraying American actions as the product of imperial interests but repeatedly explain the actions of the other three in this image as reactions.

    Look at Ukraine. You called it a "proxy war", that doesn't erase the fact that Russia chose to invade Ukraine. It doesn't suddenly magically make Ukraine a puppet of the west. Western governments have a strategic interest in Ukraine you expect them to just throw up their hands in the face of a genuine invasion? Ukraine has its own interest and agency, they have their own aspirations. So why does western strategic interest erase Ukrainian agency while Russian interest in Ukraine doesn't? Is Russia not engaging in one of the most obtuse and offensive acts of imperialism in the 21st century in their actions? They're grinding an entire generation away into a supposedly "three day special operation" and pressganging any foreign national they can into the conflict as well. That's a pretty disgusting thing to do.

    they are in fact reaffirming their fundamental loyalty to the state even as they criticize it, because they cannot denounce the state without denouncing the state’s rivals and reaffirming their willingness to fight on the side of their own state against them.

    Okay but what would genuine opposition look like to you? Abandoning ship entirely at the first sight of a disagreement or infringement? If criticizing your own government is keyfabe opposite its foreign policy is loyalty to the state and criticizing the leaders is just reaffirming the system. Then what could an individual, a liberal person, actually do that you would recognize as opposition?

    I don't understand what you think here. I don't have to defend imperialism done by the Trump president or any president before to oppose Russian or Chinese imperialism. I don't support the foreign policies of the United States to support Ukrainian sovereignty. I don't believe China and North Kore are good because the United States has done terrible things. I think you're missing that point entirely, or intentionally glossing over it all.

    If you're going to analyze power structures to define the flaws of liberals, then analyze all of it and paint the full picture. Otherwise you're not analyzing power you're just picking a side, the side of the other three in the image Trump has now joined. Which is what the artist is depicting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    You’re portraying American actions as the product of imperial interests but repeatedly explain the actions of the other three in this image as reactions.

    Do I? Are you talking about something I said in this thread?

    Look at Ukraine. You called it a “proxy war”, that doesn’t erase the fact that Russia chose to invade Ukraine. It doesn’t suddenly magically make Ukraine a puppet of the west.

    Correct. I don't consider it a Western puppet because Russia invaded it, but because of the 2013 coup.

    However, that's largely tangential to the discussion. If you take exception to calling it a proxy war, call it whatever you like. The point is that it's still ongoing under Trump. The fact that Trump has said things about potentially being open to negotiations, or that he's disrespected Zelensky, doesn't change that what's happening materially is consistent with prior policy.

    Is Russia not engaging in one of the most obtuse and offensive acts of imperialism in the 21st century in their actions?

    Indeed. I don't really agree with Russia's approach to the situation, though I confess I don't really have a good answer to how they should have handled the developments. The only answer I tend to get is that said developments are fake news (regardless of evidence) and that acknowledging them makes me some kind of fascist.

    The West backed their preferred faction and helped them overthrow the central government, Russia backed their preferred faction and helped them overthrow regional governments, yet somehow I'm supposed to see it as a black and white struggle of good vs evil.

    Okay but what would genuine opposition look like to you?

    Genuine opposition means recognizing that the interests of the state and the interests of the people are distinct. Instead of trying to frame every criticism in terms of "this person isn't patriotic enough" it means framing it in terms of the actual harm being caused to ordinary people.

    In the Bush years, there was lots of criticism of the wars in the Middle East. Yet even when Obama was elected, he continued them. The same happened with Trump, who in part succeeded because of his distance from the forever wars in the Middle East, but then he went out and started one. It's clear that when a war is being criticized, it's important to look at what, specifically, is being criticized, and what the person saying it actually wants to do differently. Otherwise, it's no different from the rubes who think people like Tulsi Gabbard or Tucker Carlson are legitimately antiwar.

    What is actually in the people's interests is a massive reduction in military, a wholesale withdrawal from the role of imperial hegemon, and instead a refocus on addressing the many, many domestic crises that we're facing.

    However, if you advocate this, you're bound to be accused of just subverting US interests for the benefit of foreign adversaries, or at least, of being soft on them. Nevermind the fact that China's rise in power has come without waging war across every corner of the globe, but from investing in domestic production the same way I advocate for. Nevermind that trying to maintain this whole empire while massively overextended is going to result in a collapse that will be significantly worse than an intentional downscaling. Nevermind the soft power losses that come from people looking at the state of things domestically in the US and deciding that they absolutely want no part of it.

