Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that it was “inevitable” that “war” would come to Russia after authorities there were forced to temporarily close a busy Moscow airport following an overnight drone attack on the capital.

  • pinkdrunkenelephants
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I am not enabling anything by condemning the general idea of attacking civilians.

    Actually yes you are, because you are

    1. Motte-and-baileying yourself by pretending this is about a general idea and not a very real war and a very real, extremely necessary attempt on Ukraine’s part to stop the genocide of their own people and to stop Putin’s regime from starting a nuclear war.

    2. Only talking about Ukraine and doing nothing to condemn Russia’s actions, explicitly defending its people even, who have shown plainly that they can and will do anything to destroy Ukraine and bring NATO, and the rest of the world, to its knees.

    3. Displaying a black-and-white way of thinking and a complete lack of empathy, which people like you accuse anyone who challenges you of doing non-fucking-stop, demanding we ignore basic facts, demanding we ignore the very real and ugly consequences of what you want and remove reality from morality in general, fundamentally stripping morality of its meaning and purpose

    You’re the kind of person who would look at the quiet kid who snapped and beat the shit out of the bully who had been abusing them for years, non-stop, while ignored and sometimes even blessed by the adults, and you would scream at this kid “I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT HE DID TO YOU, YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE VIOLENCE IS ALWAYS WRONG, YOU’RE EXPELLED!”

    And the bully would look at you and laugh, because you are his perfect useful idiot, and he purposefully exploits adults like you who think that way to get away with harming innocent people for kicks.

    And I am the neighbor at the PTA meeting who has been watching this from their security cameras on their front lawn, sick and tired of your enabling shit, telling you “No, YOU are wrong; that quiet kid is 100% justified in using violence because he is being abused and you refused to directly intervene to stop it yourself, and you are therefore being a piece of shit.”

    And you are that Karen who is not listening because morality for you isn’t about the real world and how real people are suffering, it’s about your ego, your feelings, and controlling other people by claiming and fighting over the moral high ground.

    And you care NOT for the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children who were kidnapped and are being held in Russia somewhere, for which an invasion is the only hope of getting them back.

    And you care NOT for the fact that Russia already rigged the Zaphorzhiza plant to blow, which will cause the largest radiation disaster in world history if Putin is not removed before giving the order to blow it up.

    And you give Not One Single Fuck for life on this Earth, because you arbitrarily decided any action on Russian soil is wrong regardless of what they do to Ukraine, which is you siding with Russia whether you want to admit it or not. You’ll lie and you’ll scream that you are not siding with Russia when your actions say otherwise.

    Because like all deontologists, you are a liar, enabler and scammer, who only cares about you and your feelings.

    This is why we reject deontology, and why we embrace consequentialism, and why we side with the quiet kid and ignore the morally bankrupt adults who refused to save him when they complain about his violence, because they were always on the side of the bully by virtue of doing nothing about him and everything about his victim when his victim acts.

    Deontology is fucking vile.

    • sudneo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      pretending this is about a general idea

      I am not pretending anything. I am choosing to discuss of this particular idea in this particular context. Is this allowed? My fiance is Ukrainian and her whole family is in Ukraine, do you think you need to explain to me that this is a “real war”?

      Only talking about Ukraine and doing nothing to condemn Russia’s actions

      Because this was the topic of the conversation? I refuse the idea of having to make a balanced preamble for every comment to deflect this objection. Despite this, I have specifically mentioned that I’d rather let Russia be the only one committing war crimes.

      Displaying a black-and-white way of thinking and a complete lack of empathy

      ?? Yeah, I think killing civilian is black and white. Where is the lack of empathy in defending the fact that people who are outside a conflict should not be killed? This is a general principle that applies for Russians as much as for Ukrainians (and Americans, and Afghani, etc.).

      “I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT HE DID TO YOU, YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE VIOLENCE IS ALWAYS WRONG, YOU’RE EXPELLED!”

