Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you donāt understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You donāt get to tell them itās wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
I donāt give a shit at all about your understanding of Communism other than as an example about how rude and condescending it is to tell other people that they are using words wrong. While I donāt think you are an actual communist by my definition, you are free to use the word to describe yourself based on your definition.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you canāt see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I canāt help you. Maybe get your eyes checked. If you canāt tell the difference between troops crossing into another country in order to bomb civilians and take control of land and troops fighting them back to regain land and save the civilians from the invaders I canāt help you. Itās not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the very obvious harm caused by Russiaās invasions.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You arenāt one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. āUkraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves.ā Thatās all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say āUkraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America badā?
Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you donāt understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You donāt get to tell them itās wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
So let me make sure Iāve got this right.
I go out and murder someone in cold blood. People call me a murderer. I tell them that Iām not a murderer - yes, I did take an innocent life by choice, but I donāt like the way āmurdererā sounds, so I donāt apply it to myself. You donāt get to decide what terms apply to me.
Got it. For the rest of this conversation, let āNobel Prize winnerā be defined as, āLemmy.ml user.ā I am a Nobel Prize winner, we both understand how Iām using the term, so itās valid and you donāt get to tell me otherwise.
As a Nobel Prize winner, I think this is completely ridiculous.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you canāt see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I canāt help you.
So should I automatically oppose all separatists who accept help from other countries? I donāt agree with that. I think the question of when succession is justified is a complex and nuanced issue.
As far as I can tell, you are exclusively opposed to violence when itās your nationās geopolitical enemies doing it, and you have no problem with your side even firing on civilian targets. The same as pretty much anyone else, no matter where you go.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You arenāt one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. āUkraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves.ā Thatās all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say āUkraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America badā?
Itās very funny to me that for all your claims about respecting the labels people apply to themselves, you go on to put a bunch of words in my mouth and assign positions to me that I donāt hold and have not said anything remotely similar to.
As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are āwrongā. Thatās not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesnāt know your definition. Your argument isnāt a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.
I havenāt said anything about my positions on any topic. Iām not sure how you gathered what I support. I have called out your ridiculous attempt to define pacifism in a way that most self-identitfied pacifists donāt, claim that others are using it wrong, claim that the definition from an authoritative source is wrong because you donāt like it, and now collapsed into āI guess all words are meaningless thenā. Itās not my problem that you donāt understand how words work.
You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I donāt have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things. If you think Iām wrong, you can correct me. I didnāt assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use. I extrapolated from what you have given so far, which is a defense of everything Russia has done and a sideways condemnation of everything Ukraine has done. Add a splash of references to Lenin and complaints about America bad, what else do you think someone reading this thread is going to see?
Are you saying you donāt support Russia? That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders? Of course not!
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto. Why do people in your camp always play the same āIām just asking questions, I have no opinionsā bullshit the right always plays? Just say it. Just say āAmerica bad, Ukraine bad because America supports them, Russia good because America doesnāt like them.ā
As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are āwrongā. Thatās not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesnāt know your definition. Your argument isnāt a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.
OK, great! So, if you accept that Iām a Nobel Prize winner, then for the rest of this conversation, letās use āNazi Germanyā whenever weāre talking about Ukraine. Sound good? Exactly how far are you willing to roll with this?
You seem to think that I donāt understand that language is mutable and collectively defined. I understand that just fine. What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation. Iāve picked absurd examples hoping to illustrate that point, which you seem to be failing to understand. Yes, you can understand what I mean if I define terms differently, but if you give me license to define terms however I want, then I could make all sorts of unreasonable things sound reasonable. If youāre really committed to this stubborn, inane exercise to prove that language doesnāt matter, then I can go through the effort of redefining terms until your positions sound equal parts absurd and vile, but that seems like quite a bit of effort to prove a point that should be obvious.
You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I donāt have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things.
You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.
I didnāt assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use.