    All I want is fucking healthcare, and to not be party to genocide, and to not have masked thugs breaking into my workplace and abducting my coworkers. I don't know where people get this idea that we're supposed to go around "solving" every problem in the world (with military force, for the benefit of the ruling class) like some kind of superhero. If we can't fix our own shit, the fascists are going to win, and that will obviously be a much bigger problem for the world than the even the worst case scenario from the US not being aggressive enough.

    I don’t have to defend imperialism done by the Trump president or any president before to oppose Russian or Chinese imperialism. I don’t support the foreign policies of the United States to support Ukrainian sovereignty. I don’t believe China and North Kore are good because the United States has done terrible things.

    I don't recall making any of those points. Again, are you talking about things I said in this thread?

    I said that the worst criticism a liberal is able to make is to compare a leader to foreign rivals. Every criticism must be couched with a reaffirmation of opposition to the enemies of the ruling class, who are recognized as a greater evil, thereby leaving no doubt that they will never act against the ruling class. I didn't say that everyone who opposed the West is "a good guy."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I think you're using the term liberal to mean too many things and also nothing at all. You're crafting a bogeyman. The things you've said suggest liberal means the liberal ideology, democratic politicians, liberal voters, western governments, social democrats and really anyone who isn't a marxist. They're not the same thing. Genuine opposition also doesn't mean anything, if someone criticizes their government but doesn't go as far as you believe then suddenly their position is loyalty to a state, insufficiently anti-imperialist or basically a fake. That's moving a goal post or a strawman or something, I dunno but it is disingenuous.

    If genuine opposition means adopting your personal belief of a solution then you're saying genuine opposition is an agreement with your politics. Someone can oppose all those things without arriving at the same conclusion as you. You can't just decide what is a genuine opposition because it doesn't go far enough for you.

    I also think it's pretty hypocritical the way you speak of Ukraine. The 2013/2014 events as a western backed coup is just not true. There was an enormous domestic protest of hundreds of thousands, a lot of which died during their protests because of a state crackdown lead by Yanukovych. When they kept pushing he literally fled the country TO RUSSIA where he is now hanging out with bashar al assad probably at some swanky resort because he's never been anything but a Russian puppet. Now you can criticize Ukraine on how it used its procedures to remove Yanukovych and maybe that was questionable. You can debate the west or the EU had strategic investments in Ukraine, sure. But calling it a western led coup delegitimizes the sovereignty of Ukrainians who ultimately decide how the hell their government should and will function.

    Which is extremely relevant to your argument about liberals. You're suggesting they don't genuinely oppose their government because their opposition doesn't result in change of the state. But when Ukraine does, you're inclined to interpret their actions as if it was solely a foreign power than the agency of it's citizens.

    I see this all the time with marxist, socialist, etc folk here on Lemmy. Their analysis of the United States in comparison to China or Russia is lopsided. Russia has its own ruling elite and imperial interests, as does China and North Korea. Russia invaded Ukraine like assholes because Ukraine didn't do what it wanted. China has engaged in coercive territorial disputes with neighboring states and has been accused with really strong evidence of operating overseas citizen policing centers as part of transnational repression.

    The biggest thing I want to make clear when I'm talking about liberals, I mean people broadly committed to liberal traditions of individual liberty, democratic government, civil liberties. Recognizing that liberal democracies provide citizens with substantially greater autonomy and political rights than authoritariajn states is not the same thing as being loyal to the state. These people likely realize democratic institutions and civil liberties are preferable to authoritarian alternatives like you find in Russia, China, North Korea.

    Ordinary Americans have virtually no input on any foreign policy decision, not has US foreign policy ever been about serving the interests of ordinary Americans.

