▲ 211 ▼ Courage (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 day ago by dessalines@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 155 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] insanemantis@lemmy.world -8 points 9 hours ago (29 children) Any existing government permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 hours ago Not even anarchists support that. Also, again, if you support the dismantlement of governments that are opposed to NATO before the dismantlement of the latter, all you do is support the most prolific insert in the world. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -9 points 8 hours ago (27 children) T_F does not speak for anarchists who wholeheartly agree with the meaning of your message. Power corrups, subjecting an healthy adult to anyone other then themselves is always harm. And even for the immature and ill we should strive to maximise their freedom and expressions. Good governements can exist in theory but no nation on earth is even close to resembling annything but facism. Personally i believe when a good governement will emerge it will not be any nation that provides it and instead be a set of logical open source ideas, concept and methods that may voluntarily spread amongst the self organised communities of people in however ways they choose. Will it be perfect society… absolutely not. Bad people will still exist. But they will be smaller and less powerfull. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 hours ago (2 children) Power corrupts Magical thinking helps no one. Power is not a magic force that corrupts all who touch it, this isn't Lord of the Rings. It is a social relation that allows people to more effectively work in their interests. The issue is that society in much of the world thus far has been structured such that a minority class, be they the landlords and aristocracy of feudalism or the bourgeoisie of capitalism, hold an effective monopoly. They use this monopoly to extract surplus and protect their property. The solution is not to wish away power, but to seize it and democratize it, transforming it from a tool of class exploitation into an instrument of social administration. subjecting a healthy adult to anyone other than themselves is always harm. By your logic, nuclear power station workers being subject to the safety team is truly harmful. An operating room being subject to a chief surgeon is another great harm. Or is it possible that hierarchy is a useful social relation that has been reproduced across geography, centuries, and even species for a reason? In nature, coordinated structures emerge because they solve material problems of survival and resource management. In human society, as the division of labor grows more complex, large scale production physically demands coordination, discipline, and unified direction. A factory, a railway network, or a hospital cannot run on pure consensus without collapsing. The goal should not be to abolish all authority, which would mean abolishing industry and modern society itself. The goal should be to abolish class authority. End the subjection of people to people as exploiters, and replace it with the rational, democratic administration of things and the technical direction of production. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -8 points 7 hours ago (1 child) Your confusing hierarchy and authority, dont worry i also still mix them up sometimes. Trusting and following a leader is not the same as being subjected to an authority. If a chief is wrong then the assistants should be free to resist. They only follow as long as they agree with the direction. About abolishing major parts of modern industry and society. uhm in my wildest dreams maybe. But realistically we are better of evolving things slowly There is no magic involved in “power corrupts”, its just a way to reference the mental illnesses that emerge in people when leadership stops being contested. But i know the community i am in, i am not really here to fight tankies, that just results in stale mate. in many ways we overlap and fight the same abstracted evils really as i welcome the resistancd against the usa. My comments are intended for other inspiring anarchists who dont know what tankies are about yet frequently end up confused when sharing opinions that they tought where aligned with the opinions expessed in the content featured on ml. Because really, many memes here are delighfully refreshing for anti-nationalists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago I am not confusing hierarchy and authority. If binding decisions are being made and enforced, then authority exists. Whether someone "agrees" with the direction is irrelevant to the material reality of the situation. If a janitor believes they have a better idea for how to run the core of a nuclear reactor, they still should not be permitted to touch it. Authority in production is simply the enforcement of the binding decisions required to keep complex systems functioning. You casually suggest abolishing major parts of modern industry, even if "slowly." This is nothing but a reactionary fantasy. Dismantling complex, large-scale production is deeply ableist. Sick and disabled people often rely on the highly coordinated, global production of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and life-sustaining infrastructure. Wishing this away privileges the temporarily able-bodied and ignores the material basis of human survival. Furthermore, reducing class power to "mental illness" is both idealist and ableist. Capitalists and landlords do not exploit the working class because they are individually unwell. They do so because the material structure of their class position demands it. They act in their objective class interest to preserve property relations and extract surplus. Masking systemic, material exploitation as individual pathology prevents any real understanding of how society functions. You claim your comments are meant for "inspiring" anarchists who get