I would understand if they were communists, because capitalists would want to stop the spread of the “disease” or they would lose all power. But as far as I know since the fall of the Soviet Union they are like everyone else. So why are they still the bad guys in every western movie? Why are they vilified by mainstream media?

@ktulu_333@lemmy.ml
link
fedilink
21
edit-2
2M

Speaking for myself it’s all the mob-like defenestrating, mysterious murders, poor treatment of gay people, and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine but that’s just my own personal disagreement with those things

Edit: also I don’t like Putin staying in power forever, flippantly threatening the world with nukes and WW3. Long story short they have quite a PR problem

Looks like Western propaganda has been effective!

Did Russia invade Ukraine or is that propaganda?

Dan
link
fedilink
62M

Tankies think it’s fine because the US has a problem with it… or because NATO exists and that justifies whatever murderous reaction Russia might engage in.

Are tankies in the room with you right now?

@Kulun@mander.xyz
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
2M

Are tankies in the room with you right now?

Glad you asked. Only internet super-hero tankies who make themselves believe they are communists.

Communism understander has logged on.

@Kulun@mander.xyz
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
2M

Communism understander has logged on.

Well spoken comrade sock-puppet!

You’ve found the image that perfectly describes every single one of your comments here.

Don’t worry, thanks to your tireless efforts, one day I’ll become a wannabe communist too posting tankie sh*t

Nah, you’ll always just be a random noise generator.

A “useful idiot” is the term the US propaganda machine uses I believe

Dan
link
fedilink
32M

just becaue you don’t like being called a tankie doesn’t mean tankies don’t exist, tankie

whatever you say my little dronie

krolden
link
fedilink
22M

They’re the voices in your head telling you to kill and kill again

@Kulun@mander.xyz
link
fedilink
9
edit-2
2M

Looks like Western propaganda has been effective!

Just ask the victims I’d say.

Ah, the war doesnt exist, its all a hoax isn’t it? Fuck you.

Dan
link
fedilink
62M

Do you have a response to the so-called “propoganda?”

unprovoked invasion of ukraine… sigh i guess raising an extreme right-wing ultra-nationalist (read: nazi) army that slaughtered thousands of Ukrainians in regions where they didn’t accept the coming nazification of the country, and who were running referendums to join Russia, and then being prepped for application to NATO is not provocation at all.

Source?

poVoq
link
fedilink
21
edit-2
2M

The “west” doesn’t hate post-soviet Russia. There are eastern European states that justifiably are afraid of them due to being colonized by them for a really long time (with the Russians in power showing no signs of remorse about that, quite the contrary) and then there are the US/UK that play their age old divide and conquer empire games.

In addition to that the current Russian Federation has developed into a mafia state that recently decided it is in their interest to invade a neighbouring country and kill a lot of innocent people, which didn’t exactly help their image.

Edit: What recent movies do you mean? I am not aware of any Russian villains in recent Marvel movies… and I think they stopped making other kinds of movies /s

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
link
fedilink
9
edit-2
2M

In addition to that the current Russian Federation has developed into a mafia state that recently decided it is in their interest to invade a neighbouring country and kill a lot of innocent people, which didn’t exactly help their image.

Trying to imagine the amount of intellectual bankruptcy required to continue peddling this narrative with a straight face. If anything, Russia followed the precedent that NATO itself set in Yugoslavia almost to the letter. Let’s stop pretending that Russia is doing some unique evil in Ukraine or that the west played no role in creating this conflict.

poVoq
link
fedilink
72M

You are putting words into my mouth and are constructing an absurd strawman. One wrong doesn’t justify another.

I’m not doing anything of the sort. The framing you’re using implies that Russia just decided to attack Ukraine out of the blue and for no reason as opposed to having spent the past eight years trying to find a diplomatic solution with the west.

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

Russia decided to attack Ukraine in 2014, they only doubled down in 2022.

The “diplomatic solution” would be to not invade Crimea and then that’s it, problem solved.

It’s incredibly dishonest to ignore all the history leading up to 2014, and NATO backed color revolution in 2014. Plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:

https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/

50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:

George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.

Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"

Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.

Why did they need to attack Ukraine though? What issue could Russia have with NATO expansion that’s enough to justify attacking Ukrainian civilians in cold blood?

Fuck you, you’re defending murder. Read that

You are too reactionary. Drink some water and go to sleep.

Reactionary… To murder? Wtf is this place

Dan
link
fedilink
42M

It’s tankies. The only principle they share is that the US is always wrong.

Imagine being over 15 years old and using the word tankie unironically. 😂

Dan
link
fedilink
32M

lolwat

precisely what I said child

Dan
link
fedilink
32M

just becaue you don’t like being called a tankie doesn’t mean tankies don’t exist, tankie

Nah, I’m just stating the fact that anybody who uses the word tankie has intellectual development of a small child. Your other comments in this thread confirm this statement.

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

That’s a pretty sad defense mechanism. “everybody who refers to me by the main word people use to refer to me is a dummy, nyahh”

Nah, anybody who states blatant falsehoods confidently exposes themselves for what they really are. Keep trying to pretend that Russia is responsible for worse crimes than US dronie.

Why do you think so, tankie?

I’ve explained in detailed my little illiterate dronie.

USA is always wrong. Add 2022 Ukraine and whatever countries from 1776 to 1899 yourself.

Dan
link
fedilink
32M

you know, you’re right, we should start off by adding exceptions to the 1st and 13th amendments for you, personally.

Elaborate on these exceptions, sweetie. I want to know what is there in store for me.

