SixSidedUrsine

Nah, Marxist-Leninist analysis of the 30's is deep and paints an accurate picture of what was actually going down at that time based on material reality instead of... you know, vibes that help prop up the idealist liberal's flawed worldview. But to the contrary, the NATO sycophants' history books that just straight make shit up throughout the 20th century have an almost complete amnesia regarding many 21st century and especially recent events leading up to the current situation now. That way, they can just assign motivations willy nilly to the current actors involved, no matter how arbitrary or nonsensical so long as, again, it supports their worldview, as Marvel movie-like it may be, and even as untenable as it is in the face of any actual historical context. Kinda sad.

You can't argue with these NATO shills. They'll just deny history or try to rewrite it in such a way as so as to also deny the current inconvenient reality, move goalpoasts, and accuse anyone with any sense as being on "Putin's payroll." If you use a material analysis of the situation, they screech about how talking about realpolitik is... bad somehow or something? It's a mess. Look at this /u/maynarkh@feddit.nl loser right here in this very thread exemplifying what I'm talking about. They're... equating "wokism" as a term with the concept of "escalation" (simply a thing that any sane person would agree does happen) and saying we use the latter the way chuds use the former. wut? lol. Lost the fucking plot. It's nonsensical.

These kind of people can't be reasoned with. They just regurgitate the propaganda they know, no matter how many times it's been easily and thoroughly debunked. And to claim we're the ones that sound like CIA ops when they're the ones spouting the US state department lines like the good little sycophantic useful idiots that they are and carrying water for open, proud, admitted Nazi fascists while they call us "tankie red fash." The projection is so painfully obvious it's literally embarrassing.

I guess it could be a self defense mechanism for when one knows in the back of their mind that everything they're saying is just pure ahistorical often chauvinist horseshit but they know their worldview would come crashing down if they didn't do everything in their power to keep tilling it and shoveling it, so till it and shovel it they must. Truly, it's... .

This site confuses you only because deprogramming a lifetime of being steeped in imperialist propaganda can be hard. Part of that deprogramming is recognizing that almost everything Russia is doing internationally is good and worthy of support, including fighting US imperialism/NATO and Ukrainian banderite fascists.

The "I'm happy about it" part might be mildly insensitive phrasing, but nothing more. Everything she said wouldn't be out of place as a comment here, not deserving of the dunk tank.

A word spoken of only in the past tense.

Oh no, not this again. If that's what you see, then you aren't really looking.

Reposting something again, but putting it below a spoiler tag because it's not relevant to what's happening right now in Gaza - much more pressing atm.

I'll be curious to see in the coming weeks how many proclaimed leftists that passed the litmus on Ukraine end up failing this one and vice versa. Surely it would have to be a relatively small contingent, unless I'm totally forgetting something obvious. e: PatSoc's don't count.

I invite you to fuck off.

Likewise. But while you're at it, I'd also invite you to do some self crit and examine the contradiction and the "mea culpa" you correctly admitted to.

move on to matters affecting actual children today instead of literally events from over 100 years ago please.

This is more than just an academic question for some of us, even though it may be just that for you. And please don't pretend like I'm the one focusing on what happened 100 years ago when everything I've said is about what's going on right now.

But fine, I am taking the above comment as a "disengage" so I'm doing the same.

Uncritical support to the Palestinian resistance freedom fighters against the genocidal occupation.

If you think this conversation shouldn't be had here, then stop commenting on it and perpetuating it.

There are material differences pointed out by ComradeCmdrPiggy that you conveniently ignored to make a blanket statement like "making apologisms for violence against teenagers you've lost the plot." Turns out, you just draw the line at the killing of children in different material circumstances than both I and ComradeCmdrPiggy do. And your lines have more to do with some vague future potential than the actual immediate threat to those fighting for the liberation of their people. You can say I'm missing the forest for the trees, but by your own admission, you're the one contradicting yourself.

edit: fixed a word (blanket, not blatant).

Just because you started (and were on the correct side) of that struggle session doesn't make you the arbiter of what gets discussed, weirdo. This IS the wrong place to bring up the Romanov kids struggle session, as you did. But pointing out the contradiction (which tbf he did himself point out as well) in someone's arguments about what's happening right now is not doing that.

ComradeCmdrPiggy isn't wrong - if a 15 year-old Israeli kid is, for example, pointing a gun at a Palestinian freedom fighter, no one should expect the Palestinian not to protect themselves and the necessary struggle for their liberation in whatever way possible. If that same kid is huddled down and simply trying not to die, but is present because their parents are colonizers, killing that kid would be fucking heinous. Someone enters this conversation with the understandable and justifiable take of "I'm in favor of Palestine engaging in violent resistance, but if you're going to start making apologisms for violence against teenagers you've lost the plot." That's great, but then that person proceeds to say "well if that huddled, non-threatening, prisoner kid might inherit a dangerous position, they're fair game. Scratch what I said earlier about apologisms for violence against teenagers being bad." Pointing out the fact they've completely undermined themselves with respect to what they're saying about this conflict right now isn't just fair game, it's completely relevant and on topic.

Contradiction indeed. "Legitimizing violence against children and juveniles is not a good look. Oh wait, no, those ones are ok to kill because of the specific power their parents had."