450
What happened to the Crimea bridge and why is it important?
(www.aljazeera.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
450 points (98.3% liked)
World News
38578 readers
4118 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No it was at 67.9%, up from 60.4% in 2001 down from 67% in 1989. Up from 6.6% in 1850 when Russification really started. Also note the suspicious absence of Tatars during the times of the Soviet Union and their return afterwards. And TBH I trust those censuses 2014 onwards about as much as I trust Russian referenda.
Also, "people speak Russian at home" is not, by a long shot, the same thing as "want to be part of Russia" much less "want to live under 's boot" or "want to suffer yet another Holodomor". Crimea had a referendum just as the rest of Ukraine did and it didn't want to be part of Russia by a good margin. The question of "part of Ukraine or independent" was more split, but that turned towards "part of Ukraine" as Ukraine failed to treat Crimea badly and independence would be difficult for such a small country in such an exposed situation.
Then just speak to some people physically in Crimea? You're on the internet it's not difficult to seek out and have conversations with people in different places in the world.
Ukraine did treat Crimea badly though? Are you completely unaware of the political turmoil in Ukraine prior to any of this? Increasing ethnic persecution against Russians and finally banning the russian language is what started the separatism in these regions.
Of course. Because that's totally not something the FSB would do to sniff out partisans and shit. There's a war going on in case you haven't noticed and truth is always its first victim.
Neither was there prosecution nor was the Russian language banned. The Ukrainian army largely operates in Russian, FFS.
I suggest you have a good look at the reliability of whatever place you get your information from.
It's Russian propaganda, we know where they get their information from.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2014-010539_EN.html
This was put to the EU at the time by a greek parliamentarian that cared about what would happen to greeks in the region. But refers to the law change I am talking about which affected several other ethnic groups.
Why are you quoting a member of the Golden Dawn as if Nazis were a reliable source of information? Are you a Nazbol?
Lmao I had no idea he was to be honest. You're right. Let's get something else then. (And no I'm certainly fucking not.)
A couple of western media articles discussing the split the existing language law was causing in the country:
2000: Ukraine wages war on Russian language
2012: Russian language debate splits Ukraine
2012: Ukrainians(far right) protest against Russian language law
2014(when the law actually occurred): Ukraine Revokes Linguistic Rights
This last one is the most interesting, also 2014 from Time: Many Ukrainians Want Russia To Invade
Remember how that law never went into effect and in fact regions have the right to have secondary official languages? Including Russian?
Also, that it wasn't a law furnishing new modes of repression but a law repealing the granting of rights to minority languages? And the law was by an interim government? And Right Sector and shit massively lost votes after all that?
Yes, Ukraine had a political divide roughly among the Russian/Ukrainian native language rift, caused by Russia (Empire, USSR) by the Russification programme, by Russia (Federation) stoking it with hybrid warfare. Ukraine was torn between going to the west, into the EU (NATO wasn't nearly as popular), or towards Russia's economic bloc. Becoming part of Russia was never on the table, that's always been a small minority position of a minority position.
That very much changed towards majority support for NATO accession after the annexation of Crimea (and, no, Crimeans not being asked doesn't explain the shift), and to absolutely overwhelming after the 2022 invasion.
Russia overplayed its hand. Massively: They could've kept Ukraine in alignment limbo, maybe even have them turn eastwards, but they just had to get greedy and annex and invade. They've also lost all the hybrid warfare opportunities among e.g. the Russian minorities in the Baltic countries.
And maybe you should read more primary sources instead of random Anglo press articles. Or read the articles, for that matter, things like
which isn't exactly playing into your narrative.
Didn't you, just some comments ago, talk about talking to actual people? I have three Ukrainian families living in neighbouring flats, having fled the war. One of them ethnically Russian, though the kids are refusing to speak the language.
Yes, there had been grievances. Grievances so bad it justifies an invasion? Hell no, not just not the same ballpark, but not even the same galaxy. Moscow, OTOH, is checking all five points (one would suffice!) of the definition of genocide. It doesn't surprise me, or their parents, in any way whatsoever that the kids are refusing to speak Russian, they've seen shit.
