9 ms·

My guess is that they got caught up in the socially accepted "hate fest" against citizens of a certain country, particularly by private companies.

pkulak 5y ago
If a company does business in Russia right now, they are giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians. Let's not conflate wartime trade policy with Twitter wokeness marketing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- slig 5y ago
  What about countries buying oil and gas from them?
  - 542458 5y ago
    Yes, that is bad too. However, in some cases it is necessary to prevent people from freezing, so there is a balancing act. Note that fossil fuel dependency just became a much more common political discussion item in Europe.
    - gruez 5y ago
      While it's unreasonable to expect europeans to freeze to death to protect ukranians, I think there's a middle ground between "business as usual" and "protect ukraine at all costs" that's not being considered here. Specifically, turning the temperature down to 5-10°C and wearing a coat. I doubt you'll be freezing to death in those circumstances. Is there widespread effort by europeans to do this? If not, then the parent's is still mostly correct: europeans are not willing to endure slight discomfort to prevent "giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians".
      - leaflets2 5y ago
        I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. And energy intensive industries could close for a while. Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war?
        leaflets2 5y ago
        It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? What if everyone wrote to their politicians (in one's respective country) and said that they'd happy wear extra clothes indoors
        gruez 5y ago
        > It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? They're probably worried about stated preference vs revealed preference. People say that they stand with ukraine and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices to help ukraine/hurt russia. That might be true, but they might not be willing to actually pay the cost (eg. higher gas prices).
        leaflets2 5y ago
        Good point. Maybe in some cases, people won't know until afterwards, if they actually want more sanctions or not -- until after they've gotten to try it and discover how it was. Especially problems with transportation could cause anger, I suspect. Whilst extra clothes is maybe simpler. Now I start thinking that more buses and bike lanes in a way can be seen as part of a military defense strategy, hmm. (If the population does mostly ok without oil)
        def_true_false 5y ago
        > Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war? German policy of the last decade in a nutshell. Green feel-good crap for the masses while building more pipelines to Russia, literally planned to enable gas delivery even in case of conflict in Eastern Europe.
  - reaperducer 5y ago
    What about countries buying oil and gas from them? They're almost all (except India) moving away from that. It's not something that can be done overnight. It's been in the news for almost a month now.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  There are US companies still selling health products to Russian citizens. What is the expectation, to let them die? I fully understand that cars, fast food, liqueur or perfumes are things to stop selling, but essential products not. The average Ivan and Natasha should not receive a collective punishment (to death in some cases) for what some guy they may not have even voted for is doing.
  - _whiteCaps_ 5y ago
    Everyone selling pharmaceuticals should follow Pfizer's example and donate profits from sales in Russia: https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-profits-from-russia-instead-of-pulling-out-heres-why https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-...
    - burrows 5y ago
      Why should other companies do that?
- blub 5y ago
  They’ll most likely use it to pay their employees, since employment costs are the biggest chunk of expenses for many companies. From the money that goes to the government, some will go to fund the war, but some will go towards social support, maintenance, etc just like any other country. Where does this black and white caricature of an idea come from if not twitter? Acting like all the money in Russia is used to make bullets which are sent directly to the front. Not to mention that there’s quite a few countries killing people today and nearly nobody’s boycotting them.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I know this will get labeled as whataboutism, so to pre-empt that I am suggesting sanctions and Hague charges for all perpetrators, but what is uniquely bad about killing Ukrainians over Syrians, Libyans, or Iraqis?
  - reaperducer 5y ago
    I haven't seen anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, state that killing Ukrainians is uniquely bad. Do you have a source for this assertion?
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      They are obliquely complaining that the US gets a free pass to blow up civilians in other countries in the course of pursuing its own geopolitical goals, an by extension the US armed forces are exempt from international prosecution. As for domestic prosecution, the record is mixed, but there was that high-profile case that got a presidential pardon.
    - ensan 5y ago
      Then, if you live in a western country, stop paying taxes because it supports killing innocent people, and to a much larger extent than what is going on in Ukraine. Leave your job because tech companies have contracts with the government/"defense industry" and also pay taxes. Don't buy anything from the grocery stores. Cancel your flight if it's on an Airbus/Boeing. Otherwise, it's all empty talk. To be clear, it absolutely is in my opinion.
      - dunkelheit 5y ago
        It is kind of crazy when one remembers all the human rights abuses that companies providing popular products and services tolerate and benefit from, and where the tax money goes. It is almost as if if the goal is to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, the only two options are abandoning modern lifestyle... or not protesting at all.