confused by Marxist-Leninist content. But these are not fresh insights. They are recycled, long-debunked misunderstandings and misappropriations of political concepts. Framing idealist confusion as inspiration will only mislead people who are genuinely seeking a materialist path to oppose imperialism and capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 hours ago (16 children) Even anarchists support various proposed sorts of governments. What you are doing is simply ruining propaganda in support of destroying and subjugating the enemies of your empire under the guise of 'all states/governments are bad'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 7 hours ago* (15 children) your empire Lel. If only the empires that exist today could just eliminate eachother without taking their citizens down with them, that be something to cheer for. We are aligned with the same abstracted enemy, the only difference is you see a head that is a solution requirring support, i see a heads of a single hydra fighting itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 hours ago (14 children) You write literally argue that the Global South should not have governments and militaries to defend against NATO. So, yes, you are a supporter of your empire, and a supporter of colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 6 hours ago (13 children) You must be confusing me with someone else because nato is still the same hydra to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (12 children) The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 6 hours ago* (11 children) I didnt make that claim. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (4 children) That's not even what I was saying Starting to think I got downvoted because no one knew what I meant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 1 hour ago* (3 children) Well thats awkward, i was agreeing and upvoted you.. I just elaborated with an actual anarchist perspectives cause the other person stating “not even anarchist want what anarchist literaly want” was very annoying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago* (2 children) I was talking about existing and current or recent governments, like the UK government or the Israeli government. Same with the USSR and the US Pretty much all governments are exploiting people in some way Doesn't mean I believe that the very concept of governments is bunk Personally I think that if our leaders were young people who had older advisors to educate and guide them, then we'd have fresh and authentic leadership with decisions coming from balanced perspectives, not just billionaire pedo dinosaurs who are one missed stairstep away from death permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 50 minutes ago* (1 child) Thank you for the nuance, My views are indeed a little more radical then believing that fresh politicians is enough to get a government that does not systematically oppress. Though other then that i think on ideals we very much align. I would love to be wrong and see things actually improving. Though that line of thinking is not going to save you from downvotes in this community i fear. Tankies are very passionate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 37 minutes ago* What I will say for sure is that defecting to any warmongering faction leads to the same decline that we've seen in genuinely good ideas like democracy, which is now a cover for fascism. Same thing happened to protecting Jews, which devolved into Zionism once wealthy warmongers infiltrated that idea. And the same thing happened to communism Ideas. Are. Worthless. Anything can happen to an idea no matter how good it is What must be done well is its execution permalink fedilink source parent [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago (1 child) Power corrups, subjecting an healthy adult to anyone other then themselves is always harm. And even for the immature and ill we should strive to maximise their freedom and expressions. LOTR was a mistake seriously. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 hours ago What does lotr have to do with any of this? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 hours ago Not even anarchists support that. Also, again, if you support the dismantlement of governments that are opposed to NATO before the dismantlement of the latter, all you do is support the most prolific insert in the world. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -9 points 8 hours ago (27 children) T_F does not speak for anarchists who wholeheartly agree with the meaning of your message. Power corrups, subjecting an healthy adult to anyone other then themselves is always harm. And even for the immature and ill we should strive to maximise their freedom and expressions. Good governements can exist in theory but no nation on earth is even close to resembling annything but facism. Personally i believe when a good governement will emerge it will not be any nation that provides it and instead be a set of logical open source ideas, concept and methods that may voluntarily spread amongst the self organised communities of people in however ways they choose. Will it be perfect society… absolutely not. Bad people will still exist. But they will be smaller and less powerfull. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 hours ago (2 children) Power corrupts Magical thinking helps no one. Power is not a magic force that corrupts all who touch it, this isn't Lord of the Rings. It is a social relation that allows people to more effectively work in their interests. The issue is that society in much of the world thus far has been structured such that a minority class, be they the landlords and aristocracy of feudalism or the bourgeoisie of capitalism, hold an effective monopoly. They use this monopoly to extract surplus and protect their property. The solution is not to wish away power, but to seize it and democratize it, transforming it from a tool of class exploitation into an instrument of social administration. subjecting a healthy adult to anyone other than themselves is always harm. By your logic, nuclear power station workers being subject to the safety team is truly harmful. An operating room being subject to a chief surgeon is another great harm. Or is it possible that hierarchy is a useful social relation that has been reproduced across geography, centuries, and even species for a reason? In nature, coordinated structures emerge because they solve material problems of survival and resource management. In human society, as the division of labor grows more complex, large scale production physically demands coordination, discipline, and unified direction. A factory, a railway network, or a hospital cannot run on pure consensus without collapsing. The goal should not be to abolish all authority, which would mean abolishing industry and modern society itself. The goal should be to abolish class authority. End the subjection of people to people as exploiters, and replace it with the rational, democratic administration of things and the technical direction of production. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -8 points 7 hours ago (1 child) Your confusing hierarchy and authority, dont worry i also still mix them up sometimes. Trusting and following a leader is not the same as being subjected to an authority. If a chief is wrong then the assistants should be free to resist. They only follow as long as they agree with the direction. About abolishing major parts of modern industry and society. uhm in my wildest dreams maybe. But realistically we are better of evolving things slowly There is no magic involved in “power corrupts”, its just a way to reference the mental illnesses that emerge in people when leadership stops being contested. But i know the community i am in, i am not really here to fight tankies, that just results in stale mate. in many ways we overlap and fight the same abstracted evils really as i welcome the resistancd against the usa. My comments are intended for other inspiring anarchists who dont know what tankies are about yet frequently end up confused when sharing opinions that they tought where aligned with the opinions expessed in the content featured on ml. Because really, many memes here are delighfully refreshing for anti-nationalists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago I am not confusing hierarchy and authority. If binding decisions are being made and enforced, then authority exists. Whether someone "agrees" with the direction is irrelevant to the material reality of the situation. If a janitor believes they have a better idea for how to run the core of a nuclear reactor, they still should not be permitted to touch it. Authority in production is simply the enforcement of the binding decisions required to keep complex systems functioning. You casually suggest abolishing major parts of modern industry, even if "slowly." This is nothing but a reactionary fantasy. Dismantling complex, large-scale production is deeply ableist. Sick and disabled people often rely on the highly coordinated, global production of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and life-sustaining infrastructure. Wishing this away privileges the temporarily able-bodied and ignores the material basis of human survival. Furthermore, reducing class power to "mental illness" is both idealist and ableist. Capitalists and landlords do not exploit the working class because they are individually unwell. They do so because the material structure of their class position demands it. They act in their objective class interest to preserve property relations and extract surplus. Masking systemic, material exploitation as individual pathology prevents any real understanding of how society functions. You claim your comments are meant for "inspiring" anarchists who get confused by Marxist-Leninist content. But these are not fresh insights. They are recycled, long-debunked misunderstandings and misappropriations of political concepts. Framing idealist confusion as inspiration will only mislead people who are genuinely seeking a materialist path to oppose imperialism and capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 hours ago (16 children) Even anarchists support various proposed sorts of governments. What you are doing is simply ruining propaganda in support of destroying and subjugating the enemies of your empire under the guise of 'all states/governments are bad'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 7 hours ago* (15 children) your empire Lel. If only the empires that exist today could just eliminate eachother without taking their citizens down with them, that be something to cheer for. We are aligned with the same abstracted enemy, the only difference is you see a head that is a solution requirring support, i see a heads of a single hydra fighting itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 hours ago (14 children) You write literally argue that the Global South should not have governments and militaries to defend against NATO. So, yes, you are a supporter of your empire, and a supporter of colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 6 hours ago (13 children) You must be confusing me with someone else because nato is still the same hydra to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (12 children) The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 6 hours ago* (11 children) I didnt make that claim. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (4 children) That's not even what I was saying Starting to think I got downvoted because no one knew what I meant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 1 hour ago* (3 children) Well thats awkward, i was agreeing and upvoted you.. I just elaborated with an actual anarchist perspectives cause the other person stating “not even anarchist want what anarchist literaly want” was very annoying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago* (2 children) I was talking about existing and current or recent governments, like the UK government or the Israeli government. Same with the USSR and the US Pretty much all governments are exploiting people in some way Doesn't mean I believe that the very concept of governments is bunk Personally I think that if our leaders were young people who had older advisors to educate and guide them, then we'd have fresh and authentic leadership with decisions coming from balanced perspectives, not just billionaire pedo dinosaurs who are one missed stairstep away from death permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 50 minutes ago* (1 child) Thank you for the nuance, My views are indeed a little more radical then believing that fresh politicians is enough to get a government that does not systematically oppress. Though other then that i think on ideals we very much align. I would love to be wrong and see things actually improving. Though that line of thinking is not going to save you from downvotes in this community i fear. Tankies are very passionate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 37 minutes ago* What I will say for sure is that defecting to any warmongering faction leads to the same decline that we've seen in genuinely good ideas like democracy, which is now a cover for fascism. Same thing happened to protecting Jews, which devolved into Zionism once wealthy warmongers infiltrated that idea. And the same thing happened to communism Ideas. Are. Worthless. Anything can happen to an idea no matter how good it is What must be done well is its execution permalink fedilink source parent [–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago (1 child) Power corrups, subjecting an healthy adult to anyone other then themselves is always harm. And even for the immature and ill we should strive to maximise their freedom and expressions. LOTR was a mistake seriously. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 hours ago What does lotr have to do with any of this? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 hours ago (2 children) Power corrupts Magical thinking helps no one. Power is not a magic force that corrupts all who touch it, this isn't Lord of the Rings. It is a social relation that allows people to more effectively work in their interests. The issue is that society in much of the world thus far has been structured such that a minority class, be they the landlords and aristocracy of feudalism or the bourgeoisie of capitalism, hold an effective monopoly. They use this monopoly to extract surplus and protect their property. The solution is not to wish away power, but to seize it and democratize it, transforming it from a tool of class exploitation into an instrument of social administration. subjecting a healthy adult to anyone other than themselves is always harm. By your logic, nuclear power station workers being subject to the safety team is truly harmful. An operating room being subject to a chief surgeon is another great harm. Or is it possible that hierarchy is a useful social relation that has been reproduced across geography, centuries, and even species for a reason? In nature, coordinated structures emerge because they solve material problems of survival and resource management. In human society, as the division of labor grows more complex, large scale production physically demands coordination, discipline, and unified direction. A factory, a railway network, or a hospital cannot run on pure consensus without collapsing. The goal should not be to abolish all authority, which would mean abolishing industry and modern society itself. The goal should be to abolish class authority. End the subjection of people to people as exploiters, and replace it with the rational, democratic administration of things and the technical direction of production. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -8 points 7 hours ago (1 child) Your confusing hierarchy and authority, dont worry i also still mix them up sometimes. Trusting and following a leader is not the same as being subjected to an authority. If a chief is wrong then the assistants should be free to resist. They only follow as long as they agree with the direction. About abolishing major parts of modern industry and society. uhm in my wildest dreams maybe. But realistically we are better of evolving things slowly There is no magic involved in “power corrupts”, its just a way to reference the mental illnesses that emerge in people when leadership stops being contested. But i know the community i am in, i am not really here to fight tankies, that just results in stale mate. in many ways we overlap and fight the same abstracted evils really as i welcome the resistancd against the usa. My comments are intended for other inspiring anarchists who dont know what tankies are about yet frequently end up confused when sharing opinions that they tought where aligned with the opinions expessed in the content featured on ml. Because really, many memes here are delighfully refreshing for anti-nationalists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago I am not confusing hierarchy and authority. If binding decisions are being made and enforced, then authority exists. Whether someone "agrees" with the direction is irrelevant to the material reality of the situation. If a janitor believes they have a better idea for how to run the core of a nuclear reactor, they still should not be permitted to touch it. Authority in production is simply the enforcement of the binding decisions required to keep complex systems functioning. You casually suggest abolishing major parts of modern industry, even if "slowly." This is nothing but a reactionary fantasy. Dismantling complex, large-scale production is deeply ableist. Sick and disabled people often rely on the highly coordinated, global production of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and life-sustaining infrastructure. Wishing this away privileges the temporarily able-bodied and ignores the material basis of human survival. Furthermore, reducing