Tretiak

Except that's not the framing they view the issue in. They see it as preferable to remaining financially kept on the hook and leash of the US, only to have their chain jerked and be threatened whenever they 'act out of line'.

Excellent then! Please expose to us your opinion about the tiananmen events. We are listening. Don’t be shy.

You stupid? My comment history is right there.

Edit: Aw. Don't get butthurt, homie. Lol. Tool.

Oh, look, you have an opinion about tiananmen, what a surprise!

Lol, imagine being criticized for 'having an opinion'. If that doesn't tell me all I need to know about you.

http://bash.org/?506275

So far? Lemmy is filled with Russian shills. I hope we outnumber them soon.

Ah, the good ole everybody challenging the western propaganda narrative against Russia is a secret Putin shill. I can see Reddit is leaking, already.

Right. I understand the point. But it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone to think State’s exercise violence in a much greater capacity, because State’s are much more powerful than individuals.

To me it’s a criticism that ranks right up there with the complaint that State’s are inherently dishonest, and they are, to be sure. But if State’s are inherently violent/dishonest, it’s only because people are inherently violent and dishonest. That’s something that sits at the root of what humans are, and by extension, wraps itself up in qualms of everything humans do and create for themselves.

Cooperation is definitely a part of who we are, to be sure. My whole point though is that if you look at civilization, their existence isn’t a spontaneous occurrence, despite the fact that civilizations require an ‘enormous’ level of cooperation to sustain themselves. It isn’t ‘natural’, in that sense. Cooperation follows coercion, which is needed to keep the peace, just as it’s more easily and eagerly used to conduct violence.

Well, to each his own. I'm not a Marxist.

Being human means that by our very nature, we possess the ability to change our nature. Just because violence is part of who we are doesn’t mean it has to be a part of who we become.

True, but I'd suggest that to anyone looking at the weight of history, it's far beyond any doubt to make the correct observation that people 'tend' to. Simply sort of hand-waving it away and saying "well there's no law of nature that says it has to be that way," to me is analogous to saying "yeah, and there's no law of nature that says we couldn't build an elevator to the moon, either."

Nature is violence, but its arguably more about cooperation. especially in highly social species like us.

Eh, I'd say this is debatable. I'm not saying cooperation isn't part of who we are, but humanity's overwhelming tendency to indolence explains why violence is often a consideration that makes its way through our minds at the first pass. Most people don't have a respect for the law out of high minded morality or a desire to be cooperative. They obey it because they're afraid of violent social retribution. Human beings are moral scavengers driven by opportunity and prudence, 'more' than, but not exclusively, moral ideals out of a sake of 'doing the right thing'.

It's always easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. It's always easier to steal money than it is to earn it. It's always easier to cheat your way through your work, than to do it the correct way. I don't see that attitude changing anytime soon. But I don't disagree with the core point I think you're getting at.

Accusations of whataboutism are a thought-terminating cliché that, ironically, usually just help the accuser avoid engaging with a critical argument.

Thank God someone else said it. I always get dogpiled by a posse of morons, whenever I point out that 'whataboutism' doesn't exist.

Considering what Seymour Hersh's uncovered regarding the Nord Stream Pipeline, I won't put this one past the US, being involved in it. Yes, reputation matters.

... responds to people just making their voices heard with cannons and guns...

And that's where the difficulty lies.