      - mrtranscendence 5y ago
- deltarholamda 5y ago
  If a company shows support for the Ukraine, then they are giving aid and comfort to the Ukrainian military who was shelling civilians in the Donbass region for the past decade.
  - zucker42 5y ago
    Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that Ukraine was the instigator as far as ceasefire violations go. As far as I can tell, that's not true. However, the real way to find out for sure would be to go through the OSCE SMM reports[1] about ceasefire violations and determine what percentage of them were likely from Ukranian-controlled territory versus separatist-controlled territory. [1] https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports
    - deltarholamda 5y ago
      Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that there are situations where civilian casualties are perfectly acceptable. My only real point was that who the Good Guys and who the Bad Guys are in Ukraine are predetermined by the set of assumptions you start with. Everybody who was paying attention isn't that surprised by the invasion. It's not even a puzzle as to why Russia would do it. They spelled it out quite clearly, and have been saying it for years. Which is why I find the media narrative annoying. It's an almost perfect example of gaslighting. The only response to Russia's complaints about NATO meddling in Ukraine being provocative is to make some kind of counter-offer to offset the provocation. To suggest that there wasn't any meddling, or that Russia just invaded out of the blue for no good reason other than sheer evilness, is either staggeringly wrong, or a deliberate lie.
      - dwaltrip 5y ago
        Are you saying Russia is not a bad actor here? I'm not very convinced by your arguments.
        burrows 5y ago
ziml77 5y ago
None of this is hate against the citizens. No one wants to hurt the innocent people in Russia. But pulling out of Russia is about the only thing that anyone can do to slow the flow of money that will be used to fund the invasion of Ukraine. The optimal thing would be to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, though that is also going to leave many dead. Just because they're soldiers doesn't mean they deserve death. But that's not an option anyway, because a NATO country joining the fight directly will cause World War 3. At best we end up with multiple countries from both sides joining the fight. At worst the nukes start flying.
- zucker42 5y ago
  > No one wants to hurt the innocent people in Russia. The actions of the node-ipc maintainer's seem to provide evidence against this assertion.
  - ailef 5y ago
    And it's also well known that innocent people are those who eventually end up paying the highest price for the sanctions.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > The optimal thing would be to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, though that is also going to leave many dead. And the primary victims will be Ukrainian. Even considering that Europe has its arms open to this particular class of refugee, the country that they left will be a smoking crater. I wish we'd stop pretending that we're arming the Ukrainians for the Ukrainians' sake; we're trying to extend the war as long as possible in order to economically destroy Russia. The end stage of that is Western and central Ukraine being reduced to dust. Russia has committed something like 15% of its military so far IIRC. This is just a matter of time. Ukrainians are being pushed through jingoistic nationalist propaganda (which is enforced at the borders if men who are old enough to carry a weapon try to leave) to destroy their country, and letting extreme-right minorities of the population (who are basically Banderaite lost-cause Nazis) lead. Those groups are happy to burn their country so the disgusting muslim commies won't rule it, and to die in glorious battle against them. The disgusting thing is Americans are parroting the Azov rhetoric, too. Fat slobs sitting on a couch watching MSNBC/FOX/CNN all day and yelling at the television are calling Ukrainians traitors for leaving, and demanding that they be armed and sent back in. The optimal thing is not to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, it's for Ukraine to give up. The world has shown it's willing to take white refugees, so those that fear Russian persecution can escape. Plenty would have happily emigrated without the Russian invasion, but the doors to Europe and the US were shut to them before. NATO re-promises not to put their alliance whose animating premise is anti-Russian on the borders of Russia. Ukraine rebuilds and normalizes. What have they lost anyway? They were dominated by the Russians (and hopelessly corrupt), then a Western-incited and funded coup used the extreme-right element to install a (hopelessly corrupt) puppet who left office with a 5% approval rating, so the public elected an actor who played a president on television (also fully owned by an oligarch), which is an act so desperate, it would seem insane if the US hadn't elected a guy who played a boss on television to be president, or Italy hadn't handed its politics to a comedian playing the wise fool, or Boris Johnson hadn't been. Russia and the US trashed Ukraine, and we're cheering them on while they finish the job. Even better, maybe we can push Russia into using some tiny nuke that we can't justify destroying the entire world over. Because the fact is, if they nuke Ukraine, we're not going to do shit. They know it. Lets make them feel so victimized to the man that they do it to reclaim some face, and piss the average Russian civilian off so much that they feel like there's nothing left to lose but their pride.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pkulak 5y ago

If a company does business in Russia right now, they are giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians. Let's not conflate wartime trade policy with Twitter wokeness marketing.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
slig 5y ago
What about countries buying oil and gas from them?
