Tomorrow_Farewell comments on Courage

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 18 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

[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 18 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

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 5 points 18 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

[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 17 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

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 4 points 17 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

[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 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

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 16 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

[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

Nope, not what i said or what i believe.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 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

[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 16 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

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 16 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

[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 16 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

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 15 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