4 ms·
Which part are you skeptical about? For example this part: > Russia got away with annexing Crimea. They invaded again. They demanded that NATO gives up defend
by ajuc 4y ago
Which part are you skeptical about?
For example this part:
> Russia got away with annexing Crimea. They invaded again. They demanded that NATO gives up defending about 100 milion people in Eastern Europe (including myself).
has already happened - Russia annexed Crimea, got barely a response from the west so they invaded again and demanded NATO leaves EE countries that got accepted in 90s.
The part about what happens when Russia annexes you is based on how life looks like in occupied Ukraine and in Russia proper. There's more people imprisoned for political reasons in Russia right now than there was in USSR in 50s. And USSR had twice the population. If you call the "special operation" a war or if you take a blank page and stand with it in a city square - you get arrested. Corruption in Russia is also pretty well documented. As is the "2 wars per decade", the conscription and the "sending barely trained recruits to kill and/or die".
The part about Russia invading Baltic states and Poland after they conquer Ukraine was based on Russian propagandists and politicians (including for example Kadyrov) saying it outright in public media.
- mistermann 4y ago> Which part are you skeptical about? It's not that I'm skeptical, it is more of an epistemological issue. For example, I asked you two questions about your facts (I presume?): >> I enjoyed your story, but I have one question: to what degree is it actually true? - >> For example, is it actually possible to see the future? Are you sure (and if so: how) that what you're describing is actually that? ... but you didn't answer them. To me, that is a red flag. In addition to that: there are events happening in Ukraine right now that involve people dying. If ever there was a time to be concerned about what is true (comprehensively, and actually), this seems like a fine candidate. But instead, people seem to insist on dealing in narratives, and dodge (or respond with evasive rhetoric and memes (see sibling comments in this sub-thread)) any questions about truth. One one hand, you might just dismiss this as "people being people", and there's a lot of truth to it. But when something is presented to them explicitly and directly, repeatedly, and they behave as if they have literally not even seen it....well, at some point I think someone should point out that the emperor has wardrobe problems.
- ajuc 4y agoStop the mental gymnastics and tell me which part you disagree about.
- mistermann 4y agoThese techniques/behaviors do not work on me. I'm calling your bluff. Have you anything other than memes in your kit?