Russian-Ukrainian war

[AskWazzup]

All these ideals become pipe-dreams.

Well, not completely. If you tried to explain law and morals of the current society, in general, to a man living in 1200', there would probably be an awkward pause before they would put you on a stake. Things are achievable, but they take many years and many good willed people who devout their lives to uplift the society. We mostly don't have children working in factories, women in most countries can vote, in many countries you can get food even if you're homeless, shooting somebodies head off because of an argument is not legal anymore. We have internet, many commodities etc. But all of this developed in many years and not because somebody ordered someone to do it, but because society is getting (slowly) smarter. And all of the good things are in countries that have a learned, cultured society.

It's not impossible to imagine a society where people are much more equal and economically better off in a good sense, but it takes patience, time and people who are not willing to sink the whole civilized (i use the term loosely) world in another absurd war just because of their fucking egos and billions of dollars they want to keep to themselves (our good friend mr.p).

 

[SnapSlav]

Oh, I realize that, but I figured Ukrainians in particular would have a special thorn-in-the-side when it comes to Stalin. I saw others celebrating Lenin, and that makes more sense, imo, if they need a symbolic figurehead for a dream of a stable and powerfull USSR. When I think of Stalin+Ukraine, I think of mass starvation. Don't they?

Personally, when I think "Stalin" what comes to mind is "Winning World War II", not starvation. The atrocities, honestly, come as an afterthought. Lenin wouldn't serve as a symbol for Russian strength and stability because Lenin died scant years following his own revolution. It's kinda like asking why Americans idolize FDR instead of Hoover; FDR held his power for so long that he left a lasting impression.

Your bonobo point about resolving things with orgies and public masturbation gave me a chuckle though. The movie Evolution had an interesting take on what a fundamentally different life form may take shape as if it developed similarly to us, so the thought of a fundamentally different kind of homosapien that deals with its frustrations with sexual release is an amusing (and thought-provoking) notion. XD

 

[DarkCorp]

So long as there are un-equal workloads, there will be in-equality. Now, I will hear things like, 'I understand in-equality, just not such a disparity.

 

[naossano]

All these ideals become pipe-dreams.

And all of them are built on violence, like the French revolution Off with their heads, in with freedom! That's fair tho, that's how people roll. When the supressed revolt it is noble and beautiful violence, fit even for painting! But still as brutal, you can even increase the brutality, and still successfully represent it as even more rightful rage!

Maybe not as bloody but most rights were obtained by fighting for it (with words or action) not by good will from government.

Anyway, in the case of The Revolution, i have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, the symbol of getting rid of the King is great. On the other hand, it could just be the bourgoiesie getting rid of the noble, as they were as rich as them, if not more, but not having the same rights. (one based on trade, the other from the feudal inheritance)

 

[zegh8578]

Anyway, in the case of The Revolution, i have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, the symbol of getting rid of the King is great. On the other hand, it could just be the bourgoiesie getting rid of the noble, as they were as rich as them, if not more, but not having the same rights. (one based on trade, the other from the feudal inheritance)

That's a good point, and a good example of the powers of politics. The art of luring the masses into a rage is not a new invention Not that I'm saying this happened in the French revolution, but it's very likely there were more than just the poor plebs who benefitted from removal of the royals

Askwassup: I know that humans are quite adaptable, but as a species we have a certain limit. Look at certain things that seem to unite ALL tried-and-tested political systems in a modern world, and you'll find certain things that won't go away: Greedy individuals, political corruption, prostitution, banned goods and contraband - causing a niche in society where crime is profitable. Through all these systems, there are individuals who argue for the abandonment of greed and corruption, for the legalization of banned goods so that the criminal element may be minimized, and such.
I don't remember where I read it, but apparently some ancient Egyptian princess said about religion that it was only for the poor and uneducated to believe such things. It doesn't matter who said it, because it's not very shocking a notion - that a powerful human realizes that religion is a tool of control. Of course they knew! We've always known!

 

[SnapSlav]

It doesn't matter who said it, because it's not very shocking a notion - that a powerful human realizes that religion is used as a tool of control. Of course they knew! We've always known!