      You are so wrong in your (to be honest, ridiculous) attempt to paint my own ideas. So wrong that I actually don’t refute the idea of violence at all, I am not a pacifist in that sense at all. In your example, if the bullied kid went raping the bully’s mom I would then think that the bullied kid is wrong, though. This is a more fit example. I strongly support violence in many scenarios, hell, my whole country freedom is based on killing fascists, which I happily celebrate.

      And you are that Karen who is not listening because morality for you isn’t about the real world and how real people are suffering, it’s about your ego, your feelings, and controlling other people by claiming and fighting over the moral high ground.

      Forgive me, but what the fuck lol. You are contesting basic principles. Basic. BASIC. People that do not or do not anymore participate in a war should be treated with humanity. Your example is completely meaningless, because you don’t make a distinction between the bully (the state) and the people who live in it. They are not the same thing. Russia as a state, as a military apparatus is not the same as the sum of Russian people. There are many people who do not have any active role (not even moral, as supporters, if you really want to stretch the definition) in the war that Russia is doing, but in your made up scenario this is not taken into account. It’s like saying “drop a bomb on the bully’s house and kill all his family”. You are taking a very dishonest rethorical shortcut.

      And you care NOT for the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children who were kidnapped and are being held in Russia somewhere, for which an invasion is the only hope of getting them back.

      And you say this based on…? Also, I really hope that you are wrong in that an invasion is the only way to bring them back, but in any case this is again a different subject. And even in that invasion, there is a difference between invading and going house to house and kill everyone. I could even morally support the first, I wouldn’t the latter.

      And you care NOT for the fact that Russia already rigged the Zaphorzhiza plant to blow, which will cause the largest radiation disaster in world history if Putin is not removed before giving the order to blow it up

      Thankfully this is not confirmed yet. Either way, I do live probably much closer to you to the central, and as stated, my fiance’s family lives even closer. So maybe you should avoid making arbitrary projections on what people think and stick to what is written and discussed?

      because you arbitrarily decided any action on Russian soil is wrong regardless of what they do to Ukraine

      Now we enter in the realm of lies, lack of ability to read or straight up bad faith. Go read the root comment. I have said loud and clear that as far as I am concerned military targets are totally fair game for attacks, including infrastructure. Why making something up just to have fuel for your rambling?

      which is you siding with Russia whether you want to admit it or not.

      Ex falso quodlibet.

      I honestly think that your method to carry on a conversation is completely dishonest, and I have no pleasure nor interest in carrying it on further. You are pinning on people opinions they do not express, you have the arrogance of missing the mark so wildly while attempting to define what other people think, and yet still you think you know better. Let alone the incredible amount of ad personam and the total lack of ability to stay on topic and discuss ideas.

      What could I possibly answer to a rant about opinions that do not belong to me? That if you are talking to a real person on the internet maybe you should interact with the person rather than imagine their opinion at will? That projecting your idea about the other people doesn’t mean those ideas are correct?

      • pinkdrunkenelephants
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What could I possibly answer to a rant about opinions that do not belong to me?

        Well, you wrote 2 pages of denials, dismissals, and meaningless diatribes that have nothing to do with anything to do just that, so fucking get with it, spanky. You started it and I’ll finish it. You want to force dumb, dangerous, evil shit down our throats and then backtrack like a coward when you’re called on it? Then this is what you get. Actions have consequences, motherfucker.

        I am not pretending anything

        I refuse the idea of having to make a balanced preamble for every comment to deflect this objection.

        Ex falso quodlibet.

        Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt with you, is it?

        Now we enter in the realm of lies, lack of ability to read or straight up bad faith.

        I honestly think that your method to carry on a conversation is completely dishonest,

        Projection is for movie screens, not internet arguments.

        Okay, so, top line: the name of your game: denial, projection, blame the victim.

        You are so wrong in your (to be honest, ridiculous) attempt to paint my own ideas.

        Holy fuck is your dishonesty and blatant motte-and-baileying real. Yes, that is your position. You are actively arguing that Ukraine using a drone on a fucking airport building is a war crime because attacking civilians is always a war crime regardless of circumstances, even though no one adheres to that way of thinking. You even say it several times in this post. Like here:

        Despite this, I have specifically mentioned that I’d rather let Russia be the only one committing war crimes.

