20
Do you browse hexbear or have an account in hexbear?
(discuss.online)
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
that hexbear supports the entirety of russia. a lot of times i hear stuff like "they don't actually care about queer people since they support russia", which is a gross oversimplification of their views. they hate russia's reactionary politics.
this misconception i think comes from the war in ukraine, in which if ukraine wins, they get to join nato. hexbear considers nato to be an imperialistic organisation that holds power towards a large portion of the world, and therefore, anything that opposes it should receive support, albeit critical.
"critical support" means supporting it critically. literally meaning don't agree with all of what they do/are/stand for. its impressive how focused the haters are on strawman.
A lot of people have a purist attitude to politics. "Critical support" is a vital part in understanding these positions of Hexbear and others, that one can support a side of a conflict and still be critical of it. Geo-politics isn't a simple binary. No two groups will perfectly align, but that doesn't mean they can't see mutual lines of benefit despite their disagreement. For example, just because someone supports Ukraine doesn't mean they have to defend everything their government does, such as supporting the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. It would be absurd to assert that! Similarly, it would be absurd to tell the communists still crying about 1989 that they support the entirety of the capitalist Russian Federation, the same RF that destroyed many of the gains the USSR made for both countries by enabling oligarchs to loot the place and plummet life expectancy.
God forbid a sovereign nation can choose its partners...
Well can Eastern Ukraine?
Because as a "sovereign" nation, Ukraine is an amalgation nation of two bordering existing countries of which the partner organisation NATO's sole existence in question is to be enemies with one of the two bordering countries and thus used deadly violence to suppress any dissent from its Eastern half.
This is in stark contrast to the US full-scale invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and further invasions of Libya, Syria and Palestine which WERE sovereign nations, where no such dilemma took place.
Bush' full scale invasion of Iraq was based on lies.
Bush' full scale Afghanistan invasion was based on searching a fugutive.
The full scale bombardment of Lybia was because the US did not like Lybia's leader.
Same with Syria.
For Palestine, it's Israel that wants to genocide the country.
Don't forget their unprovoked, full scale bombardment of Yemen
The violence started when the Russian puppet president walked away from an EU trade deal that he literally campaigned on making, then cracked down on the resulting protests. Then an actual Russian created rebellion started. Calling that "suppressing dissent" is disingenuous as fuck.
"it's not suppressing descent if you accuse the people you're supressing of being Russian agents first"
Thank you for that insight, senator McCarthy.