I hope you enjoy my lengthy responses, I tried to summarize it from my reading and for what it’s worth I tried to approach it as impartially as I could given the circumstances.
Yeah, I’m completely fine with a serious discussion about it, because you seem like you’re capable of a serious discussion. So, right from the jump, the first comment they made:
That immediately to me is super offensive. Probably more so than pig shit pictures, definitely more so than me being condescending to them. Why? Because it is deliberate lies in service of killing. I still dealt with it factually, and I indicated I’d be open to a factual exchange. You want me to be nice about it also? Why would I do that? That doesn’t seem like it’s necessary.
I have no idea if that person actually thinks that Putin will honor a cease-fire, whether randomly unilaterally announced or not. It is clear to me that he will not. Actually, you seemed to acknowledge that they know he won’t (saying that all of these cease-fires tend to fall apart and not be honored). There are plenty of cease-fires that get honored, definitely plenty that aren’t broken on a huge scale right away on purpose.
Bottom line: I’ve known people from Ukraine. I’ve talked with them about their country getting torn apart, people they know getting killed, with an endless stream of lies coming from the other side about the reasons why and the things they can do to stop it from happening. I just don’t have patience for it. My whole SA analogy is in absolutely no way frivolous. I think it’s an absolutely spot-on way of expressing the horror of Russia claiming they’re only blowing up apartment buildings and hospitals because someone might be trying to resist them or give a security guarantee, and they didn’t like that, so they have every right to keep killing until they feel like stopping. And, someone on Lemmy saying the answer to that all is to stop arming Ukraine so they can’t fight back anymore. I think it’s disgusting, and I don’t think I’m required to be nice when explaining why.
I don’t think anyone on Hexbear has any right to request that someone not be “overly antagonistic” when they speak to them. For obvious reasons. The whole framing reeks of privilege and dishonesty, of creating rules for other people without any pretense that you’re planning to follow them yourself.
I do think that some of the Hexbear people are just confused and going along with the herd in terms of their beliefs and behavior. The whole propaganda framing is pretty powerful. Calm conversation is “sealioning” and it’s bad. Dissenting voices are conflated with bigotry, even if they have nothing to do with it, and so banning dissent is “protecting the space” from bigotry and just standing up for the oppressed which no other instance will do. Of course. There are all these words that get redefined as other different words, and all sorts of facts that aren’t true that are repeated so aggressively and often that they start to get accepted, and so these things they believe and do start to make sense within the off-kilter light they’re seen in.
Nakoiochi’s response is not jingoistic here either
Yes it is.
There are two narratives about shelling in Donbas:
That Ukraine’s Nazi government was randomly shelling civilians in Donbas and Russia tried their best through good means to put a stop to it, and eventually, they had no choice but to invade.
That Moscow funded separatists to start a mini-civil-war in Donbas and then blamed the resulting death on an imaginary Nazi government in Kyiv.
I know that several times I’ve asked people who told me the first narrative to back it up, and they couldn’t. They would send me sources that said one thing claiming it said something else, send me random Youtube videos that didn’t actually prove anything, that kind of thing. I don’t actually know whether it is the second narrative that’s true, or whether it’s sort of a “truth is somewhere in the middle” type of thing. It’s hard to say, at least for me with as much as I’ve looked into it. But I definitely have seen several people who said it was the first thing and found out afterwards that they were talking purely out of their ass.
Uncritically saying that Moscow’s narrative is definitely true is jingoistic. And actually, dealing with people who disagree by simply shouting them down in a pack is more or less a key component of jingoism to me. The fact that Moscow says the first narrative is what happened means absolutely nothing to me, since they generally lie about all kinds of things constantly. I touched on that in that big conversation (with no substantive response, go figure). I’ve never heard anyone outside of that bubble say that’s what happened. And, like I said, even if it did happen exactly the way Moscow claims it did, that wouldn’t excuse three years of mass killing in Ukraine. They’ve killed more Russian-speakers now, probably a hundred times over, by sending them into the meat grinder or just semi-accidentally bombing their homes in the course of the war, than anyone ever claimed had been killed in Donbas.
If someone is ethnically Russian in eastern Ukraine, and they’re unhappy with the Kyiv government, there are means to deal with that other than starting a civil war.
I want to link here this - Ukraine Found Complicit in 2014 Massacre By European Court of Human Rights I’ve just seen too many swastikas over the last 3 years to say this is anything but an unfair assessment.
This is a great example of what I was talking about. It’s just lies. The underlying fact is true, the court did order Ukraine to pay some people because of what happened in the burning of the trade union building, but it’s being summarized in a wildly misleading way. On purpose. To tell lies to justify slaughter.
