All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

Yes.

But also, obviously, your implication.

Otherwise why bring up past history, when Ukraine clearly chose to separate themselves from a power that abused them for decades?

Trivia question for the day - what was the first nation to recognize the independence of Ukraine? That would be the USSR - their equivalent of a Constitution specifically recognized a right for member states to secede. Also, after the USSR dissolved itself, Russia also officially recognized Ukraine as an independent nation.

Whatever kinship had existed between Russia and Ukraine is almost certainly gone for a couple of generations, and Russia has only itself to blame. I'm willing to bet that Ukrainian schools will teach Russia by Catherine the Great's purge, by the Holodomor, and by Putin's many land grabs. Either that or the parents and overall national culture will.

[Tendrin]

I didn't bring up history, I was replying to this "historical argument":

Which is a true statement, and was already pointed out your response wasn't accurate. Ukraine has mentions calling it such going all the way back to the 12th century, and distinctions exist, to say nothing of the Ukranian language. Ukraine exists as a culturally distinct, linguistically distinct, and geographically distinct region that is well recognized. To claim that it is just 'more Russia', as Putin has, is to work to erase those distinctions for the sake of imperial ambition -- something those in Russia's orbit are well familiar with being attempted on them.

Such slogans and insinuations might be little more than a rhetorical smokescreen concealing a pursuit of sober, hard-nosed realpolitik. But there is much to suggest that these beliefs are in fact informing policymaking at the highest levels of power. What’s more, they appear to have rubbed off on other world leaders as well. In an autumn 2017 briefing, US President Donald Trump reportedly exclaimed that Ukraine “wasn’t a ‘real country,’ that it had always been a part of Russia”.

Statements like these from some of the world’s most powerful leaders illustrate that history has become a subject of enormous importance for both sides in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Historical arguments have been used to justify and rationalise Russia’s annexation of Crimea. From the moment unmarked troops seized the Peninsula in late February 2014, Russian officials have made any number of misleading claims about Crimea’s past and have greatly exaggerated the extent of its historic connections with Russia. But beyond the status of Crimea, disputes about the correct interpretation of the past have been at the centre of Russia’s policies towards Ukraine as a whole. More broadly, competing interpretations of history – particularly the Stalinist period – have turned into a key ingredient of the deepening dispute between Russia and the West and a subject that Putin in particular appears to feel unusually passionate about. Amid all the mythmaking about Ukraine’s past, a brief reality check is in order: Is it historically accurate to claim that Ukraine has never truly been a nation or a state in its own right?

The frontlines of the frozen conflict between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists are criss-crossing the plains of the Donets Basin, but they are also running right through the region’s past. Russia’s incursions into Ukraine have enjoyed tremendous support at home and, in some quarters, abroad. Many have been slow to denounce them – or quick to embrace them – out of a conviction that the Kremlin has history on its side; that Ukraine has never been a ‘real’ country in its own right and that its south-eastern territories in particular are primordial Russian lands. Russia’s political top brass, including Vladimir Putin himself, appear to subscribe to this belief as well, and by all appearances it has directly informed their policy towards Ukraine. But as much as these assumptions may resonate with ordinary Russians, as well as some foreign leaders, a glance into Ukrainian history reveals that they are based on a dangerously distorted reading of the past. Ultimately, by redrawing borders and rewriting history the Kremlin is unlikely to have done itself a favour. Through its intervention in Ukraine it has galvanised most Ukrainians in their aversion to Russia and has thereby done a great deal to demarcate the perceived differences between Ukrainians and Russians more clearly than ever before.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/0...inian-history/

I'd reccomend anyone interested read the thing, it's a decent summation as far as I can tell that points to the actual nuance in history.

[Kirby101]

Trivia question for the day - what was the first nation to recognize the independence of Ukraine? That would be the USSR - their equivalent of a Constitution specifically recognized a right for member states to secede. Also, after the USSR dissolved itself, Russia also officially recognized Ukraine as an independent nation.

My history is foggy, what member State did the USSR allow to secede?

This sure sounds like life under the Soviet Constitution.

The Soviet Constitution included a series of civil and political rights. Among these were the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and the right to religious belief and worship.

[Gray Lensman]

My history is foggy, what member State did the USSR allow to secede?

This sure sounds like life under the Soviet Constitution.