Oh, I see. So the rule that I get to have complete control about which things apply to me or donāt only applies specifically to things that are phrased as labels. Truly fascinating. Where does the line get drawn, exactly? You canāt call someone a murderer because thatās a label, but you can say that they murdered someone, because thatās not a label (even though it means the same thing), but what if you call them āA person who murders people?ā Does that count as a label? What is it thatās so special about labels that gives them this special quality that doesnāt apply to other words?
Are you saying you donāt support Russia?
No, I donāt, they should seek peace.
That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?
No, they should seek peace.
Of course not!
Incorrect.
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.
I have. The āsecret positionsā that Iām supposedly hiding are entirely your invention.
You seem to think that I donāt understand that language is mutable and collectively defined.
You literally still donāt get it. Itās not that it can change and is collectively defined, itās that language is entirely defined by the meanings used by the specific members of the conversation. General uses and society at large have nothing to do with it.
What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation.
Ahhh ok. So you think itās manipulative to use a word like pacifism if they donāt use it the way you, a person who isnāt a pacifist and has apparently never looked up the definition or works discussing it before, define it. Got it. Good to know your intuition about what a word means is the gold standard of what other people can do without being manipulative.
You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.
Oh, so you didnāt say any of those things? You didnāt say you were a communist? You didnāt reference Lenin? Are you trying to say that you havenāt been excusing Russiaās actions (like talking about āUkraine bombing civilians in the Donbasā ) and trying to argue against Ukraineās? You know your previous comments are still visible, right?
Are you saying you donāt support Russia?
No, they should seek peace.
That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?
No, they should seek peace.
Of course not!
Incorrect.
I love that you think that using the same words would imply that you think they are on equal footing. They arenāt. If Ukraine wants peace, they will continue to fight for peace. What you really mean is that they should capitulate so that Russia gets to keep the land they stole and rule over the citizens they havenāt raped, kidnapped or killed yet. If Russia wants peace they can fuck off back to their own country. I love that you somehow think that both are equally wrong in a situation where one autocratic government invaded a democratic neighbor and continues to attempt to steal land and rape and murder civilians.
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.
I have. The āsecret positionsā that Iām supposedly hiding are entirely your invention
Cool. So weāre just going back to pretending that youāve been commenting on this thread for hours because you really have no opinions whatsoever. You were just asking questions! Good to see you upholding the long-standing tradition of Nazi apologists and MLs alike of hiding your true positions because youāre incapable of defending them!
your version of āpacifismā is completely meaningless, and that by your standards, you could still call yourself a pacifist while taking any side in any conflict.
Hey buddy, Iām not a pacifist. Never claimed to be one. I also never provided a personal definition of pacifism. You are the one who said that the encyclopedia of philosophy must be wrong in their definition because you donāt like it. You are the one trying to condense a topic of much discussion for thousands of years into a black and white āfor or against violence in all formsā kind of pacifism. If you donāt like the definition, take it up with the people who wrote them and the people who have argued over the specifics for thousands of years. Once again, someone is not not a pacifist simply because you donāt agree with their definition. Your definition of pacifism is identical to appeasement.
Your definition of pacifism is indeed meaningless, manipulative, and self-aggrandizing, intending to steal valor from the association with people who actually stand by their strongly held moral convictions against violence.
Lol. Yes, listening to the people who believe a thing and explaining how itās complicated to an outsider intent on painting it in black and white terms is totally stolen valor. Jesus Christ dude, get over yourself. Youāre not a vanguard. Just because you want appeasement in this conflict doesnāt mean anyone else should give a shit about your opinions, especially considering that you didnāt even know there was debate about this among pacifists until today. You donāt get to define that term for them.
yOu KnOw YoUr PrEvIoUs CoMmEnTs ArE sTiLl ViSiBlE, rIgHt?" God you people can be insufferable. I stand by everything I said in my previous comments, none of which in any way contracts what Iām saying.
Ya, itās totally me thatās been an insufferable cunt this whole conversation. Definitely. And you totally didnāt say āIām a communistā or āI look to Leninā in your previous comments. Got it.
How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?