class power to "mental illness" is both idealist and ableist. Capitalists and landlords do not exploit the working class because they are individually unwell. They do so because the material structure of their class position demands it. They act in their objective class interest to preserve property relations and extract surplus. Masking systemic, material exploitation as individual pathology prevents any real understanding of how society functions. You claim your comments are meant for "inspiring" anarchists who get confused by Marxist-Leninist content. But these are not fresh insights. They are recycled, long-debunked misunderstandings and misappropriations of political concepts. Framing idealist confusion as inspiration will only mislead people who are genuinely seeking a materialist path to oppose imperialism and capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -8 points 7 hours ago (1 child) Your confusing hierarchy and authority, dont worry i also still mix them up sometimes. Trusting and following a leader is not the same as being subjected to an authority. If a chief is wrong then the assistants should be free to resist. They only follow as long as they agree with the direction. About abolishing major parts of modern industry and society. uhm in my wildest dreams maybe. But realistically we are better of evolving things slowly There is no magic involved in “power corrupts”, its just a way to reference the mental illnesses that emerge in people when leadership stops being contested. But i know the community i am in, i am not really here to fight tankies, that just results in stale mate. in many ways we overlap and fight the same abstracted evils really as i welcome the resistancd against the usa. My comments are intended for other inspiring anarchists who dont know what tankies are about yet frequently end up confused when sharing opinions that they tought where aligned with the opinions expessed in the content featured on ml. Because really, many memes here are delighfully refreshing for anti-nationalists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago I am not confusing hierarchy and authority. If binding decisions are being made and enforced, then authority exists. Whether someone "agrees" with the direction is irrelevant to the material reality of the situation. If a janitor believes they have a better idea for how to run the core of a nuclear reactor, they still should not be permitted to touch it. Authority in production is simply the enforcement of the binding decisions required to keep complex systems functioning. You casually suggest abolishing major parts of modern industry, even if "slowly." This is nothing but a reactionary fantasy. Dismantling complex, large-scale production is deeply ableist. Sick and disabled people often rely on the highly coordinated, global production of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and life-sustaining infrastructure. Wishing this away privileges the temporarily able-bodied and ignores the material basis of human survival. Furthermore, reducing class power to "mental illness" is both idealist and ableist. Capitalists and landlords do not exploit the working class because they are individually unwell. They do so because the material structure of their class position demands it. They act in their objective class interest to preserve property relations and extract surplus. Masking systemic, material exploitation as individual pathology prevents any real understanding of how society functions. You claim your comments are meant for "inspiring" anarchists who get confused by Marxist-Leninist content. But these are not fresh insights. They are recycled, long-debunked misunderstandings and misappropriations of political concepts. Framing idealist confusion as inspiration will only mislead people who are genuinely seeking a materialist path to oppose imperialism and capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago I am not confusing hierarchy and authority. If binding decisions are being made and enforced, then authority exists. Whether someone "agrees" with the direction is irrelevant to the material reality of the situation. If a janitor believes they have a better idea for how to run the core of a nuclear reactor, they still should not be permitted to touch it. Authority in production is simply the enforcement of the binding decisions required to keep complex systems functioning. You casually suggest abolishing major parts of modern industry, even if "slowly." This is nothing but a reactionary fantasy. Dismantling complex, large-scale production is deeply ableist. Sick and disabled people often rely on the highly coordinated, global production of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and life-sustaining infrastructure. Wishing this away privileges the temporarily able-bodied and ignores the material basis of human survival. Furthermore, reducing class power to "mental illness" is both idealist and ableist. Capitalists and landlords do not exploit the working class because they are individually unwell. They do so because the material structure of their class position demands it. They act in their objective class interest to preserve property relations and extract surplus. Masking systemic, material exploitation as individual pathology prevents any real understanding of how society functions. You claim your comments are meant for "inspiring" anarchists who get confused by Marxist-Leninist content. But these are not fresh insights. They are recycled, long-debunked misunderstandings and misappropriations of political concepts. Framing idealist confusion as inspiration will only mislead people who are genuinely seeking a materialist path to oppose imperialism and capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 hours ago (16 children) Even anarchists support various proposed sorts of governments. What you are doing is simply ruining propaganda in support of destroying and subjugating the enemies of your empire under the guise of 'all states/governments