Because the idea that people in Russia will not be dying for their country but instead be dying for the fantasy of the president is either completely universal for all countries, and therefore not notable, or it’s an attempt to demonstrate how this situation is notably different than in other contexts.
That’s a false dichotomy, but honestly even if you granted it I don’t think it affects the validity of the original statement. People dying for one thing when they think they’re dying for another is sad, even if it happens everywhere all the time. I also don’t really get the contention, that saying “a particular aspect of Russian nationalism is bad” is not notable, when this is literally a post about a particular aspect of Russian nationalism?
You don’t see the problem with an article picking a universal experience, accentuating it by writing an article about it, omitting any mention of other examples of it in any other country, and doing it in the context of war mongering, war profiteering, proxy warfare, distribution of weapons to neo-Nazi groups that were supported as part of a multi-decade pro-Nazi leave-behind system (Operation Gladio), as part of th expansion of the world’s only transnational nuclear military that is unaccountable to any citizens of any country that has launched multiple wars of aggression and occupation?
You don’t see how an article like that contributes to a narrative of othering and dehumanization by it’s silent ommission and lack of acknowledgement? You don’t see how that narrative of othering and dehumanization leads to mass murder, ecocide, and escalation towards nuclear conflict?
You think everything is just a spherical frictionless ball in a world without air resistance that has no interactions with anything else and isn’t informed by nor informs other major trends?
I mean I straight-up didn’t say any of that, nor is it reasonable to infer that I take those positions from what I did say. I’m not even talking about the article; I’m talking about your initial critique of OPs comment. Now if you think that their comment is wrong or misleading then ok, sure, but that’s not what you said (or at least it didn’t seem to be).
This seems like it would be better suited as a top-level response to the post rather than as a response to something that I never said. There are enough libs on the internet that excuse or ignore fascism/imperialism such that you don’t need to invent new ones to argue with.
Because the idea that people in Russia will not be dying for their country but instead be dying for the fantasy of the president is either completely universal for all countries, and therefore not notable, or it’s an attempt to demonstrate how this situation is notably different than in other contexts.
That’s a false dichotomy, but honestly even if you granted it I don’t think it affects the validity of the original statement. People dying for one thing when they think they’re dying for another is sad, even if it happens everywhere all the time. I also don’t really get the contention, that saying “a particular aspect of Russian nationalism is bad” is not notable, when this is literally a post about a particular aspect of Russian nationalism?
You don’t see the problem with an article picking a universal experience, accentuating it by writing an article about it, omitting any mention of other examples of it in any other country, and doing it in the context of war mongering, war profiteering, proxy warfare, distribution of weapons to neo-Nazi groups that were supported as part of a multi-decade pro-Nazi leave-behind system (Operation Gladio), as part of th expansion of the world’s only transnational nuclear military that is unaccountable to any citizens of any country that has launched multiple wars of aggression and occupation?
You don’t see how an article like that contributes to a narrative of othering and dehumanization by it’s silent ommission and lack of acknowledgement? You don’t see how that narrative of othering and dehumanization leads to mass murder, ecocide, and escalation towards nuclear conflict?
You think everything is just a spherical frictionless ball in a world without air resistance that has no interactions with anything else and isn’t informed by nor informs other major trends?
I mean I straight-up didn’t say any of that, nor is it reasonable to infer that I take those positions from what I did say. I’m not even talking about the article; I’m talking about your initial critique of OPs comment. Now if you think that their comment is wrong or misleading then ok, sure, but that’s not what you said (or at least it didn’t seem to be).
This seems like it would be better suited as a top-level response to the post rather than as a response to something that I never said. There are enough libs on the internet that excuse or ignore fascism/imperialism such that you don’t need to invent new ones to argue with.
Another day another defense of the charge of hypocrisy with the “whataboutism” cliché.
How do you look yourself in the mirror?