Of course, you can get away with more stuff when you do it while the overall nation is collapsing. Still, 2 of the first 3 countries to recognize Ukraine were Russia. Once, as the placeholder state that existed for a few weeks in the aftermath of the Coup against Gorbachev, and again after it just became Russia.

[Mister Mets]

I didn't know that. So many chose to respond to serious matters with derision that I even made a joke about it. In any case, what credibility do you need for a series of pictures? Are you suggesting they might be fakes? Because I've seen most of the videos somewhere else, and many more, both in YouTube as well as in documentaries from western media.

The evidence is in 8 years of "Anti Terrorist Operation". Those western reporters who wanted to, went to Donbas and saw it with their own eyes. Maybe the guys at The Intercerpt and Substack didn't want to?

I have been "responding to arguments that haven't been made", when? "Shifting goalposts", when?

Finally, I've been aware of the Ukronazi problem since the Odessa massacre. Which the west has disgustingly swept under a rug. Like the OSCE report on torture by the Azov battalion (regiment). No one cares, they're Russian, or even worse, Ukrainians who fashion themselves as Russian.

The significance of videos can be exaggerated, and they can make bullshit claims about context.

If the alternative media doesn't have the evidence that Russia is invading Ukraine because they are worried about the power of Nazis, it seems one potential explanation is that it doesn't exist.

I described how you shifted goalposts, responding to a claim with a high bar (one reason Russia invaded Ukraine is that they're worried about Nazis) with claims that have a lower bar and weren't what's being disputed.

Skyvolt made a point earlier about CRT and he works in the educational system. Same with Dalak. But your point about anecdotal evidence is noted.




The GOP is saying flat out that CRT is being taught in schools.

They aren't just making an argument about the approach to teaching, they are talking about the actual content and making laws regarding this and banning books that they say contain CRT.

That's why regardless of political leaning, we need to state clearly that there are no books at the K-12 level that contains content relating to CRT. It's really important that's stated before any other political discussions regarding CRT take place. Note, I would actually appreciate if CRT was at some level explained to children up to K-12 but that's just not happening.

Like I said earlier, Canada has adjusted their educational system to inform children as early as Grade 1 about how First Nations people lost their lands. Similar teaching really should occur in the US.

Since the argument seems to be about what the GOP is saying, it should be easy to back it up with statements by Republican officials that they're worried undergrad/ law school material is being taught to kids in elementary school, middle school and high school.

It seems to me that in most right-wing commentary about CRT it is essentially used as a catch-all to describe dumb/ objectionable left-wing views on race especially in a DEI context that are sometimes incorporated into educational resources.

You would think any rational mind would see what would happen if it's overturned. The states where it was only loosely followed to begin with are literally the absolute worst states in any metric of maternity care and outcomes.

I get it, if your faith is important to you abortion isn't an option...but that just means "YOU" don't need to get one. Other people believe otherwise, so why limit them? Especially when the outcomes of limiting options are right there in plain, easy to understand English.

The argument that people with faith should allow other people to do something they believe to be harmful to another doesn't quite work.

It's like if someone before the Civil War had said that it's okay to have a religious aversion to owning slaves, but that belief should not be pushed upon others.

Note- I'm not saying abortion is like slavery, but that a particular argument in its defense doesn't work. It's more effective to show that it doesn't do the things that religious people says it does.

[Mister Mets]

Dave made the joke because Trans People stood up to him over his anti-trans jokes. He knows this **** affects them and did it anyway with no proof and people will believe it despite objective facts and any corrections. In excusing him for it you are reaffirming & supporting anti-trans bigotry like you have been doing for quite a while with Shrier and more.

Claiming that we don't have to worry about masks being taken away from schools/planes because 'everyone who wants to has been vaccinated' is misinformation. Period. Claiming that masks don't work in schools is misinformation. Period. When there are people who refuse to be vaccinated out there, masks are necessary to help protect those who are as a vaccine isn't a 100% prevention.
As long as you keep pushing your misinformation, people will push back.

And for CRT - State Senators? Why not Marsha Blackburn's personal website or Florida's Anti-CRT Bill. Seems you are trying to limit the field far too much, as both on the state and national level the GoP thinks CRT is being taught in K-12 and needs to be stopped. You support them in this when you claim it's affecting most schools, but you don't care for obvious reasons at this point. We're just supposed to believe you disagree with them despite it all.