- 542458 5y ago
  Yes, that is bad too. However, in some cases it is necessary to prevent people from freezing, so there is a balancing act. Note that fossil fuel dependency just became a much more common political discussion item in Europe.
  - gruez 5y ago
    While it's unreasonable to expect europeans to freeze to death to protect ukranians, I think there's a middle ground between "business as usual" and "protect ukraine at all costs" that's not being considered here. Specifically, turning the temperature down to 5-10°C and wearing a coat. I doubt you'll be freezing to death in those circumstances. Is there widespread effort by europeans to do this? If not, then the parent's is still mostly correct: europeans are not willing to endure slight discomfort to prevent "giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians".
    - leaflets2 5y ago
      I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. And energy intensive industries could close for a while. Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war?
      - leaflets2 5y ago
        It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? What if everyone wrote to their politicians (in one's respective country) and said that they'd happy wear extra clothes indoors
        gruez 5y ago
        > It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? They're probably worried about stated preference vs revealed preference. People say that they stand with ukraine and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices to help ukraine/hurt russia. That might be true, but they might not be willing to actually pay the cost (eg. higher gas prices).
        leaflets2 5y ago
        Good point. Maybe in some cases, people won't know until afterwards, if they actually want more sanctions or not -- until after they've gotten to try it and discover how it was. Especially problems with transportation could cause anger, I suspect. Whilst extra clothes is maybe simpler. Now I start thinking that more buses and bike lanes in a way can be seen as part of a military defense strategy, hmm. (If the population does mostly ok without oil)
      - def_true_false 5y ago
        > Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war? German policy of the last decade in a nutshell. Green feel-good crap for the masses while building more pipelines to Russia, literally planned to enable gas delivery even in case of conflict in Eastern Europe.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  What about countries buying oil and gas from them? They're almost all (except India) moving away from that. It's not something that can be done overnight. It's been in the news for almost a month now.
AdrianB1 5y ago
There are US companies still selling health products to Russian citizens. What is the expectation, to let them die? I fully understand that cars, fast food, liqueur or perfumes are things to stop selling, but essential products not. The average Ivan and Natasha should not receive a collective punishment (to death in some cases) for what some guy they may not have even voted for is doing.
- _whiteCaps_ 5y ago
  Everyone selling pharmaceuticals should follow Pfizer's example and donate profits from sales in Russia: https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-profits-from-russia-instead-of-pulling-out-heres-why https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-...
  - burrows 5y ago
    Why should other companies do that?
blub 5y ago
They’ll most likely use it to pay their employees, since employment costs are the biggest chunk of expenses for many companies. From the money that goes to the government, some will go to fund the war, but some will go towards social support, maintenance, etc just like any other country. Where does this black and white caricature of an idea come from if not twitter? Acting like all the money in Russia is used to make bullets which are sent directly to the front. Not to mention that there’s quite a few countries killing people today and nearly nobody’s boycotting them.
whimsicalism 5y ago
I know this will get labeled as whataboutism, so to pre-empt that I am suggesting sanctions and Hague charges for all perpetrators, but what is uniquely bad about killing Ukrainians over Syrians, Libyans, or Iraqis?
- reaperducer 5y ago
  I haven't seen anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, state that killing Ukrainians is uniquely bad. Do you have a source for this assertion?
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    They are obliquely complaining that the US gets a free pass to blow up civilians in other countries in the course of pursuing its own geopolitical goals, an by extension the US armed forces are exempt from international prosecution. As for domestic prosecution, the record is mixed, but there was that high-profile case that got a presidential pardon.
  - ensan 5y ago
    Then, if you live in a western country, stop paying taxes because it supports killing innocent people, and to a much larger extent than what is going on in Ukraine. Leave your job because tech companies have contracts with the government/"defense industry" and also pay taxes. Don't buy anything from the grocery stores. Cancel your flight if it's on an Airbus/Boeing. Otherwise, it's all empty talk. To be clear, it absolutely is in my opinion.
    - dunkelheit 5y ago
      It is kind of crazy when one remembers all the human rights abuses that companies providing popular products and services tolerate and benefit from, and where the tax money goes. It is almost as if if the goal is to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, the only two options are abandoning modern lifestyle... or not protesting at all.
