If you approach the topic from that angle without any polarizing language then it can be hard to call someone a Putin-simp or whatever.
This is categorically false and I would encourage you to make a single post on .world to see how it is so. They will call you all sorts of things because the view you’re espousing is one they are hostile to, any question of presentation is secondary. Most dedicatedly-political spheres (and many besides) are like that.
That’s fair, I guess maybe I am too optimistic. I still don’t believe them making this video was worth it because it doesn’t add anything to the overall conversation, it just regurgitates the same information seen elsewhere. Because of how Russophobic the western side of the internet/political sphere is, maybe it’s best to avoid this topic if you can’t handle any backlash. I wish people didn’t get so aggressive when talking about this war objectively, but they do. Reading the comments on the Boy Boy video was disheartening but it does prove your point, no matter what you say, if you give the slightest hint of “justifying” the “invasion” then cognitive dissonance kicks in.
Yeah, like I said in another comment it’s just textbook tailism the way they did it, and if we assume they aren’t revisionists it would have been better strategy to just ignore the topic completely.
I think the only rhetorical hope that doesn’t rely on deception (and we should not deceive!) focuses on the fact that Ukraine has no realistic hope of triumphing militarily, so what is the fighting actually for? Ukronazis love to pretend Russia wants to genocide them, but that’s not the case, so the biggest danger to the Ukrainian population is not caving to the invasion but fighting it militarily in the vain hope of winning. Holding Russia off in the early stages while negotiating a conditional surrender would have been infinitely better for the average Ukrainian, even completely excluding those who live in Donbas and Crimea.
This is categorically false and I would encourage you to make a single post on .world to see how it is so. They will call you all sorts of things because the view you’re espousing is one they are hostile to, any question of presentation is secondary. Most dedicatedly-political spheres (and many besides) are like that.
That’s fair, I guess maybe I am too optimistic. I still don’t believe them making this video was worth it because it doesn’t add anything to the overall conversation, it just regurgitates the same information seen elsewhere. Because of how Russophobic the western side of the internet/political sphere is, maybe it’s best to avoid this topic if you can’t handle any backlash. I wish people didn’t get so aggressive when talking about this war objectively, but they do. Reading the comments on the Boy Boy video was disheartening but it does prove your point, no matter what you say, if you give the slightest hint of “justifying” the “invasion” then cognitive dissonance kicks in.
Yeah, like I said in another comment it’s just textbook tailism the way they did it, and if we assume they aren’t revisionists it would have been better strategy to just ignore the topic completely.
I think the only rhetorical hope that doesn’t rely on deception (and we should not deceive!) focuses on the fact that Ukraine has no realistic hope of triumphing militarily, so what is the fighting actually for? Ukronazis love to pretend Russia wants to genocide them, but that’s not the case, so the biggest danger to the Ukrainian population is not caving to the invasion but fighting it militarily in the vain hope of winning. Holding Russia off in the early stages while negotiating a conditional surrender would have been infinitely better for the average Ukrainian, even completely excluding those who live in Donbas and Crimea.