this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
422 points (99.3% liked)
Europe
1551 readers
564 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you didn't object his prosecution? Can we make this point clear? Although you personally don't think journalism should be penalised, you were okay with him living the life he did for the last years and openly said so?
Yup, especially since we are talking about those that have been imposed or tightened in line with Russia's invasion. I oppose these laws as I oppose their cause: the barbaric and imperialistic war Russia brings to Ukraine until this very day. And so should you, btw.
I openly denounced the fact that our "friends" from the "Western values" are imprisoning a journalist for doing his job. I demanded that they raise their laws to a non-dictatorial level. The fact that international and national law are not always the same thing has once again been clearly demonstrated here.
But what does this excursion into whataboutism have to do with the criminals being prosecuted in Russia?
Treason is not only a crime during a war.
So "I like criminals if the victim is someone I don’t like!” is apparently something you are as equally guilty of as those you are trying to attribute it here. It would have been more consistent for your standpoint if you had actually also applied it towards those criminals you feel inclined to.
It is not. But as you can read in the article, it has recently been tightened in line with fear of growing criticism of the Russian war of aggression. Of course you might choose to defend this. Maybe as it isn't, for a change, a war of - your words and punctuation - our "friends" of "Western values" and some might find it challenging to escape from their traditional world view with America as the force behind wars. Or maybe because you simply support Russian nationalism and aggression, I don't know. It is, however, a very strange look and a weird hill to die on.
I dislike the law that makes them a criminal. That's a different thing. That said, I still can't see why Assange having been kept in prison for something that should not be illegal is relevant here. Two wrongs don't make one right.
I support the endeavours of every country and every people to counter supranationalism ("strong state EU", "strong state USA", that sort of thing) with sovereignty. This also applies if the country in question misbehaves, to put it mildly. However, the USA as the driving force behind the attempted destruction of Julian Assange was an example that I did not bring in. As I said, two wrongs don't make a right.
What makes you think this is different here? I don't know her, but I think 15 years of penal colony for a 45€ donation is absolutely ridiculous. Especially, as the underlying war of aggression is - as we hopefully both agree?? - wrong. Why you choose to defend this is beyond me.
Your words:
He's in violation of the law just as much as this ballerina. One of them you defend, the other not.
Then you should have a critical opinion on Russia's imperialistic adventures in its neighbouring country and the laws ensuing this aggression. Or does this support conveniently only include those countries under attack/pressure from "the West"?
No one is trying to make this point. The point is that you defend the victim of American "unfair" laws but not the victim of Russian "unfair" laws, making your argument seem rather shallow.
You’re still whatabouting here. It is perfectly legal to call a violation of a law (however dumb it might seem to be) “illegal” without having to condemn all crimes anywhere in the world.
Pointing out that you yourself do not abide by the bold general statements you chose to make here is not whataboutism. That you permanently try to avoid any statement regarding Russia's war and these laws doesn't help you and your position either..
Ahh, finally! So this is where we are going here.
Who invaded, then? Who massacred settlements like Bucha? Who declared that Ukraine isn't a state but a part of Russia?
No, I am not. Because Crimea was already a part of Ukraine beforehand (1954/1992), acknowledged by Russia. But I wonder what your point is? Ukraine deserved this war?
I won't stop you exposing yourself.
That's not an answer to my question. Who invaded?
Do you deny the extents of the crimes that happened in Butcha when attempting to "bothside" Ukraine and Russia here or do you actually think Ukraine has done equally horrible things?
From your source: In June 1992, the parties reached a compromise, that Crimea would have considerable autonomy but remain part of Ukraine.
Seeing how much difficulty you have to correctly name the country invading, I bet you do!
Let me ask: is it the German political landscape you are at home at or maybe even the Russian? Because even the putinophilic far-right nutjobs from the AfD only excuse Russia's invasion (as does the equally putinophilic and equally populistic self-declared "left" poster girl Sarah W), but denying it is new. In which rabbit hole do I have to crawl to find these kind of positions?
I don't think that "exposing" is the right term here. You're behaving as if you've let me in on a secret. That's not the case.
Russia did, and it had reasons for that. Whether I agree with the reasons is not the issue here, by the way, and you simply don't know either.
I do not hold the view that there are cruel and less cruel war crimes. "But these war crimes are less horrible!" tells more about you than about Russia and/or Ukraine.
And Ukraine has cancelled this autonomy at the expense of the people of Crimea. Do you agree with me?
Lol, seriously. No, it's not difficult for me. This "aha, WHO attacked WHOM, huh? YOU SEE!!!" just misses the point of everything that's happening in eastern Ukraine; and you're not proving anything to anyone.
Could you please tone down your pitiful attempts at an ad-hominem discussion? It's getting tiring.
I applied a three-day timeout because all these justifications for a needless war are a little much. Feel free to discuss other topics on this community but maybe stay away from Russia-related themes.
I think it is. Bit by bit you are revealing that you are not condemning Russia's invasion or maybe even apologise it, yourself treating it as a secret.
Oh, but it actually is! Your initial argument has been mocking those that complain about laws they don't like. Your point was: laws are laws, whether you like them or not. A very broad and universal statement. From a legal point of view, this invasion of Russia is most definitely illegal. So you saying now that Russia had reasons and it does not matter whether you agree with or I know these "reasons" is the final erosion of your own argument. Would you follow what you preached earlier, you would strictly oppose this invasion. Yet you do not. Go figure.
There are and I am sure that you do, too. In other conflicts, be it World War 2 or maybe Middle East, I'd be more than surprised seeing you make this claim that both sides are simply equally as bad and hence picking a side is difficult. In this conflict, it is simply convenient for you to hide from nasty, challenging truths by proclaiming a general pardon "both sides are equally bad!". As implausible as it might be.
From a legal point, it does not. And since legality is the core of this discussion, it is most relevant.
Ad hominems aim at irrelevant properties of a person. Whether the question where you are politically at home is aiming at something irrelevant can be debated, since it very likely is closely linked to your position in the conflict we are discussing. Nevertheless, it was a question and you are not obliged to answer it if it makes you uncomfortable.
Wrong. Everything else is moot to explain by now. You seem to be trying to push me into a corner where I don't belong. This conversation is over.
edit: To give you a chance to calm down a bit, I've temporarily put you on the block list. Have a nice Sunday.
The conversation is indeed over. Just not for the reasons you state here. As I pointed out you contradicted yourself and now try to deal with it in a "face-saving" manner. Block me if it helps you, I made my point. Bye.