        Implying Ukraine is committing a war crime by attacking an airport, a common target in a war, to force a nuclear aggressor to stop committing genocide on their own people.

        You completely miss the point of stuff like the Geneva Convention and other war treaties. Those treaties are put into place because of pragmatic and practical considerations, not feelings, and it is the spirit of the treaty that matters, not the treaty itself. Ukraine is trying to protect their citizens from genocide. Russia’s citizens are suffering the very real consequences of their own actions in supporting said genocide.

        Ukraine is a social entity made up of people like all countries are. They have the basic natural right to prioritize their citizens’ lives over others, including Russia’s. Ukraine does not have to care about Russia because Russia is threatening Ukraine’s ability to live and Ukraine has the unilateral, natural right to use every means available to protect its life, including drone attacks on airports. EVERY country has that right.

        THAT is the basic principle everyone else gets that you don’t. It is, how did you put it? Basic. BASIC IN ALL CAPS.

        And that principle trumps the complaints of Russia’s citizenry who categorically support the invasion of Ukraine. If they didn’t want to be attacked then they wouldn’t have been dumb enough to support a regime trying to invoke genocide and nuclear war.

        Russia’s people brought it completely upon themselves. Period. Full stop.

        We in the U.S. deserved and got the same with 9/11 and it’s the same now. And ultimately, we look back on our own actions in shame, which is likely what the people of Russia will do.

        Where is the lack of empathy in defending the fact that people who are outside a conflict should not be killed?

        By insinuating those people have no agency or moral culpability in supporting literal nuclear tyranny, ignoring the reality of Russia’s stances and actions, and categorically demanding Ukraine surrender and submit to genocide rather than have access to every means available to force Russia to stop.

        By framing the situation in black and white whereas you accuse people like me of the exact same thing as a negative when you use the same reasoning to condemn rape, bullying and abuse victims who fight back against their oppressors or even when we morally condemn abusers and rightly and justly call for violence against them.

        Because you DON’T care about human life. You ONLY care about yourself and your feelings.

        So wrong that I actually don’t refute the idea of violence at all, I am not a pacifist in that sense at all. In your example, if the bullied kid went raping the bully’s mom I would then think that the bullied kid is wrong, though. This is a more fit example.

        Stop fucking lying. You falsely frame that drone attack as unnecessary and cruel and you haven’t considered that that drone attack and several others that went down over the past year are either attempts to assassinate Putin or setting the groundwork to invade Moscow, which Ukraine – probably quite rightly – perceives as their only means to put a stop to Putin’s bullshit and prevent him from launching a nuclear strike on their country or the world.

        The rest of the world should have invaded Russia long ago, but people like you bitched and cried on the same grounds and look what happened. Now Zaphorzhiza’s plant is rigged with bombs. Now one of Ukraine’s biggest dams was blown up, causing the very civilian casualties you are parading right now in front of us.

        This is a fucking war and Ukraine’s survival is far more important than anyone in Russia’s, period, full stop. And we make that distinction because unlike you, we’re NOT deluded inhuman scumbags divorced from reality. We’re certainly not perverse enough to equivocate a drone attack on an airport in a war with a nuclear power that has literally raped Ukraine’s people en masse with a bullying victim raping his bully’s mom.

        Because a more detailed comparison is that bully being a white racist kid in a white racist neighborhood who rounded up the other kids to go bomb the victim’s house, a Black family’s house, kill his father, kidnap his baby sister, and rape the victim’s mother before his eyes, before forcibly conscripting the victim in their little lynching gang to go kill the next Black family down the street.

        And here you are, telling the nerdy Black kid down the street that he can’t launch a drone to blow them up after the police, in collision with the racist bullies’ families, that they categorically refuse to do anything about it. And that drone? The rich mixed family on the other side of town mailed it to our next victim, with the explicit intent of using it against the bullies.

        Because that’s what’s actually been happening during the Ukraine invasion.

        Civilian casualties are going to happen whether you like it or not and the rest of the world is right to rather Ukraine do it to ensure their own survival instead of Russia alone with no words of condemnation or cynical attempts to exploit philosophical debates to undermine their ability to do so like you’re trying to do here.