Oh ya, itās totally a coincidence that you have been shilling for Russia this whole conversation, identified as a communist, referenced Lenin as an authority, and said Ukraine should āseek peace.ā Totally unrelated things that definitely have no connection whatsoever. You think I was born yesterday? You think this is the first time Iāve interacted with a tankie too chicken-shit to say their true opinions?
Look Iāll show you what it looks like to have conviction in your opinions:
People like you are a plague on the movement to make a better world. Your insistence on providing support and cover for totalitarian ass-holes with red paint makes it impossible for anyone to take actual socialists and communists seriously. Your defense of genocide and war crimes shows the rest of the world that people like you donāt actually want a better world, you want one where American doesnāt exist, even if every civilian on earth had a worse quality of life. You make actual change impossible by pretending that you will one day have enough influence for āthe revolutionā while doing shit-all to actually make things better in the mean time. You reject democracy and anything that would help people now and are somehow delusional enough to think that if we let people get fucked over enough we will have our ārevolutionā in a way that totally wouldnāt result in far worse outcomes for everyone. You are larping and it hurts the people who actually give a shit about making things better now on the road to making them even better later. You are the reason that our movement is forever chained around the neck to the failures of the past. Men who claimed to want to support the workers of the world while killing and disappearing anyone who got in the way of their personal pursuit of power.
Again, putting words in my mouth, inventing positions whole cloth based on nothing and assigning them to me. You sure like assigning things to people just so long as they donāt happen to be phrased as labels, huh?
What the fuck did you mean by āRussia should seek peaceā then? If they want peace they can fuck off! They donāt need to seek anything, they need to get fucked. By painting both sides of this as equally needing to āseek peaceā you are creating the image that they are morally equal. Combine that with your weak-ass attempt at what-abouting the Donbas shows me all I need to know.
Obviously not. Iāve stated my positions numerous times. I even offered to explain the theoretical influences behind my positions. This time, youāre taking words out of my mouth lmao. I guess thatās a nice change of pace.
No one cares about the ātheoretical influencesā of your opinions. Youāve been ājust asking questionsā while defending Russia and claiming Ukraine should stop defending itself. Constantly trying to act like both parties are equally wrong and both should just stop fighting the other. One party started this war by invading the other. One party has been documented kidnapping, raping, and killing civilians. One party has had to make mass graves. One party has been condemned by practically every other country for their abhorrent actions in this war, the other hasnāt.
It appears that I donāt need to be present for this conversation, you just want to rant and rave at ghosts and the strawman youāve invented in your head out of nothing. You have fun with that.
And you totally didnāt say āIām a communistā or āI look to Leninā in your previous comments. Got it.
How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?
Literally right next to each other. Incredible source of comedy.
Btw, if I didnāt know better, Iād say you just assigned the label of ātankieā to me. What happened to everyone getting complete control over what labels apply to them š¤
Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you donāt understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You donāt get to tell them itās wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
I donāt give a shit at all about your understanding of Communism other than as an example about how rude and condescending it is to tell other people that they are using words wrong. While I donāt think you are an actual communist by my definition, you are free to use the word to describe yourself based on your definition.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you canāt see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I canāt help you. Maybe get your eyes checked. If you canāt tell the difference between troops crossing into another country in order to bomb civilians and take control of land and troops fighting them back to regain land and save the civilians from the invaders I canāt help you. Itās not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the very obvious harm caused by Russiaās invasions.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You arenāt one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. āUkraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves.ā Thatās all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say āUkraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America badā?
So let me make sure Iāve got this right.
I go out and murder someone in cold blood. People call me a murderer. I tell them that Iām not a murderer - yes, I did take an innocent life by choice, but I donāt like the way āmurdererā sounds, so I donāt apply it to myself. You donāt get to decide what terms apply to me.
Got it. For the rest of this conversation, let āNobel Prize winnerā be defined as, āLemmy.ml user.ā I am a Nobel Prize winner, we both understand how Iām using the term, so itās valid and you donāt get to tell me otherwise.