    Democracy creates mechanisms which ordinary people can influence state policy even if those mechanisms are imperfect. At least in this country we have them and we understand why they're failing, because wealthy individuals, many of which aren't native to this country or even live here, have spent a lot of money encouraging a culture of Americans to not vote, not believe in democracy and allow them to continue to descend into an authoritarian state. China, Russia and North Korea don't have that and Trump wishes the United States didn't have that. Which is partly why Trump is depicted on that side of the seewsaw, because he wants to be on that side acting as those countries you're heavily less critical of, act.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    I also think it’s pretty hypocritical the way you speak of Ukraine. The 2013/2014 events as a western backed coup is just not true. There was an enormous domestic protest of hundreds of thousands, a lot of which died during their protests because of a state crackdown lead by Yanukovych. When they kept pushing he literally fled the country TO RUSSIA where he is now hanging out with bashar al assad probably at some swanky resort because he’s never been anything but a Russian puppet. Now you can criticize Ukraine on how it used its procedures to remove Yanukovych and maybe that was questionable. You can debate the west or the EU had strategic investments in Ukraine, sure. But calling it a western led coup delegitimizes the sovereignty of Ukrainians who ultimately decide how the hell their government should and will function.

    I see this all the time with marxist, socialist, etc folk here on Lemmy. Their analysis of the United States in comparison to China or Russia is lopsided.

    It's your analysis that's lopsided here, and mine that's balanced. The overthrow of the central government involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control. The overthrow of the regional governments also involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control. However, when the West does it, it's simply providing aid to the genuine will of the people, but when Russia does it, it's an imperialist ploy to control the region.

    I am perfectly happy to apply the same standard in both cases, it's you who's applying a double standard. On what basis should I determine that the Western-backed movement in western Ukraine is more legitimate than the Russian-backed movement in the east? It's utter nonsense.

    I don't see how Yanukovych fleeing to Russia retroactively delegitimizes him. He was overthrown by a Western-backed movement, so it's fairly natural. Edward Snowden fled to Russia after being declared an enemy of the state by the US. When the shah of Iran was overthrown, he fled to the US. And if Yanukovych's crackdowns justified his overthrow, then why is it that when the new government outlawed a bunch of opposition parties, that somehow didn't justify the separatists' actions?

    Incidentally, there was a leaked phone call from the state department hand-picking who should wind up in power from Euromaidan, and wouldn't you know it, their picks were the ones who did.

    You’re suggesting they don’t genuinely oppose their government because their opposition doesn’t result in change of the state. But when Ukraine does, you’re inclined to interpret their actions as if it was solely a foreign power than the agency of it’s citizens.

    Is it even possible to not interpret Ukrainian opposition to the state as influenced by a foreign power? Either you interpret the actions against the previous government in the west that way, or you do so for the separatists in the east. I suppose you could take the position that neither side is foreign-backed, but I don't think anyone does, because it would be kind of absurd.

    I never claimed that either of those factions was being solely controlled by a foreign power, by the way. As I said, there is some genuine support and some foreign influence in both cases, and I'm merely saying that I don't see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.

    Also, the material conditions in Ukraine are just different, because Ukraine does not have a massive overseas empire like the US does. It's apples and oranges. I don't call for opposing the US state just because it's a state, but because of the giant militaristic empire oppressing the global poor.

    Democracy creates mechanisms which ordinary people can influence state policy even if those mechanisms are imperfect.

    Ha! And what mechanisms are those, exactly? I was given a binary choice between two parties, both of which supported the Palestinian genocide, both of which supported an aggressive stance against China, both of which opposed lifting sanctions against North Korea or similar countries, etc. When I voted for a third party that actually represented my interests but had no chance of winning, I received constant criticism for it and was accused of being a secret Trump supporter.

    Or tell me, which major presidential candidate did not want to continue pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure into conquering Afghanistan for 20 years? Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, and Clinton were all 100% in favor them, despite their unpopularity. As I said, part of the reason for Trump's success was appearing to be an outsider to that bipartisan consensus, but then he of course continued the war in Afghanistan and even started another one in Iran. The ruling class will never allow you to vote away the war machine.

    Our elections are not democratic, by design. A handful of immensely wealthy people, the ruling class, can pour massive amounts of money into them with no regulation. The two major parties have no requirement to provide a free and fair primary process and are perfectly within their rights to rig them or just hand pick whatever candidate they like. Congress consistently operates with an approval rating below 20%.

    Once again, we see your double standard at play. When the US has such factors compromising our elections, it's exceptional, it's because of foreign money, etc. But Russia and China have elections too, and when there are issues with those elections, they don't get any sort of excuses, they are simply rotten to their core, fundamentally undemocratic. It's because I don't make exceptions in my analysis of the US that you see my analysis as biased and unfair, because you don't realize your own bias.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I never claimed that either of those factions was being solely controlled by a foreign power, by the way. As I said, there is some genuine support and some foreign influence in both cases, and I’m merely saying that I don’t see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.

