I’ve actually yet to see anybody you’d call a tankie being pro Putin or pro current Russian government. What people are pro is Russia acting as a counter to NATO and facilitating multipolarity.
I think people are thrown off by anti NATO stance. I almost don’t blame people for confusing NATO opposition for Russia support, especially during on ongoing Russian invasion, which does seem to justify NATO’s existence. Nevermind NATO’s history of imperialist action, people are very tied up in the Ukraine war and are unwilling to cede any ground to anything that may appear even a little soft on Russia.
There was an interesting writeup from someone on hexbear as to why they opposed the war in Ukraine. It was fascinating reading such a nuanced take on the conflict that completely ignored Russia’s imperialistic attitudes that Putin displayed from the moment he took office. It was really interesting reading someone who was really well informed to a point but seemed to not see past that point.
I don’t even really think it’s that they don’t see that point, it’s that they don’t want the US intervening in any more conflicts because the US always picks that side that’s closest aligned with their own capitalist/imperial goals, and the struggle for worker solidarity is the dominant dialectical struggle they’re interested in. If the US showed any interest in assisting a socialist project be successful, they might feel more comfortable with the US’s involvement, but that’s historically not been the case (nor would that make sense in that particular dialectical materialist worldview).
My issue with hexbearians was that in every single thread I saw them in they would do nothing but whatabout regardless of the context. I understand they may have good points about certain things and to their credit some had very well written and informative comments but most of the time they weren’t directly relevant to the topic. It could be a loud minority but it doesn’t change the fact it’s annoying to see huge threads of whatabout arguments all the time by them.
In my view, having consistent moral standards is a prerequisite for having an honest discussion on any topic. If anything, the actual whataboutism is pointing fingers at other countries while refusing to acknowledge what your own country is doing. People should focus on fixing problems at home and holding their own governments accountable first and foremost because that’s where they have most agency.
This is what people who you accuse of whataboutism point out. Focusing on countries you don’t like and talking about how bad they are when your own country does the same things simply serves to deflect attention and to create the impression that your own society is somehow better and more enlightened. This is how the west often justifies the atrocities it commits.
You know whataboutism isn’t an actual logical fallacy and was originally used in defense of British colonialism “well the IRA also does bad things” right?
Again, my point was that people should focus on themselves and what their countries are doing. Your “well the IRA also does bad things” is precisely the kind of deflection I’m arguing against.
To be fair one country was invaded by the other. It is entirely understandable to back the party that was invaded by the other nation especially when that nation has a recent history of imperialism.
Last I checked, what actually happened was that Ukraine was plunged into a civil war after US ran a coup in 2104 that overthrew the democratically elected government.
Russia was invited into the conflict by LPR and DPR which it recognized independence of. This follows the precedent NATO set in Yugoslavia where it recognized breakaway regions and intervened on their behalf.
I don’t need to edit anything, the LPR and DPR were every bit as legitimate as the regions that broke away from Yugoslavia. What exactly are you claiming is the difference between the two scenarios?
That’s a bold claim to make given neither region were their own nation or were historically Russian or Ukrainian.
Yugoslavia was formed if multiple countries untied by socialism. The LPR and DPR as breakaway units are not the sane and seem to have been very heavily influenced by Russia. That’s the same imperialistic Russia that keeps invading foreign lands to seize them since Putin was elected.
This is really a non-sequitur but I have zero idea how people choose to upvote it downvote anymore. You and I were in agreement and somehow I got upvoted and you got downvoted? I don’t get it
I’ve actually yet to see anybody you’d call a tankie being pro Putin or pro current Russian government. What people are pro is Russia acting as a counter to NATO and facilitating multipolarity.
I think people are thrown off by anti NATO stance. I almost don’t blame people for confusing NATO opposition for Russia support, especially during on ongoing Russian invasion, which does seem to justify NATO’s existence. Nevermind NATO’s history of imperialist action, people are very tied up in the Ukraine war and are unwilling to cede any ground to anything that may appear even a little soft on Russia.
There was an interesting writeup from someone on hexbear as to why they opposed the war in Ukraine. It was fascinating reading such a nuanced take on the conflict that completely ignored Russia’s imperialistic attitudes that Putin displayed from the moment he took office. It was really interesting reading someone who was really well informed to a point but seemed to not see past that point.
I don’t even really think it’s that they don’t see that point, it’s that they don’t want the US intervening in any more conflicts because the US always picks that side that’s closest aligned with their own capitalist/imperial goals, and the struggle for worker solidarity is the dominant dialectical struggle they’re interested in. If the US showed any interest in assisting a socialist project be successful, they might feel more comfortable with the US’s involvement, but that’s historically not been the case (nor would that make sense in that particular dialectical materialist worldview).
Right, people are treating it as sports where you have to either cheer for one side or the other.
My issue with hexbearians was that in every single thread I saw them in they would do nothing but whatabout regardless of the context. I understand they may have good points about certain things and to their credit some had very well written and informative comments but most of the time they weren’t directly relevant to the topic. It could be a loud minority but it doesn’t change the fact it’s annoying to see huge threads of whatabout arguments all the time by them.
In my view, having consistent moral standards is a prerequisite for having an honest discussion on any topic. If anything, the actual whataboutism is pointing fingers at other countries while refusing to acknowledge what your own country is doing. People should focus on fixing problems at home and holding their own governments accountable first and foremost because that’s where they have most agency.
This is what people who you accuse of whataboutism point out. Focusing on countries you don’t like and talking about how bad they are when your own country does the same things simply serves to deflect attention and to create the impression that your own society is somehow better and more enlightened. This is how the west often justifies the atrocities it commits.
getting called out for your bullshit on any topic pertains to the discussion, we’ve had problems with all crowds.
“whataboutism” does not mean “you’re never allowed to point out a double standard”
You know whataboutism isn’t an actual logical fallacy and was originally used in defense of British colonialism “well the IRA also does bad things” right?
Again, my point was that people should focus on themselves and what their countries are doing. Your “well the IRA also does bad things” is precisely the kind of deflection I’m arguing against.
I’m replying to the person you’re replying to.
Ah gotcha
To be fair one country was invaded by the other. It is entirely understandable to back the party that was invaded by the other nation especially when that nation has a recent history of imperialism.
Last I checked, what actually happened was that Ukraine was plunged into a civil war after US ran a coup in 2104 that overthrew the democratically elected government.
Russia was invited into the conflict by LPR and DPR which it recognized independence of. This follows the precedent NATO set in Yugoslavia where it recognized breakaway regions and intervened on their behalf.
You might want to edit the errors in your comment if you want people to take you seriously.
The LPT and DPR were legitimate why exactly? That’s the part that makes the claim less than accurate.
I don’t need to edit anything, the LPR and DPR were every bit as legitimate as the regions that broke away from Yugoslavia. What exactly are you claiming is the difference between the two scenarios?
That’s a bold claim to make given neither region were their own nation or were historically Russian or Ukrainian.
Yugoslavia was formed if multiple countries untied by socialism. The LPR and DPR as breakaway units are not the sane and seem to have been very heavily influenced by Russia. That’s the same imperialistic Russia that keeps invading foreign lands to seize them since Putin was elected.
Ukraine was formed by USSR. Are you just utterly historically illiterate?
This is really a non-sequitur but I have zero idea how people choose to upvote it downvote anymore. You and I were in agreement and somehow I got upvoted and you got downvoted? I don’t get it
lol, I have a following of a few very angry liberals on here :)