That explains a lot actually

Yeah there was lots of actual murder from 2014-2022 you missed. Then you also missed Nazis painting blood swastikas on dead Russian womens’ chests. You are a little too late to the party.

The links I provided above discuss these reasons in great detail…

I don’t see any reasons given in your links that justify murder

I literally linked an hour long lecture explaining the reasons in great detail. Let’s take a look at a few slides from the lecture. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:

here’s how the election in 2004 went:

this is the 2010 election:

As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:

Ukraine is clearly not some homogeneous blob, but a large country with complex cultural and ethnic situations.

Finally, let’s just look at a few facts about Crimea from a US government study. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:

You might have to dumb down the murder justification a bit more for me

Weird how you don’t care about all the murder that Ukraine was doing in Donbas for eight years. Just such a sad attempt at trolling here.

Says the troll

I see you’ve made a self referential comment.

Dan
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
2M

It’s incredibly dishonest to pretend that NATO expansion justifies the invasion of a country that isn’t a part of NATO, wasn’t planning on joining NATO, and did nothing else to provoke Russia.

The US probably shouldn’t have expanded NATO as hard as it did. None of this justifies the invasion.

What’s dishonest is claiming that Russia had to simply accept a hostile military alliance that’s been invading countries for decades expanding to its borders. It’s also a flat out lie to claim that Ukraine was not planning to join NATO. Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky, repeatedly expressed desire to join NATO.

Furthermore, Russia literally followed the precedent that NATO itself established in Yugoslavia to the letter. NATO recognized separatist regions then had them invite NATO troops as a pretext for the invasion. Russia used exactly the same justification and the international precedent that NATO created.

Dan
link
fedilink
32M

NATO wasn’t hostile towards Russia, though.

And invading Ukraine didn’t really help with that.

And Russia invaded Ukraine before Zelenskky took office.

And support for joining NATO was extremely low before 2014, and still rather low before the current invasion. Russia kept turning Ukraine against itself. And the rest of Europe. They’ve successfully scared a lot more countries into joining NATO. At the very best, this war has proven incredibly stupid for Russia.

Furthermore, Russia literally followed the precedent that NATO itself established in Yugoslavia to the letter. NATO recognized separatist regions then had them invite NATO troops as a pretext for the invasion. Russia used exactly the same justification and the international precedent that NATO created.

Yugoslavia was engaged in full-on civil war. Ukraine was not. That’s one huge difference.

NATO wasn’t hostile towards Russia, though.

Hostility towards Russia is literally the reason NATO exists.

And invading Ukraine didn’t really help with that.

Seems like it did given that NATO is becoming demilitarized while the economies of NATO members are starting to unravel leading to domestic unrest across the western world.

Russia kept turning Ukraine against itself.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Ukraine was a neutral country that had good relations with both Europe and Russia prior to US running a color revolution there that overthrew the elected government. You continue to out yourself as an utter ignoramus.

Yugoslavia was engaged in full-on civil war. Ukraine was not. That’s one huge difference.

Yes it was ignoramus. Go read up on what led to Minsk agreements. Eastern Ukraine rebelled against the regime the west installed in 2014 and there was a civil war ever since.

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

Hostility towards Russia is literally the reason NATO exists.

NATO is a defensive alliance that only exists to discourage

Seems like it did given that NATO is becoming demilitarized while the economies of NATO members are starting to unravel leading to domestic unrest across the western world.

Good thing the Russian economy is doing great and its military hasn’t sufferend major losses at all.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Ukraine was a neutral country that had good relations with both Europe and Russia prior to US running a color revolution there that overthrew the elected government. You continue to out yourself as an utter ignoramus.

The US engaged in mild political shenanigans in Ukraine. That was wrong. So did Russia. The difference is that Ukranians were more upset with the whole “they’re actively murdering us” thing, both times it happened. and then, upset that it didn’t work the first time, Russia decided, “maybe more murder will help!”

Yes it was ignoramus. Go read up on what led to Minsk agreements. Eastern Ukraine rebelled against the regime the west installed in 2014 and there was a civil war ever since.

Yugoslavia was engaged in a civil war before NATO joined in. Before. Ukraine’s “civil war” was a war war, where also a few Ukranians joined Russia in the war.

NATO is a defensive alliance that only exists to discourage

NATO has invaded multiple countries such as Yugoslavia, Libya, and Afghanistan. It’s very clearly an aggressive alliance. If you’re gonna lie, at least lie about something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds.

Good thing the Russian economy is doing great and its military hasn’t sufferend major losses at all.

Why don’t see what The Economist has to say about that, must be shilling for Putin 😂 https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/10/11/as-europe-falls-into-recession-russia-climbs-out

The US engaged in mild political shenanigans in Ukraine.

Ah yes, mild political shenanigans like overthrowing a legitimate government and putting right wing extremists in power.

The difference is that Ukranians were more upset with the whole “they’re actively murdering us” thing, both times it happened. and then, upset that it didn’t work the first time, Russia decided, “maybe more murder will help!”

Ukraine was in a civil war between the east and the west since the coup ignoramus.

Yugoslavia was engaged in a civil war before NATO joined in. Before. Ukraine’s “civil war” was a war war, where also a few Ukranians joined Russia in the war.

Ukraine was engaged in a civil war before Russia joined in. Before. Russia did not join any war until this year. I love how you just keep doubling down when shown to be a liar and an ignoramus. Keep digging dronie.

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

Ah yes, mild political shenanigans like overthrowing a legitimate government and putting right wing extremists in power.

