TheOubliette

We had a nice run where everyone was working together or are last tolerating each other, it was peaceful. But the US Russia and China are drifting further apart and becoming less reliant on each other, which sadly means it’s not going to be as peaceful going forward.

At which point was it "peaceful"? The US invaded 3 countries around then and bombed and couped many more. Millions were killed.

Also they are not going to tolerate each other as much China Russia already have their versions of Linux distorts just imagine there might be more differences in the future.

Yes this will eventually lead to forks due to the US forcing decoupling. It is a highly aggressive terrorist state.

Where is that a excuse? I was pointing out that it's not a petty dispute, russia is trying to wipe out Ukraine....the fuck.

You just repeated the excuse. Right there, lol. And Russia has caused far less damage to Ukraine and its people than the US has to its targets. You are simply inconsistent and don't believe your own logic. Your true motivations are elsewhere.

Ooo oo, I know this one....is it....whataboutism again for $400 alex?

Oh, am I not allowed to point out your inconsistency because you have a term for doing that?

Yea...no it's not, russia is doing that on their own.

This post is about a thread where the people who removed Russians from the list did so under pressure by the US federal government are: their sanctions policies. It is literally exactly what I said and not at all what you said.

Please do your best to speak the truth.

Ok. Reality, russia is a fucked up authoritarian state that willfully sends it's people to rape, murder and commit war crimes, like it got its war plans from the viking era. How's that for some reality. Champ.

It's you distracting yourself through repetition because you cannot honestly respond to my points. So it is the opposite of facing reality, it is evasiveness.

Yea...yea it is.

Nope

Sweet....are we getting somewhere...

No it is just trivially the case.

Ahhh nope apparently not....still humping about the USA.

Because they did the thing that you agree deserves kicking out their citizens from the maintainer list. And they did it more.

Hahahhaha holy fuck...o wait you're a tankie...

Are you laughing at the mass civilian bombings or the starvation of children?

And a russian apologist....man this is just hilarious...you really are following the .ml tankie guidelines.

It seems you are afraid of basic facts that contradict your beliefs.

Lol for all the west's faults, we're still not even half as murderous as the authoritarian dictatorships you love.

The West's civilian death count is orders of magnitude higher than the RF invading UA.

Yea no...

You did, accidentally.

Because it's easier to just use sanctions as the reason. The idea that a authoritarian state wouldn't force their devs to create backdoors for their state is hilariously naive, but you won't see it that way because you're a brainwashed tankie.

Ah yes, the thing you just made up that hasn't happened and calls every developer in the country "their devs" is surely more correct than decades of code review practices and individual track records.

Re: brainwashing, you will notice that I am not the one running away from inconvenient facts at every turn. I am not afraid of such things, but they are clearly a threat to your way of thinking.

Yea no shit? Who said they are?

I quoted what I was responding to and that sentiment permeates it.

Western Europe has committed to making itself an American dependency. This same thing would eventually repeat there but with different aesthetics.

This kind of thing is the inevitable outcome of US policy to "decouple", which they are pushing. Take something they nominally control, kick out every designated enemy / enemy collaborator, and then watch as an alternative pops up among the " enemy" and ban its purchase or use.

No this has nothing to do with the USA right now.

Here's you making excuses for removing all the Russians from the contributor list: "Russia invaded a sovereign nation...but that's a petty dispute...are you sure you're on the right instance? Sounds like you need to recreate your account here on ml..."

Your logic, if you can call it that, is that if the country you're from invades a sovereign nation, it makes sense to get kicked off the list. Guess which country invades sovereign nations every 3-6 years.

To make another point, of course the US is relevant, its government is the one making this exact thing happen.

No more excuses, champ. Gotta look reality straight in the face.

It's a strawman to whip out the "but the USA" card.

lol no it isn't.