I would actually really recommend that you read the actual judgement that they’re summarizing here in this way. You tell me whether this page you linked me to is summarizing what the court actually found in an accurate way.
Like I say: I’m fine having a factual discussion about it, but I don’t see why I would be obligated in any way to be nice to someone who doesn’t want that and is also willing to be 10 times more offensive than I am when they’re on the other side of the disagreement. To me that’s not offensive, it’s just fairness.
Yeah, I’m completely fine with a serious discussion about it, because you seem like you’re capable of a serious discussion. So, right from the jump, the first comment they made:
That immediately to me is super offensive. Probably more so than pig shit pictures, definitely more so than me being condescending to them. Why? Because it is deliberate lies in service of killing. I still dealt with it factually, and I indicated I’d be open to a factual exchange. You want me to be nice about it also? Why would I do that? That doesn’t seem like it’s necessary.
I have no idea if that person actually thinks that Putin will honor a cease-fire, whether randomly unilaterally announced or not. It is clear to me that he will not. Actually, you seemed to acknowledge that they know he won’t (saying that all of these cease-fires tend to fall apart and not be honored). There are plenty of cease-fires that get honored, definitely plenty that aren’t broken on a huge scale right away on purpose.
Bottom line: I’ve known people from Ukraine. I’ve talked with them about their country getting torn apart, people they know getting killed, with an endless stream of lies coming from the other side about the reasons why and the things they can do to stop it from happening. I just don’t have patience for it. My whole SA analogy is in absolutely no way frivolous. I think it’s an absolutely spot-on way of expressing the horror of Russia claiming they’re only blowing up apartment buildings and hospitals because someone might be trying to resist them or give a security guarantee, and they didn’t like that, so they have every right to keep killing until they feel like stopping. And, someone on Lemmy saying the answer to that all is to stop arming Ukraine so they can’t fight back anymore. I think it’s disgusting, and I don’t think I’m required to be nice when explaining why.
I don’t think anyone on Hexbear has any right to request that someone not be “overly antagonistic” when they speak to them. For obvious reasons. The whole framing reeks of privilege and dishonesty, of creating rules for other people without any pretense that you’re planning to follow them yourself.
I do think that some of the Hexbear people are just confused and going along with the herd in terms of their beliefs and behavior. The whole propaganda framing is pretty powerful. Calm conversation is “sealioning” and it’s bad. Dissenting voices are conflated with bigotry, even if they have nothing to do with it, and so banning dissent is “protecting the space” from bigotry and just standing up for the oppressed which no other instance will do. Of course. There are all these words that get redefined as other different words, and all sorts of facts that aren’t true that are repeated so aggressively and often that they start to get accepted, and so these things they believe and do start to make sense within the off-kilter light they’re seen in.
Yes it is.
There are two narratives about shelling in Donbas:
I know that several times I’ve asked people who told me the first narrative to back it up, and they couldn’t. They would send me sources that said one thing claiming it said something else, send me random Youtube videos that didn’t actually prove anything, that kind of thing. I don’t actually know whether it is the second narrative that’s true, or whether it’s sort of a “truth is somewhere in the middle” type of thing. It’s hard to say, at least for me with as much as I’ve looked into it. But I definitely have seen several people who said it was the first thing and found out afterwards that they were talking purely out of their ass.
Uncritically saying that Moscow’s narrative is definitely true is jingoistic. And actually, dealing with people who disagree by simply shouting them down in a pack is more or less a key component of jingoism to me. The fact that Moscow says the first narrative is what happened means absolutely nothing to me, since they generally lie about all kinds of things constantly. I touched on that in that big conversation (with no substantive response, go figure). I’ve never heard anyone outside of that bubble say that’s what happened. And, like I said, even if it did happen exactly the way Moscow claims it did, that wouldn’t excuse three years of mass killing in Ukraine. They’ve killed more Russian-speakers now, probably a hundred times over, by sending them into the meat grinder or just semi-accidentally bombing their homes in the course of the war, than anyone ever claimed had been killed in Donbas.
If someone is ethnically Russian in eastern Ukraine, and they’re unhappy with the Kyiv government, there are means to deal with that other than starting a civil war.
This is a great example of what I was talking about. It’s just lies. The underlying fact is true, the court did order Ukraine to pay some people because of what happened in the burning of the trade union building, but it’s being summarized in a wildly misleading way. On purpose. To tell lies to justify slaughter.
I would actually really recommend that you read the actual judgement that they’re summarizing here in this way. You tell me whether this page you linked me to is summarizing what the court actually found in an accurate way.
Like I say: I’m fine having a factual discussion about it, but I don’t see why I would be obligated in any way to be nice to someone who doesn’t want that and is also willing to be 10 times more offensive than I am when they’re on the other side of the disagreement. To me that’s not offensive, it’s just fairness.