I know what it was. The point here is not what it was but that it existed, what it did, and what environment it existed in.
At every point up until now I've been told that this didn't happen, just moments ago you called it a hallucination, and now you're seamlessly transitioning as if that wasn't the case.
If I had linked to Russian language content we both know exactly what you would have said in response. This conversation has proceeded along the lines of "deny, obfuscate, admit but deny significance." If I had given you a primary source, which would have had to be in the Russian language, then you'd have called it russian propaganda.
The only thing I ever said was that the entire reason this separatism kicked off was because of the language law introduced by the fascists in the maidan coup/revolution. I am absolutely correct about that. Had that event not happened we wouldn't be where we are today.
I've never said that. I'm really not that interested in talking about the invasion itself anymore as it doesn't help us end the war. I would prefer nobody were ever invaded, but that's not the situation we have right now.
You were told that "outlawing Russian" didn't happen. Which the 2014 thing didn't even attempt to do. The only people claiming such things are characters like the Nazi you quoted as well as Vatniks.
Depends on where it's from, Russia doesn't have a monopoly on the language and before the invasion press freedom wasn't completely dead in Russia. Still, finding sensible takes even among the Russian opposition would be difficult as liberal forces within Russia never really bothered to analyse Russian imperialism, being busy with battling corruption and authoritarianism. Random high-profile example: Navalny's take on Crimea.
There were Nazis among the protestors, yes, but they were a tiny minority. The protests started over Viktor Yanukovych betraying an election promise of his: EU accession talks. They then quickly became quite bloody with Yanukovic sending snipers and passing this kind of shit.
When the government is shooting at you you don't tend to question the deeper ideological stances of at least half-way decently organised people handing out riot shields to duck behind. Not really an opportune moment.
After Yanukovych's impeachment (which was a bit iffy the Rada played fast+loose with procedure but they had the authority and the votes) an interim president and government was installed (by that very Rada, not protestors) and him fleeing to his masters in the Moscow, the law happened (or rather didn't), then came new elections, both presidential and for the Rada, where right-wing parties of all ilk lost quite a number of votes. Oh, also, Russia invaded Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk. There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen, and all that.
That "Separatism", as in the founding of the "people's republics" was kicked off by Russian green men collaborating with local criminals. Doing it like that isn't too surprising Russia is practically a mafia state. Just because one happened after the other doesn't mean that one is the cause for the other.
I have another interesting tidbit on the snipers thing:
https://archive.is/cjHkh
This is an interesting article from the BBC going into the many sus things about this event and painting the picture that the far right was likely involved. One of the most interesting things about it is that the bbc has deleted it, which is the first instance of sussy journalistic war censorship I've seen. The original no longer exists.
It could also be that they took it down because it's all a collection of people saying different unprovable things.
What's for sure is that it was Berkut who sniped protesters, plenty of matched bullets to prove that one, they also are -- or rather were -- the exact kind of bastard cops to do such things, the whole organisation got dissolved in 2014 due to their brutality (not just sniping) during the protests.
Who started what and exactly who shot or tortured whom where and so on we'll probably never now, at least not better than we know now (there's been court cases). I also don't doubt that Berkut caught some bullets, Ukrainians aren't the kind of people who cower and retreat when being shot at. Russian special ops or Right sector escalating the situation or, heck, why not a Berkut Agent Provocateur. It's pointless, we'll probably never know. Well the Russians might still have written documentation about orders or something but on the Ukrainian side all available evidence has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb, nothing more to get there.
The issue here is that with the ukrainian side taking the "there was no gunshots from any maidan protester buildings" position it eliminates all trust. Folks in crimea don't trust anything they say they'll do now or in future because they see them as lying about core narratives that led up to this situation. Meanwhile you have research papers in american universities saying things like:
Directly contradicting forensic evidence. Those were Berkut bullets in protestor's bodies. Unless you're saying that Berkut gave (and then collected) weapons to Right Sector etc at which point yes it would've been a false flag but not one that would exonerate the bastards.
Where are you hearing that kind of stuff. Also who else but protestors is supposed to have shot Berkut cops dead, the question if at all is who started it.
I don't know man but shit doesn't add up.
