@Tintin's banner p

Tintin


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2025 February 15 14:38:09 UTC

				

User ID: 3536

Tintin


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2025 February 15 14:38:09 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3536

Or forget about hate speech, focus on attempts to overthrow the government. The lesson from that time may well be: in cases like the beer hall putsch and january 6, hand out death sentences like candy. ok for Jan 6, they looked like a collection of village idiots, they may be spared under low IQ threshold rules, but a man of sound mind, attempting to grab supreme executive power? That‘s do or die for the state, and therefore, death for the man.

I despise hate speech laws, but an argument can be made that a few hundred dollar fines and maybe 3 weeks in prison for 30 counts of hate speech over 10 years, is too mild. What would Stalin have thought of this "crackdown"? Where are the cracked heads? Starting with Hitler, of course. The man was an awoved enemy of the state, had caused deaths in trying to overturn it, and he was let go with a slap on the wrist because he had 'noble intentions'.

I'm not aware of any crackdown on right-wing extremism in 1930s germany. There was Hitler's Beer Hall putsch in 1923, but he got off easy, one year in prison for an attempted coup with loss of life.

I remind you that shortly before the war, 55% of Germans still were for operating NS2 "despite the ongoing conflict with Russia".

Conflicts. That‘s like saying: before pearl harbor, the american public‘s view of japan wasn‘t all that negative. Then the propaganda came along, and ruined that beautiful friendship.

Earlier, you admitted that the neighbours of russia are correct to fear it. So 200 km from the russian border, around the Oder, that justified true belief magically turns into US-implanted false consciousness. And then, if you go further, past the channel and the atlantic, russia‘s threats, largely nuclear, become real once again. But we in the middle have nothing to fear. We‘re sitting in a bubble of peaceful russian intentions, sadly filled by american propaganda.

you will still think that Germany should stay neutral and mind its own economic interests?

I hope this is a rhetorical question. Yes, obviously, I think I can tell the difference between truth and falsehood. I assume the same of you.

I don't think I've seen much of that messaging at all, and to begin with, was this before or after their people were being killed with military hardware that we donated?

This is nothing. Under realist/19th century rules, we should be at war the moment russia sent troops against our vassal‘s government. And threatening us with nukes for that would still be beyond the pale.

What trespasses were there against Germany?

Constantly using war and war threats as your main foreign policy tool, especially on peripheral countries who want to join our sphere/EU, and against our allies, like the baltics. Threatening to nuke us, them, and the world.


So you support an amoral russian regime and the oppression of russia‘s neighbours as a counterweight to the seemingly greater evil of american hegemony?

That‘s a convoluted and dangerous gambit. Can you refresh my memory, which ones are your preferred victims, proving america‘s evil? The palestinians, I think you appreciate particularly. Chomsky had a problem with the US bombing the serbs and pol pot. Do you have a number in mind, like 10 million murdered by uncle sam, therefore a few hundred thousands ukrainians are small fries?

To begin with, are you suggesting that coups are not "violence"?

They're certainly far less violent than what's going on. I'm also judging some decisions made later than crimea. There is a moment after the grab-zelensky attack on kiev failed, where russians could have gone home. Instead putin decided to fight a real war, with the blood cost this implies. Here was a moral decision of far greater consequence than to coup or not to coup.

Another thing: You claim to be able to explain russia‘s policy because you know how the country ‚ticks‘; Does this mean that the man on the street, or whoever you hear tick, is in charge? Or would have acted the same as putin? When you imply the honest muzhik would never attack germany, did he attack ukraine, or was it someone else‘s idea?

You're affable. You're in sales, you have mild doubts about modern society and the enlightenment. Personal motto: aww, schucks.

Rest assured I will argue for the same position when/if China vs. Taiwan kicks off

Yeah, but any idiot would; the analogous China argument is incomparably stronger; china being a superpower, far more peaceful, and on the other side of the world. I find american discourse on china shrill and out of proportion to chinese aggression. If our american friends look to be engaged in an ego driven „War for Number One“, Europe should obviously do a 180 and moonwalk out of the ring.

"scary unknowns may be capable of anything"

Where is the unknown? They keep threatening our cities with nukes. The idea that we could resume cordial relations after this is delusional.

Germany ignored its friends‘ advice and gave russia a chance to be peaceful and rich, forgave its trespasses for a long time. Now that it has all ended in tears and defection, that failed forgiveness and goodwill is to be withdrawn with prejudice, and I want russia to lose more than I want ukraine to win.

Russians always go on about their perceived slights, justifying all this madness; this is ours. Germany‘s been disrespected; put this into your prison hierarchy metaphor.

if Russia subjugated its neighbours or they at least forced them to act mindful of the possibility of it doing so, that would mean a lot of middlemen who want a cut from the natural beneficial trade partnership being robbed of their ability to demand it.

That's disgusting. Keep your blood gas.

I expected better from you, but every time I dig into a pro-russian position, there is nothing but moral nihilism.

On that matter, should the Russians have asked the same thing when the US+EU were grabbing Ukraine? Do you know the events that lead up to Euromaidan?

You know, if they‘d just counter-coup‘ed, and put yanukovich back , I would have no problem, fair game. I we had then sent in the bundeswehr to attack the yanukovich regime, that would be a slight worthy of russian outrage. Do you see how that works?

