• Piye@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    So is Turkey, your NATO ally who bombs minorities and steals other peoples cultural heritage. Stop being a hypocrite

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Turkey is a genocidal horde. Russia one could call controversial before 2022, now it’s just miserable and on its way to becoming a trainwreck.

        EDIT: What I meant - it’s a good example, if you just call that “controversial” and not a problem to be solved now, while Russia somehow is.

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Big words from someone who just brought three different forms of sharia law into BRICS.

      I still don’t fucking understand why tankies simp so hard for this shit. It’s like you are trying to prove that your philosophy is no deeper than “America bad.”

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately NATO wasn’t designed in a way that conceived of a rogue member state like Turkey. This means that it has a very limited toolkit for reigning in Erdogan’s excesses. He also has a huge amount of leverage due to Turkey’s pivotal role on the Black Sea which is obviously critical to everything happening in Ukraine. For now, NATO really does have its hands tied with regard to Turkey.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, it doesn’t really, they just don’t want to do anything. Everything happening in Ukraine started happening much later than Turkey happened.

        And about NATO design not conceiving of something - when Turkey was admitted to NATO, there were people still alive who saw not their parents and grandparents, but their children and grandchildren killed before their eyes in 1915-1921.

        It was conceived that if somebody really wanted to get rid of that thing, then it’d be possible to make a shortcut on paperwork with all the military power. 1952, remember. But then again, it was 1952, you know, colonial powers still being that and not caring much about genocides of brown people. So nobody would see Turkey’s current behavior as a problem.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think I follow your arguments. Is there a way you can rephrase your point such that a dummy like myself might understand it?

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. About rogue member states not being thought of when NATO was being created - when NATO was being created, even France and UK were more likely to behave like “rogue member states” and they did in some little known cases (Biafra, for example, or the Suez crisis). And Turkey was full-blown fascist (well, it didn’t stop being that at any point since then till now, just Westerners conveniently assumed that it changed like Japan, say, one my relative in the US from Jewish side is just in complete denial that it hasn’t as it wasn’t civilized by bombs, while at the same time uneasy with my cousins going to Germany).

            2. About NATO having its hands tied against Turkey due to Ukraine - if A happened before B, you can’t justify A with B. So you can’t justify Turkey getting away with everything it does by Russia vs Ukraine taking all the attention.

            • BigNote@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not talking about anyone being justified; I am talking about realpolitik and the fact that in international relations it’s often the case that what ought to be is often in direct conflict with what actually is.

              It would be awesome if we could live in a world of absolutes wherein national interests never conflicted with moral ambiguity, but that’s just not reality at all, sorry to inform.

              • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And why then it’s a problem that Russia wreaks havoc in Ukraine?..

                And I don’t see Western states acting in their best interest anyway. I actually see something between slow surrender to the worst of their competition and some weird kind of “let no one win”, trying to empower the worst savages while simply not working with those of competitors who shouldn’t necessarily be their adversaries. You can also take a look at the people which reach the top in European and US political classes, these are of, eh, declining quality.

                Also for my second point - an event in the future still can’t be the cause for an event in the past, justification or not.

                Other than that - large parts of NATO \ West “civilization offering”, so to say, were about freedom and human rights.

                And large parts of the Soviet alternative were about humanism and equality and unification.

                And if it’s casual for you that people were not supposed to believe in any of that in either case, then I don’t get it why people here are so eager to point out Soviet hypocrisies as if they were any different.

                It’d be probably also awesome for realpolitik fans to not forget how real world works in terms of errors. Right now an error in your security systems means some protest, some Assange or Snowden, some scandal. Getting into realpolitik too much would shift those errors to justified terrorist acts. Well, I suppose that may be one reason why some countries are so eager to get rid of nuclear energy despite all the green agenda in PR. Single point of failure and all that.

        • ZILtoid1991@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lemmygrad 🤡

          (Also Putin is not a communist, but a post-fascist masquerading as an anti-fascist)

          • Duży Szef [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also Putin is not a communist, but a post-fascist masquerading as an anti-fascist

            Wow, so you do actually have eyes! Fucking hell, you are raising my respect for you!

            Fun fact, I would nothing but for Putin to get hanged. But not by American imperialists and their lapdogs, but by the russian proletariat for the reestablishment of an RSFSR.

            So sorry buddy. It seems your assumption about me has been wrong, I suggest lurking more before speaking about your opponents.

    • Kata1yst@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The best and last argument of dumb tankies is whataboutism. Thank you for your insightful contribution.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s whataboutism to point out that a worse criminal you are fine with, and a smaller one not, because the latter kills “blue-eyed Europeans” and all that.

        You can’t just discard observations that you are a hypocritical bag of piss with that one word, “whataboutism”. And it only refers to somebody defending their own crimes. Most of real whataboutism I see in social media comes from Turks and Westerners defending Turks.

        Other than that, if somebody says that and you don’t, I don’t care if they’re a tankie. Turkey is worse than a Stalinist dictatorship, and I have priorities.

        • Kata1yst@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually, that’s exactly what whataboutism is.

          Someone says: wow, topic A is bad.

          Whataboutism says: oh yeah, well B is bad/worse!!!1!

          Point is, we’re not talking about B/Turkey. And B/Turkey being bad doesn’t mean that A/Russia is excused from their terrible behavior.

          And (gasp!) Just because I oppose A/Russia doesn’t mean I support B/Turkey.

          The entire argument is bad faith and lacking any logic or critical thinking.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you support the side opposite to Russia, be it Ukraine or NATO, you sort of support Turkey, cause of the context of alliances and relations. Turkey is in NATO and Turkey is friendly with Ukraine.

            Point is, we’re not talking about B/Turkey.

            We actually are doing that right now. If you don’t want to, you can leave this conversation. That’s the way conversations work.

            And B/Turkey being bad doesn’t mean that A/Russia is excused from their terrible behavior.

            Yes, it isn’t. You seem to imply that I said it is. I haven’t.

            And (gasp!) Just because I oppose A/Russia doesn’t mean I support B/Turkey.

            Not in general. But in our specific situation you sort of do through that opposing side being Turkey’s friend more than Russia itself.

            The entire argument is bad faith and lacking any logic or critical thinking.

            On all sides.

            Now, about bad faith - if people like you yelling “whataboutism” can prevent a conversation on a certain subject, then it’s not really whataboutism. If they can do that without preventing that conversation from happening, then maybe it is. “Whataboutism” is not a basic concept. Once we turn to logic instead of some list of common fallacies, we don’t need it (and also logic beats any such shortcut).

            Same with “critical thinking”.