Perhaps. I’m smart enough to know that, like everyone else, I can be fucking stupid sometimes.
I was deliberate to use the word assumed, because it was just based on a hunch. That hunch, however, was predicated on observations of how nothing critical could ever be said of Russia.
For example, I was confused about how everyone was (rightly) denouncing the invasion of Palestine, but not the invasion of Ukraine. The most explicit reason I ever received was, apparently, Ukraine is just chock full of Nazis and Putin is simply liberating the innocent Ukrainians. I know there is a lot of history to distill and this is not the best forum for it. It just seems like such a waste of lives on all sides.
So, it stands to reason since ml is reticent to criticize anything about Russia and I see a lack of criticism about Trump (who is buddy buddy with Putin), that may be the cause.
I know your main shtick is to be incendiary, but I just thought I would expand on my reasoning just in case you wanted to have a human conversation.
In regards to Trump, by measuring it relative to the critiques of other liberals, especially when they are in a race for the US presidency.
If there’s more criticism of Dems, it’s because opposition to Trump is already consensus, so there isn’t really more to say about the matter, where as people on Lemmy still have some support for the Dems.
Extremely well said, and a good point. I’m not sure it explains everything, but it’s something I should definitely consider.
To people who view politics as a spectator sport rather than a power structure for changing the material world, you gotta keep cheering for the home team and booing for the away team, until the end of time.
The treatment of western politics as a spectator sport is so deeply engrained in the culture that it’s really hard to even get people to recognize they’re doing it.
And it’s ironic because I think it’s become that way because the political system seems so unresponsive to actual efforts to change the material world, so people need to find a different reason to engage with it.
Removed by mod
Perhaps. I’m smart enough to know that, like everyone else, I can be fucking stupid sometimes.
I was deliberate to use the word assumed, because it was just based on a hunch. That hunch, however, was predicated on observations of how nothing critical could ever be said of Russia.
For example, I was confused about how everyone was (rightly) denouncing the invasion of Palestine, but not the invasion of Ukraine. The most explicit reason I ever received was, apparently, Ukraine is just chock full of Nazis and Putin is simply liberating the innocent Ukrainians. I know there is a lot of history to distill and this is not the best forum for it. It just seems like such a waste of lives on all sides.
So, it stands to reason since ml is reticent to criticize anything about Russia and I see a lack of criticism about Trump (who is buddy buddy with Putin), that may be the cause.
I know your main shtick is to be incendiary, but I just thought I would expand on my reasoning just in case you wanted to have a human conversation.
Removed by mod
In regards to Trump, by measuring it relative to the critiques of other liberals, especially when they are in a race for the US presidency.
Extremely well said, and a good point. I’m not sure it explains everything, but it’s something I should definitely consider.
Removed by mod
To people who view politics as a spectator sport rather than a power structure for changing the material world, you gotta keep cheering for the home team and booing for the away team, until the end of time.
The treatment of western politics as a spectator sport is so deeply engrained in the culture that it’s really hard to even get people to recognize they’re doing it.
And it’s ironic because I think it’s become that way because the political system seems so unresponsive to actual efforts to change the material world, so people need to find a different reason to engage with it.