    You did, you even reiterated it just now?

    Correct. I don’t consider it a Western puppet because Russia invaded it, but because of the 2013 coup.

    The first time,

    The overthrow of the central government involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control.

    the second time with back tracking. And you move forward claiming you never said it was solely controlled but that the US was the bad guy when they did it and Russia was not for... reasons?

    I think we both agree that Ukraine doesn't exist in a bubble. It not only has influence from these specific foreign powers but probably every single power in the world because that's kind of how a global economy works. The US/the west/the EU have a financial incentive in Ukraine the same as Russia, both are somewhat legitimate to want what they want. I think we both understand that but also do not respect or enjoy that fact about the world as it is gross and imperialistic and removes a nation and it's people's sovereignty.

    I’m merely saying that I don’t see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.

    But there is for two massive reasons. First, Ukrainians have made their choice where they would like to go, towards the EU and what they want is a democratic country. That reason standing alone is the deciding factor. Neither Russia or the US was the reason hundreds of thousands marched in the street, every individual made that choice themselves. It is so silly when political leaders refer to protestors as fake or paid or whatever. I know for a fact in protests there are bad actors, some of them paid, some of them are even local law enforcement. But that many bodies did not walk into the street and get paid to do so, that was their choice. And for that reason their want to move towards the EU, which was the whole reason they protested in the first place. Ukraine wanted ties to the EU, they wanted those trade deals and benefits. When it was rejected, they stormed into the street and decided what they want. So for a foreign power allied with the EU or in the EU to take measures to aid a sovereign Ukraine to that direction is legitimate. Second, Russia engaging in deceitful and violent measures to derail that goal lessens their claims further, it literally makes them the bad guy here. They are trying to change what the Ukrainian people want and now there is a war of disgusting aggression going on, bodies are being destroyed and lives wasted and ruined for Russia (see Putin's) personal wants. Which is absolutely disgusting and makes it so any argument to compare the west and Russia's goals in Ukraine completely incomparable.

    Incidentally, there was a leaked phone call from the state department discussing who should wind up in power from Euromaidan, and wouldn’t you know it, their picks were the ones who did.

    Again as we both have stated above, these countries have vested interests it is unrealistic to say they shouldn't discuss this. Nothing in that phone call was offensive or imperialistic. It's not speaking of corruption or subverting law, it's talking about their goals in Ukraine.

    "A senior aide for Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused Washington of "interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs," the BBC reported."

    Which is fuckin' hilarious because A) Yanukovych is Putin's guy. B) Putin is literally doing the same exact thing, you're lying if you don't admit that. C) If Yanukovych succeeded in snuffing out those protests you can bet Putin's picks for Ukraine's government would be sitting in their positions now too. You're literally doing it again where you give Russia this invisible pass and act like the US/the west is the only one who is doing these things and at the same time you're saying things like :

    I am perfectly happy to apply the same standard in both cases, it’s you who’s applying a double standard. On what basis should I determine that the Western-backed movement in western Ukraine is more legitimate that the Russian-backed movement in the east? It’s utter nonsense.

    But you're BLATANTLY NOT. Which is what I'm arguing about here. You're just not. I'm sitting here stating openly how both of these actors are doing the same behavior except one has turned to bloodshed and lies and the other has peddled in lies BUT with the caveat that the Ukrainian people have decided which direction they want to go, not towards the bloodshed guy who you are literally arguing in favor for. So no, you're being dishonest or you don't understand your own position or you're straight up misunderstanding/being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

    Ha! And what mechanisms are those, exactly? I was given a binary choice between two parties, both of which supported the Palestinian genocide, both of which supported an aggressive stance against China, both of which opposed lifting sanctions against North Korea or similar countries, etc. When I voted for a third party that actually represented my interests but had no chance of winning, I received constant criticism for it and was accused of being a secret Trump supporter.

    Or tell, me, which major presidential candidate did not want to continue fighting in Afghanistan for 20 years? Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, and Clinton were all 100% in favor them, despite their unpopularity. As I said, part of the reason for Trump’s success was appearing to be an outsider to that bipartisan consensus, but then he of course continued the war in Afghanistan and even started another one in Iran. The ruling class will never allow you to vote away the war machine.