    - mrtranscendence 5y ago
deltarholamda 5y ago
If a company shows support for the Ukraine, then they are giving aid and comfort to the Ukrainian military who was shelling civilians in the Donbass region for the past decade.
- zucker42 5y ago
  Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that Ukraine was the instigator as far as ceasefire violations go. As far as I can tell, that's not true. However, the real way to find out for sure would be to go through the OSCE SMM reports[1] about ceasefire violations and determine what percentage of them were likely from Ukranian-controlled territory versus separatist-controlled territory. [1] https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports
  - deltarholamda 5y ago
    Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that there are situations where civilian casualties are perfectly acceptable. My only real point was that who the Good Guys and who the Bad Guys are in Ukraine are predetermined by the set of assumptions you start with. Everybody who was paying attention isn't that surprised by the invasion. It's not even a puzzle as to why Russia would do it. They spelled it out quite clearly, and have been saying it for years. Which is why I find the media narrative annoying. It's an almost perfect example of gaslighting. The only response to Russia's complaints about NATO meddling in Ukraine being provocative is to make some kind of counter-offer to offset the provocation. To suggest that there wasn't any meddling, or that Russia just invaded out of the blue for no good reason other than sheer evilness, is either staggeringly wrong, or a deliberate lie.
    - dwaltrip 5y ago
      Are you saying Russia is not a bad actor here? I'm not very convinced by your arguments.
      - burrows 5y ago

ziml77 5y ago

None of this is hate against the citizens. No one wants to hurt the innocent people in Russia. But pulling out of Russia is about the only thing that anyone can do to slow the flow of money that will be used to fund the invasion of Ukraine. The optimal thing would be to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, though that is also going to leave many dead. Just because they're soldiers doesn't mean they deserve death. But that's not an option anyway, because a NATO country joining the fight directly will cause World War 3. At best we end up with multiple countries from both sides joining the fight. At worst the nukes start flying.

zucker42 5y ago
> No one wants to hurt the innocent people in Russia. The actions of the node-ipc maintainer's seem to provide evidence against this assertion.
- ailef 5y ago
  And it's also well known that innocent people are those who eventually end up paying the highest price for the sanctions.
pessimizer 5y ago
> The optimal thing would be to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, though that is also going to leave many dead. And the primary victims will be Ukrainian. Even considering that Europe has its arms open to this particular class of refugee, the country that they left will be a smoking crater. I wish we'd stop pretending that we're arming the Ukrainians for the Ukrainians' sake; we're trying to extend the war as long as possible in order to economically destroy Russia. The end stage of that is Western and central Ukraine being reduced to dust. Russia has committed something like 15% of its military so far IIRC. This is just a matter of time. Ukrainians are being pushed through jingoistic nationalist propaganda (which is enforced at the borders if men who are old enough to carry a weapon try to leave) to destroy their country, and letting extreme-right minorities of the population (who are basically Banderaite lost-cause Nazis) lead. Those groups are happy to burn their country so the disgusting muslim commies won't rule it, and to die in glorious battle against them. The disgusting thing is Americans are parroting the Azov rhetoric, too. Fat slobs sitting on a couch watching MSNBC/FOX/CNN all day and yelling at the television are calling Ukrainians traitors for leaving, and demanding that they be armed and sent back in. The optimal thing is not to push the Russians out of Ukraine with military force, it's for Ukraine to give up. The world has shown it's willing to take white refugees, so those that fear Russian persecution can escape. Plenty would have happily emigrated without the Russian invasion, but the doors to Europe and the US were shut to them before. NATO re-promises not to put their alliance whose animating premise is anti-Russian on the borders of Russia. Ukraine rebuilds and normalizes. What have they lost anyway? They were dominated by the Russians (and hopelessly corrupt), then a Western-incited and funded coup used the extreme-right element to install a (hopelessly corrupt) puppet who left office with a 5% approval rating, so the public elected an actor who played a president on television (also fully owned by an oligarch), which is an act so desperate, it would seem insane if the US hadn't elected a guy who played a boss on television to be president, or Italy hadn't handed its politics to a comedian playing the wise fool, or Boris Johnson hadn't been. Russia and the US trashed Ukraine, and we're cheering them on while they finish the job. Even better, maybe we can push Russia into using some tiny nuke that we can't justify destroying the entire world over. Because the fact is, if they nuke Ukraine, we're not going to do shit. They know it. Lets make them feel so victimized to the man that they do it to reclaim some face, and piss the average Russian civilian off so much that they feel like there's nothing left to lose but their pride.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]