Friends. I told you I personally know people in the region through various connections. I spent 2 weeks in Crimea myself in 2009, which is obviously not a lot of time but I have some comrades I personally know there. I had some in Ukraine too but I've lost contact with everyone and have no idea if they're dead, rounded up by the conscription gangs and forced to go to combat, or arrested by SBU.
I couldn't care less what this fascist's take is, and I find it really sus that you admonished me on the mistake with whoever that golden dawn guy was but then refer to a fascist yourself while calling him a liberal.
A small group that functioned as a vanguard. And played the pivotal role in its success. This has been written about quite a lot. I assume you're familiar with vanguardism I've seen you use enough terms here to think you're a little above average in understanding of political ideologies.
The sniper thing is rather disputed, at least by my socialist friends in crimea. They claim this was performed by the right sector fascists. What the truth is of it though I'm not really sure, the research I'm familiar with seems rather inconclusive. Personally I think the picture is that there were probably both fascist and government shooters involved.
https://mronline.org/2021/12/11/the-maidan-massacre-in-ukraine/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266855828_The_Snipers%27_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine
"Procedure" is whatever people will popularly accept in an event like this. You get to make it up as you go along and as long as the various factions willing to do violence will agree with it you're good.
There's some fuckery involved with Russia certainly but it's not as simple as that. Some of it was a communist effort. I don't know if it was you earlier in this thread but I did mention earlier that I have friends there that aren't around anymore. Several communists that were involved were killed, either in mysterious circumstances or going missing. The communist party of the dpr also endorsed Alexander Zakharchenkov as he was ideologically beneficial to their goals but he was killed in a cafe bombing and pro-Russia leadership (Strelkov) conveniently took over. Ukraine was blamed for that bombing but I am personally convinced it was Russia that did it to align the balance of power in the emerging states with themselves. Infighting in the party (along with the murders and disappearances) then later led to its merger with the CPRF which further convinces me that they were involved in eliminating the various groups that sought independent interests.
You know where those "fascist" accusations come from? Precisely that kind of stuff, "X belongs to Russia". Anyhow I cited him as an example of the opposition FFS, not because I share those kinds of view which should've been obvious. As to "liberal": That's exactly what he's classed as in Russia. After the 2022 invasion portions of the opposition did start to reflect on imperialism in a more thorough manner than "doing things by force bad but actually yes Ukraine is Russia" but with the current state of things, well, prison, keeping their head down, or in exile. Not to mention that opposition is not exactly a majority position the majority position is "I don't care about politics that's a thing for politicians I just want to have a job and a Dacha". Utter depoliticisation. Fatalism runs deep in Russia.
Well, point being that they didn't have to make it up but an ordinary impeachment procedure would've taken a while. In any case any iffiness resulting from that, questions about constitutionality etc. were made up for by elections not soon after. Also, Yanukovych already had fled, the office of president was de facto without incumbent.
Yet you referred to the whole thing as a "coup/revolution". It was, big picture and the result, neither of those two but the people not liking that the government they elected reneged on promises and then had themselves new elections for a new government: Neither did suddenly the military reign (coup), nor did the country get a complete make-over, new constitution etc. (revolution), it was a, well, let's call it a special electoral operation. In more established democracies those things happen more smoothly and without violence, but early elections aren't exactly a particularly rare thing. Yanukovych probably assumed his handlers would send him backup just as they had in Belarus.
Yanukovych's protest law btw was much iffier when it comes to constitutionality as the Rada didn't actually have the votes to pass it. Also, shit only really hit the fan once he doubled down like that.
Yeah I know but they're irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Communists of the type you refer to exist all over Europe, they're tiny, cultist, splinter factions. Well-organised but without the manpower to do anything, least of all stage a revolution. Do I need to remind you that "done by people calling themselves communist" doesn't imply "popular support", which you were insinuating. In this situation they were useful idiots for the FSB.
This is not true in France, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Norway or Austria where communists have significant presence in governance and rapidly rising support. I agree with you that we're struggling elsewhere on the continent, for the most part. I think the generalisation is unfair given these aren't exactly unimportant countries. Are you American? This topic is much more interesting and would be way less hostile than it has been up to now between us.
