4 ms·

Yes, to everyone who is saying "why don't you block Americans for their war crimes as well?" Maybe they would, if American bombs were falling on their city.

sundarurfriend 5y ago
So in "the Russian regime's war crimes and human rights violations in Ukraine", the "in Ukraine" is the important part. The actual message is "you are our enemy and we don't want to provide services for you" - which is fair enough, but not palatable by current business standards, so they instead couch it in moralistic high-ground terms that they can selectively apply.
- Seattle3503 5y ago
  It doesn't seem productive to attack the wording. A substantive objection would be more meaningful.
  - sundarurfriend 5y ago
    This isn't about some nuance of wording at all. They are claiming A when they actually mean B, and my comment spells that out. Framing it as some trivial attack on wording is disingenuous. By that measure, any criticism of lies, misinformation, false messaging, etc. would become a quibble over wording. I hope there's some substantive response to my original comment's content too, one that could lead to productive discussion.
    - Seattle3503 5y ago
      They didn't lie or mislead. You misread their original message. You uncharitably assumed they were a bunch of nasty internet SJWs. You then called them disingenuous when that didn't turn out to be the case. Sorry if that isn't accurate, I know it sucks when people misrepresent your words.
      - sundarurfriend 5y ago
        It would take quite some mental gymnastics to not read "the fact is, your authoritarian government is committing human rights abuses and engaging in war crimes so this is a policy decision we have made and will stand by" as taking a moralistic high ground. (Although, "Internet SJWs" seems to have unfortunately originated in your own mind). My point is that this is not a policy they seem to consistently hold and so their actual reasons are different. The "disingenuous" label was about your comment, and you've further proven yourself to be so. Continuing this thread with you will most likely be unproductive.

sundarurfriend 5y ago

So in "the Russian regime's war crimes and human rights violations in Ukraine", the "in Ukraine" is the important part. The actual message is "you are our enemy and we don't want to provide services for you" - which is fair enough, but not palatable by current business standards, so they instead couch it in moralistic high-ground terms that they can selectively apply.

Seattle3503 5y ago
It doesn't seem productive to attack the wording. A substantive objection would be more meaningful.
- sundarurfriend 5y ago
  This isn't about some nuance of wording at all. They are claiming A when they actually mean B, and my comment spells that out. Framing it as some trivial attack on wording is disingenuous. By that measure, any criticism of lies, misinformation, false messaging, etc. would become a quibble over wording. I hope there's some substantive response to my original comment's content too, one that could lead to productive discussion.
  - Seattle3503 5y ago
    They didn't lie or mislead. You misread their original message. You uncharitably assumed they were a bunch of nasty internet SJWs. You then called them disingenuous when that didn't turn out to be the case. Sorry if that isn't accurate, I know it sucks when people misrepresent your words.
    - sundarurfriend 5y ago
      It would take quite some mental gymnastics to not read "the fact is, your authoritarian government is committing human rights abuses and engaging in war crimes so this is a policy decision we have made and will stand by" as taking a moralistic high ground. (Although, "Internet SJWs" seems to have unfortunately originated in your own mind). My point is that this is not a policy they seem to consistently hold and so their actual reasons are different. The "disingenuous" label was about your comment, and you've further proven yourself to be so. Continuing this thread with you will most likely be unproductive.