Yes, I did. If Angst's post fails to hold your attention, please do simply explain how that's me "telling porkies" when there are people who have said this. Argued for this.
Oppressive empires - a false argument of liberals?
- Thread starter innonimatu
- Start date
not on CFC then ?
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
budging in again. personally i don't recall seeing it on cfc. but my brain kind of bleaches itself every time i visit the ukraine thread.
news and people i talk to irl? yea, seen/heard it.
We all literally had a discussion about the potential "decolonisation" of Ukraine! My dude what is this group memory loss. What do you all think "decolonisation" meant in-context?!
Verbose
Deity
Being allowed a future not directly tied to Russia's. Having the room to manouvre to choose a different one from the one Moscow selects. That's about the size of the ask here.We all literally had a discussion about the potential "decolonisation" of Ukraine! My dude what is this group memory loss. What do you all think "decolonisation" meant in-context?!
That wasn't it
But hey, litigating in circles at this point. We all agree that it'd be pretty monumentally stupid for a country to invade Russia, despite the fact that folks outside of Ukraine still do call for it from time to time.
Pretty off base about empires at this point too, unless people want to do the whole "Russia is one because of historic land it owns but no other country qualifies nomatter what foreign land they hold" again. I don't.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,219
ugh , people winning the thread by things that must not have happened or something . If people do not want narratives that doesn't fit in with the given narrative , such discussions should not be allowed to happen . Instead of claiming moderator stuff whenever it comes up .
Verbose
Deity
Maybe not, but in Ukraine's situation that is what matters. Decolonization in practical terms means the possibility of choosing a future different from Russia's. It is to a large extent what the war specifically on Ukraine by Russia is about.That wasn't it
But hey, litigating in circles at this point. We all agree that it'd be pretty monumentally stupid for a country to invade Russia, despite the fact that folks outside of Ukraine still do call for it from time to time.
Pretty off base about empires at this point too, unless people want to do the whole "Russia is one because of historic land it owns but no other country qualifies nomatter what foreign land they hold" again. I don't.
Maybe that's how you intend it here. That wasn't how it was being used when people were discussing actual Russian territory taken by Russia in the early modern period.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,668
We all literally had a discussion about the potential "decolonisation" of Ukraine! My dude what is this group memory loss. What do you all think "decolonisation" meant in-context?!
Not an invasion of Russia, how would that be possible ? Looking back the thread I've seen BJ's post about Russia possibly breaking up as a result of a defeat in Ukraine, but if there are, I've missed those about invading Russia to cause that.
Russia breaking up of its own accord isn't "decolonisation". It's not an incidental word. The word was chosen, and the word was used (and defended in the context of historical lands own by an imperial power, while ignoring every other country that benefitted from the same). It wasn't BJ's post. It was this post, slightly later on. You then got involved in subsequent replies because everyone fell over themselves trying to make out why it was okay for this to happen to Russia, but no other country.
At the very least, here's a decent place to have that kind of discussion I guess. Better than in the Russia thread.
"liar"
It's not a you thing, but this is pretty damned funny, here.
Last edited:
There's someone suggesting it would be a good idea to begin NATO bombing campaigns over Russia's cities every other page in that thread, so what's the point in clutching pearls about it here? Anybody can go read it and see the thread is full of war porn and people howling for war.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,668
I don't know if it's howling, but after living with the familial and communal aftermath of the USA's big imperial misadventure in SE Asia inflicted with Russian weapons, there might be a distinct personal lack of clutching of pearls over giving Ukrainians weapons over the current imperial adventure in Europe.
I only made a direct comment on a post by red_elk about the US stalling for the financial aid, but yes, I did take part of a discussion in another thread in which I was cross-quoted.
I don't really get the comparaison, unless we're talking of the previous century Empires, for which it was "okay" for decolonization to happen. IMO the problem with Russia today is not to debate if it's an Empire or a Nation, but how it acts, and how to prevent it to create a new era of military colonization in the world.
And that's a false equivalence for 500, Alex.
(giving Ukrainians weapons isn't the same as saying "let's go bomb some built-up areas")
That's what people were trying to apply to Russia. The whole previous centuries thing. To me it was a (bloodthirsty) dead-end, because a) what Russia is doing is bad already, no further context required, and b) emboldening nationalists (feel free to qualify with "extreme" if you wish) is how messes like this start in the first place.
So long as nobody here thinks literally invading Russia or taking the fight to their civilians is a sensible thing that will yield positive results, that's fine by me. Though if that was the case I'm not sure what help arguing about it would be
Zardnaar
Deity
IIm anti Russian expansion but draw the line at wanting it to break up. Wouldn't cry to hard if some regions did attempt to leave its not a Zard thing.
I want them to get out of Ukraine and use that abundant natural resources to make Russia great.
It's not impossible they win though so there's that to consider.
I want them to get out of Ukraine and use that abundant natural resources to make Russia great.
It's not impossible they win though so there's that to consider.
You're the one who had a go. My PMs are always open, but I suspect this particular one is well past any reasonable meaning of interpretation.
But hey, several other folks have attempted to explain the "obtuse" angle before now and failed, so I'm not exactly going to get further, regardless of any lack of care from both of us here
