ah yes, male pattern value increase, completely forgot about it

*sad jesus noises*

it’s Jrock Jhard

You’re jumping to conclusions. I see where you’re coming from, I might’ve been more explicit about what exactly I was talking about, so my bad ig. I wasn’t talking about Fanon in the first place. More over, I wasn’t talking about any book author/philosopher in particular. My logic still applies even to Fanon tho, as, first, he had unique circumstances on his hands, second, our world had changed quite a bit since then too, fyi.

I can’t but notice how vague your answer about the Vietnam is. I never asked about Vietnam’s success as a sovereign political structure, I was asking about the ordinary people and how all of the events affected their lives. I believe I’ve made this much clear the first time around.

The era of national divisions eroding is something for after the end of imperialism, in the meantime a people should be able to chart their own course free from the domination of the west.

And what’s the reasoning behind that statement? I’ve already provided my stance and reasoning on why nationalism should go ASAP. You, on the other hand, fail to point out why deimperialization is of such high priority in your worldview.

You seem to think on the geopolitical level, while being just a person, microscopic, compared to a political structure. In modern society, any drastic geopolitical change affects individual well-being only negatively, potentially yielding positive changes in this aspect only decades later, if does so at all. Modern day imperialism is nothing compared to what it was in the past, thus deimperialization is none of our concern, as it won’t give any marginal positive change on personal level.

that’s clearly not from terminator

this guy is a minion

Cuck Executive Officer

checks out

Neither money nor states are dogmatic in their nature. They exist under some basis, that can be verified, and that defines their properties. Gods have arbitrary abilities that cannot be verified.

The only benefits of a religion are being a part of community and coping with reality. The first is not unique to religion, the second is delusional and leads to lots of misjudgement, harms one’s ability to percieve and analyze the objective reality. In other words, even the benefits are quite controversial in their usefulness here.

By the way, if you think about this, religion as a coping mechanism is as widespread only because it have been a substitute for more healthy alternatives for literal milleniums.

Religion should be a thing of past, but alas, magical thinking is still strong in modern society. To get rid of religions, first and foremost we should teach people about common logic fallacies and manipulations, so they would detect and avoid them more easily

at this point arch linux is more user-friendly

to be fair, the talent and paygrade doesn’t matter if the management is ass. Modern dey corpos are a disaster in that regard

Sure, except all of those define a culture, and not a nation. For instance, France, the very first national state no less, contains multiple such cultures. Italy as well, became a thing only when the Napoleon came. Despite having cultural and linguistic differences, italians still somehow consider themself italians.

The definition of a nation really is an ambiguous one, and there’s no wonder. It initially was invented to overthrow the monarchic regime, while retaining all the territories of said monarchy. Ambiguity arises as soon as you try to draw a border between cultures, dividing them into separate nations. You see, everything culture-related comes in gradients, rather than distinct islands. How’d you distinguish eastern ukrainian from western russian? How’d you distinguish Western slovak from eastern czech? Because even linguistic and genetic analysis won’t be a guarantee there.

And the way the modern society is, with all the globalism, all the relocations, diasporas and etcetera, the idea of a national state completely loses its purpose, other than to separate the local resources, regime and economy, of course.

Separation of a culture can lead to enhancement of individual life quality, but so does the adjustment of inner politics. “Liberation” as you call it, does not change the economic potential of any given region, yet introduces migration-related beuraucracy complications, devoiding people of possible social lifts, while allowing for third party influence that might lead to conflict, you know, like it was with Ukraine:).

Also, local authorities might exploit their compatriots just the same the occupants did.

In other words, “liberation” is a step into the void, that doesn’t guarantee anything, and nationalism is nothing more than a way for manipulation and indoctrination to instill further segregation, that, as i said, is neither necessary nor relevant in the modern day.

That’s why we should fight both nationalism, and imperialism and unite based of political views rather than cultural heritage. And it’s not like nobody had done anything similar before, USA was exactly about that before it became the world exploitating hegemony we know today. That’s what USSR was about at its inception as well.