Not those kinds of communists. GUE/NGL parties range in self-identification from communist to democratic socialist and are indeed quite large and established, even if they don't have huge electoral successes in many countries. S&D is generally way more popular, socdems of various intensities. GUE/NGL is proportionally strongest in Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and Ireland (at least by EU election results I can't be arsed to go through national ones). They're not the kind of party who would stage a coup and then falsify elections.
The splinter groups I was talking about are the like of the German MLDP who get less than 0.1%, compared to Die Linke which isn't unaccustomed to double-digit results. Best MLDP result ever was 0.4% in the 2006 Sachsen-Anhalt state elections. Which, of course, fits into their ideology, they believe that capitalism can only be overcome by a revolution and its vanguard. You know the type, in fact I think you're deeply familiar with it. Occasionally they manage to get a seat on the municipal level. They don't have a group in the European Parliament because they don't get in.
I'm not actually referring to this bunch, although they're certainly one you could. I am referring mainly to national results. I think however that your measurement comes from "election results" whereas this is misleading with regards to communist activities in any given country. Take france for example where you could measure the activity of communists by the results of the PCF. This however is not the sum of communist activity or strategy in the country. The vast majority of Melenchon supporters would be communists if the soft option did not exist. Most of us are revolutionaries in one breath and democratic socialists in another. It entirely depends on the circumstances. I live in Britain, I firmly believe revolution is the only path to socialism, does that mean I'm a revolutionary in the british conditions though? Fuck no it doesn't there is no chance of a revolution right now. Thus my activity takes place through other channels and work, in the trade union movement and in electoral groups.
Germany is a huge problem right now there is a massive swing rightwards occurring. The socdem to fascist pipeline was in full swing in the recent election. You're correct that the left has collapsed there. I do caution against over using electoral results as a measure of communist activities though, none of us believe in electoralism as a pathway to socialism so activity in the electoral system is more about recruitment, spreading socialist education and generally used as a sort of thermometer for the trend of things.
Oh I don't doubt it. The thing is: The ilk I was referring to don't do democratic socialism even when living in democracies. They may not boycott elections but they're not really trying to win them, either, the motivation just isn't there because they don't believe it could achieve anything.
2/3rd of AfD voters don't agree with the party platform. And not just in the "haven't read it" sense but right-out "yeah I don't like them this is a protest vote fuck all those Wessis in Berlin" type of deal. And the east being full of open Nazis isn't exactly new, neither is them infiltrating civil society there the trouble is, and was, since the 90s, that the GDR had no civil society to speak of because politics was something the party did. What we see right now is a combination of protest voters having tried all other parties and are now left with the AfD (and still don't get that if they want a party that shares their ideas, they should bloody fund one) and of the far-right getting bold (which will likely mean they'll overplay their hand), all in enabling circumstances that have been in place for at least a decade. Oh, Russian disinfo whipping the conspiracy crowd right from "corona dictatorship" into "climate dictatorship". We didn't have that for long that's relatively new.
The percentage of people with a closed right-extremist world view is actually larger in the west than in the east, yet election results are the exact opposite. Open Nazism is rarer in the west because Antifa, while not necessarily larger, has a way easier time drawing upon wider civil society so the Nazis keep their head down. There's xenophobia and feelings of disenfranchisement in the east, the AfD plays into it, and if Wagenknecht ever gets around to actually founding her party she'll scoop those votes straight up. "Unemployed before refugees" and "trans rights are human rights but fuck neopronouns" is by and large about as far as you need to go to calm those waters, a thing Die Linke never managed to do. Oh, and having selective expropriation of means of production in the programme won't hurt. Going all-out would not be popular but targeted initiatives, completely different matter.
I don't think it matters if 2 thirds of them don't support the whole platform. What matters is simply that they supported them. It doesn't matter that people here in Britain don't support the whole platform of the tories, they still supported them on Brexit, enabling them to go ahead with the entire rest of their platform.
I'm not that familiar with Wagenknecht, is she what happens when the strasserite types of morons understand that nazis are bad but couldn't explain to you why?
A good thing. Neopronouns are fine and good. People don't understand them but that's ok, eventually they will, assuming the right don't manage to kill everyone first.