are bad'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 7 hours ago* (15 children) your empire Lel. If only the empires that exist today could just eliminate eachother without taking their citizens down with them, that be something to cheer for. We are aligned with the same abstracted enemy, the only difference is you see a head that is a solution requirring support, i see a heads of a single hydra fighting itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 hours ago (14 children) You write literally argue that the Global South should not have governments and militaries to defend against NATO. So, yes, you are a supporter of your empire, and a supporter of colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 6 hours ago (13 children) You must be confusing me with someone else because nato is still the same hydra to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (12 children) The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 6 hours ago* (11 children) I didnt make that claim. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 7 hours ago* (15 children) your empire Lel. If only the empires that exist today could just eliminate eachother without taking their citizens down with them, that be something to cheer for. We are aligned with the same abstracted enemy, the only difference is you see a head that is a solution requirring support, i see a heads of a single hydra fighting itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 hours ago (14 children) You write literally argue that the Global South should not have governments and militaries to defend against NATO. So, yes, you are a supporter of your empire, and a supporter of colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 6 hours ago (13 children) You must be confusing me with someone else because nato is still the same hydra to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (12 children) The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 6 hours ago* (11 children) I didnt make that claim. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 hours ago (14 children) You write literally argue that the Global South should not have governments and militaries to defend against NATO. So, yes, you are a supporter of your empire, and a supporter of colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 6 hours ago (13 children) You must be confusing me with someone else because nato is still the same hydra to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (12 children) The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 6 hours ago* (11 children) I didnt make that claim. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 6 hours ago (13 children) You must be confusing me with someone else because nato is still the same hydra to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (12 children) The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 6 hours ago* (11 children) I didnt make that claim. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (12 children) The Global South losing their ability to resist NATO would be, as you claim, better, because no more of their pesky governments. Needless to say, your leadership would love that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 6 hours ago* (11 children) I didnt make that claim. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 6 hours ago* (11 children) I didnt make that claim. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago (10 children) I didnt make that claim. You have been claiming that all governments are bad (probably even "equally" as bad as each other, considering your "same hydra" comment), and that no government should be supported, and that they should all go down. That means, in particular, that you would welcome the destruction of the governments of the Global South that are opposed to NATO, even before NATO is dismantled. That would obviously be good for your empire. That means that you do support your empire. I dont know who you are refering to that would be “my leaders”. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. If they are an authority, and enforce tings onto others i oppose them, i have yet to find any exceptions You are running the same pro-colonial sort of propaganda under the guise of "I'm against all governments" that your empire has been promoting. Also, you might not even be against all governments, as you claim you are. I'd like to hear your opinion on how the Ukrainian government should disband immediately. Why would they love getting abolished themselves? That makes so little sense. NATO wouldn't abolish itself. But the dismantlement of the governments that oppose it would, according to you, be good. As long as the hydra has any heads left i will oppose it. One head eating another does not make the problem go away but i am not going to oppose the heads fighting eachother. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago (9 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. You support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. So, they are your leaders. Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. Ukrain is not an exception. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don't really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Okay, so, how are the heads to be undone in a way that leaves the hydra with no heads, then? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? Signs us up for a big think thank with many others, then we’ll talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago (8 children) I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. Yes. You do, indeed, not care if NATO resumes old-style colonialism or not. That is why you are, effectively, in support of your empire and its colonial hold over most of the world. So if you want we can agree on putting Nato on the chopping block first. Okay, so you are willing to support some governments if it means that NATO is brought down and the threat of its colonialism is no more? Nope, i sadly do live under juristriction of a nation, which i oppose. Their interests are corrupt and do not serve society. You previously said that you would welcome the dismantlement of the governments that oppose your empire's colonialism, and that those governments should not be supported. That means that you do support the advancement of the interests of your empire's leadership. Ukrain is not an exception. I have to admit that I did not expect you to agree that that government should be dismantled promptly. If i would give anyone a pass its probably cuba, because the circumstances don’t really allow them to develop properly. But i am not giving them a pass, just sympathise. Surely you also sympathise with Korea, where your empire killed millions of people, occupied half of which, and turned the other half into rubble? What about Vietnam? What about almost the entire rest of Asia? Africa? South America? Oh, wait, I seem to have misread that. Surely you do not sympathise with a government that invaded Iraq and Syria, and which is filled with nazis who want to join the most prolific invader in the world to keep plundering Africa and Asia? Outgrow it so its no longer a threat (give it a few more centuries). This has to be a joke? You are saying that people should not be resisting your empire, but to just wait and suffer for a few centuries? You didn’t really expect a random internet user to have a fully sound detailed plan to fix the entire world did you? That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” That's not even a coarse plan. That's a "just roll over and get subjugated for centuries" sort of suggestion. If your ideal is that one global power should win from a other then thats a “i want to subjugate everyone forever” sort of suggestion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago (6 children) I would refute the logic in your argument but there simply isnt any to be found. Oh nice. A weak attempt to save face while admitting to be wrong and having a position that supports colonialism (including genocides). I cannot conceive the mental gymnastics required to turn repeated statements of “i do not support any authority, government or state, with no exceptions” into “supporting an empire” You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire, even if they fall before your empire. That means that your empire can further the subjugation of relevant people. This advances your leader's interests. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children) Nope, not what i said or what i believe. Also you: I dont care who goes first untill they are all gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. You welcome the dismantlement of governments that oppose your empire Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children) That is what i said yes, and i mean it. You just fail to take it literally and keep adding slander to it. What it literally means is that you would welcome the governments that oppose your empire to fall, even if your empire does not. If the only development of events that you would like is for all governments to magically be undone in one moment simultaneously, you do not have anything of merit to say. Its that continued addition that i somehow want one global power to win first that’s bothering me cause its not true at all. I want all of them to lose, preferably at the same time. They can't lose at the same time, and supporting the dismantlement of your empire first would mean supporting the governments that oppose it. You have said that you do not support any governments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child) You do not need to support a state to oppose a state. Revolution is powered by people. Not authorites. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 hours ago Cheering for the destruction of states in the Global South while NATO exists - which is what you promote - is simply support for NATO. Also, do you think that revolutions are not powered by violence and threat thereof in order to enforce one group's will upon another, i.e. by being authoritarian? And no, waiting for a few centuries and doing nothing to oppose your empire is not a serious approach to tackling colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (4 children) That's not even what I was saying Starting to think I got downvoted because no one knew what I meant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 1 hour ago* (3 children) Well thats awkward, i was agreeing and upvoted you.. I just elaborated with an actual anarchist perspectives cause the other person stating “not even anarchist want what anarchist literaly want” was very annoying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago* (2 children) I was talking about existing and current or recent governments, like the UK government or the Israeli government. Same with the USSR and the US Pretty much all governments are exploiting people in some way Doesn't mean I believe that the very concept of governments is bunk Personally I think that if our leaders were young people who had older advisors to educate and guide them, then we'd have fresh and authentic leadership with decisions coming from balanced perspectives, not just billionaire pedo dinosaurs who are one missed stairstep away from death permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 50 minutes ago* (1 child) Thank you for the nuance, My views are indeed a little more radical then believing that fresh politicians is enough to get a government that does not systematically oppress. Though other then that i think on ideals we very much align. I would love to be wrong and see things actually improving. Though that line of thinking is not going to save you from downvotes in this community i fear. Tankies are very passionate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 37 minutes ago* What I will say for sure is that defecting to any warmongering faction leads to the same decline that we've seen in genuinely good ideas like democracy, which is now a cover for fascism. Same thing