Stop thinking about the world apparatus the way people did in 19th century, the world had quite changed since then, and to change further and do so for the better, rather than for worse, we should think with our heads rather than dogmatically follow the theories of those who never tried them on practice, while having far less information about their world than we do.

Anyway, how did the liberation of Vietnam affect the common people? And were the positive changes the effects of liberation, or just a result of the regime change for the more progressive one, as well as the result of the war finally ending? What modern Vietnam represents as a sovereign economic unit, and could the common people be wealthier and happier if the country would’ve been a part of a larger state?

tell that to my hairline :(

DiCaprio is that you?

ah yes, toning! The very thing that leads to early wrinkling and higher cancer risks, while getting debatably good results! Why haven’t i thought of it?

we’re not playing that Charlie Kirk bullshit game.

Charlie Kirk was a politician, and operated on political level. His reason for doing all the “debate me” charade is purely of media representation interests.

By punching a “nazi” you’ll only get punched in return, and further villanize yourself in “nazi’s” view. Considering that there still lots of people with quite conservative views, by “punching a nazi” you would do a counter-productive job at proving your worldview, thus making your opponents more confident in theirs.

Cool, which is exactly what this comic is about. The individual man is being a dick, and getting judged for it.

Except my issue is not with the comic. It’s with you treating people as obstacles. Dehumanization is a not nice thing to do due to multiple reasons.

I have been wrong many times, and I’ve been rightfully ripped into for it.

you seem to fail at differentiating between critique and pure hatred. Right now you’re spreading nothihg but hatred, and that’s why i said that you’re not much better than the people you hate. You use your sense of morality to justify the hatred, they use theirs. The result is the same: no actions taken, only people going for each other’s throats. Basically, you’re just as “nazi”, the difference is only in the agenda you push. They too believe to be morally correct, you know.

People won’t be able to change unless you point them out, where they ought to change and why, and society is kinda not a thing without the communication.

Yes, there are people incapable of change, and yes, they deserve the hate. Only those are always in a minority.

Nationalists weren’t the only one upset. Lots of people wanted Ukraine to head west, because western (as in EU) economic ties seemed to have far brighter perspectives than the russian ones. More over, it still is, as Russia has all the resources needed to surpass EU in every way possible, yet it struggles, thanks to the degree of corruption present, as well as its oligarchic nature. Orientation for EU promised the potential to get Ukraine out of the state it had been in after the 90s.

Secondly, saying slavic peoples share a lot in common is similar to saying Chinese ethnicities have a lot in common.

Except there isn’t, as i already stated, unless, once again, as i already stated, if we’re talking about cultural minorities, present in particular isolated regions of both countries. Ukrainian region had significant cultural differences, only those lost its relevance when the soviet era came into place, and i’ve already explained why. The differences between modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are mainly political, and it becomes really apparent as soon as you compare a ukrainian to russian, and then to polish or slovakian.

Until you point out the concrete differences on which basis “ethnic cleansing” could be commensed, your point will sound ridiculous to me, born ukrainian, who happened to be friends with individuals from far west and far east both of Ukraine and Russia, as well i hapen to be aquainted with some belarussians and kazakhs. I also did visit Moscow before the shit stirred, lived in Czechia, and been to Poland after. I think i have some credibility on the topic of modern slavic cultures and their differences, thank you very much.

Your argument about “ethnic cleansing” is not even remotely representative of my observed reality. If it was the case, there would’ve been family tree investigations on the whole ukrainian territory, concentration camps as all people from investigated regions would’ve been suspended, and so on. Cities like Kharkiv, Odessa, or Dnipro would’ve also been “cleansed” just as the Ukrainian far east supposedly was, those regions had voted for Yanukovich in their majority after all, and people there also primarily speak russian.

Nobody seemed to “cleanse” them, until the “valiant Russian military” came and did it first tho. And that was despite Kremlins agenda about the need to defend russian speakers no matter in what part of the world they live. People freely fled the eastern regions since the very start of armed conflicts as well, and the ukrainian government was aiding them at that.

Regarding the nationality, those movements are irrelevant to what i’ve said. Both imperialism and national liberation should not exist. First is cancerous and exploitative in its nature, second is based on a fictional idea of nationality and leads to nothing more than poverty and infighting after the liberation part is done.