“overthrowing” through political influence is different from “overthrowing” with tanks and missilees. And “we don’t like being invaded by Russia regularly” is not right-wing extremism.

Ukraine was in a civil war between the east and the west since the coup ignoramus.

Ukraine was engaged in a civil war before Russia joined in. Before. Russia did not join any war until this year. I love how you just keep doubling down when shown to be a liar and an ignoramus. Keep digging dronie.

I love how “ignoramus” is like the only insult you know. And I like how you just decided to pretend Russia wasn’t involved in the Donbas war and annexing Crimea wasn’t an act of war.

“overthrowing” through political influence is different from “overthrowing” with tanks and missilees. And “we don’t like being invaded by Russia regularly” is not right-wing extremism.

Yes, we’re talking about literal overthrowing by funding actual fascists, and having violent mobs overthrow the government. This is pretty well documented

I love how “ignoramus” is like the only insult you know. And I like how you just decided to pretend Russia wasn’t involved in the Donbas war and annexing Crimea wasn’t an act of war.

Just the same way the west was involved in western Ukraine what is your point here child?

How do you think things will go with China in the future? Ally with Russia long term or short term etc?

China and Russia are quickly becoming allies out of necessity. They see each other as being back to back against the west. I expect there’s going to a be a similar relationship as with US and Canada in the long run. China has a much bigger population and industrial base while Russia has a lot of natural resources. It’s looking like China and Russia are also building an alternative economic framework to the west with BRICS, and it’s likely that much of the developing world will end up aligning with this bloc going forward.

I can think of new media that vilifies Russia. For example, The Boys.

poVoq
link
fedilink
42M

The Boys

Never heard of that. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_(TV_series) ?

The wikipedia page at least doesn’t sound like Russia is even a topic in that?

All I can think of is that in the latest season it is shown that an American super hero was captured by the Soviets in the 80s(?) and held captive (well, more like cryosleep) until today.

vxnxnt
link
fedilink
82M

Yup, and in this case the Soviets (/Russians) weren’t really portrayed as villians IMO.

The Boys isn’t much anti-Russian because (beware of Spoilers):

spoiler

The captured super hero (Soldier Boy) was actually betrayed by his own comrades and then handed over to the Soviets. IIRC, this betrayal was even coordinated by the super hero company in order to profit off of their new, lab-grown super hero.

If anything, The Boys is more anti-US than anti-Russian due to its underlying anti-Capitalist/anti-Neoliberal messages (The US being more Capitalist than Russia in this case). The show also portrays corruption, illegal business and unethical practices conducted by companies in order to maximize profits. The show is mainly a criticism of Capitalism and Neoliberalism in the US and doesn’t really show anything having much to do with Russia.

Besides that, the most vile characters in the show are actually the american super heros themselves together with the company. From committing murders to doing drugs and even human trafficking. So, I think it’s fair to say that the show isn’t specifically anti-Russian.

Here, if you look for the word ‘Russia’ it appears in 5 out of 8 episodes. They literally infiltrate a Russian facility, where the Russians appear as the antagonists, plus Russian characters act in other vile ways in the plot.

Dan
link
fedilink
42M

Good thing all the Americans in that show are so great…

But why Russia specifically? You can only demonize yourself or your enemies, and Russia is the enemy here.

Dan
link
fedilink
6
edit-2
2M

no, like, most countries get villified somewhere or another. The Iranian regime is under a lot of fire right now for obvious reasons. Everybody has some gripe or another with China (especially the Uyghurs). North Korea, Qatar, Brazil, Belarus, Mexico, both India and Pakistan, both India and Palestine, Australia when it tries to deal with the Internet… You know what, can you name a country that doesn’t get villified? I’ve even heard people spread FUD about Canada.

And almost none of those countries are doing anything right now as bad as invading Ukraine for… still basically no reason other than vague fear that they might have one day joined NATO.

This isn’t about ethics. Countries are not people, they only act in their own interest with exactly zero regard for anything else. Russia attacked Ukraine because it was the least bad option for them (Ukraine joining NATO would be very bad for them), and the US imposes sanctions because it is also the best possible move, and now they can do it without facing backlash. And that includes propaganda if necessary, on both sides.

The point I’m trying to defend is that manipulating the public’s opinion is part of the global dynamic, and everyone should be aware of, and oppose it, to get what THEY want, rather than what the large-scale political chaos imposes on them. You seem to agree on that, so that’s great, I don’t see the need for further debate.

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

This isn’t about ethics.

It is for some of us.

Countries are not people, they only act in their own interest with exactly zero regard for anything else.

and acting in that way is unethical, and therefore villainous, and therefore worthy of villification.

Are you confused about why people villify things they view as villainous?

Russia attacked Ukraine because it was the least bad option for them (Ukraine joining NATO would be very bad for them), and the US imposes sanctions because it is also the best possible move, and now they can do it without facing backlash. And that includes propaganda if necessary, on both sides.

Okay but one of these things is murder.

Also, no, Russia’s attack on Ukraine was not the best possible move, Russia’s economy is pretty fucked going forward. It might have been the best rule for Putin, idk what internal Russian politics is about.

The point I’m trying to defend is that manipulating the public’s opinion is part of the global dynamic, and everyone should be aware of, and oppose it, to get what THEY want, rather than what the large-scale political chaos imposes on them. You seem to agree on that, so that’s great, I don’t see the need for further debate.

I didn’t say “I am totally neutral on Russia” or “propaganda is good,” though. Russia is just doing really, really bad things for which it should be criticized.

