This is part of the problem. That feeling of unexamined moral superiority that I am much afraid will lead to the downfall of western liberalism, its replacement with local fascists and all out war. But not enough people are willing to listen sadly.
You're making way too many assumptions and I think that's part of why you're not being well received.
Can you examine your own certainty and superior tone when, to my knowledge, you haven't asked a real question yet? You seem just know.
And, no, you initial exclamation having question marks just makes it an incredulous exclamation. Not a question.
Indeed, it was a rhetorical question. And it’s ok, I wasn’t expecting my comment to be well received, I was just hoping that at least some people reading this would ask themselves why Russia triggers Cold War reflexes and what those reflexes mean. I still hope for some diplomatic end to the war in Ukraine and the demonizing of one’s enemies only serves war.
Why would a former soviet state invading another soviet state cause cold war reflexes to be triggered?
I, on the other hand, don't approve of nations attacking other nations, whether it be America attacking Afghanistan or Russia attacking Ukraine
So, why are you defending a country who is attacking another?
I honestly don’t know why some on here seem to think that any criticism is a defense of Russia. I did not say anything in defense of Russia but assumptions were made regardless.
It's seen as what-about-ism.
Painting everyone here with incredibly broad brushes and very certain tone means you've lost the trust and good will of your readers.
They then see what I said in the first sentence of this comment.
It didn't need to be that way. You're on Lemmy. It's one of the places a person is most likely to see frequent criticisms of US warfare by US citizens. But you're acting like the actions of an aggregate nation are the reflection of unanimous and ongoing support.
It's not an accurate perspective.
You still sound absolutely certIain that everyone here is as you describe. And that means you're wrong.
Please stop, breathe, and recalibrate. Because done differently, you'll find many here agree.
For what it's worth, I agree that it's a little shocking how simplistic people can be about goodies and baddies in this situation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is abominable and democracy is far preferable to dictatorship. But "the free world" is a propaganda phrase traditionally used to polish up the image of US imperialism, so its use certainly has connotations of unreflectively identifying the USA and its allies as the goodies. And mass poisoning is not morally simple even in war. Meanwhile the "free world" is hurtling from plutocracy towards fascism while liberals congratulate themselves on their countries' democracy. We're not under a dictatorship yet but we're not doing enough to fight it either, partly thanks to this liberal tendency to self-congratulation over the "free world".
Exactly. As a liberal myself I feel strongly about certain things and am all too aware of that supposition of moral superiority and self righteousness that have been very characteristic of western liberalism. In the meantime, many countries in the “free world” are inching closer to authoritarianism by the day. Sure, Putin bad, but leaving some room for nuance would go a long way. The idea that one need only get rid of “bad actors” is flawed. Especially when at the very same time western powers are enabling what more and more people see as genocide in another part of the world. And the country that has brought a case against that in court is South Africa, The world is changing, the global south is rising, China is rising, Russia is also seeking to extend its influence and global cooperation is needed more than ever.
This is part of the problem. That feeling of unexamined moral superiority that I am much afraid will lead to the downfall of western liberalism, its replacement with local fascists and all out war. But not enough people are willing to listen sadly.
You're making way too many assumptions and I think that's part of why you're not being well received.
Can you examine your own certainty and superior tone when, to my knowledge, you haven't asked a real question yet? You seem just know.
And, no, you initial exclamation having question marks just makes it an incredulous exclamation. Not a question.
Indeed, it was a rhetorical question. And it’s ok, I wasn’t expecting my comment to be well received, I was just hoping that at least some people reading this would ask themselves why Russia triggers Cold War reflexes and what those reflexes mean. I still hope for some diplomatic end to the war in Ukraine and the demonizing of one’s enemies only serves war.
Why would a former soviet state invading another soviet state cause cold war reflexes to be triggered?
I, on the other hand, don't approve of nations attacking other nations, whether it be America attacking Afghanistan or Russia attacking Ukraine
So, why are you defending a country who is attacking another?
I honestly don’t know why some on here seem to think that any criticism is a defense of Russia. I did not say anything in defense of Russia but assumptions were made regardless.
It's seen as what-about-ism.
Painting everyone here with incredibly broad brushes and very certain tone means you've lost the trust and good will of your readers.
They then see what I said in the first sentence of this comment.
It didn't need to be that way. You're on Lemmy. It's one of the places a person is most likely to see frequent criticisms of US warfare by US citizens. But you're acting like the actions of an aggregate nation are the reflection of unanimous and ongoing support.
It's not an accurate perspective.
You still sound absolutely certIain that everyone here is as you describe. And that means you're wrong.
Please stop, breathe, and recalibrate. Because done differently, you'll find many here agree.
For what it's worth, I agree that it's a little shocking how simplistic people can be about goodies and baddies in this situation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is abominable and democracy is far preferable to dictatorship. But "the free world" is a propaganda phrase traditionally used to polish up the image of US imperialism, so its use certainly has connotations of unreflectively identifying the USA and its allies as the goodies. And mass poisoning is not morally simple even in war. Meanwhile the "free world" is hurtling from plutocracy towards fascism while liberals congratulate themselves on their countries' democracy. We're not under a dictatorship yet but we're not doing enough to fight it either, partly thanks to this liberal tendency to self-congratulation over the "free world".
Exactly. As a liberal myself I feel strongly about certain things and am all too aware of that supposition of moral superiority and self righteousness that have been very characteristic of western liberalism. In the meantime, many countries in the “free world” are inching closer to authoritarianism by the day. Sure, Putin bad, but leaving some room for nuance would go a long way. The idea that one need only get rid of “bad actors” is flawed. Especially when at the very same time western powers are enabling what more and more people see as genocide in another part of the world. And the country that has brought a case against that in court is South Africa, The world is changing, the global south is rising, China is rising, Russia is also seeking to extend its influence and global cooperation is needed more than ever.