Russia has sanctions

Yes we all know this.

they invaded a sovereign nation

The US has invaded at least 4 sovereign nations in the last 21 years. It has bombed far more in that time, including couping Libya, turning it from the highest HDI country into a failed state with open air slave markets.

and are willfully targeting civilians

The RF has been comparatively less harsh on civilians. Look at what the US, NATO, and Israel do to civilians. They bomb residential buildings, pharmaceutical factories, hospitals, schools, buses, civilian infrastructure. Millions died in Iraq, about half children, in the 90s due to the US systematically destroying civilian infrastructure and then coordinsting tight sanctions.

And do you know what preceded the RF invasion? Ukraine ramping up its civilian shelling campaign in Donbas.

They're fully against the west at this point

Given what the West does with its power that is a smart position to take.

allowing them continued access to help build tools the west uses,

Yes and? You're just admitting that this is a chauvinist political move headed by the United States.

is not only against the current sanctions, it's also a dumb security risk as well.

It's not a security risk at all, the Linux team has tight review procedures and all of these people have been making contributions as maintainers. There were zero concerns raised about their code.

PS the US is not entitled to the world and every international project.

Ukraine had a national identity before Lenin, tho.

It was suppressed and the language was dying out in written form.

Although the dude is/was ahead of it's time. And the social idealism that follows looks pretty neat. Sadly he quickly died and another fella came to power. Usually when people bash USSR they bash Stalin's regime. It's far from socialist ideals. You shouldn't mix it up and just nitpick what you like.

It was Stalin's USSR that transformed from a quasi-feudal backwater into a superpower that defeated the Nazis. It did so following Marxist-Leninist principals, which is to say, the development of Marxism based on the Bolsheviks' contributions - they seized the reins of capital and directed them to develop productive forces at a lightning pace and in a way that is never an option for imperialized countries. They ended famines, electrified the country, built rail at a scale that horrified and surprised the Nazi invasers, who remarked that little of it was on their mapsnfrom just a few years ago. And it did this under sanctions and attempted isolation by the major powers, the European capitalist forces that capitulated to the fascists, refused pacts with the USSR to build an alliance against the fascists, as they hoped they would turn east and deal with their red problem.

You should educate yourself about the USSR.

If people are subjugated and still remain under democratic rule, they can still be under repression, due to voting majority.

This can happen without voting as well and it is not inherently good or bad, relative to circumstances. We oppress murderers in one form or another. The impetus for thatbis understandable. Some have oppressed ethnic minorities for land grabs. That is not acceptable. Revolution requires oppression, you have to undo the order against which you are revolting. It does not immediately disappear just because you seized the army or run the newspapers.

It's the same reason why Israel fears giving the vote access to palestinians.

Israel oppresses Palestinians because it seeks to steal their land and they know that Palestinians will oppose them in this. Israel is not an example of "tyranny of the majority" and it is not democratic. It is an ethnic supremaxist settler colonial apartheid state and should be destroyed as such.

You can try to follow Nazi fascism idea of fascism by following history notebooks. But it will get us nowhere.

That will get you the whole way. You must read history to understand this historical reference. No shortcuts!

Since for example Lithuania had a president which was with dictatorial levels of power during the time. He was not aligned with Nazi Germany. What kind of word would you use to describe the rule? There are reasons why fascism is defined like it is.

Lithuania's president was a racist, antisemitic anticommunist liberal nationalists that dabbled a bit with fascists. Liberals have had all of the qualities of fascists over time and done the same kinds of deeds on a much greater scale. This is why you have to read history. If you just go by simple modern definitions, they will tell you that liberals are all about personal freedoms and equality. They will neglect to mention that liberals were the most brutal and racist colonizers and ethnic supremacists and misogynists and that this might pose a problem for their definition. They become an infinite No True Scotsman, defined in a way that means they never committed any crimes and it may be that, per their logic, no liberal has ever truly existed.