I’ll clarify then. You’re assuming individual ethics apply to large groups of people, which disregards the reason why those ethics exist in the first place. They exist at the individual level as an “acceptable” set of behaviors to discourage behaviors outside it. There are two important differences between individuals and countries:

  • Individuals differ in their willingness to do harm or good, while for very large groups these differences simply disappear in every case. As I mentioned, every country acts for their own good, and if they do good it’s simply because that’s what it’s most useful to them at the moment. I.e. ethics do not offer meaningful judgements at that scale.
  • Individuals are overseen by governments, while countries are not. This means it’s impossible to reward or punish actors from outside the system, and any rules are created and enforced by the actors themselves. I.e. ethics do not offer any utility at that scale.

For these two reasons, ethics do not make sense at an international scale. I’ll illustrate with an example:

There are 5 people. 4 of them make an agreement to beat up the 5th. This person learns of the plot against them and decides to attack each of the others separately, one by one, by just waiting outside their homes.

In this case, the 5th person should have simply called the police. What they did was unacceptable, since they attacked first, thus escalating the conflict.

However, at an international scale, things change dramatically. There is no police, so there’s just country #5, presented with a choice: either do nothing and get beaten up, or attack first. Did they act right or wrong? Well, it doesn’t matter, since there’s no way to change the result. The country will always choose the second option, and, furthermore, the other 4 countries will know damn well what #5 will do. In fact, they will not plot against it unless they think they are going to win in every scenario.

Now, imagine this happens, and country #5 has already attacked country #4. Now, the remaining 3 would be able to beat up #5. But let’s say #2 and #3 decide to side with #5 and beat #1; maybe in that situation they would suffer less losses, get better profits, etc. But in this case it’s in the best interest of #1 to oppose #5, and thus to keep #2 and #3 on its side, so it decides to convince the people on those two countries to hate on #5. Now they can’t side with it, since they would face backlash, so they need to co-operate with #1.

While a purely ethical analysis only concludes that ‘#5 attacked #4’ (which doesn’t provide any useful course of action), the more useful benefit analysis affords that #1 has managed to obtain the highest benefit, by manipulating #2 and #3 and capitalizing on conflict between #4 and #5. The useful course of action would have been for #2 and #3 to side with #5.

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

You’re assuming individual ethics apply to large groups of people, which disregards the reason why those ethics exist in the first place. They exist at the individual level as an “acceptable” set of behaviors to discourage behaviors outside it. There are two important differences between individuals and countries:

Hang on, what makes you say I’m assuming? I’ve spent plenty of time studying ethics. I believe firmly that ethics apply to both organizations and the people who run those organizations.

And I don’t beleive that ethics exist for any reason at all, I think of them as fundamental reality of the universe. You might disagree, but it’s a pretty odd position to argue that ethics only exit to discourage particular behaviors. Maybe you’re thinking of laws, are you thinking of laws? Whatever, let’s go with your weird take anyway.

Individuals differ in their willingness to do harm or good, while for very large groups these differences simply disappear in every case.

… so we should stop discouraging groups of people to do harm? We should just tell large groups of people they can do all the harm they want, no sweat?

As I mentioned, every country acts for their own good,

This is descriptive, not prescriptive. And it’s not even descriptive ethics – descriptive ethics describe what people believe is ethical, you’re just describing what tends to happen. When we talk about whether something is villainous or not, we’re not talking about whether it happens or not, we’re talking about whether or not it should happen. We don’t say that Iago is not a villain because he acts in the way that he feels like acting, that’s not what villainy is about, that’s not what ethics is about, that’s totally irrelevant.

and if they do good it’s simply because that’s what it’s most useful to them at the moment.

… or because the people making decisions have some belief in right and wrong. That’s perfectly possible.

I.e. ethics do not offer meaningful judgements at that scale.

Why not? You haven’t explained any reason why they don’t.

Also – why can’t we judge the people in those countries who make unethical decisions? Why can’t we judge Putin? A very large portion of the vitriol directed as Russia is very explicitly directed at Putin, personally.

Individuals are overseen by governments, while countries are not. This means it’s impossible to reward or punish actors from outside the system, and any rules are created and enforced by the actors themselves. I.e. ethics do not offer any utility at that scale.

Oh, so I was right, you’re confusing the word “ethics” with the word “law.” I’m not saying “Russia is a criminal,” I’m saying “russia is evil,” ther’es a big difference.

There are 5 people. 4 of them make an agreement to beat up the 5th. This person learns of the plot against them and decides to attack each of the others separately, one by one, by just waiting outside their homes.

In this case, the 5th person should have simply called the police. What they did was unacceptable, since they attacked first, thus escalating the conflict.

However, at an international scale, things change dramatically. There is no police, so there’s just country #5, presented with a choice: either do nothing and get beaten up, or attack first. Did they act right or wrong? Well, it doesn’t matter, since there’s no way to change the result. The country will always choose the second option, and, furthermore, the other 4 countries will know damn well what #5 will do. In fact, they will not plot against it unless they think they are going to win in every scenario.

Now, imagine this happens, and country #5 has already attacked country #4. Now, the remaining 3 would be able to beat up #5. But let’s say #2 and #3 decide to side with #5 and beat #1; maybe in that situation they would suffer less losses, get better profits, etc. But in this case it’s in the best interest of #1 to oppose #5, and thus to keep #2 and #3 on its side, so it decides to convince the people on those two countries to hate on #5. Now they can’t side with it, since they would face backlash, so they need to co-operate with #1.