As a Nobel Prize winner, I think this is completely ridiculous.
So should I automatically oppose all separatists who accept help from other countries? I donāt agree with that. I think the question of when succession is justified is a complex and nuanced issue.
As far as I can tell, you are exclusively opposed to violence when itās your nationās geopolitical enemies doing it, and you have no problem with your side even firing on civilian targets. The same as pretty much anyone else, no matter where you go.
Itās very funny to me that for all your claims about respecting the labels people apply to themselves, you go on to put a bunch of words in my mouth and assign positions to me that I donāt hold and have not said anything remotely similar to.
As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are āwrongā. Thatās not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesnāt know your definition. Your argument isnāt a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.
I havenāt said anything about my positions on any topic. Iām not sure how you gathered what I support. I have called out your ridiculous attempt to define pacifism in a way that most self-identitfied pacifists donāt, claim that others are using it wrong, claim that the definition from an authoritative source is wrong because you donāt like it, and now collapsed into āI guess all words are meaningless thenā. Itās not my problem that you donāt understand how words work.
You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I donāt have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things. If you think Iām wrong, you can correct me. I didnāt assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use. I extrapolated from what you have given so far, which is a defense of everything Russia has done and a sideways condemnation of everything Ukraine has done. Add a splash of references to Lenin and complaints about America bad, what else do you think someone reading this thread is going to see?
Are you saying you donāt support Russia? That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders? Of course not!
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto. Why do people in your camp always play the same āIām just asking questions, I have no opinionsā bullshit the right always plays? Just say it. Just say āAmerica bad, Ukraine bad because America supports them, Russia good because America doesnāt like them.ā
OK, great! So, if you accept that Iām a Nobel Prize winner, then for the rest of this conversation, letās use āNazi Germanyā whenever weāre talking about Ukraine. Sound good? Exactly how far are you willing to roll with this?
You seem to think that I donāt understand that language is mutable and collectively defined. I understand that just fine. What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation. Iāve picked absurd examples hoping to illustrate that point, which you seem to be failing to understand. Yes, you can understand what I mean if I define terms differently, but if you give me license to define terms however I want, then I could make all sorts of unreasonable things sound reasonable. If youāre really committed to this stubborn, inane exercise to prove that language doesnāt matter, then I can go through the effort of redefining terms until your positions sound equal parts absurd and vile, but that seems like quite a bit of effort to prove a point that should be obvious.
You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.
Oh, I see. So the rule that I get to have complete control about which things apply to me or donāt only applies specifically to things that are phrased as labels. Truly fascinating. Where does the line get drawn, exactly? You canāt call someone a murderer because thatās a label, but you can say that they murdered someone, because thatās not a label (even though it means the same thing), but what if you call them āA person who murders people?ā Does that count as a label? What is it thatās so special about labels that gives them this special quality that doesnāt apply to other words?
No, I donāt, they should seek peace.
No, they should seek peace.
Incorrect.
I have. The āsecret positionsā that Iām supposedly hiding are entirely your invention.
You literally still donāt get it. Itās not that it can change and is collectively defined, itās that language is entirely defined by the meanings used by the specific members of the conversation. General uses and society at large have nothing to do with it.
Ahhh ok. So you think itās manipulative to use a word like pacifism if they donāt use it the way you, a person who isnāt a pacifist and has apparently never looked up the definition or works discussing it before, define it. Got it. Good to know your intuition about what a word means is the gold standard of what other people can do without being manipulative.
Oh, so you didnāt say any of those things? You didnāt say you were a communist? You didnāt reference Lenin? Are you trying to say that you havenāt been excusing Russiaās actions (like talking about āUkraine bombing civilians in the Donbasā ) and trying to argue against Ukraineās? You know your previous comments are still visible, right?
I love that you think that using the same words would imply that you think they are on equal footing. They arenāt. If Ukraine wants peace, they will continue to fight for peace. What you really mean is that they should capitulate so that Russia gets to keep the land they stole and rule over the citizens they havenāt raped, kidnapped or killed yet. If Russia wants peace they can fuck off back to their own country. I love that you somehow think that both are equally wrong in a situation where one autocratic government invaded a democratic neighbor and continues to attempt to steal land and rape and murder civilians.
