openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
Looking at jankforlife’s posts: sharing Russia Today links
You should be happy someone is seriously taking the plurality of views you libs are supposed to like and introduce you to point of views that are outright banned in most of west.
Your right: I support search engine deindexing of FoxNews
When I see a user post multiple articles from right wing Russian state news propaganda, my initial thought is not: what lovely well rounded freepress individual
“Free press”
Where the bourgeois are “free” to distort the truth to their liking.
Exactly like the Russian oligarchs are doing right now, just like every other countries oligarch controlled media. Bloomberg: USA, Rupert Murdoch: UK AU, Van Thillo (DPG Media): BE NL
Exactly, there is no “free press”. But reading articles critically can reveal lots of interesting information that would be hard to find otherwise.
Surely not? How dare they share a heinous state-affiliated media?? Dont they know its untrustworthy? Unlike our clearly unbiased BBCCNNMSNBCCCTVCSPANREUTERSAPNEWS? Dont they know the very unbiased mediafactchecktruthorg has rated RT news 5 whole pinnocios? Now let me return to reading the Kyiv Post.
Did I read the article they shared? No, like a clever citizen I saw it was RT, so I shut my eyes. No need to engage with the material, Snopes told me not to read it.
Nice uno reverse of the OP’s meme.
https://socialisme.nu/het-antioorlogsverzet-in-rusland/
For you Dumb Americans the English translation:
It’s unsurprising that this is from a Trotskyist website, which endlessly frames internationalism from a pro-western angle and justifies swelling NATO. How does Ukraine actually get peace without annexations? Even if Kiev pushed all the way back to the prior borders, they’d have to continue the Ukrainian Civil War against Donetsk and Luhansk that they couldn’t win after 8 years of fighting prior to Russia’s involvement. The Donbass doesn’t want to be a part of Ukraine anymore, so this is just an erasure of the right of nations to self-determination.
You americans can only see black and white can’t you? This is about to systematic squashing of any form of anti war opposition of Russian civilians. And to be solidar to those inside while not capitulating to the same form of imperialism Israel is using by setters.
Again, Trotskyists love absolving themselves of any responsibility to oppose NATO internally, pushing it onto Russians, caping for western imperialism, and erasing the sovereignty of the Donbass region. Also silly to bring in Israel when Zelensky said he wants Ukraine to be the “Israel of Europe.”
You americans can only see black and white can’t you.
Addition: It is in bad faith to assume that my critic for the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine is an endorsement of Zelenskyy‘s purchase of Israeli weapons.
You know most of us aren’t Americans, right?
I have a hunch that jankforlife and cowbee are.
Do you have an actual counter to what I said? And no, none of it was bad-faith.
Your record is stuck
Ah, you Americans just don’t have the nuance to understand that Russia is the baddies and Ukraine is the goodies!
What do you mean? I just told you I would never be so silly as to even read something written by state affiliated media. I was told by BBC to look up anything I read on truthbiaschecker.america first, and that site rated RT 8 pants on fire! So I would never read it, I stick to trustworthy media such as AP and CNN.
Likewise I would never engage with anyone whose character allows them to even look at a russian. If their hominem is so ad then I know not to think about their argument.
That’s completely wrong and ahistorical. The “defeatist” position in WWI was the position that completely rejectedthe notion that any side was fighting a “justified defensive war,” instead viewing as a conflict between imperialist powers. On that basis, defeatism called for revolutionary action against one’s own government, whichever government that is. It was an explicit rejection of “the lesser evil.”
Lenin called Trotsky out over this point very clearly and explicitly:
Theory
What on earth does maintaining the territorial integrity of a bourgeois state have to do with international solidarity?
It’s a good thing I’m not a Leninist or I would feel pretty silly now. Nevertheless time has moved on and other strategies of Socialism have continued in different directions each European country and its cultural influence. Some recognising that ignorance or defence of autocratic actions don’t slide after talking about power to the people.
The source you linked explicitly chose to bring up the defeatist slogan in the context of WWI, and then described it as something entirely different than what it was. Maybe you should link a source you’re actually willing to stand by.
Do “autocratic actions” include things like banning political parties you disagree with and drafting people en masse? You are defending autocratic actions and trying to get it to slide by talking about “power to the people.”
Drafting your population when you have a foreign adversary dropping bombs on you is the right thing to do. It is known as self defence. I know I’ll get some hate for this from most people but yeah. As a Dutch man my country’s history contains the defeatism to the fucking Nazis.
Do you have a publisher that you 100% stand by? Come on.
Bad faith news sources like RT, FoxNews, OngehoordNederland. Should not have the same rights sorry, similar to blocking bad faith politicians from being elected, see the ongoing case for removing AfD.
So I’m germany, I invade your country, kill your gov, put myself in charge, and then start drafting the population because I’m at war with france.
According to you, that draft would be justified…
Obviously not come on be real. Please read what I wrote.
“Self”-defense? The state is not yourself, nor is it a person. Defending the state is defending the power, structure, and organization that exists in the country. Which is only a worthwhile endeavor if there is a significant difference for the average person between the two sides.
If a state is actually good, if it actually improves the quality of life of its people, then sure, it’s worth defending. Conversely, if a state is genuinely exterminationist, like the Nazis, then even a flawed, bourgeois state can be worth defending. But every major conflict since WWII, from Vietnam to Iraq, has had people trying to justify it by comparing the other side to Hitler and the Nazis, generally those comparisons are frivolous.
Ukraine and Russia are both capitalist states. What tangible difference will there be if one side winds up governing the disputed territory instead of the other? It’s just a question of what color flag they look at while they get exploited. Is that worth sending people at gunpoint into a meat grinder? Is it a leftist, progressive position to say that it is?
Than there is no reason to be against american imperialism as long as the countries are already capitalist which is pretty much all of them.
People justifying anything with whatever argument doesn’t make it true?
That is why I’m only defending the concept on the requirement that it is to defend your country not attack another.
The Japanese or Dutch self defence forces are different to the US or Russian invasion troops.
You ever shared a BBC or CNN link?
Thanks for asking: No, I don’t live in the usa, neither have I from other state media like RT or NOS.nl nor capitalist right wing media like NU.nl or OngehoordNederland
If I would I’d try to use additional references from other sources to reform the intended viewpoint
Fair enough.