While a purely ethical analysis only concludes that ‘#5 attacked #4’ (which doesn’t provide any useful course of action), the more useful benefit analysis affords that #1 has managed to obtain the highest benefit, by manipulating #2 and #3 and capitalizing on conflict between #4 and #5. The useful course of action would have been for #2 and #3 to side with #5.

All you’ve done is explain why international ethics and international law might be different in some cases from individual ethics. You still haven’t given us any reason to just do away with the concept entirely.

Yeah, we’ve all studied ethics. Ethics (no matter if you believe it’s inherent to reality or a useful construct) acts in two scenarios:

  • If the individual follows it, it makes them act in a way that serves society.
  • It allows to create laws that apply to all individuals for everyone’s good.

Ethics doesn’t state that “you should punish others when they act contrarily to ethics”. That’s law. And the reason it punishes people is because that discourages them from acting in that way again. Free will, if you wish.

Now, at the international scale there are no real laws. Implementation of laws depends on the ability of individual countries to enforce them, for their own interests. If we could create laws that affected every country, then yes, we could simply model these laws after ethics. But we can’t.

So, in the example I gave you, suppose you are a citizen of country #2. I already stated that the best course of action for your country would be to side with country #5. But then, since you believe you should punish that country because it acted unethically, you will push your government to side with #1 instead. You tried to enforce laws that didn’t exist, and now you’ve acted against your best interests.

The mistake here is that ethics doesn’t deal with punishment. Punishment is specified by laws, seeking the best interest of society. But the best course of action here was not to punish, yet your instinct led you the wrong way.

Dan
link
fedilink
12M

Yeah, we’ve all studied ethics. Ethics (no matter if you believe it’s inherent to reality or a useful construct) acts in two scenarios:

Yeah, I somehow doubt you’ve studied ethics, I’ve never heard any ethicist argue that ethics “acts” at all.

If the individual follows it, it makes them act in a way that serves society.

Ethics doesn’t make anybody do anything. Ethics allows us to study how we should behave and make better decisions.

It allows to create laws that apply to all individuals for everyone’s good.

Most legal scholars feel that we cannot or should not merely legislate ethics, but that law comes from another source – such as the will of the people in a democracy, the non-aggression principle, the social will according to Rousseau, fair principles selected from behind the veil of ignorance, the Leviathan according to Hobbes, principles agreed to by some land-owning collective, enforcement and protection of human rights, divine rule, national sovereignty, etc. And then there are obviously anarchists who believe in law, but not in ethics at all. Paternalism is a complex topic of debate. But it’s quite rare to meet a legal scholar who actually thinks that we should just legislate morality like that.

Ethics doesn’t state that “you should punish others when they act contrarily to ethics”.

Well, some ethicists do. It’s funny, people who study ethics usually know that.

Kant was a fun example. He thought that the proper punishment for violating a an application of the categorical imperative was to be treated as though you do not believe in that application – IE, if you killed somebody, you should be killed – but also argued that it would be impermissible, categorically, to carry out such a punishment.

That’s law. And the reason it punishes people is because that discourages them from acting in that way again. Free will, if you wish.

That’s one of a few common justifications for punishment.

Short list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Possible_reasons_for_punishment

Now, at the international scale there are no real laws. Implementation of laws depends on the ability of individual countries to enforce them, for their own interests. If we could create laws that affected every country, then yes, we could simply model these laws after ethics. But we can’t.

Right, international law is mostly an unenforceable facade.

So, in the example I gave you, suppose you are a citizen of country #2. I already stated that the best course of action for your country would be to side with country #5. But then, since you believe you should punish that country because it acted unethically, you will push your government to side with #1 instead. You tried to enforce laws that didn’t exist, and now you’ve acted against your best interests.

Oh man, I just read the rest of your hypothetical, it’s even worse than I thought. You not only argued that international ethics might be kind of different than interpersonal ethics, or that ethics can’t exist at the international scale, or anything like that, you argued that ethics are bad because they’re not Egoism (which is an ethical theory, and legit the worst one).

The best course of action for all nations is to do the right thing, and not the selfish thing, as is the case for all humans. This is not a question of law, this is a question of ethics, and your attempt to apply egoism as the necessary ethical theory and frame it as rejecting ethics entirely is insane.

I will always push my government to do the right thing, even if it costs us money or causes us inconvenience. Pushing your government to do the selfish thing is selfishness, and evil.

The mistake here is that ethics doesn’t deal with punishment. Punishment is specified by laws, seeking the best interest of society. But the best course of action here was not to punish, yet your instinct led you the wrong way.

I’m not talking about punishment. I don’t want to punish Russia. I want to sanction Russia to end the war and save the lives of innocent Ukranians and protect the integrity of their borders and send a message to the world that unjustified invasions will not be tolerated.

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier. You seem to be very knowledgeable. I was trained in ethics as part of my medical training, so the extent of my knowledge may not be as great as yours. Anyway, these are the specific pieces of knowledge I was invoking:

  • Ethics only applies to entities with free will. I don’t believe countries have free will since they act in a deterministic fashion.
  • Ethics deals with principles that must be upheld. These principles include not causing harm, acting for the benefit of others, etc. I understand that these principles are the main mechanism for making choices.
  • In the paradigm I was trained on, ethics only states what one should do, and doesn’t deal with punishment.
  • A nexus of causality transfers responsibility. I believe there is a nexus of causality when any deterministic process is involved.

So, my point is that this specific situation must not be resolved by you stated means since:

  • Here, punishment is incompatible with seeking the good of others.
  • Since countries are deterministic, ethics doesn’t apply to them.
  • Since countries are deterministic, even if ethics were to apply, responsibility is transferred (e.g., since I know 100% sure how a country will respond to my actions, I am triggering their response as much as them).

