OneTimesOneIsTwo
No bio...
User ID: 3072
OneTimesOneIsTwo
1mo ago
I think that if Russia takes Ukraine, the entire country will look like the Bucha massacre
I think you’d be a propagandist if you think because it’s corrupt it deserves Bucha
There's the whole disagreement right there. You cannot justifiably assume that other people share the former assertion, and if they don't share that assertion, then talking about corruption makes sense. After all, if it's a normal (meaning non-genocidal) war, then asking where the money is going makes sense.
If I told you that I think Russian victory leads to Bucha 3000, and that I were more worried about corruption, you could fairly assume that I don't give a shit about Ukrainians. However, I have never seen anyone imply that set of beliefs.
I don't think it's fair to treat all discussions of Ukrainian corruption as Russian propaganda. It would be like me claiming that the statement "Russian victory = megaBucha" is invariably Ukrainian/Western propaganda. The symmetry between that position on yours might be worth meditating on.
The hardest symmetry is that if you want people to seriously consider whether they've been hit by Russian propaganda, you need to seriously consider if you've been hit by Ukrainian propaganda, and you have to be real about it.
Cards on the table, I have no idea what's true.
Lunch break's over so I'm hitting "comment."
OneTimesOneIsTwo
1mo ago
Thanks for responding.
What makes any mention of Ukrainian corruption automatically propaganda? Is it the conspicuous worrying about dollars and cents when flesh and blood should be the focus?
If I said "We must support Ukraine against Russian aggression. After (and only after) we secure Ukraine's future against external enemies, we should help them root out internal corruption," would you assume me to be a propagandist?
What if I were a Ukrainian refugee, or an active soldier posting from the warzone? (I'm not. I'm a thoughtful loser with too many questions.)
If I had to guess, and apologies if I get it too wrong: You think that securing Ukraine from external threats must be completed before we even think about petty little things like corruption. Obviously every nation has nonzero corruption, but you'd be a ghoul to worry about it when people are dying. It's like checking a restaurant's accounting while the place burns down.
Again, that's only what I think you think. I do not claim to be correct about what you think. I only type it so that you can tell me how wrong I am.
And finally: Do you think I'm a Russian propagandist? Feel free to give a flat yes/no or give a percentage.
OneTimesOneIsTwo
1mo ago
You've commented this (or something similar) multiple times without any concrete examples. Obviously "Russia is a good traditional Christian country trying to restore her rightful borders and we should support them against Nazi Ukraine" is maximum propaganda, but what does an edge case look like?
Is simply talking about Ukrainian corruption enough to be propaganda? How about bringing up the suspended elections without the context of past suspensions under total war?
OneTimesOneIsTwo
6mo ago
Captain America is done. He got his happy ending. If they want to replace him, it has to be a different character.
Who should have been newCap? Well, who was his closest analogue, sidekick, or friend? I can only think of Falcon and Winter Soldier, and Falcon isn't a formerly mind-controlled mass murderer. Although, Winter Soldier got the super steroids and Falcon didn't, ... whatever
It's fully possible that wokies said "who's the nearest non-pale stale male" and saw Falcon, and it just happened to end the same as my line of reasoning.
OneTimesOneIsTwo
6mo ago
I believe it's Chesa Boudin.
OneTimesOneIsTwo
7mo ago
Deep Rock Galactic might be up your alley. It's a 4 player class-based PvE game (horde shooter?) where you play as a dwarf and you kill bugs and mine minerals on The Most Dangerous Planet In The Galaxy.
It's mission based. Missions have a primary objective that must be completed, no timer. They take roughly 20-40 minutes on average, but difficulty level and teammates and the specific mission push it lower or higher.
Man all this sounds dry as hell. The game is fun. Shooting bugs, working with your team, navigating the caves. The caves are procedurally generated, which works well due to each class' traversal tool. The driller can drill through anything at walking speed, the gunner can place ziplines, the engineer can place platforms, and all of these synergize and help the team. A mineral deposit high on a sheer wall is no issue, even with randoms, because of the pinging system.
It might have the best pinging system in any game. You hold a button to pull up your laser pointer. It has a little screen that tells you what you're looking at (mineral type, generic Common Rock, name of the bug chasing you, etc.). Press another button and you ping what you're looking at. Other dwarves can see both the ping (through walls) and the laser pointer. It's brilliant, and I think it's a big piece of why the game works so well even when you play with randoms.
"Free speech liberals" believe that no viewpoint should be banned. Like all pure ideologies, nobody has it, and in real life there are edge cases, but that's the idea.
Freedom liberals would agree: It is ridiculous that gays cannot advocate for themselves. Some of your bullet points are standard modern liberal rights like that.
Some of your bullet points are special treatment, justified or not. I know the argument for affirmative action: [group] has been treated badly and denied opportunities, so [group members] should be preferentially considered for jobs, housing, schooling, etc. This is also the argument for the "hate crime" construct.
Unfortunately, at no point can you objectively say "[group] is equal now, no more affirmative action." In fact, it is in the best interest of [group] that they enjoy success, but are perceived to be oppressed.
And even putting all that aside: if I am punished more harshly for harming John than for harming Jack, if John is more likely to be considered for economic activities, if John is seen as inherently good because of an intrinsic property he didn't choose, such as race, sexuality, parentage...
John is a noble, and Jack is not.
More options
Context Copy link