If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
I swear, liberals will latch on to anything to avoid admitting their candidates' actual faults and recognizing reality.
Objectively the worst electoral map since the Republicans took California.
It's insane how obsessed libs are with this shit. If you give them any opportunity to reaffirm their loyalty to the government they'll leap at it with everything they've got.
The NYT is what billionaires want to tell me, and if they expect me to pay for the privilege they're out of their minds. Oughta be paying me to read that trash.
If you were talking about actually independent sources providing other perspectives then you might have a point.
The "pied piper" strategy, where Democrats fund far-right candidates in Republican primaries in order to create a situation where they're the only alternative to someone abhorrent, rather than actually offering the voters what they want.
Aka the reason we got Trump.
Nobody sidestepped special effects like film noir did. They made a whole genre out of, "If we dim the lights enough, nobody will notice we stole this set from a different movie."
The history of film noir is something really special that came together due to a unique set of circumstances (saddle up for an infodump). The Great Depression had given popularity to pulp fiction novels, generally focusing on working class protagonists struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and often viewing power and social structures through cynical terms. Meanwhile, in Germany, Hitler destroyed the German film industry, which had previously been the best in the world. A bunch of people who were generally some combination of gay/Jewish/communist/film makers came to America and brought their expertise, expressionist style, and antifascist perspectives to Hollywood, where it blended with existing American culture to create something entirely new.
Every iconic aspect of film noir was that way for a reason - even if the reason was often, "saving money," like I mentioned before. The older, grizzled detective and the young femme fatale were cast out of necessity, especially during wartime when young men who would have otherwise dominated those roles were out fighting (or expected to be). While of course they are product of their time and can contain sexist themes, they provided roles for women that were more complex and had more agency than before. And they were also subject to censorship, but some movies, such as Crossfire (1947), snuck hidden meanings under the radar. The book Crossfire was based on was centered around a homophobic murder, but the Hays Code prohibited any mention of homosexuality, so the plot was changed to a racist/antisemitic murder (which also capitalized on the anti-Nazi sentiment of the time) - but with subtext alluding to the original plot. The effect is that the two forms of bigotry are linked together (tagline: "Hate Is Like A Loaded Gun!"), and the director later said that the Code, "had a very good effect because it made us think. If we wanted to get something across that was censorable... we had to do it deviously. We had to be clever. And it usually turned out to be much better than if we had done it straight."
Film noir's fans cut across demographics, popular with women and men alike. Back in those days, going to the movie theater was an all-day affair with multiple films shown, and film noir movies generally occupied the role of "B movies" (necessitating their cheap production values), but the point is that they were just targeted towards... moviegoers. And I don't want to paint it as just, "foreign socialists promoting their agenda through hidden messages" or that sort of thing, it genuinely was a blending of perspectives and cultures that (much as I hate to say it as a certified America hater) really represents America at it's best, the dream that we ought to aspire to. There really was something magical happening in the cultural dialogue that these movies are the product of.
But of course, we're not allowed to have nice things. Due to McCarthyism, the alliances and blending of cultures and ideas that had allowed the genre to exist were ripped apart. People were pressured to name names and sell out their colleagues, which spawned distrust and animosity, betrayal and grudges that would disrupt the industry even after the direct threat had passed. And eventually replacing film noir and it's proletarian focus and cynical view of society, came the spy movies, glorifying government agents infiltrating other countries as part of this global ideological conflict against communism. Propagandizing trash. Dead art taking no risks and presenting nothing to challenge the audience.
Anyway, film noir is cool and fun and artsy and had a progressive (for its time, at least) current insofar as it was allowed to.
"Doing good" means fighting back against the fascists, not rolling over and giving them everything they want just because they threatened to hurt innocent people. That's all the more reason to fight.
I stg, are liberals really just that bad at negotiations? You can't apply this extremely short term, base utilitarianism approach to the real world, it's just fundamentally wrong.
The banning of pro-Russia parties apparently happened after Russia launched its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, so the banning can’t be a justification for the invasion.
That's incorrect. Almost immediately after coming to power in 2014, the Ukrainian government started banning opposition parties. It appears they banned more parties after 2022 as well (my previous source may have been referencing that, which I apologize for mixing up).
I hope that doesn’t happen and I hope Ukrainian people can choose whether they want to fight or not.
It does happen and they don't. Both sides of the war are using conscription, and the Ukrainian government has even tried to get other governments to force Ukrainian refugees back to Ukraine so they can be conscripted, because they are facing manpower shortages.
The whole situation is a tragedy and a mess. I think it's somewhat insane that either side saw this conflict as a viable option, there were diplomatic off-ramps that were ignored. Generally I just don't trust the same politicians and media that led us into Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years to get involved in any conflict, pretty much regardless of the circumstances. Because, after all, I'm a leftist.
Yes, parliament voted, after a bunch of armed men seized control of the parliament building. I never claimed that it was the armed men who voted.
As for the Russian-backed referendums in the Donbas, I don’t trust them myself, given Russia’s history of ballot stuffing and the state deliberately harming political opponents.
As for the government of Ukraine, I would say that I don't trust them because of the US's long history of color revolutions and the fact that there was a leaked call in which western intelligence was discussing who should end up in charge and all the people they picked mysteriously ended up in power.
