430
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
430 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1159 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You should, they're not quiet about it at all. None of those were invasions prior to us intervention, you can blame a lot of shit on the US but Ukraine ain't one.
Nope, isolationists and doves stfu because they don't want to be involved. You're neither peacnik nor pinko because Ukraines surrender attains no left leaning goal, it does just the opposite in allowing an authoritarian shithead to take over yet more of the world.... Again. This has nothing to do with the war on terror, not being shitty in one area doesn't mean you aren't shitty in another, get a grip.
Please elaborate how opposing military aid to a country on the other side of the world is not an isolationist stance. You just said, "because they don't want to get involved." That's my stance, I don't want to get involved.
I don't think you know what any of those terms mean tbh. Or rather, I think you know what they mean and are pretending that they don't mean what they do because you're acting in bad faith.
Again isolationists isolate themselves, meaning they don't meddle... Like insisting their opinion on a matter they have no legitimate interest in. You're involving yourself right now dumb dumb, if you don't want to be involved... Don't involve yourself.
That's not an argument, that's deflection.
That's a completely ridiculous take. That's not isolationism, that's political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?
Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That's what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.
If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you're trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.
This is very blatant bad faith.
Is the literal definition bud.
That's not a logical assumption dude, your lack of understanding of anything has nothing to do with the veracity of my position. Again, you're deflecting.
That's literally what I'm arguing for. How could you possibly construe that definition as supporting your position as opposed to mine?
So you're saying you are Ukrainian? If you aren't then you're not an isolationists, you're an naive idealist who seems to think surrendering to a country who is literally beheading and sledgehammering surrendering troops.
You'll have a Russian with more resources, more people and more territory. The last two times the world let that happen we lost over 15 million people... Each time.
No, I am not Ukrainian. I oppose my country's involvement in the conflict. That is an isolationist position, by your definition.
Walk me through the chain of logic that leads you to say that I would have to be Ukrainian for my opposition to involvement in foreign conflicts to be isolationist. I know that you can't do this, because you were just spouting off random bullshit when you asked that, but pretending that there's some bizarre chain of reasoning behind it, what is it?
And when you can't provide it, as you've been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you're just another liar.
You're not isolating yourself nor you're country, you're actively advocating for actions that weaken left leaning countries and strengthen right leaning ones and at the same limits the ability of us soft power. You're an idealist, you reject reality, history, logic and factual basis in place of the way you feel things should work out though you know in your heart they will not, they can not.
Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.
Also, don't call yourself a pinko, the far left at least has the fortitude and intelligence to know when their idealism illogical and the birthday to defend. You seem to have none of that.
So, you can't present any line of reasoning. Called it.
I'm not an idealist at all. You've said this several times now but it's completely wrong. If anything, I'd think you'd call me too cynical. It isn't realistic for Ukraine to reclaim all of it's lost territory, and the war is about national interests moreso than helping the average person. How are either of those things idealist rather than cynical or realist? You're the one who wants to keep fighting regardless of the conditions of the ground purely because you see your side as morally correct. That is idealist.
You lied about me being an accelerationist. You lied about me not being an isolationist.
You still can't explain any of your reasoning at all about how opposing intervention is somehow not isolationist, which, I mean, obviously you can't, any more that you could prove that 1=2. It's a completely absurd and unserious claim on its face.
I gave you my exact reasoning. You're certainly not pricing that other fellow wrong here boss.
You are. You can be cynical and an idealist, I'm not sure where you got the idea they're mutually exclusive. It is, they're doing an incredible job for a country that when invaded was not a near peer to the invading country at all and still by the numbers technically aren't. They're idealist because you ignore the unpleasant reality that Ukraine already ceded territory once before and Russia invaded a few years later. They will not stop, they are murdering troops rather than taking pows, they're beheading people on fucking video, they're sledgehammering their own troops to death, surrendering and losing territory just means they can expect it to happen again.
When exactly did I say it was at all morally correct bud? Reality doesn't play morals the right choice is almost never the ideal nor in fact often the most moral, it is simply the best choice. Also no that's realist, but nice try with the bad assumptions.
No I said you show accelerationist behaviors, which you do. It's out of naive idealism but still it's outcome is accelerationist. You aren't an isolationist, you're an idealist.
I've explained it all bud. What part are you confused about specifically and I'll elucidate it for you. You aren't opposing intervention, we aren't intervening. We're a capitalist country with an incredibly large and profitable arms industry, we're making a very good sales pitch and protecting an investment. If we intervened Russias Navy as a whole would be gone for good within 72hrs, ask Iran.
Where?? Where did you even begin to explain this total and absolute nonsense? You can't just claim to have explained it without explaining anything.
The last I dunno, 7 or so comments as I reply to you question by question each time. The fact you're confused about that fact does actually explain some things though.