“Countries are not people” say that again, but slowly

Heck, I’m not strong in English… Okay, what about “a country is not a person”?

Feel better yes but even then I would need to argue that a country is made up of people tho administer it. Either the whole of the demo, or the dictator-like government executives.

Maybe. But my point was that

  1. Countries aren’t subject to any actual laws enforced by an authority beyond themselves or more powerful countries.
  2. The behavior of a country approaches an ideal, homogeneous benefit-seeking entity better than a person.

So the legal dynamics between countries are very different from those between people.

poVoq
link
fedilink
12M

Seems like these episodes were made after the start of the war in Ukraine?

In October 2020, the already finished script for the third season […]

On September 10, 2021, Karl Urban confirmed that the season officially wrapped filming.

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

The Boys villifies one fictional superhero who was very much American, but was frozen in Russia. And a few other nameless Russian villains, in addition to a whole bunch of named and nameless American villains, and a few other villains around the world.

  • Eastern Europe : scared of Russia, want to join a defensive alliance to protect from Russia, join NATO
  • USA : try to normalize relation, Eastern Europe join NATO. Russia pissed because they consider Eastern Europe as part of their influence sphere. Relation got worse because of Yugoslavia, Syria, Snowden, Russia accuses USA of every trouble in there country and their influence sphere meanwhile Russia tries to influence American elections. Also Ukraine.
  • EU : rely on Russian gas, so try to keep good relations but not at the expense of good relations with the USA that assure protection. Ukraine is the breaking point for relations. Used its influence to get Minsk agreement because do not like war. Russia invade Ukraine, not happy
  • France : had good relationship with Russia before 2014. can say fuck you to USA because have an army. But agree with EU and USA on Ukraine because think war is not justified (they knew Irak was not justified and refused to intervene and made their best to have pacific resolution of the tensions. Usa didn’t like it and french bashing was born)
Dan
link
fedilink
15
edit-2
2M

I mean, Russia villifies Russia.

The west takes advantage of one more nutjob out there to say “see? do you really want us to cede more power to these psychos?”

But Russia isn’t like everyone else. They pulled CIA shit in Belarus, and they invaded Ukraine with no real justification. They’re just murdering Ukranians because Putin wants to be taken more seriously, or doesn’t like the idea of Nato having too much power in general and wants to swing his dick around to say “I’m too powerful, too.”

And even if you want to pretend that the US is just as bad as Russia… The west villifies the US all the time, we’re widely regarded to suck pretty hard. Why should we pretend Putin is a saint?

late to the game… but you got upvoted(Im shocked)! Simply put…the US and Russia can oppose each other and still both be bad!!!

And even if you want to pretend that the US is just as bad as Russia… The west villifies the US all the time, we’re widely regarded to suck pretty hard. Why should we pretend Putin is a saint?

There is no comparison between Russia and the US. Nothing Russia has ever done even begins to come close to the atrocities US is committing around the globe. War on terror alone massacred over 6 million people. US is currently facilitating a literal genocide in Yemen, and starving Afghanistan after going on a murder spree there for two decades. Comparing Russia to this is frankly laughable.

The US can be worse than Russia…but that doesn’t make Russia good.

The point here is that the west has no place vilifying Russia. People in the west would do far better holding their own regimes to account rather than spending their time pointing fingers.

agreed, if by west, we mean governments. Just as anywhere people are more than that.

Of course, I’m strictly referring to the ruling class and their propaganda machine here.

Dan
link
fedilink
52M

… lol, you think 6 million people is a large number to Russia? Boy, open a history book.

You should open a history book yourself someday kiddo. The 6 million is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to US atrocities. The sheer amount of ignorance required to think that Russia has killed more people than US is frankly astounding. Americans massacred so many indigenous people that the global temperature cooled!

Dan
link
fedilink
62M

I’m really not sure why this is a competition, but here’s a short history of the jaw-dropping death Russia has always liked causing, just what I could get from a quick search:

https://en.mercopress.com/2022/11/30/ukraine-remembers-the-millions-condemned-to-starvation-in-1932-33-by-russia-s-joseph-stalin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_genocide

https://borgenproject.org/top-12-deadliest-wars-in-history/

specifically or ww2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths_by_country

Note that I’m counting Russian civillian and military deaths against Russia, which I probably would with the US too, but seems particularly appropriate with Russia, since their main military strategy is just "we have more people and our land is very cold. Attrition and starvation!

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
link
fedilink
7
edit-2
2M

Let’s just see what actual research says on the subject of the famine in Ukraine. During the 1932 Holodomor Famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:

While the leadership did not stop exports, they did try to alleviate the famine. A 25 February 1933 Central Committee decree allotted seed loans of 320,000 tons to Ukraine and 240,000 tons to the northern Caucasus. Seed loans were also made to the Lower Volga and may have been made to other regions as well. Kul’chyts’kyy cites Ukrainian party archives showing that total aid to Ukraine by April 1933 actually exceeded 560,000 tons, including more than 80,000 tons of food

Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.

Aid to Ukraine alone was 60 percent greater than the amount exported during the same period. Total aid to famine regions was more than double exports for the first half of 1933.

According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest

It appears to have been another consequence of the low 1932 harvest that more aid was not provided: After the low 1931, 1934, and 1936 harvests procured grain was transferred back to peasants at the expense of exports.