    Our elections are not democratic, by design. A handful of immensely wealthy people, the ruling class, can pour massive amounts of money into them with no regulation. The two major parties have no requirement to provide a free and fair primary process and are perfectly within their rights to rig them or just hand pick whatever candidate they like. Congress consistently operates with an approval rating below 20%.

    Once again, we see your double standard at play. When the US has such factors compromising our elections, it’s exceptional, it’s because of foreign money, etc. But Russia and China have elections too, and when there are issues with those elections, they don’t get any sort of excuses, they are simply rotten to their core, fundamentally undemocratic. It’s because I don’t make exceptions in my analysis of the US that you see my analysis as biased and unfair, because you don’t realize your own bias.

    As opposed to what/who? Putin who has sat in power for the last 20 years unchallenged? The Kim regime? China's single party? You are given a choice, there are not two parties. There is not one election. Every two years and sometimes more there is a chance to vote. If "Not Voting" was an option to win the office it would win every single time. You're parroting talking points of foreign interests in the United States/the west which is that democracy is a sham why bother voting. You see this all over lemmy from these supposed "marxists" who apparently don't want any form of representation I guess and embrace authoritarianism? It's nonsense. How can you call yourself any form of a left-leaning ideology without the understanding of representation and democratic procedures. You're literally arguing on the behalf of authoritarians and stating at the same time you are a proud marxist. Make it make sense?

    This is where you fall flat on your face claiming liberals fall into loyalty or something. Americans are so heavily critical of their government, there's not a single president everyone has 100% liked in our life time. Every presidency is riddled with criticism and backlash and calls to remove them. You don't have that in these countries you're literally supporting, you're going to tell me you don't support them but you literally are by giving Russia these fake passes that allow them to engage in the same activity the west does, while also being far worse, and acting like they don't fucking do it too. For lack of better words it's childish to think other people don't see through that instantly. And once again you fall into this same line of thinking that if they don't agree with YOUR OPINION, it isn't really democracy and it isn't legitimate which is so funny because that's the opposite of democracy. People don't have to agree with you and your personal view of legitimacy doesn't have to be accepted. How many elections across this entire country have happened since the year 2000? Likely over 100,000 elections, that's my small estimate. You think out of 100,000 local to presidential elections not a single candidate has supported a withdraw from the middle east or afghanistan? Off the top of my head here's a few: Dennis Kuchinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Bill Richardson, JOE BIDEN(WHO LITERALLY WITHDREW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!?)

    What we see here is you playing a pick and choose game. You decide the US is interfering in Ukraine not Russia. You decide they aren't true liberals and it isn't real democracy because they aren't what YOU want. You parrot obvious Russian talking points trying to delegitimize both elections in the US and in Ukraine, the will of the people in both countries "aren't real" and we can talk all day about corruption, foreign influence, the power of money and it's ability to influence campaigns. But you're just ignoring simple truths.

    Again, if "Not Voting" was a candidate, it would win EVERY SINGLE TIME. The problem isn't the system here, it is people like you who throw up their hands and whine when they don't win. The solutions are there and obvious. I'm done here. Ridiculous

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    And you move forward claiming you never said it was solely controlled but that the US was the bad guy when they did it and Russia was not for… reasons?

    I never claimed either part of that. What I said was that I'm applying the same standard to both, and I even said that I don't agree with Russia's actions. It's you who wants to assign "good guy" and "bad guy" labels here.

    First, Ukrainians have made their choice where they would like to go, towards the EU and what they want is a democratic country.

    No, they have not. A faction of Ukrainians, who happened to be men with assault rifles, overthrew the central government and declared themselves to represent the will of the people. Then a different faction of Ukrainians, who also happened to be men with assault rifles, overthrew some regional governments and claimed to represent the will of the people. And you are arbitrarily declaring that this group of armed men actually does represent the people and that one doesn't.

    After the overthrow of the government, elections were held, which had some potential to legitimize the new government. But then that new government went and outlawed major opposition parties.

    Which part of that represents "Ukrainians making a choice?" The men with assault rifles, or the elections where the opposition was banned?

    Second, Russia engaging in deceitful and violent measures to derail that goal lessens their claims further, it literally makes them the bad guy here.

    This isn't really a separate point because it assumes your first point is true, which it isn't.

    If Yanukovych succeeded in snuffing out those protests you can bet Putin’s picks for Ukraine’s government would be sitting in their positions now too.

