5 ms·

Look - if you earnestly believe this, then you are racist. I harbor no love for the Russian Federation, and am not blind to "Russian lawlessness" that pervades

Look - if you earnestly believe this, then you are racist. I harbor no love for the Russian Federation, and am not blind to "Russian lawlessness" that pervades in accounts of their governance. Neither of those are rational justifications to hate a person's race, any more than blaming Syrian citizens for the chemical attacks their government does. It exposes the lack of depth in your character and the immaturity of your judgement to unfairly slight so many people like that. If every Russian person and every Russian culture is intrinsically evil, why would the world help defend Ukraine? Because the people aren't the problem, doofus. Either get off your high horse or tell us which country you come from so we can proportionally criticize your own "responsibility".

belter 2y ago
Your accusation of racism confuses criticizing immutable characteristics with analyzing societal choices. This is a fundamental logical error. :-) If we discuss German society role in enabling the Third Reich, it is not racism against Germans. If we analyze Japanese society's role in WWII atrocities and unit 731, it is not racist against Japanese people. These discussions led to positive cultural changes precisely because they focused on changeable behaviors, not ethnicity. Your Syria comparison actually proves my point. Syrians demonstrated massive resistance to their government - millions chose exile, fought back, or actively protested. In contrast, we see 80%+ support for the war in Russia, limited internal resistance relative to population size, and widespread diaspora support. The "racist" counterargument appears to be a rhetorical device on your part to shut down legitimate discussion of societal responsibility. It's particularly telling that instead of addressing the evidence (documented support for rapes, patterns of behavior, cultural acceptance of authoritarianism), you jump to accusations of racism. Each society must face its choices. Germany did. Japan did. Many others have. This isn't about inherent characteristics - it's about changeable behaviors and cultural patterns that enable specific outcomes. As a final example: In the USA a majority of the actual voters, just a few week ago, elected as president an individual convicted of rape in civil procedure, convicted of business fraud in a court by a jury of it's peers, that refused to rent to people of color, mocked a disabled reporter, simulated oral sex with a microphone in front of children, and tried 44 times to remove a law that protected health care patients with pre-existing conditions. Do you say these millions do not have any collective responsibility on their decisions, on what was a free election? :-)

belter 2y ago

Your accusation of racism confuses criticizing immutable characteristics with analyzing societal choices. This is a fundamental logical error. :-) If we discuss German society role in enabling the Third Reich, it is not racism against Germans. If we analyze Japanese society's role in WWII atrocities and unit 731, it is not racist against Japanese people. These discussions led to positive cultural changes precisely because they focused on changeable behaviors, not ethnicity. Your Syria comparison actually proves my point. Syrians demonstrated massive resistance to their government - millions chose exile, fought back, or actively protested. In contrast, we see 80%+ support for the war in Russia, limited internal resistance relative to population size, and widespread diaspora support. The "racist" counterargument appears to be a rhetorical device on your part to shut down legitimate discussion of societal responsibility. It's particularly telling that instead of addressing the evidence (documented support for rapes, patterns of behavior, cultural acceptance of authoritarianism), you jump to accusations of racism. Each society must face its choices. Germany did. Japan did. Many others have. This isn't about inherent characteristics - it's about changeable behaviors and cultural patterns that enable specific outcomes. As a final example: In the USA a majority of the actual voters, just a few week ago, elected as president an individual convicted of rape in civil procedure, convicted of business fraud in a court by a jury of it's peers, that refused to rent to people of color, mocked a disabled reporter, simulated oral sex with a microphone in front of children, and tried 44 times to remove a law that protected health care patients with pre-existing conditions. Do you say these millions do not have any collective responsibility on their decisions, on what was a free election? :-)