Fascists are really just a form of reactionary liberals that emerged out of inter-imperialist struggle after World War I. The fallout of WWI led to various nationalist and separatist movements in Europe as well as attempts to claim imperialist power. In particular, fascism rose most strongly in those places where conditions were degrading and communists were organizing for revolution. Fascists presented a triangulating position. They criticized the problems of capitalism by coopting socialist phrases but sought, in reallobersl simply organize capitalism into a nationalist form that had ambitions for Imperialism of their own. They built on the "fallen nation that must return to glory", a sentiment that could only resonate among people living in a country losing its status and among degrading conditions. They offered scapegoats playing on old forms of racism. Antisemitism, anti-Roma, Anti-Russian, many more. And most importantly, they opposed the communists, which is why they were so well-funded by capitalists and found friends among liberals. Fascists found their most committed and prominent recruits from the petty bourgeoisie and their sons, an inherently liberal base.

And dude, you can't be racist against a country.

I think you did not mean it to be racist. But Russian is also an ethnicity and Russophobia is at a peak in Western countries and they are reviving their age-old racist talking points. Tell me if any of these old school racist talking points seem familiar: they're just throwing masses of soldiers at the wall hoping to win, they are uncivilized/barbarous, they are not European, they are inherently untrustworthy, they are ugly, and their lives are just plain worth less.

You and I operate with completely different definitions. I doubt we'll come to a conclusion. Would love to discuss it next to a beer, since it's fascinating to find these so wildly difderent ideas. How do you even get to a point where you know so much but manage to draw completely different conclusions.

It is because communists live in the same world as everyone else and describe it in nearly the same way as liberals, but emphasize knowledge of history, political theory, and real-world organizing experiments. In contrast, liberalism is hegemonic ideology that offers narratives that, despite being false or misleading, go largely unchallenged. In a disagreement, someone drawing from hegemonic liberalism only needs to pluck an idea from a massive vat of talking points they have been bombarded with since birth. A communist needs to become fairly familiar with the topic, as they must criticize it and defend their talking points against hegemonic liberal ideas. They have to read the sourcec materials and understand why, say, Robert Conquest was an absolute hack when it came to certain topics because a liberal will unknowingly repeat one of his lies as "common knowledge".

Ukrainians aren't russian.

Many people in Ukraine are ethnically Russian. Ethnically Russian people have faced reoression in Ukraine since Euromaidan, particularly those in the separatist Donbas areas. Those there under the Kyiv regime face(d) cultural oppression. Those in separatists controlled areas face(d) artillery shelling.

Their language is different.

Many Ukrainians speak Russian as a first language, their everyday spoken language, and their language at work. Most people in Ukraine do not speak Ukrainian in that capacity. Ukrainian is more of a way for people from different backgrounds to communicate with one another.

Since Euromaidan, Ukrainian nationalists have been imposing Ukrainization on their people, suppressing other languages in schools, offices, and public life.

Their culture is drastically different.

Ethnic Russians in Ukraine have both cultures. Averaged out, Ukrainian and Russian cultures are very similar. Russians have an affinity fot the Kievan Rus, like an origin story nostalgia, and tie many of their practices to those of Ukraine.

Damn even regions inside Ukraine could count as different cultures.

There is certainly cultural diversity in Ukraine, yes. Some is represented by ethnic Ukrainians, some by Poles, some by ethnic Russians, and some by various diasporas.

For the split. It happened quite recently. I do recommend talking to people why they split and what was the common ideas on the streets back then from people who lived there.

Speaking of Ukraine, polls consistently showed that the generations that were adults at the time preferred to stay as part of unuon with Russia, I.e. "be in the USSR but with reforms". Those same people said it was better to live in the USSR than after it fell. Such a story is fairly typical of most post-Soviet states with the exception of the Baltics, who are a whole host of things, but the main one is their astonishing level of racism.

There were massive forced mixing in of Russians in those countries.

That sounds like a racist framing to me.

Those people are usually the ones that still find as "it was better back then".

Central Asians also had this opinion. It is really basically everywhere except the Baltics and Czechia.

Just beause Russian Empire rebranded itself it ia still basically the same size with the same subjugated people.