However, it's not really about who I trust or don't trust, or what I think might have happened behind closed doors. Even if the overthrow was entirely driven by domestic forces with no outside meddling, the fact is that they proceeded to ban opposition parties and thereby effectively shut out the people in eastern regions from having a voice in government. That's just factual. You say the votes in eastern Ukraine were probably rigged, and maybe they were. But in that case there's no real way to know what the people actually want, because they were shut out of the political process by having their parties banned.
So, I return to my position of not thinking either side is really worth dying over. Or forcing other people to die over. And let's remember, that's what we're talking about here. It's not just a question of preferring one side over the other, we're talking about grabbing people off the streets, giving them a rifle, and forcing them to the front, whether they want to or not. I would need a very good reason to deviate from my null hypothesis of opposing involvement in any conflict. And between a flawed democracy that may be a Western puppet, and a rebellion that may be a Russian puppet, I just don't see it. You can argue that I ought to prefer one side or the other, but I mean, I think that if anyone really thinks there's such compelling reason to support Ukraine, they ought to go out there and fight themselves. In reality, I think that pro-Ukraine people are just defaulting to, rather than a null hypothesis of opposing war, to a null hypothesis of trusting the government and media. And that is something that I fundamentally disagree with, in my view, that is simply national chauvinism.
When you claim Yanukovych’s removal from power counts as an “overthrow”, I’m not sure I agree with that, because Ukraine’s parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from power.
Well then, when you claim that Russia's involvement counts as an "invasion," I'm not sure I agree because the disputed territories held votes to break away, invite Russia to defend their sovereignty, and to become part of Russia. Of course, those votes were held after a bunch of armed men took control of their local governments, but then, the Ukrainian parliament only voted to oust Yanukovych after a bunch of armed men took control of the parliament building. In my mind, neither is particularly reliable, but if you ask me to treat one as reliable, then it's only fair that I treat the other the same way. In that view, either Ukraine's current government is the result of a Western-backed coup, or Russia's involvement is a response to a request for aid from the break away regions, and it's primarily a civil war. If either of those things are true, then it's enough for me to wash my hands of the situation.
But anyway, maybe there is not much point in talking about where you and I disagree, because that could go on forever. I think we agree on some points
Fair enough.
Then be pissed, because Trumpism was never going to go away on it's own, and is only going to get worse and more powerful with time.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
"We demand ranked choice voting! And we will continue to vote for you as long as it's not implemented, and we want it implemented so that we can stop voting for you!
...why don't more politicians support ranked choice voting?"
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The problem is that we already had, "Things are bad," and that's what generated the threat of fascism in the first place. Voting for more "things are bad" will just keep growing fascism until it inevitably wins. The only way to avert fascism in the long term is by pushing for things to actually be good, and that won't happen as long as people keep supporting the "things are bad" people as the only alternative.
What we need is to acknowledge that "things are bad" is not a viable alternative and not something we are willing to accept or vote for. That means either forcing the Democratic party to change or building an alternative from the ground up, because regardless of how difficult those things may be, they are the only things that could possibly avert fascism. Voting for the lesser evil has a zero percent chance of success, it's a total dead end. We have to try things that at least have the potential for success rather than sleepwalking into fascism.
The hating Israel ain't looking too bad either lol
It’s my understanding that Ukraine’s parliament voted to remove President Yanukovych in 2014. Does this count as an “overthrow”? If the US Congress were to vote to remove Trump from power, which I believe is legally possible in the US, would that be an “overthrow”?
Lol after a bunch of armed men stormed the capital? Yes, it does, actually. A better comparison would be if Jan 6'ers succeeded, prevented Biden from coming in and forced Congress to authorize their actions.
Your sources curiously omit the fact that Ukraine banned numerous opposition parties. I don't see either side as being genuinely democratic, but I also consider that somewhat beside the point. The real point is that neither government operates in the people's interest.
Every year, another Ukraine slips away from the US's sphere of influence because there's only ever money available for war. And the reason for that is because the military-industrial complex is a mechanism for funnelling public funds into private hands, where it can eventually end up in the hands of the people making the decision. What I want is to put a stop to that and spend money on schools and hospitals and infrastructure and that sort of thing. I'm not particularly picky on where or how or why, if they want to develop in foreign countries to uphold geopolitical influence, fine, if they want to develop domestically to win support, cool.
There are countless ongoing crises that are far more important than whatever's happening in Ukraine, but everything gets ignored unless they can be addressed by dropping bombs on people. And I've had enough of it, I have zero patience for it, and above all, I don't trust my government enough to follow their lead anywhere.
There's clearly enough evidence to say that Ukraine is at best a "flawed" democracy, and that's by the standards of bourgeois systems. But even if it wasn't, even if they were fully in the right and it was as black-and-white as the media pretends it is - it still wouldn't really matter to me. I have bigger fish to fry at home, get these rulers out, get them out for good, and maybe then I can think of following whoever got them out over to dealing with Ukraine. Until then, the specifics don't really matter.
continuing a long-standing agreement with an allied nation that happens to be their most important ally in a specific region of the world
Lol the Zionism is revealed.
Germany was Italy's ally in WWII so I guess that makes their participation ok.
Just a sling of insults and drivel, if you can't keep it together and discuss it like an adult then we're done here.
Sometimes a game being a little unbalanced can make it more fun.
That "one single issue" being literal genocide, yes. I swear, it's like I've been transported into some satirical work critiquing the two-party system, you're literally a self-parody. "One single issue," christsake, the Holocaust was "one single issue too."
Spine? Conviction?
Whatever it is, the important takeaway is if future campaigns take the same approach, they're liable to get the same results.