    Agreed, so we're on the same page.

    You’re literally doing it again where you give Russia this invisible pass

    What? Where did I do this? Is it invisible in the sense that I never said anything that substantiates your accusation?

    But you’re BLATANTLY NOT. Which is what I’m arguing about here. You’re just not.

    Great argument.

    I’m sitting here stating openly how both of these actors are doing the same behavior except one has turned to bloodshed and lies and the other has peddled in lies BUT with the caveat that the Ukrainian people have decided which direction they want to go, not towards the bloodshed guy who you are literally arguing in favor for.

    Right, you're critical of both, except for the small little caveat where you completely accept one side's narrative based on nothing.

    So no, you’re being dishonest or you don’t understand your own position or you’re straight up misunderstanding/being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.

    Or, I do understand my own position, it's just different from the one you made up and assigned to me. Y'all think its somehow bad faith when we don't defend the strawman positions you make up and assign to us, it's ridiculous.

    You’re parroting talking points of foreign interests in the United States/the west which is that democracy is a sham why bother voting.

    There it is. The age old talking point that communists are only opposing the government because we're agents of foreign powers, go back a hundred years and the rhetoric is exactly the same. Red Scare nonsense.

    JOE BIDEN(WHO LITERALLY WITHDREW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!?)

    After being the second highest official for 8 years of occupation, and sanctioning them into a humanitarian crisis afterwards, yes, he finally gave up on the pointless decades-long war of aggression that was unwinnable from the day it was started. And then increased the military budget even higher afterwards.

    You decide the US is interfering in Ukraine not Russia

    Complete strawman. I've reiterated over and over again that both factions in Ukraine have foreign backing, I have never claimed that Russia is not interfering. Maybe I just "don't understand my own position" 🙄

    You parrot obvious Russian talking points trying to delegitimize both elections in the US and in Ukraine, the will of the people in both countries “aren’t real”

    And you do the same with elections in China. Not every election is automatically a legitimate expression of popular will.

    The solutions are there and obvious

    Lol, so obvious that there's no need to actually explain what they supposedly are or how they supposedly function. Right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    After being the second highest official for 8 years of occupation

    This is such a funny thing to say when you're doing laps and mental gymnastics to support Putin, the guy who has ruled a country for 20 years unchallenged and unimpeded, who has bombed his own citizens, spreads fake news and instigated a full scale "tHRee dAY spEciAL OPerAtion" into millions dead while pressganging innocent Indians, Africans and South Americans into the war. Bombing apartments, shopping centers and having his goons torture Ukrainians.

    This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. Double standard. Completely a joke. Classic .ml 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    support Putin

    This is exactly why I can’t take you seriously.

    Because you completely ignore my actual positions and assign me positions that you can more easily dismiss? Yeah that checks out.

    20 years ago, you would be accusing me of supporting bin Laden and 9/11 because of my opposing the war in Afghanistan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Just because you're saying what your position is, doesn't actually make that your position. You are literally going "I TREAT BOTH EQUALLY" and then do nothing but pump Russia and their talking points - Voting doesn't work, Ukraine didn't want democracy, the US is worse. You have not levied a single criticism equally in the direction of any of the other three in that image. Every single step of the way I have been equally critical of the US and pointed out their actions are the same as Russia does, they are imperialist and their goals are selfish. You're disingenuous and think just because you say it, it becomes true. Just the same as you treat everything: It isn't liberal unless you agree, it isn't democracy unless you say so, it is fair if you say it is fair. You're like a five year old.

    Nice strawman bro. Get out of here you've got nothing to offer me but crap opinions and false positions. You stand for nothing and your beliefs are paper thin. A "marxist" who supports authoritarianism. What an absolute living breathing joke of a human being go back to your little circles of "wELl ReAd mARxIsTs". Buncha dorks, classic .ml

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    You are literally going “I TREAT BOTH EQUALLY” and then do nothing but pump Russia and their talking points

    That's because you completely accept one side's narrative, despite having nothing to back it up, so anything that challenges that one-sided view you just label as a "Russian talking point."

    You have not levied a single criticism equally in the direction of any of the other three in that image.

    That's a blatant lie. I criticized Russia's invasion and accused them of doing the exact same thing that I accused the US of. Plenty of actually pro-Russia people would take issue with that, and say that their armed men with guns are the real expression of popular support and the other side is just a foreign puppet, exactly the way you do in reverse.