        You’re HURTING Ukraine and victims everywhere by arguing this.

        You’re disgusting and vile. You make me sick.

        • sudneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          have nothing to do with anything to do just that, so fucking get with it, spanky

          So, I - the person who started the conversation - discussed of the opinions I have, about the topic I chose to discuss. You came here telling me what I think, and I am the one who talked about nothing.

          You want to force dumb, dangerous, evil shit down our throats and then backtrack like a coward when you’re called on it?

          I literally explained my point of view. Unfortunately in doing so I had to dismiss a lot of your made-up arguments. Apparently you are incapable of discussing what I actually say, so you apparently like to discuss what you think I said, or what people you generally disagree with say. Something that might be a nice exercise, but it’s futile, since I don’t think a good 90% of the things you suggest are my position. Unfortunately, for the bullshit asymmetry principle I am here wasting time dismissing claims, despite the fact that you will ignore all of these and in the next comment you will come up with more, which is a much cheaper activity.

          Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt with you, is it?

          Claims without arguments can be denied without arguments. You were using an argument that “not talking about Russian crimes” in a totally specific conversation constitute some kind of ‘proof’ that I am siding with Russia. I literally said that I don’t feel like making a disclaimer every comment and saying “despite this does not even begin to compare with the atrocities in Izyum, Mariupol, […]”. Denial?

          Yes, that is your position

          Excuse me if I, the person with that position, know better what my goddamn fucking position is. The fucking arrogance.

          You are actively arguing that Ukraine using a drone on a fucking airport building is a war crime because attacking civilians is always a war crime regardless of circumstances

          And there you go. The clear example you completely misunderstood. I literally said IN MY FIRST COMMENT that attacks on infrastructure are justified? I am talking about attacks on civilians, not that an attack on airport is a war crime because is an attack on civilians. In this specific case, the attack ended up on a building. Ok, it seems that this was not the intended target, so we can discard this particular example because we don’t know, but I still wanted to discuss the attitude of people towards these kind of events, assuming that the building not the airport was the target. Note that all this conversation happened before your first comment even arrived. This means you didn’t even bother reading the same conversation you jumped in, and now you have the arrogance to claim what my argument is when you completely misrepresented it.

          Look here, this is my first comment:

          I **understand bridges and other infrastructure with military value, military targets in general **etc., but this is a basically random building.

          At 07:10 UTC someone already mentioned that we don’t know what the target was, to which I responded:

          Good point. I suppose my point still stands in terms of how people welcome such events, rather than the events themselves. A similar statement could be done for the missile in Taganrog few days ago. Assuming they were not the intended targets, it still seems that a good chunk of the people participating in the discourse justifies this type of attacks anyway.

          Your first comment came hours after this conversation happened, and yet you are now saying

          You are actively arguing that Ukraine using a drone on a fucking airport building is a war crime because attacking civilians is always a war crime regardless of circumstances

          Which means you understood nothing of the whole argument, you didn’t read the conversation nor the sibling comments.

          Implying Ukraine is committing a war crime by attacking an airport

          Implying nothing, this is your conclusion. My intention is exactly what’s written, I wouldn’t support Ukraine committing war crimes, I’d rather have Russia be the only one. This is because with some people the conversation moved to the abstract question of the “limits” or “restrictions” in defending oneself. This sentence is in my first comment, and you can see that this has a generic value simply reading it in context:

          I feel like we should not cross the line where we justify attacks on civilians, and let Russia be the only one committing war crimes by doing that (and hopefully paying the price).

          I am the first that supports attacking airports and other infrastructure within Russian territory, because they are -by definition- military targets. This concept is expressed in the paragraph above this citation, and therefore your conclusion is wrong.

          Russia’s citizens are suffering the very real consequences of their own actions in supporting said genocide.

          Your interpretation lies on the collective responsibility (i.e., the whole Russian population is responsible for Russian actions), principle that I don’t agree with.

          Ukraine does not have to care about Russia because Russia is threatening Ukraine’s ability to live and Ukraine has the unilateral, natural right to use every means available to protect its life, including drone attacks on airports. EVERY country has that right.