This was the landlords expropriation shit right? Did it ever actually get implemented or did it get snatched out from under the people through other means? I am betting on the latter.
Strasserite fuck no, she's a card-carrying communist, always has been, joined Die Linke when it was still the SED. Masters in... philosophy, I guess, on Marx' interpretation of Hegel. PhD in macroeconomics. If the GDR hadn't fallen she'd probably sit in the central committee. Ceased to do Stalin apologia in the 90s, still does Russia apologia and has rather unhelpful Ukraine takes ("let's just all stop shooting", "ceasefire now"). Against a vaccine mandate but that only ever has been debated about in the abstract, anyway, definitely not a denier. Where she really breaks with the rest of Die Linke is the stuff I alluded to (with a bit of populist spin as she'd then also be bound to do it in her new party): The main beef she has with her party is over, as she puts it, Die Linke forgetting to advocate for the broad masses and instead fixating on (however justified) minority issues. See that as you will it's certainly the exact perception people in the east have of the party.
I'm drawing the line at having a neutral pronoun anyone can use. I don't mind one bit if some enthusiasts want to go all-out and have as many pronouns in a group as there are people but don't expect me to keep track of all that I can barely remember names (faces and characters and histories, no issue, but names just don't stick). It's bad enough that Indo-European languages have gender-afflicted noun classes it's a better idea to just get rid of them (or at least class distinctions between different groups of people^1^) than to explode the number of classes.
Or, to put it with Zizek: Why LGBTQ+ can't we just all be +.
Oh no it went through. Berlin's government is currently dragging its feet (CDU/SPD, both opposed the referendum) but they have to implement it.
^1^ Pun not intended but I'll take it
This is the kind of stuff I'm alluding to. Maybe not strasserite, maybe nazbol-ey. Either way it's not communist. There's a significant segment of communists who have fallen rightwards through anti-idpol bollocks failing to understanding marxist intersectionality. They've mistakenly decided it all needs to be rejected for popular support rather than re-educating the population into recognising the intersectionality is a requirement for the broader masses to succeed, we simply don't have the numbers otherwise in the new cosmopolitan societies that were constructed after nation-states ended and got built into the multicultural multi-racial cosmopolitan societies they are today.
I don't think anyone wants you to keep tracks, just to acknowledge and respect it. It's not really something that lgbt people came up with either, it has existed prior to the modern day and I'm willing to bet there's at least one isolated group out there somewhere using some unusual shit. At the end of the day it's just a way to describe their gender when "man" or "woman" doesn't work for them. It's pretty harmless and seems to particularly resonate with people that aren't neurotypical so ehhhhhh it's fine. Power to them really. I'm glad they're happy. I don't have neopronouns but it doesn't affect me so you know.
I couldn't care less what this socdem lib thinks. He was losing my attention with his rape obsession for years but he completely lost my attention when he started writing for the cia outlets like Radio Free. He's not getting away with ignorance he knows what's up.
When? Is there a timeline? If they're dragging their feet they're just looking for the circumstances necessary to drop it. When I saw this happen my immediate thought was "they'll never ever implement that". If they ever do I will be incredibly surprised.
...what? Intersectionality is like a late 80s concept.
How do you re-educate when the masses think you're not interested in their success? How do you get people interested in other people's issues if they think you're shafting them?
There's been a massive erosion of the social systems over here roughly starting in 2000 with Schröder, New Labour type of stuff, right after Kohl pushed through his neolib privatisation agenda, victims of which were among other things the complete industry of the GDR -- factories were sold for pennies to western competition who then shut stuff down. It's a double whammy.
Whereas back in the GDR you were not able to open your mouth without the Stasi taking notes and not able to run your mouth without the Stasi picking you off the street, if you didn't you were guaranteed to be able to get a job, fund a family, have some vacations etc. economically the situation wasn't great but you didn't need to worry about falling through any cracks (as long as you kept your mouth shut). The GDR had no Lumpenproletariat. It's the exact opposite right now. And people in the east are, rightly, blaming politicians for it. And now Die Linke appears to them to worry more about neopronouns than being demsocs or even socdems.
