Love the way this is phrased, gonna borrow it for threats

“I will absolve your ass from the fabric of reality for the rest of time.”

What, you think “ethics” is something that exists independently of the social order that creates it? It’s capitalist ethics, just like marrying your daughter to some nobleman twice her age in exchange for some cows was feudal ethics.

It used to be That 70s Show, but too many of the cast is too weird/creepy now

Can you find an example of anyone actually saying that?

?

Instigating violence is when you point out history instead of having costume parties outside of ICE concentration camps👍

Are you talking about the Minsk agreements?

Of course they wouldn’t claim to take it in 3 days

So now you agree that what you just said was a lie? Cool, now we’re getting somewhere.

The goal is not to take all of Ukraine, because this isn’t medieval times lol. The goals are:

-Liberate the Donbas republics, which the Ukrainian coup regime had spent a decade ethnically cleansing

-Prevent Ukraine from being admitted to NATO, which would put a nuclear armed US puppet government within 15 minutes strike distance to Moscow and is therefore an unacceptable security risk to the RF

-Break the AFU’s ability to launch conventional missile strikes within Russia

Goals one and two have been achieved, while Russia’s continued attrition of the Ukranian military is in the process of achieving the third.

On a personal note, is simping for a nazi regime how you imagined you’d spend your life?

Nope, and neither do you: the oft-repeated “3 days” line was said by a US state department ghoul who was ascribing that attitude to the Russians. You will not find a representative of the Russian Federation claiming to take Ukraine in 3 days, because that’s something that has been memed into collective memory despite not actually happening.

It’s definitely a military operation though, you’ve got that much correct.

What color is the sky in your world, traveller?

Hey remember when anyone suggesting that Ukraine wasn’t about to storm Moscow in two weeks was a Russian bot? Remember when Russia was on the verge of collapse like, seven times? And Russain soldiers had never seen paved roads or washing machines, and were fighting with shovels, and the Ukranians were mowing them down in their hundreds and thousands?

When you swallow load after load of bullshit because it reinforces a story you want to believe, you incur a debt to the truth, to reality. And now that the debt is coming due, you have no recourse but to attack the people who didn’t allow themselves to be seduced by flattering nonsense. Deep down, you know you got played.

Heartbreaking: worst person you know etc etc

Ah yes, the system responsible for the production, allocation and hoarding of every resource and service in our entire civilization, the system that creates every single incentive by which we are motivated or punished, simply must not be responsible for this. It must just be “some other horror.”

Liberalism is what got us into this situation. Trying to liberal your way out of fascism is like trying to drink your way out of liver failure or smoke your way out of emphysema.

The most perturbing question for the liberal is the question of violence. The liberal’s initial reaction to violence is to try to convince the oppressed that violence is an incorrect tactic, that violence will not work, that violence never accomplishes anything. The Europeans took America through violence and through violence they established the most powerful country in the world. Through violence they maintain the most powerful country in the world. It is absolutely absurd for one to say that violence never accomplishes anything.

The way the oppressor tries to stop the oppressed from using violence as a means to attain liberation is to raise ethical or moral questions about violence. I want to state emphatically here that violence in any society is neither moral nor is it ethical. It is neither right nor is it wrong. It is just simply a question of who has the power to legalize violence.

I used that example only to point out that the oppressor never really puts an ethical or moral judgment on violence, except when the oppressed picks up guns against the oppressor. For the oppressor, violence is simply the expedient thing to do.

Is it not violent for a child to go to bed hungry in the richest country in the world? I think that is violent. But that type of violence is so institutionalized that it becomes a part of our way of life. Not only do we accept poverty, we even find it normal. And that again is because the oppressor makes his violence a part of the functioning society. But the violence of the oppressed becomes disruptive. It is disruptive to the ruling circles of a given society. And because it is disruptive it is therefore very easy to recognize, and therefore it becomes the target of all those who in fact do not want to change the society. What we want to do for our people, the oppressed, is to begin to legitimatize violence in their minds. So that for us violence against the oppressor will be expedient. This is very important, because we have all been brainwashed into accepting questions of moral judgment when violence is used against the oppressor.

Excerpts from The Pitfalls of Liberalism, written 1969

https://redsails.org/the-pitfalls-of-liberalism/