Cool. So weāre just going back to pretending that youāve been commenting on this thread for hours because you really have no opinions whatsoever. You were just asking questions! Good to see you upholding the long-standing tradition of Nazi apologists and MLs alike of hiding your true positions because youāre incapable of defending them!
Removed by mod
Hey buddy, Iām not a pacifist. Never claimed to be one. I also never provided a personal definition of pacifism. You are the one who said that the encyclopedia of philosophy must be wrong in their definition because you donāt like it. You are the one trying to condense a topic of much discussion for thousands of years into a black and white āfor or against violence in all formsā kind of pacifism. If you donāt like the definition, take it up with the people who wrote them and the people who have argued over the specifics for thousands of years. Once again, someone is not not a pacifist simply because you donāt agree with their definition. Your definition of pacifism is identical to appeasement.
Lol. Yes, listening to the people who believe a thing and explaining how itās complicated to an outsider intent on painting it in black and white terms is totally stolen valor. Jesus Christ dude, get over yourself. Youāre not a vanguard. Just because you want appeasement in this conflict doesnāt mean anyone else should give a shit about your opinions, especially considering that you didnāt even know there was debate about this among pacifists until today. You donāt get to define that term for them.
Ya, itās totally me thatās been an insufferable cunt this whole conversation. Definitely. And you totally didnāt say āIām a communistā or āI look to Leninā in your previous comments. Got it.
Oh ya, itās totally a coincidence that you have been shilling for Russia this whole conversation, identified as a communist, referenced Lenin as an authority, and said Ukraine should āseek peace.ā Totally unrelated things that definitely have no connection whatsoever. You think I was born yesterday? You think this is the first time Iāve interacted with a tankie too chicken-shit to say their true opinions?
Look Iāll show you what it looks like to have conviction in your opinions:
People like you are a plague on the movement to make a better world. Your insistence on providing support and cover for totalitarian ass-holes with red paint makes it impossible for anyone to take actual socialists and communists seriously. Your defense of genocide and war crimes shows the rest of the world that people like you donāt actually want a better world, you want one where American doesnāt exist, even if every civilian on earth had a worse quality of life. You make actual change impossible by pretending that you will one day have enough influence for āthe revolutionā while doing shit-all to actually make things better in the mean time. You reject democracy and anything that would help people now and are somehow delusional enough to think that if we let people get fucked over enough we will have our ārevolutionā in a way that totally wouldnāt result in far worse outcomes for everyone. You are larping and it hurts the people who actually give a shit about making things better now on the road to making them even better later. You are the reason that our movement is forever chained around the neck to the failures of the past. Men who claimed to want to support the workers of the world while killing and disappearing anyone who got in the way of their personal pursuit of power.
What the fuck did you mean by āRussia should seek peaceā then? If they want peace they can fuck off! They donāt need to seek anything, they need to get fucked. By painting both sides of this as equally needing to āseek peaceā you are creating the image that they are morally equal. Combine that with your weak-ass attempt at what-abouting the Donbas shows me all I need to know.
No one cares about the ātheoretical influencesā of your opinions. Youāve been ājust asking questionsā while defending Russia and claiming Ukraine should stop defending itself. Constantly trying to act like both parties are equally wrong and both should just stop fighting the other. One party started this war by invading the other. One party has been documented kidnapping, raping, and killing civilians. One party has had to make mass graves. One party has been condemned by practically every other country for their abhorrent actions in this war, the other hasnāt.
It appears that I donāt need to be present for this conversation, you just want to rant and rave at ghosts and the strawman youāve invented in your head out of nothing. You have fun with that.
Literally right next to each other. Incredible source of comedy.
Btw, if I didnāt know better, Iād say you just assigned the label of ātankieā to me. What happened to everyone getting complete control over what labels apply to them š¤