Let me repeat myself, nationalism is a tool of tribalism, and tribalism leads to disasters. See modern Ukraine, modern Russia, modern US, the whole deal with Kosovo or the Nagorno-Korabakh conflict.

And where nationalism isn’t a disaster yet, it results in bigotry and prejudice. See eastern-european countries like Czech Republic or Poland.

Liberating countries only seems like a great idea on paper, only, without the proper economic conditions being met, the result is always far from beneficial. Post-soviet countries or Balkans are great examples. “We have nothing to eat, our country has no means of economical growth, but at least we have our fantasy about how we first came to be independent, and it really unites us” ~ uggh, thanks no thanks, keep this shit to yourself. It’s degenerative and outright harmful to think in those categories, or instill such thinking onto others, and gives of “divide and conquer” type of narrative. People are people, and should be treated as such first and foremost. If you deceive them “for the greater good”, or because sovereignity on some imaginary basis is morally correct in your book, that just makes you a manipulative cunt, treating people as means to an end.

National division ceases to exist only if everyone is emancipated, which is not possible. Unless the state is large enough to have all the resources to not only achieve its emancipation, but also prolong it indefinitely, it is inherently dependent on others, which in turn leads to power imbalance, therefore conflicts on that basis, which in turn, leads to tribalistic behaviour. In modern doctrine that amounts to rises of nationalistic ideologies in such regions.

And once again, you don’t sound persuasive, if all you can is to insist for me to read some book, without ability to provide sufficient arguments yourself. A reference without citation is worthless, and cannot be considered a counter-thesis. Such behaviour only makes me think, that you prefer blindly accepting any information presented by authoritative-enough source, to applying critical thinking and analysis of said information yourself.

I, for one, won’t ever recommend a book to a rando on the internet, unless directly asked to do so. Especially if we’re talking about politics and worldviews. The world is constantly changing,but the books don’t. They where written in a certain context, for people that existed inside of that context. They are nothing more than a dead knowledge of the past with not necessarily correct world’s perception of the author layered on top, and they should be treated as such. Meaning, while reading a text we should always compare the depicted reality with the observed one. Otherwise you’re just falling into dogmatism.

If this wasn’t the case for you, you’d be able to provide sufficient reasoning yourself based on pure logic and observed information. Instead, you’re spouting the same bs about ethnic cleansing third time in a row, completely ignoring my counter-arguments, as well as defending the need for practicing the ideology that should be history in our modern globalistic society, purely because it serves as a tool of political manipulation, and is suggested as such by some book.

Not the main one, but sure.

You treat them as less than human, unworthy to have a dialogue with. They treat a group of people as less than human too. The only difference is the pretext. The cause can be good or bad, it doesn’t justify crappy behaviour.

I’m not saying “turn on another cheek”, I’m saying that an individual is not responsible for the deeds of another individual, both of which you’ve attributed to the same group. Groups are abstractions anyway, people should be judged individually and based of their actions, otherwise it’s just plain bigotry.

I also said that it’s only human to make mistake in your judgements and worldviews. That means that someday anyone could end up on the receiveing end, yourself included. If such people are ostracized, it will only lead to further radicalization of their erronous views, further polarizing both sides of conflict.

i’d dissapoint you, but the thing the prevous commenter listed are not unique to America nor the western world. It’s not the KGB necessarily, it’s just how the manipulations work. You don’t have to read KGB books to apply them

“being combative” is not a constant character trait, but rather a response behavior.

And everyone can be wrong even in their strongest opinions, including yourself. Would you prefer to be the “roadblock that needs to go” when such occurs, or you’d rather have a chance to correct your opinion?

Unlike the popular belief, people can and do change. Your words here haracterize you just as combative on the matter. What makes you better than any other human being? They too believe their ideas to be the correct ones.

Treating anyone, however wrong in their ways, as nothing more than an obstacle that needs to be removed, you only make yet another person hostile towards you and your ideas, making everything only worse.

congrats!

Good luck getting better appearance with age after you step over the 25yo threshold tho

After fully maturing we can only age, sadly