Fixed that for ya. ^_<

But seriously, people like to cry "eh, semantics" or "you're just splitting hairs", but we need to make clear distinctions between very different things. It sounds like it's just arbitrary semantics, but the difference between "is" and "is used as" is pretty huge. Any amateur theologist or anthropologist can tell you that the origins of religion stems from mysticism and man attempting to curry favor with the elements, and shares its origins with the arts and other uniquely human aesthetic pursuits. The organization that was used to control the masses came later. Much, much later. It's not inherently religious for people to manipulate uneducated masses to do their bidding, but it is a very common (and dirty) method, and it is often employed by large organized religions. But it's equally employed by governments and political interest parties. Just look at a topic such a Global Warm- erm, I mean, Climate Change, and you'll see groups of people, uneducated, following group think and chanting and repeating what's been told to them, and they have an awful lot of faith that their chosen leaders are preaching truth to them, so they don't take the time to research their own reasons on their own. Sounds very much like what we'd choose to say is inherently "religious", doesn't it? Well it's really not; it's just text book manipulation.

 

[AskWazzup]

I'd still take their word over yours - praise global warming theory/hypothesis!

 

[MutantScalper]

I can almost sense the disappointment in the world's media because this didn't flare up into a big conflict, or a "war" as even this thread claims. Other things are happening and Ukraine is falling off the front page, there was a mine collapse in Turkey and more died in that then the whole of the Ukraine conflict...

 

[AskWazzup]

I can almost sense the disappointment in the world's media because this didn't flare up into a big conflict, or a "war" as even this thread claims. Other things are happening and Ukraine is falling off the front page, there was a mine collapse in Turkey and more died in that then the whole of the Ukraine conflict...

The part about the media not paying attention to other big issues i agree, but how is this not a big conflict when Ukraine is being annexed by Kremlin, people are being kidnapped and killed every day and Putin is basically turning his country into a dictatorship state, which will and is touching the whole world in political and economical ways?

 

[naossano]

One could be quite relieved that there isn't far more death (that we know of) in that conflict.
It could have been more bloody, but here they use threats before guns.

But it bothers me that European union hasn't moved a finger.
The official reason for creating European Union was :
- To avoid war between members.
- Be stronger agains't close opponements.

Now the Union want to create laws about everything in the country members, including laws that break good systems.
They interferes far too much in sovereign states internal affairs.
Their leadership isn't democratic.
And yet, when a country on its border is eaten alive by Russia, they do nothing, forgetting the official reason it was created in the first place.

 

[naossano]

I deeply emphasis of the "official" word. I don't think they ever cared about war.
The main reason was probably economy, which doesn't contradict the selling of weapon to Russia.
But still, the "official" reason for the Union existence is now officially disregarded.
Considering the recent crisis in spain/greece and other country, it won't help them to exist much longer, or at least, have the people support.

 

[SnapSlav]

I deeply emphasis of the "official" word. I don't think they ever cared about war.
The main reason was probably economy, which doesn't contradict the selling of weapon to Russia.
But still, the "official" reason for the Union existence is now officially disregarded.
Considering the recent crisis in spain/greece and other country, it won't help them to exist much longer, or at least, have the people support.

Yes, just like the official purpose behind the founding of NATO, or that the official reason for dropping the 2 atomic bombs on Japan was "to end the war swiftly and with fewer casualties than protracting it further", or many other official purposes for big name decisions. Just like the official reasons never mattered, nor does it bear any consequence when a very public situation contradicts that official reason. But don't expect that contradiction being exposed to make any difference, especially where "the people" are concerned. That's never made any historical difference, so I can't see it making any now.

Incidentally, it's just my personal preference, but when you "put emphasis" on a word like official, I don't suppose you could *mark* that emphasis? There's lots of ways (as just demonstrated), like bold, asterisks, air quotes, or whatever works for you. =) Makes it obvious when something stated could otherwise be perceived as being woefully riddled by ignorance that it's not.

 

[naossano]

The bomb indeed stopped the war, although it killed civilians instead of soldiers. (not mentioning the longer lasting effect)
You can truly argue that it caused worse unmentioned effect, but it did what it was said to be. (amongs other not said things)

About the emphasis, i though that bothering to use the word more than once, while it wouldn't be needed otherwise was enough, but you made a fair point.

 

[SnapSlav]

The bomb indeed stopped the war, although it killed civilians instead of soldiers. (not mentioning the longer lasting effect)

No, it really didn't. The Soviet Union stopped the war, both to the West AND East. Japan still exists, y'know, so it's not like historical record on these matters are lost to the ages. Japan was in negotiations with the Soviets to surrender because they were terrified of being invaded by them. Not the American troops who were busy being distracted by guerrillas on beaches. The bombs were dropped just to show off America's latest big dick. It didn't just cause terrible "unintentional" effects, it was unnecessary from the very start.

But yes, I got the idea that you were placing emphasis on the word "official", but if you never clarified in a subsequent reply, it would have only been an inkling without a more obvious emphasis.

 

[zegh8578]

America's Army of Freedom stopped the war! They stopped that war, and all other wars! In fact, ask around, and you'll see how their Army of Freedom also stopped Somalia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, they stopped all those places! And if there is war there now still - it's because America can't be everywhere at once you know! Except when they are, but they can't >:O And they're sick of helping us out all the time, and never getting enough praise back in return! They know we praise them, we watch their movies, listen to their music, travel there to admire them, but fuck that petty shit, they demand WORSHIP! After all, they beat the Huns! I mean, the actual Huns, shut up, that was America!

I'd still take their word over yours - praise global warming theory/hypothesis!

I often have to remind conservatives what their own agenda is: Conservative agenda is that climate change is not man-made. That climate-change is happening naturally.

Conservatives DO believe IN climate change, because it is as observable as the sky and the sun, glaciers are melting faster than ever, stuff like that. The debate is who's fault it is!

 

[MutantScalper]

The part about the media not paying attention to other big issues i agree, but how is this not a big conflict when Ukraine is being annexed by Kremlin, people are being kidnapped and killed every day and Putin is basically turning his country into a dictatorship state, which will and is touching the whole world in political and economical ways?

It just seems disproportionate. Economical ways? The example I mentioned from Turkey, thousands of kids dying every day of preventable diseases, etc. I'm just looking for a reason to basically care more about the Ukraine - situation then some other conflict or bad thing happening right now. Not to mention that this seems like a very politicized conflict with heavy emphasis on media war and propaganda from both sides just makes me very suspicious of pretty much everyone. Just wish the hysterics would die down a bit.

But hey, feel free to have a convo about it, didn't mean to butt in.

Btw I'm from Finland so it's not like Russia is some far away thing to me.

 

[naossano]

Maybe if the french invade the french speaking belgium, the dutch speaking belgian would say "good riddance".
(Not actually, but they is a lot of bickering between those two groups. About the german speaking belgian, there must be 2-3 village)

 

[SnapSlav]

America's Army of Freedom stopped the war! They stopped that war, and all other wars! In fact, ask around, and you'll see how their Army of Freedom also stopped Somalia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, they stopped all those places! And if there is war there now still - it's because America can't be everywhere at once you know! Except when they are, but they can't >:O And they're sick of helping us out all the time, and never getting enough praise back in return! They know we praise them, we watch their movies, listen to their music, travel there to admire them, but fuck that petty shit, they demand WORSHIP! After all, they beat the Huns! I mean, the actual Huns, shut up, that was America!

Exactly. =)

I'd still take their word over yours - praise global warming theory/hypothesis!

I often have to remind conservatives what their own agenda is: Conservative agenda is that climate change is not man-made. That climate-change is happening naturally.

Conservatives DO believe IN climate change, because it is as observable as the sky and the sun, glaciers are melting faster than ever, stuff like that. The debate is who's fault it is!

No, it really isn't. And trust me, I'd know. Before I had the wisdom to be a "declined-to-state*", I once considered myself aligned with "the conservative agenda". They do advocate that Climate Change exists though it's not of man-made origins, but for the most part they DENY its existence entirely. However, even that advocacy of the former sort is merely a response to political trends just like the "liberal agenda" changing the name from "global warming" to "climate change"** is a response to those same trends in political banter. They're not consistent arguments with any integrity.

(* In the USA, despite media coverage of JUST 2 major political parties, there are actually dozens, and claiming one's self as "independent" is actually siding with a political party of the same name. To be a truly non-partisan individual acting independently of any political party, one must select the "declined to state" field when registering to vote to avoid being associated with a political party.)

(** In the 1970s, popular, politically-driven "scientific reports" claimed that the global climate was dropping and that the Earth was headed to an unavoidable ice age, and that this global cooling was man-made. It was called the "Man-Made Ice Age" at the time, and many of the scientists advocating this are still alive today, having spun a complete 180 degrees and now stating the exact opposite, with no shame or apparent self-awareness. The same thing that brought about that change in banter, natural weather patterns exhibiting characteristics that seemed to contradict everything that they were saying, has recently led to politicians adopting the same "180 spin" rhetoric, changing the popular term "global warming" to "climate change" in preparation for the next scare story to be about global cooling (again) in another 10 years' time. Do any cursory research- we're just talking about 35-40 years ago, not ancient history -and you'll see it's all very true.)

The wisest people are the ones who stand firmly in the middle and act and speak solely based on the facts, and those people say, verbatum, "We don't know. We can't say that it does or doesn't exist, or even if what seems to exist is of man-made nature or otherwise. We just don't know." That stance isn't popular because sensationalism makes for much better reporting. But personally, I want to believe that "the ones who are right" are the researchers and geologists and those comparing solar activity when they track weather patterns who DO take a stance based on their evidence; those who coincidentally don't find themselves in the pockets of interest groups. Even though there seems to be evidence that contradicts their evidence (hence the "We don't know" stance being so incredibly outnumbered), simply being on their own strikes me as having far more integrity than the opposition.

Anywho, besides the exposition on the dishonest nature of political movements, this is all kinda off-topic... >_<

 

[Tagaziel]

If you deny anthropogenic global warming, you're denying facts. The amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses pumped by us into the environment has accelerated natural climate change far beyond what would normally occur.

 

[MutantScalper]

The part about looking for reason to care, i think you shouldn't mention that in conversations with people, that kinda sounds really douchie (though i'm sure you don't mean it in that way). But seriously, i bet you could find even worse situations around the globe, right now, than the ones you mention in turkey. Like cult gangs in africa forcing kids to kill their parents and then making them into these military zombies, but that doesn't lessen the situation in Turkey. What you're talking about is social media not caring to cover and bring to light some terrible things that are going around the world.

Yes it sounds douchie but I didn't mean it that way. The way I see it, the global & local & regional media is very powerful these days. Add to that the social media that you mentioned. All that combined and the media can turn a small conflict into a big conflict. So the world media (and by this I mostly mean the western media that is led by US and UK news agencies) is not neutral, let alone 'good' in it's goals. Also, the media wants high ratings, they would rather write about a real conflict with photos and video of actual war fighting. Not only of guys in balaclavas prancing around. So they do what they can to flare up the conflict and I would argue that they can influence a conflict negatively if they so wish to.

Over here the discussion is mainly about whether Finland should join NATO. This would mean that Sweden would join too, it's a kind of a package deal, so therefore we should make the decision together with them. So far we haven't discussed with them seriously about it but only have agreed on some joint Nordic defence unification and co-op stuff. I think the Baltic countries are free to join the Nordic defence stuff, if they care, since they have NATO membership.

Well don't just butt in discuss it damn it

How i see it, the world is pretty horrible place and even with all the flaws that USA or Europe have, they are still places where most of the liberation is done, by movements, human laws, culture etc. (if you feel that i'm wrong, feel free to correct me). So when you have peaceful countries in Europe getting annexed by world powers out of the blue (and i mean annexed, you never see well organized movements spring out in a few months, where you have groups of people with rocket launchers, mines, flamethrowers and other military grade weapons caught on camera many times) then shit is really getting dangerous, not only to the local geography, but to the whole world, this is not local Arab spring kind of deal. And we have perfect historical precedence for this fear. So i think it's a pretty important event, because what Putin wants is that everybody just forget about the whole deal and if that happens, you know he will try it again, and this was not even the first time they try something like this.

Now that i think, it's pretty strange to me. Say France, or Germany go ahead and occupy a part of Belgium saying that well, there are some French, or Germans speakers there. How would that go? I think everyone would go totally berserk, but when it's Ukraine everyone is like... meh... what can you do.

Yes I think it was bad news when I heard that Putin wants to be president for the third time, I knew he's pushing it at that point. Then again, I have zero names in my knowledge of people who would be better replacements to him. Not that Putin is good, just that it's a very difficult and strange position, prez of Russia.