Sure you can do both, caring about one doesn't really affect caring about the other -- but you also have to avoid the above perception. Most of all, if you make progress in one area but not the other you might have to tone down those successes lest the perception be that you only fight for one.
As to the numbers game: For a majority you'll need the masses. No two ways about it. A minority politics focus might win you activists, but not elections.
Not the schizo spectrum that's for sure, trust me, I'd know. Autism spectrum, sure, when it comes to subjectivity they're hyper-normies. Now I don't mind y'all having prescriptive identities but you don't have to be muppets about it.
I mean... you don't have to to consider the point? Ok, here's what Rosa Luxemburg said: Why LGBTQ+, why not just +?
Dragging their feet among other things included "we need studies, we need a framework law first, and we have to make sure that it's even compatible with Berlin's constitution" (the Berlin constitution, unlike the federal one, wasn't explicitly written to be compatible with state capitalism, but in any case the federal one takes precedence), so they tasked an expert commission with figuring all that out. Said commission just recently reached its final verdict: No framework law needed, yep of course it's constitutional, it's probably even going to be cheap.
The government is constitutionally required to implement it, the referendum was legally binding. The rest is a matter of rule of law. If they refuse... well courts can hold them in contempt but that's not going to do much. But it would cost them the next elections, or probably rather cause early elections because the SPD wouldn't want to dig their heels in over this one. Or there can be another referendum, this time of the "this exact law shall now be in force" kind, not the "the senate shall legislate on this matter" one.
A third wave concept yes. The only issue with the liberal conception of it is that it does not include class as one of its methods of analysis. The intersection between a black trans woman creates different conditions to that of a white trans woman, but without class it creates an incomplete analysis. Class explains the difference in experience that creates for example the right wing trans bourgeoisie, who ultimately are insulated from the conditions that a poor working class trans person experiences and thus they politically lean towards protecting their class status even if it means supporting people who are hurting trans people. Marxist intersectionality simply adds in class to complete the picture and analyse groups correctly.
It's a balancing act. Protecting the marginalised while also connecting the dots between class issues and their issues. The issue is that people go too far one way or the other, the groups that want to never defend the marginalised groups for fear of the outcome simply become reactionaries themselves. Although a controversial figure Stalin's quote on antisemitism leading the working class into the jungle is just as relevant to all the various minority groups today.
Because it's not about him. It's about the LGBTQ+ people. This attitude reeks of the same "why can't you just like be a little less this and a little more that", which is something the various phobes and bigots (whether they realise it or not) have consistently levelled at lgbt people over the decades. They decide what they are, and how they like to present their community and identity. Zizek doing this shit just demonstrates he fundamentally doesn't give a fuck about us, and that he would only like to make these groups politically more convenient for himself. On top of that there is the other issue, that lgbt people have for decades now had to exist in a "fuck you, we exist in public and that's your problem not ours" attitude to public life and existence, attempts to make them adjust how they exist in public life are always going to be viewed as attacks when that is the cultural background of the community defending itself and its right to exist. That's what "pride" is, a big fuck you we exist we're proud of that and visible. Having people come in from outside and try to tell them to do it differently is... Not good. It's out of touch. It shows he's never really engaged properly in order to understand this group, how it got to where it is, why it defends itself so aggressively, etc etc.
I think they'll take the election hit over implementing it. But we'll see.
What happens after that? Who has the teeth to force its implementation? Anyone at all? Or can the courts do nothing more than "we find you in contempt" ? What actual repercussions does that have other than electoral? The bougies can play the electoral game and come out on top forever if there is no real way to force any of these parties into implementing it when they don't want to do it. They could fuck around for years, and then throw it out in some crisis saying "it's no longer viable because [excuse here]". "It's been too long", "we have war now the conditions are different", "there's a famine from climate change occurring now", "we have a water crisis", "the war with china". I can think of so many things that are just around the corner that could be used as excuses. As long as the ""punishment"" is only in the ballot box they could feasibly fuck around forever, if no alternative mechanisms of forcing it through exist.