happened to protecting Jews, which devolved into Zionism once wealthy warmongers infiltrated that idea. And the same thing happened to communism Ideas. Are. Worthless. Anything can happen to an idea no matter how good it is What must be done well is its execution permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 1 hour ago* (3 children) Well thats awkward, i was agreeing and upvoted you.. I just elaborated with an actual anarchist perspectives cause the other person stating “not even anarchist want what anarchist literaly want” was very annoying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago* (2 children) I was talking about existing and current or recent governments, like the UK government or the Israeli government. Same with the USSR and the US Pretty much all governments are exploiting people in some way Doesn't mean I believe that the very concept of governments is bunk Personally I think that if our leaders were young people who had older advisors to educate and guide them, then we'd have fresh and authentic leadership with decisions coming from balanced perspectives, not just billionaire pedo dinosaurs who are one missed stairstep away from death permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 50 minutes ago* (1 child) Thank you for the nuance, My views are indeed a little more radical then believing that fresh politicians is enough to get a government that does not systematically oppress. Though other then that i think on ideals we very much align. I would love to be wrong and see things actually improving. Though that line of thinking is not going to save you from downvotes in this community i fear. Tankies are very passionate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 37 minutes ago* What I will say for sure is that defecting to any warmongering faction leads to the same decline that we've seen in genuinely good ideas like democracy, which is now a cover for fascism. Same thing happened to protecting Jews, which devolved into Zionism once wealthy warmongers infiltrated that idea. And the same thing happened to communism Ideas. Are. Worthless. Anything can happen to an idea no matter how good it is What must be done well is its execution permalink fedilink source parent
[–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago* (2 children) I was talking about existing and current or recent governments, like the UK government or the Israeli government. Same with the USSR and the US Pretty much all governments are exploiting people in some way Doesn't mean I believe that the very concept of governments is bunk Personally I think that if our leaders were young people who had older advisors to educate and guide them, then we'd have fresh and authentic leadership with decisions coming from balanced perspectives, not just billionaire pedo dinosaurs who are one missed stairstep away from death permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 50 minutes ago* (1 child) Thank you for the nuance, My views are indeed a little more radical then believing that fresh politicians is enough to get a government that does not systematically oppress. Though other then that i think on ideals we very much align. I would love to be wrong and see things actually improving. Though that line of thinking is not going to save you from downvotes in this community i fear. Tankies are very passionate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 37 minutes ago* What I will say for sure is that defecting to any warmongering faction leads to the same decline that we've seen in genuinely good ideas like democracy, which is now a cover for fascism. Same thing happened to protecting Jews, which devolved into Zionism once wealthy warmongers infiltrated that idea. And the same thing happened to communism Ideas. Are. Worthless. Anything can happen to an idea no matter how good it is What must be done well is its execution permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 50 minutes ago* (1 child) Thank you for the nuance, My views are indeed a little more radical then believing that fresh politicians is enough to get a government that does not systematically oppress. Though other then that i think on ideals we very much align. I would love to be wrong and see things actually improving. Though that line of thinking is not going to save you from downvotes in this community i fear. Tankies are very passionate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 37 minutes ago* What I will say for sure is that defecting to any warmongering faction leads to the same decline that we've seen in genuinely good ideas like democracy, which is now a cover for fascism. Same thing happened to protecting Jews, which devolved into Zionism once wealthy warmongers infiltrated that idea. And the same thing happened to communism Ideas. Are. Worthless. Anything can happen to an idea no matter how good it is What must be done well is its execution permalink fedilink source parent
[–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 2 points 37 minutes ago* What I will say for sure is that defecting to any warmongering faction leads to the same decline that we've seen in genuinely good ideas like democracy, which is now a cover for fascism. Same thing happened to protecting Jews, which devolved into Zionism once wealthy warmongers infiltrated that idea. And the same thing happened to communism Ideas. Are. Worthless. Anything can happen to an idea no matter how good it is What must be done well is its execution permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago (1 child) Power corrups, subjecting an healthy adult to anyone other then themselves is always harm. And even for the immature and ill we should strive to maximise their freedom and expressions. LOTR was a mistake seriously. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 hours ago What does lotr have to do with any of this? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 hours ago What does lotr have to do with any of this? permalink fedilink source parent