Tauger is not a communist, and ultimately this specific article takes the view that the low harvest was caused by collectivization (he factors in the natural causes of the famine in later articles, based on how he completely neglects to mention weather in this article at all its clear that his position shifted over the years). However, its interesting to see that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500600

Also, love how you count Soviets killing nazis in WW2. Turns out you’re a nazi sympathizer as well. Not really surprising, but worth noting.

Meanwhile, let’s just take a look at a few things US has been responsible for in recent history https://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Imperialism/usmurder.html

I’ll repeat this once again since you have hard time understanding basic facts. Nothing Russia has done comes even close to the atrocities US has committed and is currently committing this very day.

US bombing killed about 20~25% of North Korean population and destroyed 85% of their buildings. Napalms were dropped and cities were reduced to ashes. North Koreans teach their children that it was a holocaust. This is what US has been doing and continues to do today.

Dan
link
fedilink
62M

Also, love how you count Soviets killing nazis in WW2. Turns out you’re a nazi sympathizer as well. Not really surprising, but worth noting.

oh no, I thought you were just talking about deaths caused. I can start justifying American wars too, if you want to do that, America killed Nazis too, but its strategy wasn’t to sacrifice the meat-shields in Ukraine and then scorched earth the rest of the way until eventually launching a counter-offensive. I mean, whatever works, but damn, it was gruesome.

Meanwhile, let’s just take a look at a few things US has been responsible for in recent history

Lol, the USSR was equally involved in most of those wars, and Russia is fucking around in Syria right now too.

but yeah, nothing Russia did comes close to the proxy wars between Russia and the US.

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
link
fedilink
7
edit-2
2M

oh no, I thought you were just talking about deaths caused

Ah, it was the Soviet Union’s fault that nazis invaded. You’re utterly deplorable.

Lol, the USSR was equally involved in most of those wars, and Russia is fucking around in Syria right now too.

It was not equally involved in those wars because it was US that chose to invade countries half way across the world. Meanwhile, the only reason Syria doesn’t look like Libya today is because Russia intervened. Imagine being such an utter ghoul to think that Syria being destroyed by US is a better outcome.

And the exact same pattern is seen in all other interventions. Vietnam and Cuba are successful socialist states today thanks to USSR. Meanwhile, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and many other countries are hell on Earth thanks to US. That’s the difference. And the fact that you can’t see it says everything I need to know about you.

but yeah, nothing Russia did comes close to the proxy wars between Russia and the US.

I implore you to learn some history so you don’t look like a total 🤡. You’re an utter embarrassment and you don’t even realize it.

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

Meanwhile, the only reason Syria doesn’t look like Libya today is because Russia intervened. Imagine being such an utter ghoul to think that Syria being destroyed by US is a better outcome.

lol, you think Syria is doing well right now?

Cuba [is a] successful socialist [state] today

lol

Meanwhile, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and many other countries are hell on Earth thanks to US.

Yeah, like South Korea, Japan… utter hell. So much worse than Belarus and North Korea…

see how the world looks when you cherry-pick data based on the assumption that west = bad and nothing else is true?

lol, you think Syria is doing well right now?

Sure doing better than Libya where there are literal slave markets and Afghanistan where there is mass starvation because US robbed them of their foreign assets. Meanwhile, the only reason Syria isn’t doing well right now is because US is occupying Syrian oil fields and food producing regions. I can’t wait to see what nonsense will spew out of you next.

lol

Cuba has higher literacy and life expectancy than US. 😂

Yeah, like South Korea, Japan… utter hell. So much worse than Belarus and North Korea…

Literally what people living in South Korea refer to it as https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/young-south-koreans-call-their-country-hell-and-look-for-ways-out/2016/01/30/34737c06-b967-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html

Keep on going there. Can’t wait to see what new levels of absurdity you’ll be able to attain.

Oh and did I mention that US literally inspired nazis in the 30s, but even they initially thought that US segregation laws were too severe. I’ll repeat that Literal nazis thought US was oppressing Black people too much. Let that fucking sink in. That’s how utterly depraved US regime is. https://billmoyers.com/story/hitler-america-nazi-race-law/

Dan
link
fedilink
22M

Cuba has higher literacy and life expectancy than US. 😂

it also likes to pay people in currency they can’t use to buy food and really loves to ban dissent. yeah, their citizens aren’t fed up with the bullshit at all, that extra eight weeks of life expectancy is totally worth not being able to get food.

Literally what people living in South Korea refer to it as https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/young-south-koreans-call-their-country-hell-and-look-for-ways-out/2016/01/30/34737c06-b967-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html

South Koreans saying “inequality is pretty rough, it’s kinda hell” is not the same a North Koreans saying “we don’t have any rights and regularly have to attend celebrations of our god-king, it’s fine, we’re not complaining, who’s complaining.” One nice thing about freedom is that you’re allowed to complain.

Oh and did I mention that US literally inspired nazis in the 30s, but even they initially thought that US segregation laws were too severe. I’ll repeat that Literal nazis thought US was oppressing Black people too much. Let that fucking sink in. That’s how utterly depraved US regime is

… you know that’s literally not how depraved the US regime is, right? You know we stopped segregation a while ago, right?

I’m not sure what your source is, but I assure you, the Nazis did, in fact segregate the Jews from the gentiles.

it also likes to pay people in currency they can’t use to buy food and really loves to ban dissent. yeah, their citizens aren’t fed up with the bullshit at all, that extra eight weeks of life expectancy is totally worth not being able to get food.

Yeah, it sucks when a murderous empire blockades your country.

South Koreans saying “inequality is pretty rough, it’s kinda hell” is not the same a North Koreans saying “we don’t have any rights and regularly have to attend celebrations of our god-king, it’s fine, we’re not complaining, who’s complaining.” One nice thing about freedom is that you’re allowed to complain.

