7 ms·

So would you say it is just like how the jewish barbarians are taking land in the middle East, or the black barbarians are shooting and robbing each other for p

So would you say it is just like how the jewish barbarians are taking land in the middle East, or the black barbarians are shooting and robbing each other for personal gain in cities in the USA?

Etherlord87 5y ago
There's many differences between russian barbarians, and Israeli forces: - Israel has a rich history of Palestinian attacks with many Jewish *civilian* casualties, whereas the russian aggression is unprovoked. - Israeli forces are better prepared and better treated by its country than the russian cannon fodder with e.g. outdated food rations or poorly armored vehicles, though I don't know if that's what bamboozled meant as well. - I could be wrong, but while not being emotionally prejudiced towards/against Palestine, Israel, Russia and Ukraine prior to the conflicts, in a heuristic sense, just estimating the severity of breaking human rights, russian forces seem to have far worse standards than Israeli forces. Likewise with Ukraine vs Palestine. In case of Ukrainians we see refugees and children hiding in bunkers and being dragged out of them by russian forces. In case of Palestine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_b... See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma Your comparison to black people is even less justified, to the point where I won't even comment on it.
- TapWaterBandit 5y ago
  You are splitting hairs and focusing on the wrong thing. Even if everything you say is true, it is inherently wrong as well as unproductive to refer to ethnic/religious groups as "barbarians" based on the actions of some portion of that groups behaviour. It essentialises the group even though there are countless Russians who dont support this behaviour and therefore aren't "barbarians". Behaviour can certainly be barbaric and referred to as such (I would have had no problem if the original comment said "the invasion of the Ukraine by Russians is barbaric" as an example), but referring to entire nations/ethnic groups/religions as barbarians based on a portion of that group's behaviour is deeply dehumanising and one of the most toxic ways to engage in these sorts of discussions with very negative outcomes for both sides by denying other people their humanity. Can you name a single time in history ever where framing conflict in such a manner has led to anything positive? Because I certainly can't and there are PLENTY of examples of it being done. However much some people may relish the opportunity to finally have an "enemy" they can dehumanise and hate, it is always ethically wrong as well as being counter-productive to do so no matter how good it might feel to some people.
  - Etherlord87 5y ago
    Splitting hairs - absolutely not, provoked and unprovoked aggression is a very significant difference. Focusing on the wrong thing - it seems so. Bamboozled used the word "barbaric" to precise which russians he describes. He didn't use the word to insult all Russians. Have you ever heard the term "Nazi Germany"? Do you think, that people using this term intend to insult Germany? I find that ridiculous in a semantic way, that's just not how words work. Look at 2nd Bamboozled's comment and at Michaelmrose comment. > (I would have had no problem if the original comment said "the invasion of the Ukraine by Russians is barbaric" as an example) So you have no problem with what Bamboozled meant, only with how he phrased it. That's splitting hairs.
    - orestarod 5y ago
      You are in essence saying that if Russians conquer the whole of Ukraine and put all Ukrainians in a few pockets, Russians are the rightful owners of the place and Ukrainian fighting back after the fact is unprovoked aggression, if enough decades pass without Russia losing control of Ukraine?
      - Etherlord87 5y ago
        Am I really saying that? That's surely not what I meant, but it's interesting to know my words could be understood in such a dramatically different way to my intentions.
        orestarod 5y ago
        Sorry for the confusion, maybe I even answered to the wrong comment? I was answering to a comment that somehow justified the situation in Israel while at the same time saying Russian invasion is unacceptable. If it was not your comment and you did not make these claims (too lazy to check further up now) move on. I just made a direct analogy point to point between Israel's actions and Russia's actions. I do not really believe they can be viewed in a different light, in particular Israel in a more favorable light, which I believe is something you (whoever I wanted to answer to) deduced in your comment. You can put one on one points between the Russian invasion and the Israeli colonization of Palestine, and the only real difference is that in Israel the victims were not white people.

So would you say it is just like how the jewish barbarians are taking land in the middle East, or the black barbarians are shooting and robbing each other for personal gain in cities in the USA?

Etherlord87 5y ago

There's many differences between russian barbarians, and Israeli forces: - Israel has a rich history of Palestinian attacks with many Jewish *civilian* casualties, whereas the russian aggression is unprovoked. - Israeli forces are better prepared and better treated by its country than the russian cannon fodder with e.g. outdated food rations or poorly armored vehicles, though I don't know if that's what bamboozled meant as well. - I could be wrong, but while not being emotionally prejudiced towards/against Palestine, Israel, Russia and Ukraine prior to the conflicts, in a heuristic sense, just estimating the severity of breaking human rights, russian forces seem to have far worse standards than Israeli forces. Likewise with Ukraine vs Palestine. In case of Ukrainians we see refugees and children hiding in bunkers and being dragged out of them by russian forces. In case of Palestine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_b... See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma Your comparison to black people is even less justified, to the point where I won't even comment on it.

TapWaterBandit 5y ago
You are splitting hairs and focusing on the wrong thing. Even if everything you say is true, it is inherently wrong as well as unproductive to refer to ethnic/religious groups as "barbarians" based on the actions of some portion of that groups behaviour. It essentialises the group even though there are countless Russians who dont support this behaviour and therefore aren't "barbarians". Behaviour can certainly be barbaric and referred to as such (I would have had no problem if the original comment said "the invasion of the Ukraine by Russians is barbaric" as an example), but referring to entire nations/ethnic groups/religions as barbarians based on a portion of that group's behaviour is deeply dehumanising and one of the most toxic ways to engage in these sorts of discussions with very negative outcomes for both sides by denying other people their humanity. Can you name a single time in history ever where framing conflict in such a manner has led to anything positive? Because I certainly can't and there are PLENTY of examples of it being done. However much some people may relish the opportunity to finally have an "enemy" they can dehumanise and hate, it is always ethically wrong as well as being counter-productive to do so no matter how good it might feel to some people.
- Etherlord87 5y ago
  Splitting hairs - absolutely not, provoked and unprovoked aggression is a very significant difference. Focusing on the wrong thing - it seems so. Bamboozled used the word "barbaric" to precise which russians he describes. He didn't use the word to insult all Russians. Have you ever heard the term "Nazi Germany"? Do you think, that people using this term intend to insult Germany? I find that ridiculous in a semantic way, that's just not how words work. Look at 2nd Bamboozled's comment and at Michaelmrose comment. > (I would have had no problem if the original comment said "the invasion of the Ukraine by Russians is barbaric" as an example) So you have no problem with what Bamboozled meant, only with how he phrased it. That's splitting hairs.
  - orestarod 5y ago
    You are in essence saying that if Russians conquer the whole of Ukraine and put all Ukrainians in a few pockets, Russians are the rightful owners of the place and Ukrainian fighting back after the fact is unprovoked aggression, if enough decades pass without Russia losing control of Ukraine?
    - Etherlord87 5y ago
      Am I really saying that? That's surely not what I meant, but it's interesting to know my words could be understood in such a dramatically different way to my intentions.
      - orestarod 5y ago
        Sorry for the confusion, maybe I even answered to the wrong comment? I was answering to a comment that somehow justified the situation in Israel while at the same time saying Russian invasion is unacceptable. If it was not your comment and you did not make these claims (too lazy to check further up now) move on. I just made a direct analogy point to point between Israel's actions and Russia's actions. I do not really believe they can be viewed in a different light, in particular Israel in a more favorable light, which I believe is something you (whoever I wanted to answer to) deduced in your comment. You can put one on one points between the Russian invasion and the Israeli colonization of Palestine, and the only real difference is that in Israel the victims were not white people.