Mr_Fish

Thatcher standing right next to him

Can you tell me precisely what Ukraine did to provoke Russia into invading, other than just historically being part of the Russian empire?

nazi invasion in 1941

Not commenting on '39-40?

everyone wanted them to collapse

This changes what exactly? Even if everyone wanted it to collapse for purely imperialistic reasons, that doesn't actually say anything about the government being good or bad.

Don't expect funny from jankforlife. The best you can get is "America bad therefore soviets good"

advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers

I am advocating for using your vote to reduce human cost as much as possible. What that means depends on the context.

If you're in America, the decision right now is between one genocide, two genocides, or refusing to have an impact on that decision with how impossible the system is for third parties. One less genocide is the least bad option, unless you have a better one.

If you're in New Zealand (where I live, so I'm more familiar with the politics here than anywhere else), there are multiple options because of MMP voting. That means I won't be advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers.

citation needed

Labour coalitions have historically been the governments that have had the best impact on workers rights. At least far more than national coalitions.

Also, don't think I'm saying you should vote for labour next year. Labour is shit, vote for someone better

"Very cheap" in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved

OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change.

But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up

Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that "voting convinces people that they've done all they need to" idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can't fundamentally change things.

Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that's something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I'd love to be proven wrong here.

Ah yes, because the mayor of a city should be elected or not because of their opinions on a completely different country, not the policy in the city they're running for. That makes a whole lot of sense.

So Russia is invading? That alone, pretty much regardless of the reason, is enough to side with Ukraine.

But that reason, even if true, is one of the stupidest reasons to invade. A softer, more propaganda focused approach would be both far more effective and far less costly, in both lives and resources. So either Russian leadership is so useless that an invasion is the best they can come up with, or they're invading to take over Ukraine. Incompetent to the point of malice, or malice. Take your pick.