          See where we reach, when you made up arguments? I agree with what you think is a statement opposed to my claim.

          If they didn’t want to be attacked then they wouldn’t have been dumb enough to support a regime trying to invoke genocide and nuclear war.

          Here you fall back into the collective responsibility, everyone is supporting the war, everyone is guilty. Sorry, I don’t agree. From a practical standpoint, because there are minorities that we should nurture and consider allies in Russia that want a better country, and this stance doesn’t do anything than isolate them and expose them even more to government repression.

          We in the U.S. deserved […]

          I don’t think terrorist attacks on people are justified, not even against US citizens, not even against the republicans and filo-Bush.

          By insinuating those people have no agency or […] of Russia’s stances and actions

          “those people” are millions of people made by all kind of populations, from Putin’s fans to dissidents, to illiterate in remote villages.

          categorically demanding Ukraine surrender and submit to genocide

          This you completely made it up. You really can’t resist.

          You falsely frame that drone attack as unnecessary and cruel and you haven’t considered that that drone attack and several others that went down over the past year are either attempts to assassinate Putin or setting the groundwork to invade Moscow

          First of all, I did not mention unnecessary nor cruel. Second of all, no, I did not consider that one attack with a drone in a Moscow district which is half a city away from the Cremlin (which is anyway not where Putin probably is) a way to assassinate Putin (something which I welcome very much). I didn’t because it doesn’t make any sense, and it seems a post-factum made up justification. I make my opinion clearer, just not to be misunderstood. If tomorrow Ukraine would start bombing Moscow residential areas with the “objective” to prepare for assassinating Putin, I would still consider these actions wrong, despite agreeing with the general goal.

          Now Zaphorzhiza’s plant is rigged with bombs.

          You continue to repeat this. Thankfully, we don’t know that yet. As you know, IEAE still did not have access to the roof and the reactor 3 and 4 (if I remember correctly), but so far no traces of explosives aimed to blow up the central were found. This does not mean that it’s not possible, it just means it’s not a fact just yet.

          Now one of Ukraine’s biggest dams was blown up

          And what do you think my stance is about that? Cheering up?

          This is a fucking war and Ukraine’s survival is far more important than anyone in Russia’s, period, full stop.

          If you demonstrate to me that potentially killing civilians in Russia will help the survival of Ukraine, I might agree with you.

          We’re certainly not perverse enough to equivocate a drone attack on an airport in a war with a nuclear power that has literally raped Ukraine’s people en masse with a bullying victim raping his bully’s mom.

          So, you make a simile to explain the point, I change the simile to be more aligned with what I think, and now you think I made a comparison to the fact, not just used it as a model to explain a concept. OK. But I got your opinion about this, and I fundamentally disagree with it. You think:

          Ukraine’s survival is far more important than anyone in Russia’s, period, full stop.

          Which in your simile means you don’t make any distinction between the actual bully, his sister, or the neighbor. I make a distinction, and therefore I disagree with the bullied kid dropping a bomb on the whole neighborhood.

          And here you are, telling the nerdy Black kid down the street that he can’t launch a drone to blow them […]

          Who is “them”?

          rather Ukraine do it to ensure their own survival

          Again you need to argument this cause-effect relationship. I honestly don’t see it, I don’t see how few civilians dead in Moscow, Taganrog or wherever else will help ensure Ukraine survival. To me is detrimental from multiple point of views, but since you seem to base a lot of your reasoning on this, maybe you can explain it to me.

          You’re HURTING Ukraine and victims everywhere by arguing this.

          This is your interpretation, which honestly, judging from your understanding skills, doesn’t worry me too much.

          • sudneo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Turns out you don’t even have the decency to admit your own misunderstanding, despite it was unequivocally clear from the previous comment. Instead, looking at your history it seems you just have the habit to shout at people (often insulting, with a very bully attitude) and to tell what other people’s opinions are (surprising to see at least a few instances of this in less than 20 comments).

            I am blocking you in the meanwhile because I can do without lunatics shouting their hatred online, especially when there is not a gram of rationality in the debate.

            Shame on you.