BTW Ignoring how the GoP have gerrymandered, passed many restrictive laws, and are packing elections boards and more to say "easy environment" is par for the course as you have been denying that the GoP is stacking the deck for years now.

When you support and defend these things no matter what anyone posts on the matter and how often you are shown the problems, it becomes clear why. Just stop pretending Mets.

I think some of the claims against Dave Chapelle are over the top. This shouldn't be a proxy for whether someone agrees with him on other issues, although it does make his critics less credible if the things they critique don't hold up to scrutiny. If people are saying he obviously meant to frame trans people, or that he should have realized immediately after his attack that a comment might be misinterpreted, that makes their other views less credible.

You may be responding to points I haven't made on masks. At this point, we have to recognize policy tradeoffs. What type of actions will encourage people to take the most effective step against Covid (vaccination)? What restrictions are ordinary Americans willing to tolerate? People with the same facts may come to different conclusions, so the things you declare to be misinformation might not fit the category.

The links you have don't define CRT as college-level/ law school level material.

HB 7 protects civil rights in employment and K-20 education by specifying that subjecting an employee or student to a required activity that promotes, advances, or compels individuals to believe discriminatory concepts, constitutes unlawful discrimination.

Concepts constituting unlawful discrimination include:

• That members of one race, color, national origin or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin or sex.
• A person by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive.
• A person’s moral character or status as privileged or oppressed is determined by race, color, national origin or sex.
• A person, by virtue of their race, color, national origin or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity or inclusion.

The bill also requires instruction, instructional materials, and professional development in public schools to adhere to principles of individual freedom outlined in the bill. Those principles include that no person is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive just by virtue of his or her race or sex and meritocracy or hard work ethic are not racist but fundamental to the right to pursue success.

The bill authorizes discussion of topics such as sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination, in an age-appropriate manner, and in such a way that does not indoctrinate or persuade students to a certain point of view that is inconsistent with the principles of individual freedom.

The bill also expands instruction of African American history to develop students’ understanding of the ramifications of prejudice and racism. Classroom instruction will educate students on what it means to be a respectful and responsible citizen and encourage tolerance of diversity to protect democratic principles that our country is founded on. Schools are required to teach factual information on topics including African American history and the Holocaust instead of subjective indoctrination that pushes collective guilt.

I do think the arguments about gerrymandering and restrictive voting laws are ultimately about a difference of 1-2 percent. I'll note you guys aren't willing to say what the net gains would be for Democrats if you had your preferred election policies. This can be meaningful in a close election, but given the stupidity of elected Republicans, a normie Democratic party should be able to dominate.

[Kirby101]

Of course, you can get away with more stuff when you do it while the overall nation is collapsing. Still, 2 of the first 3 countries to recognize Ukraine were Russia. Once, as the placeholder state that existed for a few weeks in the aftermath of the Coup against Gorbachev, and again after it just became Russia.

Does that matter if they apparently no longer do?

[Gray Lensman]

Does that matter if they apparently no longer do?

Well, I suppose when one wonders where they could possibly get the idea that they were a country from, I can point out that the very nation that insists they are not only officially recognized them, but did so twice. It also shows how much the world can trust the word of Russia - which seems to be not at all.

[Kirby101]

Well, I suppose when one wonders where they could possibly get the idea that they were a country from, I can point out that the very nation that insists they are not only officially recognized them, but did so twice. It also shows how much the world can trust the word of Russia - which seems to be not at all.

I see, good point.

[Catlady in training]

The Dave Chappelle story gets crazier. The homeless rapper who had a song about Donald Trump and Chappelle , it appears attacked him for the most insane reason. One not tied into anything Chappelle has said in comedy routines. Also the guy's brother has came out and said that he has mental health issues.



https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...192743847.html

So, it wasn't a crazy activist attacking him because of Chappelle's transphobia.
What a surprise.

[Catlady in training]

On the fact that they had to meet some basic standards, it's fine to point that out but also completely beside the point. Keep in mind that the US very much wanted those nations (and others) in NATO as a bulwark against Russia and to make it easier for them to operate in that part of the world.