See the issue is you all look like humans to me. You can slice humanity up in any number of ways and can say "fuck you we exist" for a gazillion of characteristics or combinations thereof, one is ultimately as meaningless as the other. Individual people having identities, sure, that's perfectly warranted they're autonomous agents with their own properties but group identities? All you're doing there is prescribing behaviours to each other, denying both individualism and universalism.
Now you might not perceive it like that because all your perception is soaked to one half in "It is me who is perceiving this", i.e. the presence of a subject, and that subject gets all warm and fuzzy if there's others sharing a sufficiently close subjectivity giving you reason to immediately and unthinkingly compromise your own individuality but objectively, yep, prescribing behaviours to each other is what you're doing. It just so happens that you like it that way.
(It then shouldn't come as a surprise that there's no such thing as a schizophrenia-spectrum idpol movement. It'd be like cats trying to herd cats. We rather prefer to confuse the fuck out of each other when we meet by chance)
Also, not everyone wants to be visible, which is why I'm e.g. critical of establishing a cultural norm of having people state their pronouns when giving talks and whatnot. You have fluid people that are then forced to lock themselves into an identity which might change from making their slides to giving their talk to mingling after, you have people who'd rather be publicly closeted about being trans and force them to choose between outing themselves and publicly lying about themselves.
The whole thing would be easier if language wouldn't force us to choose a gender. There's plenty of language in which that's worse than in English, e.g. in Russian you can't talk about yourself in the past without choosing between male and female, but there's also plenty of language (but AFAIK not a single Indo-European one) in which it's possible to talk for ages about someone without once implying their gender, and that's the natural, idiomatic way to do things. As such: Why not get rid of he and she, everyone's a they? (which is what I actually meant the "everyone's a +" thing is merely structurally similar, but ultimately a different topic).
As to visibility: That's what the marches are for. What matters there is that a kid from a small village, completely alone in being member of a sexual minority and thus having issues finding connection and advise, can see that they're not alone. It allows both the kid and the rest of the village to say "yep that kid might be a rare breed, but nonetheless it's nothing out of the ordinary".
If the government ignores courts then we're in a full-on constitutional crisis. Which wouldn't be unprecedented, mind you. Technically, then, Article 20 (4) applies:
and that's what the RAF argued, and also what the Last Generation tends to argue, having an even stronger case than the RAF: In particular, there's already federal court judgements declaring that the government is ignoring its own climate laws, laws parliament was required to pass on order of the constitutional court. But using that as defence in criminal court has never, ever, worked. 20 years after, though, when perceptions have shifted it gives you the right to say "told you so" so there's that and it might very well play into parole hearings.
The courts, even if they de jure have the power (e.g. judgements of the constitutional court are immediately applicable law) tend to shy away from using it when they're of the opinion that parliament is the one who should do it -- that's a general thing, not specific to this situation. They issue "this half-sentence of the law shall not be applied until parliament comes up with a sane version of the law" type of orders. But that's because they're balancing their own powers, cognisant that they while judging in the name of the people, they're, well, unelected technocrats. But then the Berlin expropriation thing isn't an ordinary situation, the whole thing does already have democratic justification because it was a referendum, courts wouldn't be interfering in the process of formation of the political will of the people in this instance: They don't have to defer to parliament to not hurt democracy. As such it would kinda be a first but constitutional courts might just enact a full-on law directly and I have little doubt that the administration would apply it.
I mean it's not that Mao wasn't ultimately right about politics and cannons, however, not even the FDP would start a civil war over a couple of apartments.
This is just closed mindedness. You refuse to take on any new information, you have made up your mind what the situation is and utterly refuse to even consider listening to anyone with first hand experience.
No. This is just factually incorrect. The flashpoint that started the separatism was the repeal of the language laws that made Russian (and many others) one of the many state languages in these regions (majority russian ethnicity regions). This occurred in 2014 immediately following the Maidan coup/revolution.
This law change by the new far right bandera supporting government was the final straw in a long line of things that had led up to it, and was what created popular support for violent separatism among the local populations. Many people saw it as existentially important to separate themselves from Ukraine as they believed the Bandera supporters sought to kill or deport them all.
What you're citing there is a question to the Commission, not a research paper. The guy posing that question? A Greek Nazi, becoming MEP on a Golden Dawn ticket. Here's the answer:
Yes, the Ukrainian government has been actively trying to make Ukrainian the de facto, not just de jure, lingua franca of Ukraine, to halt secondary effects of Russification.
