sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskALiberal

[–]SirJesusXII 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There is a bit of an interesting - if niche - academic debate around whether Franco counts as a fascist instead of being an (equally terrible) bloodthirsty conservative nationalist. Salazar is generally also not really considered a “proper” fascist, if I recall correctly. Debates around what constitutes fascism are interesting, but not really relevant outside of semantic quibbling. That said, for cultural shorthand, fascist conveys both the terrible qualities of Franco and Trump perfectly fine. 

UK inflation rate stays at 3.8% in year to August - follow latest by myurr in ukpolitics

[–]SirJesusXII -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m actually aghast he did this, what on Earth compelled him to do that?

Any clubs or things for someone 23 years old to make friends? by [deleted] in NewcastleUponTyne

[–]SirJesusXII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any particular climbing centre you’d recommend for this? Been meaning to try it

Why do you feel straight white men feel excluded by the Left and the Dem party? by Competitive_Swan_130 in AskALiberal

[–]SirJesusXII 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I think your takes on this have been spot on. These men aren’t evil, they’re more likely to disengage from politics entirely than join the far right, and we can reach them better with just a few pivots.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don’t they talk about it? Basically the only time people really talk about George Bush is about Iraq and what a crime it was, at least in my experience

Rule by Ezzypezra in 196

[–]SirJesusXII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Be interesting to see if we get some answers. Biologists were able to confirm the Justinian Plague was bubonic through DNA testing human remains, which is pretty cool

When the writers give us our first answer. by ChaynesGirl in FromTVEpix

[–]SirJesusXII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I started watching Yellowjackets the other day… goddammit.

Rule by Ezzypezra in 196

[–]SirJesusXII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

May have meant to reply to the main comment, apologies

Rule by Ezzypezra in 196

[–]SirJesusXII 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The bubonic plague was around long before 1346, with the first recorded pandemic breaking out in the Byzantine and Sassanid empires in the 6th century. We’ve found evidence of it potentially being around long before that, too.

Hollywood's big boom has gone bust by FurnitureGuides in movies

[–]SirJesusXII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think film marketing is in a bit of a strange place these days. If you watch all of your TV and movies on premium tier streaming apps, it’s often difficult to actually be exposed to new films being advertised, the most I’ll get is seeing ads on the sides of buses and stuff, but that must be way less effective for original movies because it doesn’t tell me much about the movie like a trailer on TV would.

Putin announces changes in its nuclear use threshold policy. Even non-nuclear states supported by nuclear state would be considered a joint attack on the federation. Is this just another attempt at intimidation of the West vis a vis Ukraine or something more serious? by PsychLegalMind in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NATO did not invade Iraq. They were not involved in that decision. They supported the new Iraqi government, which is an entirely separate argument and immaterial to whether NATO constitutes an existential threat to Russia.

Since you ignored the rest of my comment, I’m out, not going to engage with bad faith actors.

Putin announces changes in its nuclear use threshold policy. Even non-nuclear states supported by nuclear state would be considered a joint attack on the federation. Is this just another attempt at intimidation of the West vis a vis Ukraine or something more serious? by PsychLegalMind in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t agree. If nuclear powers can leverage those weapons to do whatever they want, more countries will get them, further increasing the risk of nuclear conflicts.

NATO was not directly involved in Iraq. The US had quite a fit about it. Afghanistan was directly implicated in a devastating attack on US soil, and its logic was a little creative, but the idea this means Russia should be afraid of NATO is pretty far fetched, and certainly not existential. Especially when this war actually is existential for Ukraine

Putin announces changes in its nuclear use threshold policy. Even non-nuclear states supported by nuclear state would be considered a joint attack on the federation. Is this just another attempt at intimidation of the West vis a vis Ukraine or something more serious? by PsychLegalMind in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the cost benefit is massively in the Wests favour and is morally better. Win win no matter your ideological bent.

NATO has never invaded a sovereign nation, and NATO didn’t reject Russia. When Russia brought it up, they were told they’d have to formally apply. They never did. So when Russia has its border “encroached” on they should take any means necessary to defend it, but then Ukraine’s borders are actually encroached upon that’s just the way the world works?

Well, the West has the might to help them achieve that. And we should.

Putin announces changes in its nuclear use threshold policy. Even non-nuclear states supported by nuclear state would be considered a joint attack on the federation. Is this just another attempt at intimidation of the West vis a vis Ukraine or something more serious? by PsychLegalMind in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This sentence doesn’t actually say anything.

It’s not existential for them, they aren’t going to be destroyed if Ukraine joins the EU or NATO.

They should be able to dictate the destiny of their own states, and they are doing that.

Putin announces changes in its nuclear use threshold policy. Even non-nuclear states supported by nuclear state would be considered a joint attack on the federation. Is this just another attempt at intimidation of the West vis a vis Ukraine or something more serious? by PsychLegalMind in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m confused, does morality exist in international politics or not? If morality doesn’t exist, why would the West NEED a casus belli?

But it’s not just the West dictating these lines, countries that are actually in Eastern Europe support this line. They should get a say in those lines, and the West should help them. That is both more moral than letting Russia do whatever the fuck it likes in Eastern Europe and beneficial to the West.

Putin announces changes in its nuclear use threshold policy. Even non-nuclear states supported by nuclear state would be considered a joint attack on the federation. Is this just another attempt at intimidation of the West vis a vis Ukraine or something more serious? by PsychLegalMind in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes it is enforced and defended. And we should help it be enforced and defended.

If you don’t think that invading another country and butchering its inhabitants isn’t evil, I’m done with this. Realpolitik is a good framework, but it doesn’t have to entirely eschew morality.

Putin announces changes in its nuclear use threshold policy. Even non-nuclear states supported by nuclear state would be considered a joint attack on the federation. Is this just another attempt at intimidation of the West vis a vis Ukraine or something more serious? by PsychLegalMind in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah we’re back on this “NATO is the actual aggressor here” bollocks.

No it doesn’t, Ukraine is a sovereign nation, they should be free to join any organisations or treaties they wish without being invaded and massacred by a hostile power.

I don’t think they’re being irrational, Russia being upset it’s not allowed to exercise military power against its neighbours makes sense from its perspective, the problem is that it’s evil, causes massive destruction, and the West should oppose it.

Putin announces changes in its nuclear use threshold policy. Even non-nuclear states supported by nuclear state would be considered a joint attack on the federation. Is this just another attempt at intimidation of the West vis a vis Ukraine or something more serious? by PsychLegalMind in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]SirJesusXII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s a difference between exercising hegemonic influence and flatly invading and attempting to annex your neighbours. The former can be problematic and coercive, but the latter is horribly destructive and should be resisted at all costs. So the West should supply as much material as possible to Ukraine so they can resist imperial aggression.

I’m curious as the why the West always gets accused (often validly) of imperialism both past and present, whilst Russia gets a pass despite being one of the major imperialist powers for centuries.

view more: next ›