Ah look at you, an expert on North Korea. 😂

… you know that’s literally not how depraved the US regime is, right? You know we stopped segregation a while ago, right?

You know that US regime holds 20% of WORLD’s prison population, and it’s disproportionately minorities being used as literal slave labour right?

I’m not sure what your source is, but I assure you, the Nazis did, in fact segregate the Jews from the gentiles.

I literally linked the source. Maybe try working on your reading comprehension instead of making an ass of yourself on a public forum?

Dan
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
2M

You know that US regime holds 20% of WORLD’s prison population, and it’s disproportionately minorities being used as literal slave labour right?

Disproportionately minorities. Convicted of crimes. Problematic. Bad. Should be fixed.

Not the same as people literally being enslaved for being Uyghurs without any individual suspicion of any crime at all.

I literally linked the source

Ah, for some reason, it wasn’t in the part I had quoted. I see now. I think you should maybe try reading the rest of that source.

anyway, I’m done with you, your putin-lovin’ is boring now.

Disproportionately minorities. Convicted of crimes. Problematic. Bad. Should be fixed.

It’s literally a feature not a bug. The drug laws in US are specifically designed to round up minorities to use as slave labour. Entire books have been written on the subject.

Not the same as people literally being enslaved for being Uyghurs without any individual suspicion of any crime at all.

You’re right, there is actual tangible evidence for people being enslaved in US.

Ah, for some reason, it wasn’t in the part I had quoted. I see now. I think you should maybe try reading the rest of that source.

Child learns to read. 😂

anyway, I’m done with you, your putin-lovin’ is boring now.

Please do go and spew drivel elsewhere.

Ah, it was the Soviet Union’s fault that nazis invaded. You’re utterly deplorable.

Come on, read the paragraph. They’re clearly talking about the Soviet’s shit level tactics of Zap Branninganing the Nazis.

And once you learn a bit of WW2 history you’ll realize how utterly idiotic that statement is.

The US is literally murdering Syrians right now with unending sanctions that have completely crippled them. Sanctions only hurt civilians. Also the US is occupying large swaths of Syria and stealing the oil from the oil fields.

What other country does shit like this?

Sanctions are basically a modern version siege warfare, and their explicit intent is to harm the civilian population of the country. It’s a form of a war crime that US regime popularized.

Indeed. Come to think of it, what other country sanctions anyone that the US isn’t sanctioning? The effect would be so miniscule as to be laughable. But when the US rallies the minions it’s a devastating weapon against civilian populations.

@peeonyou@lemmy.ml
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
2M

deleted by creator

The west hates Russia because they failed to break up and colonize Russia back in the 90s. The issue isn’t with Russia being a mirror of the west, it’s that it has its own independent domestic and geopolitical policy that doesn’t come from Washington and controls its resources.

I don’t vilify Russia as it is much more than its government. I do vilify its government and Putin - in general and especially as a gay man. I also have a strong distaste for any far right ideology. I don’t understand why people seem to defend Putin so much.

I think it’s mainly reactionary. I think people feel the “western” world is so beyond corrupt that any leader that isn’t part of it can’t be all that bad.

I agree. I know, this reply took a while. I was excited to join lemmy, as although I am not a believer in pure “communism”, i do lean progressively left. And I enjoyed it here for a long time…when the Russia/Ukraine war broke out…I got discouraged with all this pro-Putin posts…and it was obvious, if I tried to voice an opinion (like current Russia is absolutely not communist, but in fact the opposite end of spectrum), i would get bad mouthed and down voted to oblivion! Now…I understand the distaste to the West and especially the Us (i live in a US territory (PR), I understand the US behaves badly…on a very personal level even!) But that doesn’t mean every foe of the US is automatically good! Two opposing people can be both bad at the same time. Sigh…

You really just said that straight up when UK and US have become a literal meme.

bkrl
link
fedilink
92M

I am European and I hate what the Western bloc is doing to Russia. Not a day goes by that the TV doesn’t say something wrong about Russia. They act like those kids who can’t take it out on the guy who messed with them, they hit their dog.

@guojing@lemmy.ml
link
fedilink
7
edit-2
2M

Russia has major supplies of important resources like oil, gas, metals etc. Its also a fact that Russia has its own distinct culture, which defies the us empire on the world stage.

There is also some historical background from the rivalry between orthodox religion and catolicism, but this might be less relevant today (who knows).

I think this is close to the real answer. Russia is a “threat” to world domination by the U.S.('s culture). Russia has important, critical resources and isn’t in the “american sphere of influence”. Russia also can’t be ignored or invaded like many other countries.

deleted by creator

Failed Balkanisation of Russia + communism refuses to lose against genocidal superimperialist capitalist Anglo Fascism

Basically L + ratio for Anglo empire, so they cope using media-military propaganda bullshittery everyday

Amicese
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
2M

Western bourgeoisies’ goal of colonizing Russia.

Also, how is communism a disease? It doesn’t even exist yet.

They have to vilify the countries they haven’t dominated yet, or are about to dominate again. It’s part of how war works. Also the US wants the world’s resources on a silver platter and Russia has a LOT of resources.

A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions

If your post is

  1. Open ended
  2. Not offensive
  3. Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
  4. not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)

it’s welcome here!

  • 0 users online
  • 5 users / day
  • 30 users / week
  • 132 users / month
  • 468 users / 6 months
  • 19 subscribers
  • 522 Posts
  • 4.29K Comments
  • Modlog