I'm not even going to address anything else you said. A Tankie relying on hallucinations of a Nazi to make points, how fucking classic.
Learn some research skills and source criticism and then maybe you'll be able to contribute to discussions.
Yeah this was just pointed out to me. Which is why I went and dug out some other stuff instead, I'm not particularly fond of relying on that one and won't be using it in future.
A couple of western media articles discussing the split the existing language law was causing in the country:
2000: Ukraine wages war on Russian language
2012: Russian language debate splits Ukraine
2012: Ukrainians(far right) protest against Russian language law
2014(when the law actually occurred): Ukraine Revokes Linguistic Rights
This last one is the most interesting, also 2014 from Time: Many Ukrainians Want Russia To Invade
Is this article a hallucination too? This aggressive response is quite unnecessary. Have a more academic conversation.
By me I just couldn't let it stand so I called it out twice, but there's no need to duplicate the whole thread.
Oh lol we're having the same conversation twice? I didn't even notice I often don't look at usernames. Sorry.
There is a loooong road from "has political turmoil" to "wants to be part of Russia."
Florida has political turmoil. Doesn't mean they want to be part of Spain because some people there speak Spanish.
We'll take it. The land is valuable, and the current residents will voluntarily flee to the rest of the USA, horrorified by our free healthcare.
No thank you, we don't want it anymore. No takesy backsies.
Sure. But I assure you that when russian ethnicity people read twitter and see nafo and other morons (like half this comment section) saying all russians should die blah blah blah it only ends up pushing them to russia for safety. Even Navalny's people who I despise say this:
Like, what do you people expect the russians in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk to think exactly when they read half the shit they've seen from libs on Twitter, reddit, etc etc who have all behaved indistinguishably from fascists in their bloodthirsty calls for russian blood? They see it as attacks on themselves, not the russian army, not putin, they see it as ethnic threats and it has pushed fencesitting russians with family in both ukraine and russia (about half are mixed families) over to the russian side because they just don't feel the west can be trusted. They see them as wanting all russians dead, which you can hardly blame them for with all the behaviour you've surely seen online.
People are mean on the Internet? People are also mad at Russia because they've invaded a neighbor. People were calling out "death to America" for invading Iraq. It's how the world works.
Sure. But the point is that all those ethnic russians in all three of these regions, who are the majority of the population and were the majority before 2014 by a large margin, all have been pushed to russia because of it.
The political reality in these regions is that while before there were some mixed views on the issue, particularly among those with mixed families, now there are almost none among the majority russian ethnic population. Which is something of a problem if you consider yourself to believe in democratic outcomes.
Good for them. They can move to Russia.
And how do you intend to make that happen?
They can go to Russia. They don't have to.
What the fuck is your argument here? It seems to be "since some people kinda like Russia therefore Russia invading Ukraine is somehow okay".
I'm not making an argument. I'm trying to illustrate the reality here.
The majority of the population of these regions are russian ethnicity but were ukrainian citizens, born in ukraine. They used to be kinda split about the issue of separatism, but the constant endless genocidal rhetoric from liberals on the internet baying for russian blood has had the effect of making them support russia.
This is a problem for getting the regions back, because a majority of the population does not want to come back. Solving this is a necessary component of figuring out how to bring them back. You can sign whatever you want on paper saying "these are Ukraine again now" but if the population itself does not agree then the separatist civil war will just immediately restart.
The options available are either getting rid of them all (this is what the current far right faction of ukraine wants), or finding a way to make them want to be Ukrainian again instead of Russian. Saying things like "they can leave" doesn't help. It sounds a lot like what the american far right says about anyone who isn't white in america actually.
Yeah - okay bud.
Because it is so hard to believe that the majority ethnicity russian regions of the country might have become more favourable to russia as a result of everyone saying all russians need to be killed! Especially with opposition groups inside russia literally saying that is what has happened, which I already linked to. "Okay bud".
You're just completely disconnected from reality.
Do I intend, to go to Crimea, and forcibly relocate people? No. I have plans this weekend.