Why did they not counter-coup? Perhaps they preferred losing hundreds of thousands of men. Or they can‘t counter-coup, because they‘re unpopular. All they have left is violence and their own lack of restraint to inflict it.

Call it a personal preference. Young parents look an act like zombies. All of feminism represents people who did not like it. But some find it fulfilling, for sure. And if they can use their hobby to give more humans the gift of life, so much the better.

I‘m not sure what I‘m supposed to do with a claim of unmanlyness. If I call a man unmanly, for being a coward, for example, I‘m referring to a shared understanding of what a man should be ; accusing him, in effect, of failing to act according to his own ideals. You and I share no such understanding on the topic of parenting.

Let's assume euromaidan was an american conspiracy...and further take a 'realist' view of international relations (neither of which I agree with, for the record). Germany prefers a border country(Ukraine) to be under a far-away power(US) than a close-by power (Russia). The Far-away power won the borderland with soft-power. The bad loser responded with hard-power, violence, hundreds of thousands of deaths and counting. They lost a chess game (partly against germany, see EU-ukraine trade agreements) , pulled a gun, and mowed down the whole country. Obviously this cancels the peace.

Russian living in germany, as per his response. I would say his opinion of germany's interests wrt russia is tainted and not representative. Of course there are some pro-putin arguments in the german left, but, I don't think 4bpp would fall for them if he wasn't russian, because they're pretty stupid. It's different for the american left (eg, chomsky) , because they're far away and don't know what they're talking about, not stupid.

I understand. It's tedious to raise children, and it makes no difference anyway.

And I'm not a natalist because I want to spread my genes either.

No, it's the Gift of Life. The more, the merrier.

Correct me if I‘m wrong, but I seem to remember either you being part russian, or else you have a chomskyite view of russia as soviet union which you fondly remember as a noble altruistic project that was sadly misunderstood by the ungrateful eastern europeans who didn‘t like it.

I don‘t see how anyone else in europe can look at russia‘s behaviour these past 5 years, nay 20, nay 100, nay 300 years, and not see a threat. The unhelpful behaviour of ukraine and the baltics towards germany you highlight is motivated by one thing only : an extreme fear of russia (shared by finland, and every close neighbour of russia).

Germany, being too far away and too strong, has for now avoided russia‘s threats, but it still has eyes and ears, and it has no desire to become russia‘s neighbour and feel what those countries feel.

I don't see the Russians having done anything that could be fairly interpreted as rejecting a German offer to be Germany's gas station

I was expecting russia to stop warring against its neighbours. It‘s not some obscure demand russia inadvertently missed. Russia keeps acting against Germany‘s expressed will. No argument can be construed where those wars are in line with germany‘s interests. Even a 19th century diplomat would have threatened war in retaliation: ‚you want abkhazia/donbas. What do we get for staying neutral?‘.

The shared interest is an anti-russian alliance. Assuming americans withdraw from europe, why would western europe give up eastern europe to russia? It would be feeding the bear. Germany gave russia the chance to be a gas station, and they threw our generous offer in our face. So cold war it is. Obviously poland et al are very eager for the alliance because only we offer sovereignty. And for us, an excellent meat shield against russian aggression, should it come to that.

From an extreme minority position like Men‘s rights, which I think you and I share, I am wary of declaring anyone an enemy who has not made his position crystal clear. For example, naive, ill-informed feminists who think feminism just means equality. It‘s only after they‘ve understood the tension, the tradeoff between academic feminism and fairness for men, that they can be separated into our opponents and our allies.

The defining feature of feminism is its inability to blame women for anything, even 1% of what they blame men for. It‘s 0%, always. Husband cheats: it‘s because he‘s an asshole. Wife cheats: it‘s because he‘s an asshole. Etc. Drinker does sometimes criticize female behaviour, female characters, like the admiral holdo video. So he at least avoids the worst in female hypoagency (hyper-hypoagency?).

I don‘t think there is enough evidence to say he supports the unilateral upholding of gender roles. Despite being critical of gender roles, especially the way they are performed now, I‘m quite fond of masculinity myself, and I sometimes criticize men for their lack of courage in gendered terms. But then I also criticize women. Frankly, much more.

Why do you default to ‚admonish everyone‘ when ‚no one‚ is the much more logical choice? Moderation is more likely to hit the left-wing minority. Not because of mod bias, but because the mob will :

  • pick dozens of high hostility fights

  • report any opposing comment when the fight inevitably devolves

  • mass complain and argue against mod action against their side, and for banning the other guy

Then they both get banned, fair enough. So no more left-wingers left, but for the mob, plenty more where their guy came from.

As to the original beef, „Source?“ demands should be protected as always legitimate. „Source?“ is what keeps discussions casual and factual. Without „Source?“, we‘d have to provide sources all the time for everything.

In drinker‘s defense, he‘s a film critic, not a political analyst, and sometimes you don‘t like a character. You can think that an irritating, sniveling, weak man is responsible for his wife‘s infidelity and his family‘s downfall without making it about all men.

I‘d go further: as a film critic, you have to go along with the world presented in the film, especially if it conforms to reality: and the husband would indeed be expected to be the protector of the family. It‘s not drinker‘s role to go MRA SJW and rant against the ways of the world.

Additionally, he notes that the assertiveness the husband lacks has been ‚bred out‘ of men – imo he is more highlighting the contradictory demands society places on men, than blaming them for their failure to fulfill them.