Cool, the last 7 of my comments contained conclusive proof that you were wrong.
Totally, except for having factual or logical basis in reality.
Are we going to add troll to that list as well just to prove that other guy fully right. You're the type of person that makes people laugh at .ml for being blindly idealist idiots.
>Claims ridiculous nonsense
>Refuses to elaborate
>Claims to have elaborated
>Accuses the other person of being a troll
Good talk. You were always looking to laugh at me no matter what I said or didn't say, that's why you spent the whole conversation trolling and claiming ridiculous nonsense and pretending like you'd defended it when you didn't explain a word of your reasoning the whole time. I don't know whether I ever entertained "Isolationism isn't isolationism" for a moment, you obviously only said it to troll from the start.
I provided literal definition.
I've elaborated multiple times.
You are acting like a troll.
I can't help but notice you didn't point out a lie, lack of clarity, misunderstanding nothing. You've cried and bitched for 6 messages now about how I'm so cruel and mean because I won't elaborate but you can't or won't point out a single thing you've not understood.
The point I don't understand is how my stance doesn't meet literally the exact definition of isolationism that you provided, in every single way, to a t. You have not explained a single link in your reasoning to arrive at that conclusion, all you've done is assert the conclusion over and over again with zero explanation, anywhere, whatsoever. Now you're repeatedly claiming that you've explained it, without being able to point to any explanation anywhere. And now, following your complete inability to defend your absurd position, you've resorted to just calling me a troll.
What an absolute clown.
You're a troll, we just went over all of those 6 times in the last two days.
And you can't help but insult people when you fail to defend shitty fucking argument that somehow cow towing to Russia won't end with Russia invading again exactly like the last time you goddamn moron.
Ed: also you called me a troll first you absolute fucking crybaby.
You were slinging insults at me from the very beginning when you called me an accelerationist, stupid, etc. You still cannot point to even a single word in a single comment where you explained anything. What a ridiculous conversation, why would you prefer to argue so much over whether you've explained your position when, if you had, you could simply point to where you explained it? Because you didn't explain it, so this is all you've got. Who are you even trying to fool at this point?
Not at all cry baby.
I've explained it literally every time, you can disagree with the explanation but you can't say it didn't happen or you prove yourself a liar.
I explained it the first 5 times, I'm not going to do it every 15minutes for the rest of my life. You aren't willing to accept reality, we've gone over this so I'm not going to bother explaining it anymore. Simply refer back to older comments, history and I dunno an encyclopedia maybe, I'm not sure but that's at least the right direction.
If I haven't explained it why are you even trying at this point and getting downvoted into oblivion.
I conclusively proved that everything I said is true 300 times. I will refuse to point to a specific comment or quote a single line where I did it once, but it definitely, 100% happened. So, that outweighs your 5 times easily. And before you try to say you explained it 301 times, I proved you wrong infinity+1 times.
Or we could not just say bullshit and actually back up our claims, with the expectation that if you claim to have done something, you can point to a specific line on a specific comment where you have done so. I'd prefer to do that, but if you wanna go with bullshit, then fine, I just don't know why either of us is still here then.
At this point, even if you could point to anywhere where you supposedly explained your reasoning, I would demand an explanation for why you've wasted so much time evading the question. This has been a completely unreasonable and unacceptable response to an extremely basic question. All you had to do was answer once and we wouldn't be doing whatever this is.
Once again, trying to have a serious, substantive discussion with a .worlder proves impossible because y'all compulsively lie and do not give a rat's ass about evidence, and when someone catches you doing it you just call them "crybaby" for calling it out.
Your friends aren't conclusive dumb dumb. Also no you haven't even tried. What exactly makes you think Russia won't invade again. Simple as.
You haven't provided anything dumb guy, you provided your feelings that fly in the face of facts.
Literally, the last what 15 comments dumb guy.
Trying to have a conversation usually involves , you know. Involvement. Now you won't shut the fuck up about your idealistic fucking feelings but won't listen with your goddamn face to facts that are unpleasant to your dipshit idealist stances.
Also I called you a crybaby because you were literally crying about name calling you started.
Lol I'm not going to continue this conversation as if you didn't spend the last 15 comments evading a simple question and lying by saying you already answered it.
Trying to talk with you is literally like Monty Python's argument clinic sketch.
"Is this the right room for an argument?"
"I already told you five times."
"No you haven't! Where?"
"Yes I did. I did it before."
"No, you didn't. When, where?"
"Yes I did. I said it before."
Absolute clown.
It's a simple question. They've invaded twice in twenty years both resulting in treaties they've broken. What exactly is the reason they will not invade again this time outside of your goddamn feelings.
Stop trying to change the subject to evade the question. How did you get from a definition that says "Isolationism is when you oppose intervention in foreign countries" to, "Opposing intervention in Ukraine is only isolationist if you are Ukrainian?" What exactly is your reasoning that brought you from point A to point B, and, furthermore, where are the "five times" that you laid out this reasoning? Give me every single one of the five or admit that you're wrong. I'm not going to continue the conversation and just allow you to weasel your way out of that, I will not engage on any other point until you answer that.
That's the literal subject of this discourse, you're trying to change the argument lol.
Right, that's the original subject, then you said, in relation to that subject, that my stance wasn't isolationist, and then you completely refused to defend that point while repeatedly lying and claiming that you had already defended it, you just won't show where, for some reason. And now you're trying to pretend that none of that even happened and return to the original subject to weasel your way out of admitting that you were wrong, because that's the only thing you can do at this point.
You could have just allowed that my stance was isolationist and still disagreed with it. But instead you chose to dispute applying a completely neutral term to me, on no basis and for no real reason either. Literally just the guy in the argument clinic disagreeing with everything the other person says just to be contrarian and never supporting your points.
So long as you refuse to admit that you were wrong on that point and that you lied when you claimed you had explained your reasoning, you are blatantly arguing in bad faith. There's no point in discussing anything else because even if I conclusively proved my position, you could just say, "Nuh uh" like you did there. If you're unwilling to concede even the smallest point like that when you don't have anything resembling a leg to stand on, then why on earth would I move on to anything else with you?
It is. It's not, it's idealist because you ignore really.
If you can't answer the simple question I've stated about a dozen times now your point isn't facially logically and can be discarded because of it.
What makes you think given the history of invasions in less than 20 years that Russia will simply stop and not invade again.
Simple, just answer the question and stop hiding behind the rest of your crybaby bullshit.
Sorry, what part of the definition of isolationism you provided said anything about idealism? I don't see any reference to idealism in the definition you provided or anything that could be construed as a reference to idealism. So even if your claims that my position was idealist and ignorant of reality were correct, you have still not explained in any way how it isn't isolationist.
Other that that part, literally all you have is "no it isn't," straight from the argument clinic.
As for the rest, as I said, I refuse to engage with you on any point until you either justify your absurd claim or admit it was wrong, and I already explained why.
So incredibly dumb or troll, gotcha.
Yes, you'd have to be either incredibly dumb or a troll to say that opposing intervention isn't isolationist, we've been over this.
You'd have to be incredibly dumb to not infer my point, you instead seemingly demand I draw it in crayon via simple to understand pictures.
I see we're back to the "no it isn't" level of discourse straight from the argument clinic. Not that you ever left.
Bro you haven't left the "I refuse to see things that refute my dipshit position" phase. You're a troll or an idiot.
Nothing you've said has in any way justified your absurd stance that opposing intervention isn't isolationist. Not one single thing! And you just keep doubling down on it over and over while vaguely gesturing about how you've somehow explained it in some previous comment you refuse to point to, or now how you totally have a valid line of logic, but you won't tell me what it is and expect me to just psychically read your mind to find that out.
Look, obviously, you backed yourself into a corner with this. At first, maybe you made an honest mistake making such an obviously indefensible claim. But if that's what happened, then why double down so much?
What's going on here is exactly what I described at the start. Because I took an out-group position, you act like you can just say whatever nonsense you like without defending any of it at all. And you know that anyone from your in-group will agree with your side of things because they also won't care about logic or reason and are operating on the same kind of tribal loyalty. And that's why you're going around making absurd claims like this in the first place, because you know you can get away with it because the only people who will call you out on it are people in the out-group, who you can write off. And in the same way that you can adopt absurd positions, you can also just casually lie about people as well. When you see someone say, "I saw a tankie say [blah blah blah]" you're not going to stop and ask, "Is there any evidence that they ever said that?" you'll just instantly accept it, or say that it "sounds reasonable" even with zero basis, because you recognize the person saying it being part of your tribe and me being outside of it. It's just jerking each other off.
And that's why it's impossible to have any sort of logical discussion on .world or for discussions here to involve any sort of critical thought. Because you can make ridiculous claims like, "Opposing intervention isn't isolationist" and none of your tribemates will ever call you out on it.
You know it's true, just like you know it's true that opposing interventions is isolationist. Obviously you'll never concede either point to me, because regardless of facts or reason, I'm in the outgroup. But maybe you can admit it to yourself.
And that's all I have to say to you. Bye.
It has, you're simply unwilling to see that you are wrong because you're a troll. Your purpose isn't argument, it's to be a loudmouth crybaby and you excel at it. Also I literally just have you the goddamn reason you goddamn moron.
Accept it or go away, either way fuck off kiddo.