Putin and many Russians understandably see this as an expansion of US foreign influence and a threat to Russian interests, because it is. As I stated before though, that's nowhere near a justification for an invasion of a foreign country, bombing of civilians, and theft of land. Both are wrong, but one is very clearly worse. Pointing out that Russia has real concerns about the expansion of US/Western influence doesn't negate that.

No offense, but this attitude feels a bit insulting, like you are disregarding our (central/eastern european countries that wanted to join NATO) own agency it the question.
Is USA interested in the expansion of NATO? Maybe, probably, I don't particularly care. I am glad they were, so they didn't veto us. The idea of being neutral sounds nice in theory, but since "neutral" obviously means to russia "available to be invaded when we feel like it", it's a naive and dangerous path to pursue. It's not impossible, Austria for example isn't in NATO, but since they are surrounded by NATO countries, it would be much more difficult to attack them if anyone chose to do so, so they can get away with it. Also, they weren't in russian sphere of influence and russia is the main threat to european countries, so that's a bit different.

For someone who is so openly critical of your own country, don't you think you might be overstating their influence on sovereign countries' decisions?

Also, russia doesn't have any reason to fear NATO expansion, as it is defensive alliance. Unless, of course, they want to attack one of its members.

[Gray Lensman]

I see, good point.

I should also have pointed out that another reason to point out the right to secede that was granted in the Soviet Constitution is to head of any whataboutism relating to the American Civil War - I have seen it elsewhere in relation to this exact topic and here in relation to Taiwan, even though the circumstances are different for all 3.

[Gray Lensman]

No offense, but this attitude feels a bit insulting, like you are disregarding our (central/eastern european countries that wanted to join NATO) own agency it the question.
Is USA interested in the expansion of NATO? Maybe, probably, I don't particularly care. I am glad they were, so they didn't veto us. The idea of being neutral sounds nice in theory, but since "neutral" obviously means to russia "available to be invaded when we feel like it", it's a naive and dangerous path to pursue. It's not impossible, Austria for example isn't in NATO, but since they are surrounded by NATO countries, it would be much more difficult to attack them if anyone chose to do so, so they can get away with it. Also, they weren't in russian sphere of influence and russia is the main threat to european countries, so that's a bit different.

For someone who is so openly critical of your own country, don't you think you might be overstating their influence on sovereign countries' decisions?

Also, russia doesn't have any reason to fear NATO expansion, as it is defensive alliance. Unless, of course, they want to attack one of its members.

One thing that tells me how former Soviet Bloc nations feel is to look at how much they are sending to Ukraine as a % of their own GDP. The top 3 are Estonia, Latvia, and Poland, followed by Luxemburg, Slovakia, and Lithuania. Only one of those things is not like the others here.

[Catlady in training]

Bono, the frontman of the Irish rock group U2 and his bandmate the Edge have performed a 40-minute concert in a subway station in Kyiv and praised Ukrainians fighting for their freedom from Russia.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...subway-station

Admirable. Any appearance in Ukraine now is worthy of respect, especially these days, as everyone is afraid of what is going to happen today or tomorrow, during the celebrations of victory over fascism in Europe. (Which is an ironic celebration this year, as we are now seeing a new form of fascism once again attacking our continent.)

Speaking of admirable:

Jill Biden makes unannounced visit to Ukraine and meets first lady

https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...08a446b0362136

The town Uzhhorod where they met is just few minutes from our border, but it is still a huge gesture of courage and solidarity with Ukraine.

[Catlady in training]

One thing that tells me how former Soviet Bloc nations feel is to look at how much they are sending to Ukraine as a % of their own GDP. The top 3 are Estonia, Latvia, and Poland, followed by Luxemburg, Slovakia, and Lithuania. Only one of those things is not like the others here.

Exactly. To be fair, it is not unanimous, for example here in Slovakia we have quite large percentage of people who think that the government should only care about our own people and shouldn't provide any help to Ukraine during the inflation. Also, they think that NATO is largely responsible for the war and we should just stay out of it altogether, that it doesn not concern us (basically the Hungarian way).
But these are the same people who were protesting against all covid restrictions and vaccination, who thought that russia is not a threat and we should have as much cooperation with them as we have with the West, who think that minorities and human rights activists are responsible for all their problems and who think that George Soros is secretely running all of this region's politics. So, one can either argue with them usually to no effect, or just ignore them and hope that some of them might change their mind over time, maybe even as a result of the current situation.