    Unless I see a reason why I should trust one group of armed men seizing government buildings more than the other, then it's perfectly reasonable to regard both claims with equal skepticism.

    The main reason you're turning to these accusations and talking about ending the discussion is because you can't answer the simple question I posed, which is how we know the faction in the west legitimately represents the people's will. I'm assuming the answer is that the media told you so and you never thought to critically examine it. So now we have all this bullshit to hide the fact that you don't have an answer.

    Every single step of the way I have been equally critical of the US and pointed out their actions are the same as Russia does

    Lol, no you haven't. You're depicting the US as heroically coming to the rescue of a poor, defenseless country that's fully democratic and representive of the popular will, while possibly having an ulterior motive for doing so, while Russia is depicted as using proxies to seize territory in a brazen attempt at expansionism. This despite the fact that there is nothing you can point to to actually demonstrate that the Western-backed faction is any less of a proxy or any more of a legitimate representation of popular will. Like I said, when the conversation hits that point, you just hastily change the subject and start throwing out baseless accusations.

    Just the same as you treat everything: It isn’t liberal unless you agree, it isn’t democracy unless you say so, it is fair if you say it is fair. You’re like a five year old.

    To be clear, the policies I was mentioning, like ending the war in Afghanistan, were popular policies. It's not the fact that the US government doesn't respond to my, personal views that makes it not a democracy, it's the fact that it does not respond to what the people in general want.

    A “marxist” who supports authoritarianism.

    Lol, and I suppose you either haven't read Engles or don't consider him a Marxist either. Next you'll be telling me that Marx himself wasn't a Marxist. Nevermind the fact that this "support for authoritarianism" is just something you made up to get out of answering a difficult question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Your framing is so pathetic I genuinely think you might actually be American by your lack of reading comprehension and your failure to have an actual position you're consistent in.

    Your entire argument is a desire to take your ball and go home because people don't agree with you, which is the basis of a democratic government, people disagreeing. While people want to sling shit about socialism vs capitalism, Marx and Engles both 100% supported a democratic notion of a country where voting was key which you clearly don't. You're ignorantly standing on the opposite side of that fence thinking you champion these people and it makes me sad you try to use their names to prove a point you genuinely don't even understand. You parrot Russian talking points to legitimize their claim to Ukraine. You deny Ukraine it's sovereign right to decide for itself and genuinely referred to it's democratic decisions as the result of it being a puppet state, something only a person with a legume for a brain would think.

    I said I'm done here stop talking to me. Go back to read your theories and fail to understand them. Go back to supporting authoritarianism because people don't agree with what you think or do what you say. If you ever lead a country it would be under an authoritarian rule because you genuinely cannot handle people disagreeing with you and view it as them being "wrong". Bye bye bonehead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    genuinely referred to it’s democratic decisions

    So you're just going to completely ignore the fact that there's this huge gaping hole in your logic around the question "how do we know the Western-backed faction genuinely represents the popular will" and pretend that you actually answered it and proceed to attack me over not just blindly accepting that claim based on nothing the way you do.

    Really doesn't do much to dispel the notion that your criticisms of the West are just empty talk, and that in practice you're as blindly loyal to your state as anyone.

    As usual, any critical thought, or anything short of "USA! USA!" is a "Russian talking point."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Because it's a disingenuous question. It isn't a western-backed faction, it is the will of Ukrainians. They marched in the street. Only an absolute idiot would ask such a stupid poopoo baby headed question. Foolish smh. Now leave me alone and go be a legume brain elsewhere.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    isn’t a western-backed faction

    It's not? Really? When did all the arms shipments stop?

    It objective and inarguable that they're getting backing from West, regardless of their legitimacy. If you're going to complain about semantics at least make it accurate.

    They marched in the street.

    And the separatists didn't? This is ridiculous.

    At best, that shows that people in the western regions didn't like the old government. It does not prove that they did like the new government (especially considering the US was hand-picking which figures would end up in power), and it also does not prove that the people in regions far from where those marches took place were in agreement with any of that.

    If the western-backed faction had been so secure in their support and popularity, then why was it necessary for them to ban the opposition parties anyway?

    It's such a shame that it's impossible to discuss anything like this with anyone in your camp because you all respond this same way, taking offense to the fact that I'm even considering these questions instead of blindly accepting whatever our politicians tells us to think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent