For example, the US carried out its 2011 invasion of Libya under the banner of R2P, even though its goal was to despose Muammar Gaddafi - a person they themselves had helped to power in 1969 - for his ambitions to create a gold-backed alternative to the dollar. — Tzeentch

This seems like a really bad example because that "invasion", the no-fly-zone was backed by a resolution of the security council. One of only three (?) examples where such a sanction could actually be obtained.

So it was in accordance with the "rules based order".

There's plenty of examples of unilateral US military force of course. But then these are also not examples of the US abusing a system of control build through international institutions. They were pretty blatantly unilateral actions, justified by the responsibility to protect.

This behaviour certainly had negative effects (it also deserves to be listed as an indirect contributing factor to the Ukraine war IMHO), but seems to have little to do with the dollar or international organisations.

Just a small world on the "gold backed alternative to the USD": There's not a single source on this from any official channel, not even statements by Gaddafi himself. It seem like a conspiracy theory invented entirely from an offhand mention in an email allegedly from Hillary Clinton's server.

The problem with uncaused existence is that, if it is possible, then nothing should stop it from occuring at random.

Further, being uncaused, there is no reason to expect any specific sort of thing to come into existence over any other. So, we shouldn't just expect lots of stuff to start existing, but different sorts of stuff. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, how do we know that things don't spontaneously spring into existence all the time? Since the laws of physics as we observe them would already account for this, we wouldn't necessarily notice. We could argue that, if different things came into being constantly, existence must be chaotic and have no observable rules at all.

But then the anthropic principle strikes and says that bubbles of stability in chaos are possible and observers could only form in such a bubble, so really it's no surprise at all that observers would always find a reasonably stable, ordered world.

Or perhaps once a relatively ordered "bubble" formed, the resulting interactions keep "different" entities out. If anything goes, there's no reason not to ascribe to our universe the property of "self-stabilising".

During the unipolar moment the US used many of these systems to instate the so-called 'rules based international order', which in the case of the US usually meant: "Rules for thee, but not for me." — Tzeentch

Can you give some example for this?

Or am I just the too ignorant for you to explain further? :wink:

The problem isn't necessarily US imports and exports. It's the petrodollar, the dollar as world reserve currency, the various global financial institutions created by the US, etc.

It's essentially a system of special 'privileges' the US has created for itself during the unipolar moment, which provide it with a slew of instruments to economically pressure other nations. — Tzeentch

But these systems largely don't originate from the "unipolar" phase (I.e. post 1990) but from the Cold war, mostly the 70s.

They're not simply the result of the US abusing it's "unipolar power" in some unspecified way but rather of the massive preponderance of the US economy outside the Soviet block together with political factors.

It's not like the US somehow tricked everyone into accepting their leadership role.

This is the system much of the world is trying to subtract itself from, not in the least because the US tends to function on a "rules for thee, but not for me" basis. — Tzeentch

Which country doesn't? Everyone wants to be the leader and set the rules to their advantage. But noone is there yet. I see little reason to suspect India would grant China the privilege or vice versa. Neither Brasil nor Russia are serious contenders.

The Arab oil states are rather cleverly positioning themselves as a kind of global mediator, but I think it's to early to tell how this will work long term.

The economic incentive is certainly there.

The Ukraine war signaled to a lot of non-western countries that their money is not safe with the US dollar financial system, expediating de-dollarization. — Tzeentch

But hasn't the war - or rather the sanctions - also shown that the importance of that depends on your economic enmeshment with the US?

It seems to me that de-dollarization has a hen-and-egg problem. The more you export to the US, the more USD you hold and the more vulnerable you are to devaluation or straight up freezing of assets. But at the same time the less room to maneuver you have for de-dollarization.

I do think the USD will be replaced eventually, as the relative economic importance of the US declines. Maybe not in this decade though. Of course if the US political system continues to unravel, we might see a more precipitous drop.

What unites all BRICS countries is their effort to shake off the yoke of the US-led financial system. — Tzeentch

Efforts like that have been tried several times before though. Sure eventually something will likely replace the US dollar. For now it seems to have been simply (another) announcement at their recent summit that they're planning - in some indefinitie future - to have a dollar alternative.

The economic incentive right now is just not there. Too much trade is still bound up with the US. And the BRICS countries seem pretty far from agreeing to a mutual standard. And the unanswered question is, given the differences between the BRICS countries, who will control the new standard?

I'm not the one justifying an invasion.

The Russians are not the bad guys here, they are just interested in protecting their sovereignty, it comes down to everyone having a right to protect themselves from outside aggression. — boagie

Protecting yourself from outside aggression by invading and annexing your neighbour. So the aggression is then inside?

Don't you have some other forum to bombard with your ridiculous propaganda?

You do not seem to be aware of the global power shifting away from America as a unipolar power, the goal of much of the world in a multipolar world, one more infused with a cooperative nature rather than subjugation — boagie

A multipolar order based on cooperation would certainly be novel. So far, the default state has usually been more or less open hostility and frequent war.

With each country America took into its fold moving closer, they also placed nuclear warheads on the soil of these countries. — boagie

AFAIK there are no NATO nukes east of Germany.

Each time lying to the Russians they would go no further. — boagie

Not really.

America's dreams is world domination, — boagie

America already had world domination. The US voters don't seem particularly impressed with what it did for them.

The BRICS is the other half of the world saying, enough is enough, and drew a line in the sand, that line was Ukraine. — boagie

The only BRICS country that cares about Ukraine is Russia. Even China's support is only lukewarm.

does that excuse leading Ukraine to war and then having Ukraine sacrifice so many Ukrainian lives for American (elite) perceived interests, on false pretences? — boethius

I guess we'd have to ask the Ukrainians. Oh wait we already went over this and you didn't care about the evidence then either.

If you wish to discuss this, give me some indication you know some history, — boagie

Why don't you give me some indication that you're capable of more nuance than the average propaganda bot?

Example, what lead up to the invasion of Ukraine, start with the reunification of Germany and go on from there. — boagie

So how did you think this would go, you just jump in here and demand I write a history book to prove my credentials?

Of course, Russia invaded before the Ukrainian military was able to provide the kind of resistance that would have made a US intervention feasible, which is why the US hung them out to dry in the end. — Tzeentch

Intervention by the US airforce alone would have absolutely crushed the Russian invasion. With Ukraine's forces on the ground and the US airforce above, given Russia's performance so far, their operations would have been unfeasable very quickly.

It was not lack of means that prevented such a scenario, it was an unwillingness to risk a nuclear war (or, more precisely, to be seen as risking one).

Ukraine is being utterly wrecked in every conceivable way. — Tzeentch

Not in every conceivable way. Notably they have retained their choice of alignment - with the west. You may think they're making a mistake but polls in Ukraine seem to make pretty clear that they think it's important.

Europe threw its economy down the drain, now has a hostile great power on its doorstep while having completely stripped its military, and it has been turned into the world's laughing stock to boot. — Tzeentch

Europe's situation has not materially changed, it's merely now forced to face the truth. It's possible that this will break the EU, though perhaps then the adage that "what can be destroyed by the truth deserves to be" is true.

Europe's crisis goes much deeper and beyond Ukraine, which is merely a focal point for many of it's ills. This could be a chance as well, though arguably the leadership of the big players leaves a lot to be desired.

We are far past that point. Zelensky is not moving to negotiate. He even signed a decree to make negotiations with Russia impossible. The absolute fool. — Tzeentch

Well what is it? Can Ukraine negotiate or not?

Obviously the support is achieving the opposite of sound strategy, which is why Ukraine is slowly approaching the edge of the cliff. Quite extraordinary you're unable to see that. — Tzeentch

There's a difference though between claiming a strategy has failed and claiming it wasn't sound to begin with.

Your strategy seems to offer little other than the hope you are right about russian intentions.

It's a strategic argument. Neither Ukraine nor Europe benefits from playing into Washington's hand. — Tzeentch

Don't they? It seems to me the relationship has plenty of benefits for Europe, and historically alignment with the US has also been a good choice for many other countries, from South Korea to Poland.

From a moral perspective it is of course repugnant too. — Tzeentch

Why exactly though?

That happened after the West blocked peace talks. — Tzeentch

It was also very obviously signaled in advance. Once Russia had officially recognised the areas as independent states, what other route could it take?

It can still continue to resist militarily, unconventionally if need be, to impose a cost on Russia. This gives them leverage in negotiations — Tzeentch

If that's the case, why should we "pull the plug" on Ukraine support? The support improves Ukraine's ability to impose costs and thus their position in negotiations.

However, continuing to resist without an actual strategy of what that resistance is supposed to accomplish is remarkably foolish. Imposing a cost on Russia is a sound strategy from an American point of view, not from a Ukrainian point of view, since it would incur a much larger cost on Ukraine itself - it would destroy Ukraine. — Tzeentch

But you literally just wrote that imposing costs on Russia is the basis of the Ukrainian position in negotiations. So the strategic goal of imposing costs to demonstrate your ability to impose future costs seems entirely sound.

Neither Europe nor Ukraine should make themselves complicit in such a strategy. — Tzeentch

What exactly is the moral argument here?

How would Ukraine negotiate if it's entirely unable to resist anyways? What's there to negotiate over?

I'm not sure what 'provocation accusation' you're talking about, but what Europe should do is pull the plug on military support for Ukraine. Helping another nation exercise their right to self-defense is only rational if it has a chance of succeeding. There is no such chance in the case of the Ukraine war, and thus Europe should not contribute to the illusion that Ukraine can win this war. Stopping the support will hopefully will bring Ukraine to stop sacrificing its people in vain sooner rather than later.

If Ukraine wants to continue throwing its people's lives away, then that's their right. However, Europe should not make itself complicit in such a senseless waste of life. — Tzeentch

And if Russia then let's the tanks roll west across Ukraine, should Europe then restart their aid? Or are we giving the entirety of Ukraine to Russia (at least we're prepared to) because Ukraine is currently unable to retake the missing 20%?

Isn't the self defense of the remaining 80% of the territory succesful?

Germany is sort of the paradigmatic example of the free rider problem in alliances. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well Germany had a key role in NATO defense until the collapse of the SU and had significant forces. The domestic political opinion of Germany's armed forces has always been conflicted, and I think after the end of the (first?) cold war this created a situation of one-sided pressure to diminish the role of the armed forces. Generally none of the western European states has the capacity to maintain more than an expeditionary force on their own, so that's not necessarily unique to Germany.

Well the Antivax bit is just another arrow in the quiver for people like Bannon. What exactly one believes about any particular issue is not so important. What's important is that one accepts the fundamental creed: Something evil is going on, outsiders cannot be trusted and the people "in the know" have to act.

Interestingly these people use the language of anti-authoritarianism to further their own authoritarian control of the narrative. But this is of course not a new phenomenon.

I gave reasons for my statement, which you chose to ignore.

What are your reasons? Care to explain to us how calling the citizens of Gaza "not much better than animals" is not a tacit justification for their "extermination"?

Is there a danger of Trump pulling something like that in the future (as President)?
No! — ssu

Trump is the wrecking ball. By delegitimising democratic institutions, causing chaos and shifting what is acceptable he's paving the way for an actual dictator.

He does play with the idea. Apparently he just recently clarified that he wouldn't be a dictator - well maybe for the first day. This is just Trump being Trump, but it's also a normalisation. He won't be called out on it by his base, and that means the next time someone says this, it'll be a little less outrageous.

While I do not think Trump was planned, I do think there are forces, which we might call disaster capitalists, which seek to exploit him, perhaps to the point of an actual "managed democracy" which would perpetuate laissez-faire policies while redirecting popular anger to outsiders.

Hamas are a bunch of animals and the people who voted them into power aren't much better. — RogueAI

Is exactly the kind of rhetoric Hamas would use. Or any other person justifying mass murder.

Odd that someone would seriously adopt this rhetoric on a philosophy forum where, we should assume, they have sufficient time and capacity to evaluate their words before they post them.

What is astounding to me is the apparent lack of awareness of the overall situation. This was visible early on with the failure to make a convincing case to India, apparently forgetting that India is on the verge of becoming a major power and would have to be treated as an equal partner.

Is this simply the primacy of economics having become to ingrained, so European leaders have trouble actively shaping a geopolitical policy?

More and more voices are starting to call out the supporters of Ukraine for not preparing properly for a long war and dragging their feet on supplying equipment.

Is "the West" dropping the ball, geopolitically? At the beginning of the war there was surprising unity and a lot of strong declarations, perhaps most exemplified by the German chancellor declaring a new era in defense posture ("Zeitenwende"). Almost two years later, there seems little sign of such an epochal change.

It is not surprising that initial unity does not hold for two years of warfare. What is surprising is the appearance that many western nations are now standing here with mostly empty hands.

Should the West be unable to deal with even one major military challenge, this will no doubt embolden other actors, and reduce sharply the ability of western, primarily the European, nations to affect international trends.

Don't most aspects of Western civilization predate Christianity in some near-Eastern traditions anyway? — AmadeusD

Oh I'm sure that if you can find various aspects that predate it. That doesn't mean that their specific combination wasn't relevant though. I think it's plausible that the combination of the roman legalistic tradition with the anarchic undercurrent of Christianity made the western civilization more flexible.

It's best not to paint too broad a picture as there was more pluralistic beliefs in ancient Greece...But yes, it was taken mainly as a matter of course that some deserved power based on birth or fate. — schopenhauer1

True. There's always the danger of getting too enamoured with the big, sweeping narrative.

Also we can't really say that these ideas are necessarily unique to Christianity. It's always possible they'd have come up some other way regardless. But they are part of the historical sequence of ideas.

But, arguably, the fact that we even think about inequality as a problem is part of the Christian tradition. Greek and Roman pagans would not have considered inequality a problem in its own right. For them, people simply were not equal and that was just a normal fact of the world.

Christians certainly perpetrated inequality. But, for the christian elites, the teaching of Jesus would always be a nagging uncertainty.

Imho, one of the biggest success stories of western culture is that it turned the Christian "equality in the eyes of Christ" into a secular principle of human rights.

Christianity ultimately led to their downfall as their value system (the one which helped with their rise and success) was replaced with another. The Empire couldn't stomach Jesus. :rofl: — BitconnectCarlos

I think the Roman empire was doomed long before the Christian religion became dominant. Really what's interesting is not that it fell, but how long it took. It simply was not viable given larger population dynamics.

I take it to mean a thread of history running from the Greco-Romans (as ↪ssu pointed out), running through Christendom in the Middle Ages (by way of preservation of these writings and carrying on in the format in a diminished fashion), with a sort of "rebirth" in the Renaissance/Scientific Revolution — schopenhauer1

That honestly sounds pretty off to me. The Christian heritage in western culture is huge. The enlightenment was not a rediscovery of ancient wisdom, it's heavily influenced by Christian theology of the middle ages. It is also quite possibly influenced by experience with the American peoples, whose often specifically anti-authoritarian political arrangements may have given Europeans a few ideas.

The separation of church and state, specifically, likely has it's precursor in the christian concept of "religion" as something distinct from the rest of your tribal / family identity (which is not at all a given). And also, of course, goes back to the special role of the catholic church as a supranational organisation.

at the end of the day, two states is the way to go, — schopenhauer1

Or perhaps the conclusion we should draw from the repeated failures is that the two states solution is not a good way to go about it.

It tends to focus the discussion on the "who gets what" and thus encourages the rehashing of old grievances and maximalist demands, rather than framing it in terms of the future cooperation of jews and muslims.

Pathetic — Merkwurdichliebe

Is what I call people that summarily declare large amounts of other people essentially subhuman.

I wouldn't even necessarily call the lockdowns an overreaction. When states felt that infection rates went beyond what could be handled, the lockdowns were reasonable as a short term solution imo. Perhaps they were even a bit late overall.

The problem came with the extension of limited, partial lockdowns and the proliferation of a bewildering array of contact regulations afterwards. A simple set of advisories, robust contact tracking as well as avoiding large (indoor) gatherings might have been just as effective and lost less trust.

It is pathetic that these sheep continue to double down on it all, despite the fact Coronavirus-2020-hindsight has proven lockdown and vaccine policy to be an absolute disaster. It is a case of too much pride and zero dignity. — Merkwurdichliebe

Obviously if you call someone an undignified, prideful sheep they'll not make a very great effort to second guess their choices. They'll just label you an anti vax conspiracy nutjob and ignore you.

The politicisation of the issue has made it very difficult to analyse the successes and failures.

For example, there's lots of criticism of the mandates on the "experimental vaccine", but little discussion on other issues with the vaccine policy. Like private firms holding patents for vaccines that were essentially publicly funded. Or the hoarding of doses by the richer countries which not only left poorer nations out in the cold, but also decreased the effectiveness of the program overall.

However, the evidence behind the above warning is strong enough for NBC to publish the story even in an environment of general denialism and white washing of the issue. — boethius

I love the logic of invoking denialism while posting a bunch of articles to then turn around and claim the articles are thus evidence of a much worse problem. It's the kind of backwards logic common to self-professed "free thinkers".

Also it should be noted that in context, the "chaos and insurgency" the article talks about is referring to the result of a russian takeover.

I even wrote to my country's leadership 3 years before the war started explaining that a lack of international leadership (for example rich countries narcissistically only focusing on themselves, and not creating a mobile medical battalion to bring relief to areas experiencing overcapacity) would lead directly to chaos and conflict, most notably in Eastern Europe.

Now imagine if the West also put resources into mobile hospitals during the pandemic to at least be sure to bring basic medical supplies to areas experience a peak.

Even if it wouldn't be all that successful, it's the kind of thing that would bring people together, symbolize our caring for each other. Of course, the danger of this concept is that it may have worked too well and there'd be no need to wait for vaccines.

My proposal was rejected and I was informed the pandemic was in the hands of the experts, not to worry my pretty little head basically.

Exactly the process I described took place.

Now you may argue my mobile hospital concept would not have prevented the war in Ukraine, but I also explained in my letter that the insular attitude, essentially ignoring international diplomacy, would also contribute to the same.

Again, experts are handling it.

But are they? Are they really? — boethius

This really just seems like more evidence that you are conceited about your own abilities, and that your incessant distortion and outright lies merely serve to protect your ego.

So, if you want to live in the real world — boethius

If one wants to live in the real world, the last thing they should do is believe anything you write.

However, now Ukraine seems to be essentially a police state, political parties banned, critical media banned, lot's of disappearing and murdering by the police state. — boethius

More lies piled on.

Really, you expect anyone to believe that you care one whit about peace, or lives?

I guess I could reject the framing of occupier and occupied and instead take the position that really Gaza has been given considerable autonomy as well as outside help, and it really should have been on Gazans to use these opportunities.

Yet this would seem to change little about my assessment that the position of the Israeli government seems destructive and unlikely to lead to any kind of peace apart from peace by displacement.

I can also adopt the position that Hamas has no claim to any legitimate resistance and is nothing more than a brutal crime syndicate. But this would not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that ordinary Gazans are particularly likely to actively fight them to achieve peace with Israel.

I do actually reject the position that morality can be reduced to some kind of oppression Olympics where the victim is right and the oppressor is wrong.

But from a purely practical perspective, wealth and security seem to be the most likely avenues out of the kind of extremism rife among Palestinians. I have always held to the position that the best advertisement for "western values" is to demonstrate that they work to your benefit.

It’s so imbalanced in this forum these aspects of Palestinian responsibility have to be discussed and not seen only on one dimension of “occupied/occupier”. If you went to a forum that had completely the other side, you may feel the same… — schopenhauer1

I guess noone here expects that the Palestinians have much capacity to change, given their situation. Though one might also argue that this attitude is dehumanising in a way.

It seems much easier to ask Israel to create the conditions that would allow the Palestinians to emancipate themselves from radical islamism.

Now, the Nazis in Ukraine are also a legitimate security threat — boethius

No they are not, unless you mean in the sense that any armed Ukrainian is a threat to russian interests in Ukraine.

These are facts. A just war theory would need to navigate these facts and demonstrate that the separatists deserved to be attacked and shell (Ukraine's war on the separatists had just cause) — boethius

Not really, since that is merely a civil war and thus an internal affair.

as well as the Nazis are a threat but not "enough" of a threat for Russia to justify preemptive war. — boethius

There is no justifiable "preemptive war" under international law. But, if there was some moral case for it, we would need to identify either an existential threat to Russia as a state or some grave threat to russian citizen. Like weapons of mass destruction being held in preparation for their use on russian cities.

This is not the case, and so there is not remotely any justification for a "preemptive war".

If Ukrainian Nazis are murdering and intimidating for political purposes in Ukraine, that wouldn't worry you? — boethius

What worries me personally is immaterial.

You'd have to be a moron to not have any fear of reprisal if you make peace and radical Nazi groups and affiliates disapprove of that, going so far as to murder a negotiator (negotiating on your behalf, you trust enough to send to talk to the Russians) to make the point. You'd have to be a moron to take at face value the reason for the murder was the negotiator was a traitor without evidence.

Now, if you really think Zelensky is that much of a clueless moron, feel free to state it clearly. Even I give Zelensky more credit. — boethius

This is just baseless speculation on Zekensky's motives.

If people can murder their political opponents as well as agents of the state without consequence that will influence things. — boethius

So you cannot actually provide any specific example.

Once you achieve enough military power that the state no longer applies to law to you (law enforcement are either on your side or too afraid to do anything), you are one step away from taking power. — boethius

But that is not the case.

Again, read the articles. If you just ignore the evidence presented that Ukraine Nazis are unaccountable and act with impunity, or then believe people with that kind of power can't affect people's decisions — boethius

Speculative generalities are not a replacement for an argument.

This is a paraphrase of the Nazi apologist position, here and elsewhere. If it's not quite exact, then feel free to interpret as Russia has the same Nazi problem as Ukraine. The main point in pushing the symmetry even to the extreme, is how would it matter? — boethius

It would matter if someone were to argue that Russia is worried about Nazi ideology in Ukraine and felt compelled to start a preemptive war to stop them. Because that would be a rather absurd thing to do if russian Nazis then simply replaced the Ukrainian ones.

How does Russian Naziism, assuming it's as rampant as Ukrainian, justify supporting Ukrainian Nazis? — boethius

Strawman.

My position is Zelensky is not a Nazi but that Nazis at this point basically control everything that matters in Ukraine, such as the police state. So it's a slight distance away from a Nazi coup. — boethius

Yeah and that is utter bullshit. So obviously untrue that it can only be called a bold faced lie.

Because we're not talking in some timeless vacuum of eternal abstract concepts.

In 2022, before the war, there were strong Nazi battalions that could act with impunity and unaccountability already, but they were small compared to the electorate and the regular Ukrainian army, so they did not have the power to stage a coup.

From 2014 to 2022 the Nazis main affect on history is keeping the war in the Donbas going, shelling civilians and being generally provocative, and frustrating any peace process. I would categorize them as a danger to Ukrainian democracy and clearly an obstacle to peace.

But they did not have the power before the war to just stage a violent coup.

Now, since the war, they grow exceptionally more powerful within the Ukrainian state but, more importantly, Ukrainian regulars are being destroyed.

If the process continues, at some point (which could exist even now) there would be no way for the Ukrainian state to resist a violent coup. — boethius

This just goes from hyperbole in the first paragraph into absolute fantasy immediately.

A slippery slope fallacy requires an end-point that is either absurd or the proposer of the alleged fallacy anyways rejects. — boethius

That is false. It's a slippery slope fallacy if it doesn't explain the intervening steps.

It is an important factor to consider. — boethius

But not in a manner that merely uses the facts of the matter as a stepping stone into a wild flurry of fantasy and speculation.

For example, if Nazis now have enough military and police power to simply take over the state, then they could leverage that to keep the war going to essentially extort the West. Obviously an actual Nazi coup in Ukraine would be a PR disaster for all the politicians and officials who have championed the war, so hardliners in Ukraine can hold that over NATO and to keep the money and the arms flowing.

Which would be my guess that they'd use their power for (and even if it's not clear they could take over, the threat needs to be considered) at this stage in the war.

As I say, it's a problem. Nazis aren't the only actor in Ukraine and in the conflict, but they are a significant force with their own agenda and have means to try to bring it about. — boethius

Yeah no. Obvious propaganda.

Point is, that there is an actual Nazi problem in Ukraine makes the propaganda work of motivating Russians to support the war far easier, even if you personally believe, and is critical to understanding the war and critical to take into account in understanding Western policy.

For example, if you're the US and actually want a war between Russia and Ukraine you would do nothing to stop the arming, funding and training of Nazis in Ukraine, and if your own country passes a law to make that illegal you just ignore that. — boethius

You're making an unwarranted leap here from arguing that Ukraine's Nazi problem is beneficial to Russian propaganda efforts to concluding that it was actually a reason for the russian government to invade.

partial control over as well as free rein to terrorize to affect political decisions and processes, is worrisome. — boethius

What does it mean that it is "worrisome"? What exactly is the worry?

another reason is certainly fear of reprisal from the Nazis — boethius

Certainly? No. You have no grounds to conclude that.

Second, Nazis are able to influence the political process with violence instead of electoral success. — boethius

As far as I can see, you have not provided a single example of them actually influencing a political process with violence.

Third, the Nazis are powerful enough in Ukraine that they can commit clear acts of terrorism and face no consequences. They may not totally control the state, but they act with "impunity", so one step away of taking control of the state. — boethius

No, it is not one step away from controlling the state. This is ridiculous nonsense.

Since we know Ukrainian politics is affected by various Nazi projects through the threat of violence, we have to consider the possibility different more legitimate political actors are influenced by violent extortion. — boethius

And we're in the realm of just baselessly spinning your narrative where you want it.

and polls are not only manipulative as we've seen but people can be intimidated to give one answer over another, — boethius

And some more fantasy piled on top. You just can't help but venture forth into the ridiculous, apparently.

make the case that Russia is basically a Nazi regime too!! — boethius

An interesting slip, given you just claimed that you're not arguing that Ukraine is a nazi regime.

just that saying the whole regime in Kiev is Nazi is a ever so slight exaggeration Russian propaganda has made. — boethius

This consistent effort to lie, manipulate and distort is really tiresome. You claim one thing, then a few paragraphs later you're already backtracking, as if you're somehow unable to go through even one post without dialing up your claims again.

Case in point:

If there's a literal Nazi coup, which is not out of the cards — boethius

So we went from "there's a Nazi problem in Ukraine that strengthens russian propaganda" to "Ukraine is only one step away from a Nazi regime and a Nazi regime might actually pop up at any time".

Needless to say that the latter claim barely even qualifies as a slippery slope fallacy.

Which is why I stated specifically we should go easy on this group during the first year. Give them a year to get their shit together. If they don't, then that's their responsibility and not mine. — Tzeentch

No one gave a fuck about healthy people who did not want to take vaccines - at no point during the hysteria were their concerns taken seriously, so I don't buy any allusions to community.

It was 'us vs. them', and healthy people were on the receiving end of it. — Tzeentch

But you seem to be simply perpetuating the "us vs them". You're merely placing yourself at the other side of the debate, not asking why it's that way in the first place.

There was no community. — Tzeentch

There is a real world community though, and it is inescapable.

Yes. Vaccines are there for people who feel unsafe to protect them. This is how vaccines have always functioned. It's a personal choice. — Tzeentch

Is it? I think vaccines have usually been considered a weapon against disease more generally. In the best case, a means to wipe out dangerous diseases completely.

The vaccines weren't designed to stop the spread. That story used to be perpetuated by politicians who tried to guilt trip their citizens into taking a vaccine that they didn't trust. — Tzeentch

They were designed to create antibodies. Not sure at what point it could have been predicted that this would not confer sterile immunity.

No, of course not. Normal, healthy people didn't have anything to fear from covid. — Tzeentch

Unfortunately for some people, they found out too late that they weren't in fact healthy.

But this cuts to the heart of the issue: that this is somehow a conflict between the "healthy" and the "unhealthy" rather than a communal problem requiring a communal solution.

The decision to take a vaccine is bound to a human right of bodily autonomy.

To me, that means something. If that means nothing to you, then I have nothing to say to you. — Tzeentch

Sure. But does that mean we can ignore whether someone is vaccinated (not just against COVID)?

Also, the idea that not taking the vaccine somehow turned one into a health hazard is completely made up. — Tzeentch

Well as I indicated I think the framing was bad. It seemed to be the framing that came naturally to everyone though. It was about the individually good people vs the individually bad people. Very similar to how the US gun control debate ended up. Encouraging people to look at themselves as the expression of some basic virtue rather than as part of a greater whole.

Ill-equipped in the sense that it allowed mass hysteria to take hold for several years. — Tzeentch

Well, once we collectively write off one side or the other as "hysterical", we made sure that further communication is impossible.

It's simply obvious fact that the Nazi groups that rose to positions of power and prominence — boethius

What Nazi groups rose to positions of power and prominence?

Because it's only the Nazis willing to shell civilians and keep the conflict going in the Donbas come what may! — boethius

Huh? So were the LNR and DNR troops shelling civilians on the Ukrainian side also Nazis?