I addressed this in my previous comment. If you're not going to even read and respond to what I sau, what are we doing here?

The same yakut people are still subjugated.

Good example. The Yakut people were conquered and annexed by the Russian Empire and many were forced into diaspora. The USSR created a Yakut autonomous region and gave them far more control over their own fates and lands. The RF has done very little other than the usual capitalist exploitation of resources. Three unique stories and three different experiences.

The cataclysmic event you're talking about is workers revolt.

A revolution and creation of a new state premised on substantial regional autonomy and protection for local cultures. Ukraine today owes its entire national existence to Lenin's insistence on promoting Ukrainian national identity and degrees of autonomy and cultural protections.

The other is the collapse where quite a bit of countries at least managed to escape.

A collapse due to capitakist takeover, a time period where the country was subjected to "shock therapy" and dissolved / split against the will of its people. Tens of millions died due to the sudden deprivations. That is the doing of your Western powers whose lines you are echoing

All we can hope is for the fall of russia and for other cultures to emerge.

Please refrain from racism.

Here is the common definition: Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Yeah that's not what you said before. Can you spot the differences? Though of course to understand fascism you will need to learn history and politics, not just Google "fascism definition".

Even if you have 2 fascist countries, their goals and decisions are and usually is different.

Given that you don't know what fascism is, why are you confidently announcing generalizations about it? In order to have correct ideas and be helpful to others, it is important to have humility.

And for consent. Look at bloody linux distros. Even if people actually want consent, it is basically impossible to achieve. Every expert will interpret it differently and you will have multiple narratives.

You did not understand my reference.

If you want to rely in the logic that invading sovereign nations justifies this, you will have to discuss the US, the major instigator of war.

Sounds like you are just upset that your complete lack of consistency has been pointed out.

Then it isn't about living in an aggressor state, is it?

Those "little details" are the core facts in contradiction of your claims.

Russia is an empire due to how many smaller nations were conquered to the east.

The Russian Empire did so. The Soviets and RF did not. Though if we are speaking of conquering nations, the US certainly did so, and remains the same political entity it did during its genocides of indigenous Americans. The transitions to the USSR and the RF were in no way trivial, it was not just some rebranding. Both were cataclysmic.

Fuck ton of countries were fascist just before and during WWII. It’s not a serious argument to make here.

A handful of European countries were fascist around WWII. It is of course a basic fact and remains a deep stain. Please do your best to not normalize Nazi collaboration.

Fascism is just getting to power without democratic means.

That is not what fascism is at all. Not even under erroneous liberal definitions.

And for the Finns. I honestly feel sad for you, if you believe there is a conspiracy theory that managed to brainwash an entire nation.

False historical narratives do not require grand conspiracy theories. Just the very normal and common process of manufacturing consent.

Most of history textbooks barely mention WWII by the same notion. I won't argue I might know too little about the history of Finland. Although seeing how overwhelmingly current day Finns seem to oppose Russia and often mention the Winter War. It does seem that USSR was the worse of two evils there.

Is it your experience that most people are historically informed as opposed to moved to adopt narratives by dominant forces? Finns have been doing historical revisionism on their alignment with Nazis since the 1940s. You need to have better logic than, "well most Finns say so".

That's the point. They had a choise. Either side with the Allies and hence USSR (which fucked them up) or ally with Germany. It was an obvious only choise for them.

The Finnish police state was already fascist-aligned before the Winter War. You are just making things up and pretending it is history. It is possible to actually know things, but you have to be humble and actually read. Your imagination is not a history book.

The point is that tribal "us vs them" is just common. Same goes with countries. It depends if the group has a common identity.

I already addressed this. You can respond to what I said or ignore it entirely but I won't be entertaining it further if you are going to cherry pick.

False understanding of your stance on my part. Sorry for that. I thought you're defending the current day Russian state.

The current day Russian state is also not an empire. Again, what on earth are you talking about?

If you had any confidence in yourself you wouldn't give like this